or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Puzzled by c&j sizing/fit...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Puzzled by c&j sizing/fit...

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 
Yesterday I received 3 pairs of C&J's from PLal: black chelsea & snuff suede chiltern in 6.5 E, and savile in 7 E ( I am basically a US 7.5 D ). All lovely shoes, mind you. Curiously, the hand-grade savile, which it was suggested to go only 1/2 size smaller, has quite a bit of play in the toe box, while the other 2 pairs feel quite snug. I'm in a bit of a quandry: 1) Not sure if the Saviles are too big--there's quite a bit of extra length at the toe, which I expected based on comments here, and a bit of play in the height of the toebox (I can almost curl my toes) as well as the outside width, however when I walk I do not get a sense of my heels coming out of the shoes; 2) The Chelseas & Chilterns feel quite snug at the top & sides of my foot, in direct opposition to Saviles, although I have no trouble getting into and out of them. Will the leathers stretch to accomodate my feet, or should I take this as a basic indication that they're too small? Any input on sizing/fit criteria will be welcome. I guess this goes to show what a pain in the ass buying without trying (on) can be, particularly when the shoes have come from malaysia following a 5 week wait. FYI, I also own a pair of "the official thread shoe"-- the RL/ C&J chukkas--which fit great in a 7.5.
post #2 of 13
Please post some pictures. I'm trying to figure out the difference in color between "snuff" and "polo brown". Looking at the Canterbury's in the polo. Got a pair of Audley's on the way from Plal.
post #3 of 13
Sounds like the Savile's fit right - room in the toe box is not a problem as long as your foot is not shifting around. The other pairs sound too small, especially as the Polo/C&J shoes are probably a English size 7, not a 6.5.
post #4 of 13
I originally thought my C&J Handgrades were too large, because I followed recommendations to order them half a size larger. Then I realized that, throughout the day as my feet started to swell, they weren't really too large at all. These are shoes I can wear all day, no exaggeration.
post #5 of 13
Quote:
I'm trying to figure out the difference in color between "snuff" and "polo brown". Looking at the Canterbury's in the polo.
I've got a pair of Canterburys in 'polo brown' suede and will try and post some photos this weekend. Can't help you with regards to 'snuff', though. AJL - I also have the Chelseas (8E UK). Mine fit quite closely on the top of my foot when I first wore them but did ease up. They hug my feet, but I don't find them uncomfortable. A Harris is probably right about the difference in sizing of the polo-branded C&Js. I'm wearing mine today (9D US) and they are slightly roomier than the Chelseas but cinch up fine with the laces.
post #6 of 13
Thanks, that would be great to see the Canterburys. I'm about 90% of the way to pulling the trigger on them. I figure they'll be great for the fall.
post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Sounds like the Savile's fit right - room in the toe box is not a problem as long as your foot is not shifting around. The other pairs sound too small, especially as the Polo/C&J shoes are probably a English size 7, not a 6.5.
A. Harris- I suspect you're right on both counts, although tattersall's comment about  his chelseas loosening up a bit on top has me wondering, as this is the area that feels most snug to me. The chilterns fit more closely still, and would probably have to be exchanged, regardless. MC#4- I don't have a working digital camera here at the moment, though I have access to one. If I have time over the weekend I'll grab it and snap a shot or two.
post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by montecristo#4,22 July 2004, 9:19
I'm trying to figure out the difference in color between "snuff" and "polo brown". Looking at the Canterbury's in the polo.
AJL - I also have the Chelseas (8E UK). Mine fit quite closely on the top of my foot when I first wore them but did ease up. They hug my feet, but I don't find them uncomfortable. A Harris is probably right about the difference in sizing of the polo-branded C&Js. I'm wearing mine today (9D US) and they are slightly roomier than the Chelseas but cinch up fine with the laces.[/quote] I would think that the greater roominess in the polo C&J's might be attributable to the difference in lasts. The polo/chepstow last (325) appears both broader and taller than the chelsea last (238). Still, A. Harris might be right in suggesting the polo C&J is 1/2 size rather than a full size bigger than the homeland version. Can anyone think of a way to confirm this? It could be beneficial for possible future ordering. I'm curious tattersall, if you had your 'druthers would you a) prefer the chelseas a 1/2 size bigger, b) prefer the polos a 1/2 size smaller, c) both a) & b), or are you perfectly content with both and the slight fit variation that exists between them?
post #9 of 13
Here are a couple of shots of the C&J Canterburys in polo brown suede (let me know if you need other shots under different light): As far as sizing druthers on C&J (Chelsea vs. Polo boot), I think I would probably go up half a size on the Chelseas. I can make due with the sizing variations as, like you say, the lasts are different. Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the issue.
post #10 of 13
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Here are a couple of shots of the C&J Canterburys in polo brown suede (let me know if you need other shots under different light): As far as sizing druthers on C&J (Chelsea vs. Polo boot), I think I would probably go up half a size on the Chelseas. I can make due with the sizing variations as, like you say, the lasts are different. Hope this helps and doesn't confuse the issue.
Actually, it confirms my sense that I need to go up a 1/2 size on both the chelsea and chiltern. Thanks for your input. Nice shoes, btw--the suede color compliments the leather sole quite handsomely. As far as I can tell from your photos, the snuff suede may be a shade darker with possibly a hint more red than the polo brown.
post #11 of 13
Thanks for posting those photos. They are actually a lot lighter than I thought they'd be, not really what I'm looking for after all. I am quite surprised given that the Westminster, which is almost an identical shoe, looks even lighter still in "tobacco calf suede" (at least as pictured in the current C&J catalog). In any case, you saved me from making the wrong selection. Thanks. Regards, M#4
post #12 of 13
Quote:
Thanks for posting those photos. They are actually a lot lighter than I thought they'd be, not really what I'm looking for after all. I am quite surprised given that the Westminster, which is almost an identical shoe, looks even lighter still in "tobacco calf suede" (at least as pictured in the current C&J catalog). In any case, you saved me from making the wrong selection. Thanks. Regards, M#4
It's pretty hard to tell with photos online and my flash did go off when I took those snaps. For certain, though, the shoes are lighter in colour than what appears on the C&J site. I'm glad they've helped save you from making a mistake. I happen to like them a lot (my wife picked these out for me) and get good use out of them but then I've always had a soft spot for suede shoes.
post #13 of 13
No doubt, they are very nice, totally classic--just not exactly what I had in mind. I actually emailed Mr. Doshi at Plal to get his thoughts. This is what he had to say on tobacco suede vs. polo: "Tobacco is lighter and polo is darker but the difference is marginal. Even in the tobacco batch, there's a marked difference." Very interesting. The thing is, I don't want to go with a really dark brown. I'm looking for a nice happy medium--almost like a milk chocolate color. I'm going to look at some Yankos on Wednesday to see if they fit the bill. M#4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Puzzled by c&j sizing/fit...