C&J Monks on the 348 Last

[Cary Grant]

After googling and looking at most of the threads here, I'm still unclear as to how the CJ 348's would fit my foot.

In AE's I'm an 11.5b. In Martegani's- a standard 11.

So the 348's like Lowndes etc... I'd be best off with what size?

 

[jmix1]

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

In AE's I'm an 11.5b. In Martegani's- a standard 11.


For a foot that narrow the C&J E fitting may be too wide. Do you own other C&Js?
That said, you may want to try a 10.5 E.

 

[Cary Grant]

Originally Posted by jmix1

For a foot that narrow the C&J E fitting may be too wide. Do you own other C&Js?
That said, you may want to try a 10.5 E.

Thanks- I don't. Never had one on my foot. I've pondered going custom or checking out Ben Silvers

 

[jmix1]

MTO may be your best/only bet if you want to go with C&J. Paying full retail for C&J at Ben Silver or Turnbull and Asser would be crazy when you can save hundreds by ordering online through plal, pediwear, bodileys. Because you're in St. Paul, you would have to order online or by phone from Silver or TA anyways. Why not save the cash or, even better, buy two pairs!

 

[Biggskip]

Yeah, I've been wondering about this too. I found this (as part of this thread):

Originally Posted by Christofuh

On some models of C&J for BB last numbers overlap; other times they don't.
I would've been spared the whole masturbatory exercise had I known in advance which of C&J lasts run narrow.
So here goes

348: bordering on you-gotta-be-********-me narrow (Barney's exclusive Bagshot' Monk-Strap boot with dainite sole)

324: narrow to the point of being rather uncomfortable to walk around in (C&J for BB wingtip monks)

240: narrow as in very snug; unlikely to be broken in (C&J for BB plain monks)


So if you've got standard (D) width foot, I suggest you keep on walking - pardon the pun

I have a pair of the BB Peal's that is on the 240 last in a US 12D and I don't really find them to be narrow at all. So I'm thinking of rolling the dice with a pair in UK 11.5E on the 348 and seeing how they work out.

 

[Tarmac]

Maybe Christofuh doesn't know his shoe size well. I have found 240 to be completely average width. I have not tried 348 extensively yet.

 

[A Guy from Shanghai]

Originally Posted by Tarmac

Maybe Christofuh doesn't know his shoe size well. I have found 240 to be completely average width. I have not tried 348 extensively yet.

I concur with Tarmac's comment about 240 to be average width. I will add that I found 240 has very low instep. I have a pair of oxford that forms a more spreaded inverted "V" when laced up.

 

[jmix1]

Originally Posted by Tarmac

Maybe Christofuh doesn't know his shoe size well. I have found 240 to be completely average width. I have not tried 348 extensively yet.

Also, Christofuh's post is about C&Js for BB or Barneys, so his comments about width probably refer to a US D width, not a C&J E width. I know US D and UK E are supposed to be equivalent, but this isn't always precise. For the C&J Peals for BB, the US D seems to run narrow no matter the last and the E seems to be closer to a narrow E or wide D.
Because of the OP's narrow foot, maybe BB Peals would work. They also can be found for less than retail priced C&Js from T&A or Silver.

 

[jesask]

I am a 12E in most AE. I have just received a 11F in the Westfield on the 348 last. It seems to fit pretty well.

 

[sartort]

i want to caution the OP potentially against the 348 on a large foot such as yours. and this is coming from a huge fan of chiseled lasts. I think the 348 last is great but it is definitely elongated. I just want to make sure you were aware. Running from shortest to longest in my collection, I have the EG 888, JL 8000, Barker Black Ashfield, Vass U (if I remember correctly), C&J 337 and then the C&J 348.

Granted, I don't have any 348s, but I did try on the Merton loafer at Barneys and I was suprised how long it was. I wear a 9.5 US. That is why I am wondering if a 11 might be too large a size for this last. I am sure part of it was the clean vamp of the loafer that exaggerated the length. I hope this is the case because the Loundes is great looking and I would love to add a pair. Perhaps the toe cap and derby style monk flap/strap help break up the vamp and disguise the length.

Just food for thought. I certainly don't want to discourage you, but I have read a couple of other anecdotes on this board re: the 348 and longer/larger feet.

Also, since it is an elongated last and you have narrow feet, you might luck out going down half a size. FWIW I've read the 348 is narrower than the 337. Phat Guido just got a couple of pairs and he said the 348 fit his foot more snugly than the 337 in the same size.

 

[Cary Grant]

Thks for all the feedback. @ Sartort- thanks. I don't mind the long look. With B width 11-12 shoes, they all look like skis anyway, whether slalom or x-country

But hearing that your e-width fits OK concerns me.

 

[sartort]

Originally Posted by Cary Grant

Thks for all the feedback. @ Sartort- thanks. I don't mind the long look. With B width 11-12 shoes, they all look like skis anyway, whether slalom or x-country

But hearing that your e-width fits OK concerns me.
First of all, LOL at the skis comment! Second, re: the statement in bold, I am not sure this was directed at me. If so, I don't own any C&J branded shoes, read E width. All my C&Js are rebranded. 3 for polo and 1 for Shipton & Heneage. They are all D width which is great for my US C width foot. I know PG said the 348 fits better than the 337 so you might want to contact him. And like I said, going down half a size might help. Best of luck.