or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cool Shoes, Paraphernalia & Desiderata - Part II
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cool Shoes, Paraphernalia & Desiderata - Part II - Page 791

post #11851 of 12728

Quote:
Originally Posted by NAMOR View Post

whats up with the 13A? damn thats narrow

More like 1950's, but still very nice.

So many from 50's and earlier are in narrow sizes. Possibly the high bodyweight of modern physiques (especially in the US) results in somewhat flatter (and wider feet).
post #11852 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post



More like 1950's, but still very nice.

So many from 50's and earlier are in narrow sizes. Possibly the high bodyweight of modern physiques (especially in the US) results in somewhat flatter (and wider feet).

 

That's not true; healthier lifestyle with less shoe restrain and more barefoot activities produce much wider feet.

 

We see more narrower sizes today because regular and wide sizes probably sold well back in the days, leaving the narrow sizes as dead inventories.

post #11853 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

We see more narrower sizes today because regular and wide sizes probably sold well back in the days, leaving the narrow sizes as dead inventories.

Explain the very existence of so many ultra narrow sizes in the first place. There is no such thing as AAAAA today (as this was an option), and today most makers produce only a single narrow size, while there are more options for ultra-wide. Almost NO wide sizes in pre 1950's shoes (very few). Speaking with a cobbler in business since the 1930's, perfect sizing was a bigger issue then. He says that the narrow sizes sold quite well.

In addition, in the 1920's and early 1930's, the standard "D" size width was comparatively narrower than the same size today.

Arch supports were very common in the first half of the 1900's... even for children's shoes. Possibly this contributed in better support and fewer widening feet.

Can't say the reason for sure, but it seems that people DID have much narrower feet 70+ years ago. They were also much smaller, as I have met quite a few US born old-timers who had size 6 & 7's in their younger years.
post #11854 of 12728
.
post #11855 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

Explain the very existence of so many ultra narrow sizes in the first place. There is no such thing as AAAAA today (as this was an option), and today most makers produce only a single narrow size, while there are more options for ultra-wide. Almost NO wide sizes in pre 1950's shoes (very few). Speaking with a cobbler in business since the 1930's, perfect sizing was a bigger issue then. He says that the narrow sizes sold quite well.

In addition, in the 1920's and early 1930's, the standard "D" size width was comparatively narrower than the same size today.

Arch supports were very common in the first half of the 1900's... even for children's shoes. Possibly this contributed in better support and fewer widening feet.

Can't say the reason for sure, but it seems that people DID have much narrower feet 70+ years ago. They were also much smaller, as I have met quite a few US born old-timers who had size 6 & 7's in their younger years.

Average height has gone up significantly, and I'd guess that shoe width and length scales roughly with height.
post #11856 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post


Explain the very existence of so many ultra narrow sizes in the first place. There is no such thing as AAAAA today (as this was an option), and today most makers produce only a single narrow size, while there are more options for ultra-wide. Almost NO wide sizes in pre 1950's shoes (very few). Speaking with a cobbler in business since the 1930's, perfect sizing was a bigger issue then. He says that the narrow sizes sold quite well.

In addition, in the 1920's and early 1930's, the standard "D" size width was comparatively narrower than the same size today.

Arch supports were very common in the first half of the 1900's... even for children's shoes. Possibly this contributed in better support and fewer widening feet.

Can't say the reason for sure, but it seems that people DID have much narrower feet 70+ years ago. They were also much smaller, as I have met quite a few US born old-timers who had size 6 & 7's in their younger years.

 

I am not a vintage shoes expert.  I don't have access to decades of shoe sales data or human physiology records.

 

By logic, standard setters would set the standard/normal width from the statistical mean.  And if feet were narrower back in those days, than the standard width would be narrower as well, explaining your observation of standard "D" size width is narrower than the "D" size today.

 

However, assuming a normal distribution of foot width, than there should be roughly similar numbers of wide and narrow shoes out there.

 

According to your observation, there are more narrow vintage shoes out in the fields.  That could explained by two things off the top of my head.

1) Wide shoes were bought and used more frequently back in the days thus less of them left.

2) There were more narrow shoes made than the demand for them, resulting in a surplus of narrow shoes that survived till today.

 

Both explanations skew the distribution towards more wider foot.

post #11857 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

I am not a vintage shoes expert.  I don't have access to decades of shoe sales data or human physiology records.

By logic, standard setters would set the standard/normal width from the statistical mean.  And if feet were narrower back in those days, than the standard width would be narrower as well, explaining your observation of standard "D" size width is narrower than the "D" size today.

However, assuming a normal distribution of foot width, than there should be roughly similar numbers of wide and narrow shoes out there.

According to your observation, there are more narrow vintage shoes out in the fields.  That could explained by two things off the top of my head.
1) Wide shoes were bought and used more frequently back in the days thus less of them left.
2) There were more narrow shoes made than the demand for them, resulting in a surplus of narrow shoes that survived till today.

