or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Loake 1880 Boots
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Loake 1880 Boots

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I am considering purchasing either the Fairford (026 last) or the Burford (024 last), can anyone comment on the difference between the two lasts. The Loake website doesn't show any angles other than profile so it is hard to distinguish between the two.

Any other comments on the better choice are, of course, welcome.
post #2 of 15
I'm interested in them as well. I note that the Fairford only comes in a "G" fitting, which seems pretty wide. Maybe with thick socks it won't matter as much, but I'm not sure.
post #3 of 15
I like the look of the one on the left better. Sort of Trickers-like.
post #4 of 15
I have the exact same question and decided that resurrecting this thread is better than to start a new one. I own a pair of Kemptons in size 8F which are on last 026. I find this to be a very short last, perhaps a bit too short for me. The Loake capital last in size 8F is a perfect fit for me.

Can anyone comment on how Loake's 024 last (F width) compares to the 026 or capital last?
Edited by Schweino - 12/12/12 at 6:25am
post #5 of 15
The 024 last is a quite clunky looking last, and not nearly as sleek as the Capital. I have the Pimlico (Capital) and Chester (024). I don't have any on the 026 last though. The Chester is quite wide in the fit as well, much wider than Capital. I don't find it shorter though.

/C
post #6 of 15
024 is wider than 026 (that it's still wider than usual)

The big difference is the toe, the 024 is more squared where 026 have a rounded square toe.

I relly prefer the look of 026 last.
post #7 of 15
Thanks for your replies. So if I understand correctly the 024 last is comparable to the capital last length wise and therefore longet than the 026 last?

The 026 last is definately shorter than any lasts I've come across in Grenson, Cheaney and Barker. There is even a clear distinction when I insert the same size 8 shoe tree in for instance the Loake Pimlico (capital) and Loake Kempton (026). The shoe tree looks crammed inside the Kempton.
Edited by Schweino - 12/12/12 at 7:35am
post #8 of 15
I think they are comparable in lenght. (024 and 026) They are last of the samy family , very similar in shape.

Try to size up or ask a customer service to help you with mesurements.
post #9 of 15
I'm a size 8.5 E US. I have two pairs of Buford's. One pair is UK 8 and the other is UK 8.5. The 8's are tight and the 8.5's are too large. They have a small toe box and I find that they offer no arch support. I think they are grossly over priced at $400.00
They are not even close to being as comfortable as a Alden 405. I know a 405 is not a wingtip, just comparing the two comfort wise. You might look at an Alden wingtip boot.
My 2 cents.
post #10 of 15
Might do that, thanks. Although I don't know if they are available here in western Europe.
post #11 of 15
Hi,

I was wondering if I should pick up a pair of Loake 1880 Kemptons in Black Calf. They have been worn once, but are only going to end up costing $140 US shipped. Is this a good deal for the quality of the shoes? I've never even seen a pair of Loakes first hand. My last pair of boots were Crockett and Jones, all my other boots are Alden, will I be disappointed by the quality and feel of the Loakes? I plan on wearing them with denim and since I live in Alaska I'm happy they have a Dainite sole, I had my Skyes converted to Dainite before shipping them stateside. Any advice or opinions are appreciated. Thank you!

-UDK
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadkennedy View Post

Hi,

I was wondering if I should pick up a pair of Loake 1880 Kemptons in Black Calf. They have been worn once, but are only going to end up costing $140 US shipped. Is this a good deal for the quality of the shoes? I've never even seen a pair of Loakes first hand. My last pair of boots were Crockett and Jones, all my other boots are Alden, will I be disappointed by the quality and feel of the Loakes? I plan on wearing them with denim and since I live in Alaska I'm happy they have a Dainite sole, I had my Skyes converted to Dainite before shipping them stateside. Any advice or opinions are appreciated. Thank you!

-UDK

 

I have a pair of black Kemptons (or rather, the rebranded Herring Shoes version that's the same, but was a few quid cheaper when new). They're nice shoes. Not C&J handgrade level in terms of the finesse of the finish, but they're comfortable, well-made, sturdy and on a last that's attractive enough (in a traditional way) to work both with both wintery suits and more casual outfits. And you're paying a mere fraction of the C&J price, so I'd say they're fair value, at least in my eyes. I found a couple of old snaps already uploaded where I'm wearing them with a tweed suit and with charcoal flannels, so you can see what they look like in context.

 

The dainite sole is great for rain, snow & slush and I've worn mine in all three. Our snow is considerably less than yours though! Others have commented that they can be slippery on ice; I haven't personally found that, but it's probably worth noting their reservations in that regard.

post #13 of 15
Hi, thank you for the advice. I'm very glad to hear about their sturdiness, which was a worry for me. I am going to buy these, they seem to be exactly what I'm looking for.
I didn't get the full winter in to test the dainites fully, but we had a couple of late snow falls and they did much better than my leather soled Aldens, didn't notice if I walked directly on ice and can't comment on slipperyness. I'll have to wait and see next winter.
Thanks again.
post #14 of 15

Better late than never to reply. If you bought the Kemptons, good. I own a pair in black and I like them.

 

I would say that I am exceptionally impressed with the quality and finish of the calf leather. It is superior to similarly priced black calf shoes I own by Cheaney and Allen Edmonds, although inferior to Tricker's, Church's, or Alden's black calf.

 

I own two pairs of shoes from the 1880 line and have the same opinion of the leather quality in both cases. The sole construction is not as good, however, as Cheaney or Allen Edmonds. In both of my Loake 1880 shoes, the rubber sole is delaminating enough to slide the corner of a piece of paper between it and the from the leather midsole at about the arch--which doesn't matter since the sole is also stitched. But I do note this small issue. If I may speculate, Loake has chosen to invest in finer calfskins for this line and to bring the price point down via the sole construction. But I don't know that.

 

Does anyone who owns the Kempton have any firsthand experience with the Loake 026 last? I like several pairs of shoes on that last, but would like more details on how it fits compared to the 024 (Kempton). My Kemptons fit well in 12, but I wouldn't want them any wider in the heel or narrower at the ball. I have a fraction of a size of extra room in the toe, however.

post #15 of 15
Thanks for the late reply. Been off the grid for awhile, so this is even later smile.gif
I did get the Kemptons, haven't worn them yet, but will definitely get to it soon. They're wider in the front than I thought they would be but they fit well and I am happy I got them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Loake 1880 Boots