Hi,
I ran this by the folks on a different forum and received some interesting replies but the more the merrier (at least for me) when it comes to style/design opinions..
Problem: To come up with a combination of last, welt and sole that will give some bulk to the very elegant Falkirk oxford (making my small foot look a bit larger) without ruining it's lines.
My foot is 7.5-8 D in most of the EG lasts. Problem is that it looks very delicate and "tinkerbelle like" in the 82 last, and I don't want to do another 888 ( although this works well for me, and most of my EG collection is in that last) for this shoe. So I'm left with 202 and 606. This shoe can look pretty good in 202 but the 202 last still looks a bit small on my foot in standard trim.. I am thinking of using the 202 but increasing the welt size 1 or 2 mm, and using either the HAF or double sole to give the shoe a bit of bulk without messing up its lines. It will be a dark oak/navy suede spectator when finished. Will this be enough?
I may be able to get away with wearing a 202 last in 8-8.5C which when given a wider welt may look better (in terms of lines) than the 202 in 7.5-8D with a wider welt. Which of the 2 sizes will look bulkier, a C width 8 or a D width 7.5?
What do you all think? This is my first EG (recently) outside of the 888 or 164 last and I'm very hesitant. I do have an old Chelsea on the 202 last in 7.5-8D and it looks sort of short and squat on my foot. I'm thinking that the short look is exaggerated because of the captoe.
All opinions and advice are appreciated. Any votes for the 606? I'm sort of leaning towards a rounded toe for this shoe so haven't been really thinking about the 606. Maybe the 505?!
TIA
I ran this by the folks on a different forum and received some interesting replies but the more the merrier (at least for me) when it comes to style/design opinions..
Problem: To come up with a combination of last, welt and sole that will give some bulk to the very elegant Falkirk oxford (making my small foot look a bit larger) without ruining it's lines.
My foot is 7.5-8 D in most of the EG lasts. Problem is that it looks very delicate and "tinkerbelle like" in the 82 last, and I don't want to do another 888 ( although this works well for me, and most of my EG collection is in that last) for this shoe. So I'm left with 202 and 606. This shoe can look pretty good in 202 but the 202 last still looks a bit small on my foot in standard trim.. I am thinking of using the 202 but increasing the welt size 1 or 2 mm, and using either the HAF or double sole to give the shoe a bit of bulk without messing up its lines. It will be a dark oak/navy suede spectator when finished. Will this be enough?
I may be able to get away with wearing a 202 last in 8-8.5C which when given a wider welt may look better (in terms of lines) than the 202 in 7.5-8D with a wider welt. Which of the 2 sizes will look bulkier, a C width 8 or a D width 7.5?
What do you all think? This is my first EG (recently) outside of the 888 or 164 last and I'm very hesitant. I do have an old Chelsea on the 202 last in 7.5-8D and it looks sort of short and squat on my foot. I'm thinking that the short look is exaggerated because of the captoe.
All opinions and advice are appreciated. Any votes for the 606? I'm sort of leaning towards a rounded toe for this shoe so haven't been really thinking about the 606. Maybe the 505?!
TIA
