or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › New Cheaney range
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Cheaney range

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
ttp://www.cheaney.co.uk/iBrochure/files/assets/seo/page3.html
post #2 of 12
I was just looking at the new downloadable catalogue and it appears the 2003 last is now gone, unless the 125 is the same.
post #3 of 12
2003 and 125 are not the same. 125 is a nice, slightly elongated round toe, while the 2003 is similar to Church's classic round toe 73 last iirc.
post #4 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Bourne View Post

2003 and 125 are not the same. 125 is a nice, slightly elongated round toe, while the 2003 is similar to Church's classic round toe 73 last iirc.
Sounds interesting... does it have more or less room in the toe box than the 2003 and 175? For me, it's always a challenge finding lasts with sufficient room up front for my toes.
post #5 of 12
The Cheaney 125 last reminds me of the Church's 173 last but I'm only basing that on internet pics
post #6 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowledge is King View Post

The Cheaney 125 last reminds me of the Church's 173 last but I'm only basing that on internet pics

Owning both, I can say the Cheaney 125 are far roomier in the toe box than the Church 173.

Compare for example the Arthur III in an F fitting with a Chetwyn in an F fitting. You could almost size a half-size down in the Arthur.
post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Damage View Post

Sounds interesting... does it have more or less room in the toe box than the 2003 and 175? For me, it's always a challenge finding lasts with sufficient room up front for my toes.

No experience with the 2003. Was it you who had posted that the 2003 was the same as Church's 73? Cheaney's 2003 and Church's 73 both look like short round lasts to me, but apparently fit tts when converted a full size US9D = UK8F. As for the 175, I've read that it runs small and it's perhaps best to take only .5 down from your US size, i.e. US9D = UK8.5F. Again, no experience with that last.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBugatti View Post

Owning both, I can say the Cheaney 125 are far roomier in the toe box than the Church 173.
Compare for example the Arthur III in an F fitting with a Chetwyn in an F fitting. You could almost size a half-size down in the Arthur.

I have the Arthur III in Dark Brown (Plough?) suede. It's quite roomy in my usual UK8 size, but I don't think I could comfortably size down to a UK7.5 on the 125 last.
Edited by Wes Bourne - 9/17/12 at 3:41pm
post #8 of 12
^^^sorry for the misunderstanding--I don't think you can actually size down, but it is roomy enough where you could almost size down.
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Bourne 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Damage 
Sounds interesting... does it have more or less room in the toe box than the 2003 and 175? For me, it's always a challenge finding lasts with sufficient room up front for my toes.
No experience with the 2003. Was it you who had posted that the 2003 was the same as Church's 73? Cheaney's 2003 and Church's 73 both look like short round lasts to me, but apparently fit tts when converted a full size US9D = UK8F. As for the 175, I've read that it runs small and it's perhaps best to take only .5 down from your US size, i.e. US9D = UK8.5F. Again, no experience with that last.
I was told by Cheaney that the 2003 and the Church's 73 are the same last and I definitely go down 1 full size from US to UK for those lasts. I think I mispoke when I mentioned the 175: I also go down 1 full size from US to UK in that last. I was actually wondering about the 125, and the photos below (from the Cheaney website) make the 125 (left) look very similar to the 2003 (right).

Copy_of_cheaney_alfred_black_overhead_l_last_125.jpg Copy_of_walbrooke_black_calf_leather_cheaney_sho.jpg
post #10 of 12
To my eye, the 125 looks to have a more straight-ahead toe, while the 2003 hooks more.

I'm pretty sure the soles in those images are identical, and I mean they used the exact same image. I suspect that it doesn't belong to either shoe.
post #11 of 12
DD, the 125 appears marginally slimmer in those pics. It also seems to have a longer vamp than the 2003, i.e. the distance between the bottom eyelets and the toecap is longer.
post #12 of 12
Thanks for the comments - now that I look closer it's clear there are significant differences in proportions. And yes, I was the guy who was told by Sheila Bone at Cheaney that the Church's 73 last was the same as the Cheaney 2003 last, just under a different name. I'm still hoping someone in Toronto will stop selling crap Chinitalian shoes and start selling the Cheaney Imperials so I can buy them...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › New Cheaney range