or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Church's shoe size and fitting question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Church's shoe size and fitting question

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
Hello,

Earlier this year I got fed up with all the crappy "contemporary designer" shoes I've had through the years and decided to try a pair of church's. I now own two pairs:
Consul, size 8 G on the 173 last
Chetwynd, size 8 G on the 100 last

The Consul fit me fine, more or less, after breaking them in. But strangely, the Chetwynd seem to be a bit narrow, even though they were bought with a good amount of wear on ebay.

My question is: Does the stitching on the Chetwynd make them less likely to widen? Or is this a matter of what leather that has been used (the leather on the Chetwynd feels a bit stiffer)?

Thanks for you answers
post #2 of 16
The 173 last fits bigger than the 100 last IME so that's one reason. And yes the Chetwynd will not stretch as much as a plain fronted shoe or even the consul with a toe cap, because of all the seams.
post #3 of 16
The fact that the ‘Chetwynd’ comes on the last 100 in size 8 G, is your answer.

The last is the wooden (or plastic) mould around which the shoe gets built. For many years Church’s main last was ‘73’, this one got changed, maybe ten years ago for last ‘100’ (I think, last 100 had a fuller toe box), then two years ago the (unloved) 100 was replaced with last ‘173’ (obviously combining features of last 73 and 100). Depending on when your ‘Chetwynd’ was made it could have come on all three lasts.

If the ‘Chetwynd’ would not be a G-fitting (wide) but on an F (standard) that would also account for differences. The fact that ‘Consul’ has a straight toe cap and ‘Chetwynd’ has a winged toe cap might make a tiny difference, but not a great deal.
post #4 of 16
Thread Starter 
I thought that the only difference between the lasts was the shape of the toe, so thanks for your replies!

The shoes are wonderful otherwise.
I am thinking of getting a pair of Lancaster in the tabacco calf.
Anyone knows where to find a pair on the 100 last? Herring has a pair of seconds in 8G, but now I'd rather go with 8,5 G.

Thanks

Edit: I should have mentioned that I live in Sweden, so if there's an online store you know of it would be most appreciated.
post #5 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post
The fact that the "˜Chetwynd' comes on the last 100 in size 8 G, is your answer.

The last is the wooden (or plastic) mould around which the shoe gets built. For many years Church's main last was "˜73', this one got changed, maybe ten years ago for last "˜100' (I think, last 100 had a fuller toe box), then two years ago the (unloved) 100 was replaced with last "˜173' (obviously combining features of last 73 and 100). Depending on when your "˜Chetwynd' was made it could have come on all three lasts.

If the "˜Chetwynd' would not be a G-fitting (wide) but on an F (standard) that would also account for differences. The fact that "˜Consul' has a straight toe cap and "˜Chetwynd' has a winged toe cap might make a tiny difference, but not a great deal.

I beg to differ Bengal - IME shoes with more seams on like full brogues give much less than semi-brogues which give much less than monks or whole cuts. Thus in C&J handgrades I can wear Saville, Weymouth and Sandown but not Clifford for example.
post #6 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curholm View Post
I thought that the only difference between the lasts was the shape of the toe, so thanks for your replies!

The shoes are wonderful otherwise.
I am thinking of getting a pair of Lancaster in the tabacco calf.
Anyone knows where to find a pair on the 100 last? Herring has a pair of seconds in 8G, but now I'd rather go with 8,5 G.

Thanks

Edit: I should have mentioned that I live in Sweden, so if there's an online store you know of it would be most appreciated.

I dont' understand why you want this shoes on the 100 last when you say it is tight fitting compared to the 173 last.

If you do however wish to press ahead with Lancaster on the 100 last you will need to get it made to order - which incurs a £70 ( last time I had it done) surcharge , as the 173 last is Church's default last now on many of their ranges.

Tabacco however could be more difficult. I agree with you that it is a desirable colour and I have this very shoe in tabacco. However Church's discontinued this colour a few months ago and I was told customers may not even request it as a made to order colour ( I don't quite understand this because formerly going MTO meant you could choose any colour under the sun!)

The best person to help you is Adrian Herring - contact him and he will give you good information.
post #7 of 16
I've owned both shoes on the same respective lasts and my problem with the Consul was the way the toe sloped down leaving me no toe room at the tips. The Chetwynd on the 173 was a pretty good fit, but not great.
post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 
@ Leatherman: thanks a lot for the information!

Perhaps my English is a bit poor. By the Chetwynd being a bit "tight" I mean that they feel overall smaller, which can be explained by the difference in the lasts, as you have pointed out (there's some more room for the toes in the 173 last).

While I think that the 173 last is more elegant, I do have quite wide feet, which makes the shape of the shoe a bit "distorted" after wearing them for a while.
But with the 100 last, the widening of the shoe corresponds more to the shape of the shoe last in my opinion.
Considering the Lancaster, I have a colleague who own two pairs (100 and 173 last), and just like with the widening question, I feel that the 100 last shape corresponds better with the heavier sole.

