Oak Street Bootmakers - Official Affiliate Thread - Page 54

I never said they were mislabeled.  But if yo have excessive room in the front of your boots, thats on you.  Just because they are "boots" is not an excuse for sizing wrong.    I also dont see why we are arguing about this in this thread.  Poor fitting footwear is poor fitting footwear, regardless of if its a boot or a flip flop.   But for the record, not all lasts fit like a brannock. Some Oak Streets dont either, thus the size down half a size thing that probably started this discussion.   

Edited by fuzzyearlobes - 1/28/13 at 8:27pm

Hello. Could I get a size check, please, on trail oxfords with christy sole? I'm a 9.5 in Quoddy mocs, 9.5D in AE brogues and Dalton boot. 9.5 on brannock.

I am living in Europe now so choice is either 42 or 43. I have high arches and a low volume foot-- but sort of a wide toebox. I would wear them with insoles and medium weight wool socks like smart wool. Thanks in advance for any advice.

Sizing down a half size is not radical unless you are an anal Internet fashionistia.
It's not going to break your foot or anything. We are talking 1/8" of difference max in width.
Come to think of it, when I went to get sized at a redwing store, they sized me down a half.
They didn't take some stand of SIR U MUST GET BRANNOCK SIZE!

I went with the same size I have with Quoddy, Clarks etc. I have slightly wide feet and was worried when I first tried my trail oxfords on that they were going to be too tight around my pinky but they stretch fairly quickly and both my pairs now fit perfect. I would go with your Quoddy size. And I will say this, you will be delighted with these shoes, they are absolute quality!

The problem with the generic advice given here on SF is that very often if's given by kids who:

1) Have never worn boots and don't understand why the extra toe room is there for a reason.
2) Expect to wear them like shoes (which is obviously fine if that's what you want to do)
3) Very often don't even understand that their sneaker size is not their true size (and who when "sizing down" ironically end up at their correct Brannock size).
4) Don't understand how one's foot width affects one's ability to size down

For the Beckmans and Iron Rangers specifically, all kids here end up doing is complain about heel slip, which goes away after you break them in if you bought the right size to begin with, and then on top of that complain about how "brutal" the break-in process if they size down. If your boot break in is "brutal", your foot is just not right for that last, or you're sizing down too far. End of story.

Ironically, I do recommend to size down a 1K simply because CXL stretches so damn much even when you don't want them to.

Generic advise is generic advise and should be treated as such. Sizing advise on the internet is a odd thing in my opinion and I never really took it that seriously.

 

 A boot should not have more than a thumbs width of room in the front, maybe a bit more.  anything more than that and you sized wrong.  socks wont make up for all that extra room, regardless of how thick they are.  

 I brannock at a 10.  I also wear a 10 in just about every boot on earth.  I am a 10 in my Whites.  I would wear a 10 in the Iron Rangers if I ever bought a pair (tried them on, didnt like them).  no arguments from me on that front.  Except for the fact that some Red Wing lasts dont fit the same, and therefore I wear a 10.5.  I wear a 9.5 in oak street trail oxfords because a 10 was huge on me and these are moccs.  A snugger, more streamlined fit is how you size on these.  I wear  a hilarious 8.5 in these awful Prada dress shoes I have had for 7 years, so go figure.  

 

I think the whole "sizing down" argument is a semantic one.  Most people have no idea what their true size is.  So, when they get a Red Wing and wear a .5 size smaller than their Nike's, they figure they are sizing down.  

I don't typically agree with using the end of the shoe as a measurement for fit. It might work for some, but not for all. I think the ball of your foot should be at the widest part of the shoe. If that's the case, and if it feels like it fits, it probably fits. Some folks have different length toes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need, or should have, a smaller boot.

its def. not the only measurement to take into account.  But chances are if you get a boot or shoe where the heel and ball fit, you wont have a huge gap up front.  

Quoted:

I don't typically agree with using the end of the shoe as a measurement for fit. It might work for some, but not for all. I think the ball of your foot should be at the widest part of the shoe. If that's the case, and if it feels like it fits, it probably fits. Some folks have different length toes, but that doesn't necessarily mean they need, or should have, a smaller boot.

---

I agree. The best sizing advice I received was from a salesman at the NYC A-E store last year who said that so long as the forefoot fits, the rest will pretty much follow.

Now, going back to my sizing question on the trail mocs -- If my Brannock is a 9.5, should I go for a 9 -- as OSB suggests, or for a 9.5 or 10?

I know this is sort of circular but when you're mail ordering these things it helps to triangulate your sources. For example, if someone told me they also wore a 9.5D in a common shoe like an A-E MacNeil brogue or a Quoddy camp moc (as I do), and they went with a 9, I'd give that some weight.

Also, as to the "size down for boots" thing -- a lot of real work boots are sized for burly guys with burly feet. I have a long-suffering pair of Chippewas that are a 9 that have plenty of room -- I tried on a 9.5 and I was swimming in them -- I would have had to stuff newspaper in the toe.

Bottom line is that you should try them on, but that's not always possible.

Here are a couple of links to a blog by SF member glenjay.  They address alot of the stuff people are debating here, and they do a good job of going into the science of shoe fit.  Read through these two entries and see if this will help settle the debate.

 

http://oldleathershoe.com/wordpress/?p=357

 

http://oldleathershoe.com/wordpress/?p=341

Im not even sure what we are debating anymore, or better yet, why.  The term "size down" has been thrown around a lot, and I think people are interpreting it differently.

I rarely size down from my brannock size, Oak street trail oxfords being the exception.  This was required for t a proper fit and was only .5 a size.  But if compared to the New Balances I am wearing, or the shit Nike's I have at home, then yes, I do size down.  Whatever, all my footwear fits and I am not intentionally sizing them down hoping they will stretch to fit.  

Not a dig at you, but this has been gone over many many times in this thread, and I suspect the reason for this debate.  George from OSB finally confirmed that for a "proper" fit on the trail oxfords you want to go down half a size from your brannock size.  This is because they are mocc's and will stretch and conform to the foot.  I brannock at a 10 and bought a size 10 in the trail oxfords first and they were too big.  I now have a 9.5 and they fit perfectly.  

I wonder why George chose to use the numbering 0.5 size larger than what would be TTS. I'm interested in hearing how the numbers get chosen. 

Thanks, fuzzyearlobes (I can barely bring myself to type your handle...:)

I'm leaning toward a 9 vs. a 9.5.

As for why OSB chose their sizing numbers -- I'm guessing it corresponds to the standard Vibram sole sizing. How you build a shoe on that sole differs, of course.

These sizing questions come up again and again -- and I feel a little guilty for fanning the f lame -- but stuff like Aldens and boutique raw denim are often mail ordered because they're either a special makeup or there's only one store in the universe that sells them -- or you find a great deal online but the store is in Denmark.

It takes a while to dial things in, but once you do you're good to go, unless the company moves the goal post on you, like EG does with their shirts and apparently APC has done with their denim sizing.

yea, I have no idea why different sizes are chosen.  Someone needs to draft a UN resolution that standardizes this shit, LOL.  Of course if choosing a size was easy we would not have anything to argue about