Both explanations skew the distribution towards more wider foot.

As an interesting point of fact, I have seen nothing that states specifically that a "D" width was originally meant to be a "medium" (if someone has some documentation of this, please do share it). Logically speaking, it is an odd letter to start at as the "mean" or "average" size. This is even more odd because shoes didn't stop at "A" as xtra narrow, but went all the way to 5A in some cases, but to 3A most commonly. On the other end, wides only went to 3E. So, there were at least 6 narrow sizes, but only 3 wide?

Of the 3 gentlemen I know that were in the shoe industry (1 salesman & 3 cobblers), all tell me that they very commonly sold the A & narrower widths, but VERY rarely sold (or worked on) the E+ widths.

Also, considering the sample of USED shoes that has been unearthed over the years, it is STILL rare to find a pair of E or wider shoes, while A and narrower are very common in the USED marketplace (in fact, there are vastly more A's than D's from the early early 1940's and earlier that have been worn). So, this would indicate that many more A's were sold than D's, right? The general absence of E and wider in EITHER the unworn OR the used marketplace from that era seems to indicate that not many were bought, sold, or even manufactured at all.
post #11858 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by isshinryu101 View Post

As an interesting point of fact, I have seen nothing that states specifically that a "D" width was originally meant to be a "medium" (if someone has some documentation of this, please do share it). Logically speaking, it is an odd letter to start at as the "mean" or "average" size. This is even more odd because shoes didn't stop at "A" as xtra narrow, but went all the way to 5A in some cases, but to 3A most commonly. On the other end, wides only went to 3E. So, there were at least 6 narrow sizes, but only 3 wide?

Of the 3 gentlemen I know that were in the shoe industry (1 salesman & 3 cobblers), all tell me that they very commonly sold the A & narrower widths, but VERY rarely sold (or worked on) the E+ widths.

Also, considering the sample of USED shoes that has been unearthed over the years, it is STILL rare to find a pair of E or wider shoes, while A and narrower are very common in the USED marketplace (in fact, there are vastly more A's than D's from the early early 1940's and earlier that have been worn). So, this would indicate that many more A's were sold than D's, right? The general absence of E and wider in EITHER the unworn OR the used marketplace from that era seems to indicate that not many were bought, sold, or even manufactured at all.

My take on this is that you are right isshi.

Just look at men's suit sizes as an indication of how skinny guys were.

This was due to many factors but generally it is considered that exercise, harder physical work and wholesale less food consumption contributed to this fact.

It is not a long call to suggest this would have been balanced by shoe size.

The modern wide foot is caused by the shoes worn in youth that allow expansion like runners/trainers. When folks get older and fatter even those who wore real shoes also can get foot widening from weight gain. Double whammy.
post #11859 of 12728
Wearing shoes during growth years will restrain proper bone growth, result in a shaped feet, and sometimes accompanies by feet problems.

Barefoot and wide athletic shoes are actually good for kids. Nothing wrong with natural expansion of feet unless an 'elegant' feet shape is the target. And we all know how Chinese foot binding works.
post #11860 of 12728
Tall guys should be all over these. At 45 inches from BOC they're too long for me baldy[1].gif

Pretty sure the seller screwed up and listed these navy coats as black

Polo Howard topcoat bonanza in "Long" sizes

http://www.ebay.com/itm/POLO-RALPH-LAUREN-WOOL-TOPCOAT-/251337171529?hash=item3a84dce249
http://www.ebay.com/itm/POLO-RALPH-LAUREN-BLUE-LABEL-WOOL-TOPCOAT-/251337182065?hash=item3a84dd0b71
http://www.ebay.com/itm/251337159988
post #11861 of 12728
post #11862 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Wearing shoes during growth years will restrain proper bone growth, result in a shaped feet, and sometimes accompanies by feet problems.

Barefoot and wide athletic shoes are actually good for kids. Nothing wrong with natural expansion of feet unless an 'elegant' feet shape is the target. And we all know how Chinese foot binding works.

That raises some interesting questions because a lot of my youth (starting in the 1950s!) was spent barefoot. Lotsa working class kids in Australia pre and post WW2 went to school without shoes.
post #11863 of 12728
Sorry, wrong thred.
post #11864 of 12728

Isn't it also usually said that the typical European feet is wider than the American feet, and that this is explained by more walking and less driving in Europe?

 

If that would be true I guess it should mean that people used to have wider feet in the early 20th century?

post #11865 of 12728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grice View Post

Isn't it also usually said that the typical European feet is wider than the American feet, and that this is explained by more walking and less driving in Europe?

If that would be true I guess it should mean that people used to have wider feet in the early 20th century?

Yes. However those pristine condition vintage artisan shoes were made for aristocracy. And I suspect them being always constrained by their social class and not walking barefoot much.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cool Shoes, Paraphernalia & Desiderata - Part II