But then maybe I'm just still used to the rounder toe shapes of my previous shoes...
post #9 of 16
I'd look to C&J or Tricker's myself. Church's have a limited range of colours - it seems to be all dark browns and blacks in the shop in Jermyn Street. They are also overpriced. I spotted a boot named "MacDuff". It looks exactly like a Tricker's boot. Suggestive, eh? Lead on, lead on.
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Populi View Post
I'd look to C&J or Tricker's myself. Church's have a limited range of colours - it seems to be all dark browns and blacks in the shop in Jermyn Street. They are also overpriced.

Tend to agree with this, i prefer Trickers for boots and C&J for more formal shoes. For loafers i use both Trickers & C&J. You may also have a look at Grenson Rose line on ebay they are also a fine shoe for the very discounted prices on ebay. Dont be put off Church's just because they dont get much love here as they are a fine shoe but just a tad overpriced imho but if you can get what you want discounted go for it. I have 3 pairs of Church's that i got very very discounted and they are superb.
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Populi View Post
I'd look to C&J or Tricker's myself. Church's have a limited range of colours - it seems to be all dark browns and blacks in the shop in Jermyn Street. They are also overpriced. I spotted a boot named "MacDuff". It looks exactly like a Tricker's boot. Suggestive, eh? Lead on, lead on.


I do agree that Church's have drastically limited their colours options in 2009. Once they offered many more colours across their ranges than C&J or Trickers but, alas, no more. Its not that C&J or Trickers offer the five colours per model that Church's once did, rather that if one wants a tan colour then one can find it in a model or two in these makers ( though burgundy is still hard to come by).

I regret Church's decision to offer only brown, very dark brown or black - wish they'd bring back burgundy and tabacco!! I mentioned this to Valerie at Edward Green and she said that she could understand the decision because most of what EG are selling at the moment is Dark Oak and Black. The market for the more lively colours is not there right now - maybe the somber mood due to the economic climate? Still, you'd think Church's could continue to offer say tabacco in a few models wouldn't you?
post #12 of 16
Tis' a pity. Burgundy is such a lovely colour - you can darken it, or lighten it to give a bright, almost cherry colour. Works well with both dark and light coloured clothing. Chestnut brown is one of the nicest of all colours. Same thing applies - you can darken it, or lighten it to bring out the subtle reds and oranges. You have to work very hard with dark brown, and black, well black is black.

Foster's said much the same thing a few months back: dark brown was becoming increasingly popular. Tough economic climate? Agreed. Probably a factor. I wonder, though, if the internet is partly to blame? Difficult to capture complex colours in a pic on a website, and of course many people shop online than buy in-store. I imagine tan is as popular as the darker colours for the same reason - it's clear what it is. I suppose it maybe as simple as 'a pair of dark shoes for work'. Many people couldn't care less about shoes, so wouldn't consider an unusual colour.

Anyway, I tend think that complicated colours suit nice shoes - you'll get a lovely patina through them and they become individual. Style and function, rather than function, function, function!

Burgundy and tweed, or Chestnut brown and cream coloured trousers. A perfect combination.

Edward Green probably does the best chestnut and burgundy IMO.
post #13 of 16
On the Churchs' website, their shoes seem to come in various colours. For example, the Niton comes in blue betis, smoke betis, chestnut betis, expresso betis, etc. I mean they mainly do come in different shades of black or brown, agreed. However, I suppose they do not get much call for red, Green or yellow, etc. As for overpriced, maybe, but not as much as C&J in my opinion. I would prefer a pair of Church's brouges over both Tricker's or C&J any day, even if old big ears disagrees. Anyway, C&J handgrade or far more expensive than Church's handgrade, and in my opinion there's not much difference in the quality of the leather. For £350- that's RRP- the Chetwynd is a great shoe for the money. If you can get them cheaper, then you've had a right touch, so buy them. Pictures do not do them justice either, they have to be held, and of course worn, to be fully appreciated.
post #14 of 16

I have a mysterious Church's Shannon, acquired secondhand, that perhaps the collected expertise of this thread can explain.

 

It is marked as a US size 13D. This size is written in the lining, stamped on the sole, but also imprinted on the footbed beneath the heel pad.

 

There is also a 12 written on the lining, and the number of the last in the code seems to be 100--although it is blurry.

 

So it would seem I have 12F Shannon marked as a US 13D and built on the 100 last.

 

Is that possible?

 

I bought them sight unseen because I have a pair of custom grade chukkas built on the 103 last, which fit wonderfully. I also have Graftons built on 173, which also fit very well.

 

This shoe is about a half a size smaller than the 12 F on 103 or 173, which squares with the description of 100 as being smaller.

 

Was the Shannon ever built on 100? and sold in the States in US sizes? If not, what is this shoe?

 

What it is is too small for me! I didn't pay top price for it, so I am not weeping over my loss, but I am curious.

 

Thanks.

 

 

post #15 of 16

anyone know the fit of last 111 ?

I mean this one  in yoox, i think it's hertford (so the last is 111):

http://www.yoox.com/us/44437739vq/item?dept=men#cod10=44437739VQ&sizeId=6

 

Best compare with AE strand's last


Edited by coloRLOw - 12/19/12 at 4:53pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Church's shoe size and fitting question