Are they the Harlech in brown shell? Do they really look reddish brown in real life or is that just the camera flash?
How does the 341 last compare to C&J's other lasts (348/325/etc...)?
I think they are essentially the harlech yes. Color is..confusing. bb calls it brown, c&j told me they were Burgundy. They are somehwere in between I guess. Not anywhere near as dark as Alden #8 but not brown like the c&j for Ralph lauren either.
Doh! I should've posted my question here...sorry cross post.. er... thread even
I'd like to know from your experience how suede actually stretches over time, is it more or less than a smooth calf leather?
I'm considering getting the C&J Drummond in suede on the 348 last. Thing is my Westbournes on the same last were quite snug in the toe box area but after a couple of wears opened up to be nice and comfortable but without any noticeable bulges. I'm concerned if I buy the Drummonds in the same size, being suede they may be more likely to stretch and ruin the natural line of the shoe.
Glad I can be a part of this thread. I made my first purchase of quality footwear just recently, with the C&J Chelsea 5 boot in dark brown antique nubuck colour. They are marked as subs, and I've searched for flaws (I'm OCD from my cars to my clothes) and came up with nothing. Decent deal for $315 shipped?
Well, here's a question. If this is really supposed to be an "official" thread a la the Alden thread, hopefully someone can help on this.
Just acquired these literally free as part of a mind-blowing stroke of luck on Ebay. I've only ever seen two other pairs of C&J - one is my RL Darltons and the other was a C&J Malvern suede that I let go as being too narrow. Either way, 95% of my shoes are Alden shell, so I've very little clue on C&J identification.
Obviously, they're blucher/derbies, and obviously they've got a wingtip. What does one call the line going back from the blucher, almost like a bastardization of a wingtip and a longwing blucher? These have leather soles, but I wouldn't have been surprised to see a rubber sole on them.
The insole identifies them as Crockett & Jones made for Gordon Scott, a store formerly on New Bond Street. My confusion is this: they're labeled "Greenwich" but that's clearly the Gordon Scott name, as the C&J Greenwich is a boot. These are on the 317 last. I haven't been able to find any trace of this model on Google or searches here; thus, I turn here as a last resort before concluding they were a special make for that store. Does anyone know if these correspond to a C&J model, or indeed anything about this type of shoe?
The shoes fit quite nicely, and I'm happy to have them in the closet. Now, to find space on the shelves...
Numbers on the inside are as follows:
8233 101/2 F (= 11.5E US)
On the other side, though impossible to capture in photos:
there's nothing massively mysterious about them. CJ did indeed make many shoes for Gordon Scott, which AFAIK is no longer around. The design is a traditional kind of wingtip, church's still makes their own. the last is 317, obviously.
At what point does one experience diminishing returns going from $700 to $1300 shoes?
Well, I have EG that are, on my feet, more comfortable than C&J handgrades. But both are exceptional. Are the EG worth almost 2X the C&J? I can't answer that question. At that point, I don't think it has a lot to do with price any longer. I appreciate and enjoy both.