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 113

post #1681 of 2396

You could do a lot worse..:).

post #1682 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyStylin View Post

Anyone have the Chester, or another 024 last shoe, in F?

How does it compare to the Capital or 026 in F?

Despite all the talk about the 024 last being more roomy, I have found it to be the opposite.
I wear a size 7F in the Capital, but 7 was far too small with the 024.
I also have some 026 last boots in 7.5
post #1683 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odradek View Post

Despite all the talk about the 024 last being more roomy, I have found it to be the opposite.
I wear a size 7F in the Capital, but 7 was far too small with the 024.
I also have some 026 last boots in 7.5

I agree absolutely, I am having some chesters in 10.5 stretched at the moment while all my Capital lasted shoes in 10.5 are fine.
post #1684 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webbo View Post

I agree absolutely, I am having some chesters in 10.5 stretched at the moment while all my Capital lasted shoes in 10.5 are fine.

Yes, I had my 024 Burford boots stretched but it didn't make a difference and I've now sold them.
I think the issue is more to do with the Capital being slightly large.

I'm in England, but have a few pairs of Allen Edmonds shoes, all in 8.5D US size, and a UK 7.5F fits me best, but for Capital last shoes, it's a 7F.
post #1685 of 2396

Thanks guys, but now I'm really uncertain on what size to buy! :crazy:

 

I guess if i try them I'll stick to my normal size rather then sizing down on the first go, as I have slightly wide feet to begin with.

 

@Webbo, outisde of the fit issue what are your thoughts on your Chesters and the shape of the 024 last?

post #1686 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyStylin View Post
 

Thanks guys, but now I'm really uncertain on what size to buy! :crazy:

 

I guess if i try them I'll stick to my normal size rather then sizing down on the first go, as I have slightly wide feet to begin with.

 

@Webbo, outisde of the fit issue what are your thoughts on your Chesters and the shape of the 024 last?

 

Taking 024 in the same size or larger is the exception not the norm, the majority of people take a half size smaller.

 

The shape is round, wide and a little shallow.. its approx 2cm longer than its given size so for instance I am a size 10 and my foot measures 28cm, size 10 Chester is 30cm. Personally I take a size 9 as my foot is slightly narrow.

 

Unless your foot is wide enough to take a wide fitting shoe corresponding with the size associated with your foots length then its doubtful to make a difference. 

 

Although the 024 is shorter than capital remember that Capital is elongated to give it its character, the taper of it should counteract its length. There should be dead space in the end of the toe but as some feet dont mesh  correctly providing a barrier then they can slide into that dead space.

 

Capital and 026 are both considered to be true to size, most people would take the same size in them so taking advice from a person thats a different size in all 3 lasts probably wouldn't be prudent IMO anyway.

 

If an Herring advisor (Chris?) has suggested a half size down then Id take their advice seen as they are basing the info from the thousands of customers they've dealt with rather than one or two people that sound like they have peculiarly shaped feet (no offence).

post #1687 of 2396

Thanks for your additional insight! I'm a 10.5E US, so on the border of wide I suppose. If they are already a wide last, maybe I'll be fine going the half size down.

 

Chris @ Herring has indeed been giving great advice, but this was not specific to my feet. He said many people have to order a half size down to get a good fit on this last. Figured it was worth asking around a bit before importing another pair :)

 

They look good in pics, and I have been wanting open laced wing tips in a medium brown so I think I'll take the plunge very soon and hope for the best on fit. I was lucky enough in that both the first 2 shoes I ordered were keepers.

post #1688 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyStylin View Post

Thanks guys, but now I'm really uncertain on what size to buy! crazy.gif

I guess if i try them I'll stick to my normal size rather then sizing down on the first go, as I have slightly wide feet to begin with.

@Webbo
, outisde of the fit issue what are your thoughts on your Chesters and the shape of the 024 last?

Regarding the Chester I love the shoe which I have in Tan, be aware it is a sturdy shoe a little on the heavy side and does need some breaking in but they feel really special to wear. I think they are Loakes best shoe.
post #1689 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webbo View Post


Regarding the Chester I love the shoe which I have in Tan, be aware it is a sturdy shoe a little on the heavy side and does need some breaking in but they feel really special to wear. I think they are Loakes best shoe.


Great, thanks again! Will report back after I get a shipment in.

post #1690 of 2396

I just received a pair of Loake Aldwych shoes and Pimlico boots. I noticed that both had several scratches and marks on the leather. I emailed Herring requesting to exchange them without having to pay the return shipping since they were defective. Has anyone else had this problem with Loake shoes? I know Loake is on the cheaper side, but their 1880 line is supposed to be good quality.

post #1691 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by elduder View Post
 

I just received a pair of Loake Aldwych shoes and Pimlico boots. I noticed that both had several scratches and marks on the leather. I emailed Herring requesting to exchange them without having to pay the return shipping since they were defective. Has anyone else had this problem with Loake shoes? I know Loake is on the cheaper side, but their 1880 line is supposed to be good quality.

