Originally Posted by Kaplan
The 341 last is nice (I have the Bradford, Worcester and Westfield on that last). From my memory of trying it on, the 337 is slightly more elongated than than the 341 - is that right? Apropos, the dark brown(?) Finsbury looks great in that shot, with more colour depth than I think is usual for C&J. Is that true to life or maybe due to some colour banding from high ISO? (The EXIF data is missing from the pic). It would be nice to see them in natural light, when you get the chance.
The 341 is not as elongated as the 337. What eventually began to bother me with the 337 was that the 'fuller' front outer quarter (where the shoe curves over your small toe) combined with the higher toebox resulted in a shoe that looked a little snouty to my eyes on my feet, or like a toucan's beak almost. The photo was taken in natural light on a cloudy day, and on my screen is true to life. I cut out and resized in PS, which might explain the lack of EXIF data. I was quite surprised when I opened the box today for a few reasons - - This is not a flat dark brown. It's more of a darkish
brown than dark brown. - There is a surprising amount of subtle colour variation reminiscent of museum calf - even more than my Belgraves, which is not congruent with my prior experience that for 'antiquing' handgrades > benchgrades. And that C&J hardly 'antiques'. - Even more surprising, there is a fair amount of red in the brown. Almost mahogany? For C&J, this is very un-C&J. Maybe I got lucky? I know from the seller that my shoes were sent direct from the factory and were made in the last few weeks, tops. I have absolutely no idea what to polish these as I want to preserve this colour and the variation.