Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by earthdragon, Nov 18, 2008.
New Herring double monks
Thoughts? How do these compare to the shakespeare?
Same last as my Cheaney O'Toole single monks. Can't say I'm a big fan of the last myself as I prefer chiseled toe and narrower width. That said, if you have thicker or wider feet, these should be ok as I find mine to be a little too roomy for my feet... and shoes in this last are apparently already a little narrower than other Cheaney offerings.
Thank you both for your replies. I do appreciate the help.
I have not tried the conditioner on the Aquilas as they are very soft to begin with, so I can't see it making a huge difference.
My Cheaney Leadenhall's are a 9F...which feel like they have a really nice amount of room (definitely not tight, and they feel great) so I'm not sure I'd want to go down a size for the sake of more width. They feel quite a bit more 'roomy' than the Aquila's do which is probably a reflection as too why they don't hurt my feet.
I guess the real answer is I just have to take the gamble and hope the lacing on the Churchill is OK based on the fact that they are the same last as my Leadenhalls, quite a risk for $300AUD!
My other option could be these:
Although the colours look vastly different between the Herring Site and the Cheaney site.
Do you think I could wear those with a navy and mid grey suit sucessfully?
**Third edit....suffering from serious over analysis. Maybe I should just go with an 8.5G instead of a 9F. Arghhhh.
^Or try the Cheaney Liverpool in mahogany
Bodileys does free shipping on all its shoes
Guys i just bought a pair of POLO Ralph Lauren boots on Ebay that are too small for me, im just trying to get my money back, i paid 123.50 including shipping.
Heres the link of the re listed boots:
They are bench made in England so im guessing they are made by Crockett and Jones and they are in good nick.
Your all welcome to try them on before you buy if your interested. Im looking to get my money back so $135 with shipping included or $115 pick up, whatever is easier!
Look at Bengal's comments below http://www.styleforum.net/t/209008/received-saint-crispins/45#post_4918255
Thanks Meister, very insightful.
If I were to go wider, why would I need to go down half a size? It seems by going wider and incresing the circumference the shoe will be looser but my foot wouldn't become shorter?
Well, it really depends on the shoe.
However, most dress shoes - particularly those on "pointier" (or more chiselled) lasts have plenty of room in front of the toes so as long as the shoe fits across your foot, you can go down half-a-size without having to worry about length. It just means that you'll only have 3cm in front of your toes instead of 3.5cm, for example.
Just be aware, though, that whilst the "going wider to get more overall volume" often works for people with a high instep, it's not always successful. As an example, the last that the Allen-Edmonds Park Ave is made on is a very "flat" or low last. When I tried on a pair a few years ago, I went up to something ridiculous like a 10EEEE and although I had a few cm of space at the side of my foot, it still felt as though the top of my foot was being squashed in a vice whenever I tried to do up the laces, and the "v" at the top of the laces was about 3cm wide.
So, as I say, it will often work and I've done it with success with shoes from a few English brands such as C&J, Alfred Sargent and Barkers, but if the last is really flat, such as the Allen-Edmonds last, it won't be of much help.
You could chop off the tip of your big toe - shoes are more important than body parts - or cut your toenails or wear thinner socks - or get with the cool kids and wear no socks - _PG_ can advise on this..
meister and me are on the same page - just explaining it differently.
What I meant is that if you had a enough room length wise you could go down half a size to avoid too much room all-round. I don't know exactly how Cheaney work but sometimes a half size down doesn't lose much length.
If how ever its snug size length wise then going to a wider width in the same size with give you more overall volume in height and width as Meister says. You don't need that space across but you will push it up in height. In effect the extra width will translate to height.
edit:: I just saw Journeymans comment - yes - there is often a reasonable amount of toe room in some shoes. I think there are some inside shoe measurements around on the web. There also an explanation, I think by the redoubtable sator, on the RM Williams thread on going down in size but out in size**. You are lucky in that you have already have a shoe that for most purposes will be the same fit. I do agree the colours on the shoes you linked to look different.
You could avoid all this and go with the type of shoe you find more comfortable, open laced, two up. Nothing cool about limping around in shoes that hurt. Monk straps often give more flexibility up top too.
** or perhaps its up a size and in a width to get a sleeker look. As the young people say "whatever" - its the same principle. In reverse.
Great day from the parcel guy for me! A lovely drakes tie from CEP has arrived and also...
The RustiCalf is very interesting, lovely and a soft with a light grain to it. Dealing with Ethan was a pleasure, final word on fit is yet to come as I'm wearing my thick wool socks today.
Long before The Sartorialist there was Bill Cunningham. And now there is a documentary about him...
Jimbo where did you buy those monks from and how much?
They're these Carminas from The Armoury. Ended up costing me ~600AUD after shipping and conversion fees.
Guys, does anyone know where you can rent/ buy docos on things such as Bill Cunningham NY and Omast
Separate names with a comma.