 

I'm really not able to notice much by those pics myself.

 

If they are very small, I wouldn't worry much as they will probably get some scratches after a wear or two anyway and most are covered with a good polish.

post #1692 of 2396

Maybe I'm just being OCD, but for a $300 shoe I expect a little more attention to detail. If these were a $80-100 pair of Steve Madden's I would understand. I'm no expert on the shoe making process, but I can't see why there would be marks/scratches on the leather due to anything other than someone being careless.

post #1693 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by elduder View Post
 

Maybe I'm just being OCD, but for a $300 shoe I expect a little more attention to detail. If these were a $80-100 pair of Steve Madden's I would understand. I'm no expert on the shoe making process, but I can't see why there would be marks/scratches on the leather due to anything other than someone being careless.

 

Personally I think you are being over picky and judging by the images the shoes are not defective.  

 

As you say you are not familiar with the shoe making process. Firstly its worth pointing out that these shoes are handmade, they are handled throughout the 200 plus different operations that it takes to make a pair of Loakes' which is what gives the higher price point over mass produced, machine made tat. The shoe making process for Loake can take up to 8 weeks but is generally between 4-6 weeks which is relatively quick for handmade given the volume and demand for such shoes, in comparison Crockett and Jones take a minimum of 8 - 12 weeks but are double the price. The level of due care and attention to ensure that the leather does not pick up any marks throughout production would mean longer production schedules and higher costs, not to mention that leather being a natural material can often have small imperfections anyway.

 

Manufacturers always allow an amount of tolerance when vetting shoes because of these very things so unless an imperfection is going to cause the shoes an issue with longevity or is in an extremely visible location then they will generally be cleared for sale.

 

As simplystylin said, marks are covered by a little polish, in fact they can sometimes be corrected with polish as it flattens the nap back down rather than just covering over it, although why you'd be bothered about a mark on the tongue or around the eyelet where it's unlikely to ever be seen without a ridiculous amount of scrutiny is beyond me anyway.

 

Just because you deem a shoe to be more expensive does not mean that it will be perfect, these are unrealistic expectations, the money you spend is going on how the shoes were made, the length of time of construction and of course the quality of the materials. Unsurprisingly the shoes are not carried on a velvet cushion within a quarantined glovebox.

 

You have two options, lower your expectations to a reasonable level or pay thousands for a pair of John Lobbs and wait the 3 - 6 months it takes to create a pair of shoes to the level of perfection you're looking for.

post #1694 of 2396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemo79 View Post

Personally I think you are being over picky and judging by the images the shoes are not defective.  

As you say you are not familiar with the shoe making process. Firstly its worth pointing out that these shoes are handmade, they are handled throughout the 200 plus different operations that it takes to make a pair of Loakes' which is what gives the higher price point over mass produced, machine made tat. The shoe making process for Loake can take up to 8 weeks but is generally between 4-6 weeks which is relatively quick for handmade given the volume and demand for such shoes, in comparison Crockett and Jones take a minimum of 8 - 12 weeks but are double the price. The level of due care and attention to ensure that the leather does not pick up any marks throughout production would mean longer production schedules and higher costs, not to mention that leather being a natural material can often have small imperfections anyway.

Manufacturers always allow an amount of tolerance when vetting shoes because of these very things so unless an imperfection is going to cause the shoes an issue with longevity or is in an extremely visible location then they will generally be cleared for sale.

As simplystylin said, marks are covered by a little polish, in fact they can sometimes be corrected with polish as it flattens the nap back down rather than just covering over it, although why you'd be bothered about a mark on the tongue or around the eyelet where it's unlikely to ever be seen without a ridiculous amount of scrutiny is beyond me anyway.

Just because you deem a shoe to be more expensive does not mean that it will be perfect, these are unrealistic expectations, the money you spend is going on how the shoes were made, the length of time of construction and of course the quality of the materials. Unsurprisingly the shoes are not carried on a velvet cushion within a quarantined glovebox.

You have two options, lower your expectations to a reasonable level or pay thousands for a pair of John Lobbs and wait the 3 - 6 months it takes to create a pair of shoes to the level of perfection you're looking for.



I couldn't agree more .......... And if you do take the second option make sure to never actually wear the John Lobbs because if you do they will get far worse scratches on them.
post #1695 of 2396

hi guys, would appreciate your help on this.

 

i have a Meermin in Hiro last, size UK 10, with a little heel slipping, i had tried on a Carmina Forest last, size UK 9.5 and fits pretty snug. 

 

what size do you suggest i should get for Loake 1880 Aldwych in Capital last. Thanks!

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