or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › LOAKE APPRECIATION & SHOE P0RN THREAD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LOAKE APPRECIATION & SHOE P0RN THREAD - Page 107

post #1591 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munky View Post
 

I have shoes in a range of sizes. My Chester's are 9s. Two pairs of Tricker's are 8 and a half, as are the other Loakes. The Buckinghams and Strands are snug fitting and my Chesters fit very well and I don't have inserts in any of them. I have put insoles back in the Trickers. These are my newest shoes and I guess they need a bit more wearing in before they will be fully comfortable without insoles. 

 

I've got a pair of Doc Marten's suede shoes which are 10s and also fit very well. 

 

Your Chester's are a size 9 and your Buckinghams/Strands are 8.5s!? That's very odd.

post #1592 of 2396

Well, it may be odd, but it's the case.

post #1593 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemo79 View Post

Your Chester's are a size 9 and your Buckinghams/Strands are 8.5s!? That's very odd.

I think there's a certain inconsistency in Loake sizing.

My Hydes, Aldwychs, and Strands (Capital last) are a a size 7, and I've had to put insoles in the Hydes and sometimes in the StrandsStrands. On the other hand, my Burford boots (024 last), in size 7 are too small.
I should have returned them right away, but wore them outside and am now planning to sell them.

I also have a pair of Asquiths on the Swing last, and they of course run very large.
Edited by Odradek - 6/11/15 at 12:51am
post #1594 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odradek View Post


I think there's a certain inconsistency in Loake sizing.

My Hydes, Aldwychs, and Strands (Capital last) are a a size 7, and I've had to put insoles in the Hydes and sometimes in the StrandsStrands. On the other hand, my Burford boots (024 last), in size 7 are too small.
I should have returned them right away, but wore them outside and am now planning to sell them.

I also have a pair of Asquiths on the Swing last, and they of course run very large.

I guess there will always be exceptions, personally I take the Chester in a 9 where as Capital or Claridge lasts I'm a 10. My foot length is 28cm which is a bang on size 10 for length but obviously shape, width and height play a big part in how a shoe fits. 024 is a country last so it is intentionally bigger in dimensions than your standard F fit to incorporate thicker socks, theoretically it should fit larger than the other more true to size lasts that Loake have...

post #1595 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemo79 View Post

I guess there will always be exceptions, personally I take the Chester in a 9 where as Capital or Claridge lasts I'm a 10. My foot length is 28cm which is a bang on size 10 for length but obviously shape, width and height play a big part in how a shoe fits. 024 is a country last so it is intentionally bigger in dimensions than your standard F fit to incorporate thicker socks, theoretically it should fit larger than the other more true to size lasts that Loake have...

Yes, that's why it's so weird that the 024 is the tightest fitting of all the Loake shoes I own.
post #1596 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odradek View Post


Yes, that's why it's so weird that the 024 is the tightest fitting of all the Loake shoes I own.

 

Out of interest, where is the tightness in the Burfords? Over the vamp, sides or front?

post #1597 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemo79 View Post

Out of interest, where is the tightness in the Burfords? Over the vamp, sides or front?

Very slightly tight on length, but I could live with that. You could call it snug.
The main problem is they are tight on width, particularly around where my little toe goes. Left boot rubs my little toe.
Had them stretched for width at the cobblers, but it hasn't made a difference.
post #1598 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odradek View Post


Very slightly tight on length, but I could live with that. You could call it snug.
The main problem is they are tight on width, particularly around where my little toe goes. Left boot rubs my little toe.
Had them stretched for width at the cobblers, but it hasn't made a difference.

Hi

 

I bought a pair of Loake Burford boots with the Rubber sole last month and I've worn them about half a dozen times and creamed & waxed them but they are still tight (width) I've been to M&S this morning already and bought 3 pairs of thin Cotton socks which hopefully may help a little.

 

Carl

post #1599 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odradek View Post


Very slightly tight on length, but I could live with that. You could call it snug.
The main problem is they are tight on width, particularly around where my little toe goes. Left boot rubs my little toe.
Had them stretched for width at the cobblers, but it hasn't made a difference.

 

I know the 024 is shorter than the the Capital, however the 1cm of extra length is more for the aesthetic and shouldnt impact on the fit, as you probably know the longest point of any shoe is not relevant to the actual fit of the shoe. This normally just adds to dead space at the end. The 024 has a wider toe than capital but is more shallow, this could be the issue but as far as I can see 024 is wider and deeper across the main vamp area. Peculiar.

post #1600 of 2396

I've got quite a few pairs of shoes and I haven't found many constants in the question of fit. There are quite a few surprises when you try shoes on. But, for me, this is the only test: don't rely too much on stated shoe sizes - try on a range of sizes and see what fits. My man in the shoe shop has sometimes said, 'try these on before I tell you the size and last'. It's a good test and has got me some really well fitting shoes.

post #1601 of 2396

I'm after a dark brown suede chukka to wear with my navy and charcoal suits, and have narrowed down the following options: 

 

Gosford II

Kempton

Pimlico

 

I have several pairs of Herrings and my size is always 11G. However, the abovementioned chukka boots only come in F width.  Do I go with the 11F or go up to a size 12F? Which one of these boots is really wider? 

 

The other option I'm considering is the Church Ryder III. However, these are quite pricey at almost double the price. Are they worth it? 

post #1602 of 2396
I have all 3 of these boots ( and all in the same size 10.5). Between the Pimlico and the Kempton the Pimlico for me is wider. The Ryder I have in G fitting and is probably the widest (just). For wear with suits the Pimlico is best and probably better value than the Ryder.
post #1603 of 2396

So, the Pimlico is a dark enough chocolate brown to be able to wear with suits? I'm trying to stay away from a lighter shade of brown. Herring told me last week that the last for Pimlico is the narrowest and I was better going up to the next size. 

 

It's hard making these decisions from online photos.  The shade of suede could differ according to each batch. 

post #1604 of 2396
Definitely the Pimlico is the only one I would say is dark enough for suits. I am actually sized up in all 3 to 10.5. I take 10 in all other shoes. The Kempton is on the shortest of lasts, the Pimlico on the most tapered (but good width) and the Ryder length close to the Kempton but the G fitting is wider. Hope this helps.
post #1605 of 2396

Why exactly do you feel the G fitting in the Ryder is not the best option to wear with a suit?  

 

And, if you also don't mind me asking - why do you have all three pairs?  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › LOAKE APPRECIATION & SHOE P0RN THREAD