Dismiss Notice

STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Crockett Jones 238 last

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by mg428, Aug 24, 2009.

  1. mg428

    mg428 Senior member

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    could you please compare 238 last with other c&j lasts? 337 and 240 fit me quite snug, but not uncomfortably tight. 318, 325 and 360 are OK, perhaps a bit roomy. 324 is unbearably narrow for me. I am aware that 238 is known as a narrow C&J last but I don't know whether it is very narrow. Is it even narrower than 348 and even 324?
     


  2. TKDKid

    TKDKid Senior member

    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    C&J 238 (UK 6E) vs C&J 337 (UK 6E):

    [​IMG]

    I can post comparison pics with the 325 and 324 if you want, although it may take a day or two.

    The 238 is narrower than the 337. My shoe trees that fit easily in the 337 are a real struggle to get in and out of the 238.

    The fit of the 238 feels similar to the 324 to me, but the shoe tree test again suggests that the 238 is narrower.

    The 238 is narrower that the 325, as you probably guessed.

    Hope that helps.
     


  3. mg428

    mg428 Senior member

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    I was hoping that you, the C&J expert, reply to my thread. I am very lucky indeed.

    Thank you so much. Your post helped a lot.

    BTW, is the below sequence (from narrower to wider) correct in your opinion?

    238 < 324 < 317 < 348 < 240 < 337 < 318 < 360 < 325 < 341

    I know every foot is different, but your shoe tree test might help. In fact shoe trees also vary but anyhow, your test may be a standard, at least when used with a certain shoe tree model from a certain shoe tree brand.

    Please feel free to add any other last that you may have first hand experience.
     


  4. TKDKid

    TKDKid Senior member

    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    Based on what I currently have on UK 6E fittings, I think it's:

    238 < 324 < 337 < 341 < 325

    I used to have a pair of Connaughts on the 236 last. From memory, I think it would fall between the 341 and 325.

    I do have a pair of shoes on the 348, but I've sized down by half a size, as I find the heel area a bit loose in my normal size. I think lots of forum members have shoes on both the 337 and 348 though, so maybe they can chip in.

    No experience with the 317 (isn't this only available in wider fittings?), 240 or 360.

    I've tried on shoes on the 318 before, and it's a tricky one: Dartmouths in suede were a nice fit, but in calf they were loose! Everything I've listed so far has been in calf though, so for consistency I would put the 318 between the 337 and 341.

    So the revised sequence would be:

    238 < 324 < 337 (< 318) < 341 (< 236) < 325
     


  5. clee1982

    clee1982 Senior member

    Messages:
    8,725
    Likes Received:
    516
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Location:
    New York City, NY, USA
    now, this is a useful thread, so can anyone comment on 358 last on the handgrade stuff? I tried 348 in E, and it was way too tight even after half size up.
     


  6. mg428

    mg428 Senior member

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Based on what I currently have on UK 6E fittings, I think it's:

    238 < 324 < 337 < 341 < 325

    I used to have a pair of Connaughts on the 236 last. From memory, I think it would fall between the 341 and 325.

    I do have a pair of shoes on the 348, but I've sized down by half a size, as I find the heel area a bit loose in my normal size. I think lots of forum members have shoes on both the 337 and 348 though, so maybe they can chip in.

    No experience with the 317 (isn't this only available in wider fittings?), 240 or 360.

    I've tried on shoes on the 318 before, and it's a tricky one: Dartmouths in suede were a nice fit, but in calf they were loose! Everything I've listed so far has been in calf though, so for consistency I would put the 318 between the 337 and 341.

    So the revised sequence would be:

    238 < 324 < 337 (< 318) < 341 (< 236) < 325



    My below sequence, as revised, is based on the combination of my experience with certain lasts (318, 324, 325, 341, 337, 360, 240) and other people's posts in various threads. For the purposes of my sequence, I assume that same size (in terms of both length and width) is used for all shoes) and not the suede but the calfskin versions are taken into consideration.

    238 < 324 < 317 < 348 < 240 < 330 < 337 < 341 < 236 < 318 < 325 < 360

    Please anyone feel free to add any other last that you may have experience or create your own sequence. Of course everybody's feet is different but this can be a good reference.

    I will appreciate if my dear forumites comment on the placement of 236 last.
     


  7. Spark

    Spark Senior member

    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    21
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Location:
    Thereabouts
    Is the 360 really that much wider than the 337?

    I've seen all sorts of discussion on this, but can't get a feel for how wide it really is -- can anyone confirm its width in relation to the 337?

    Many thanks!
     


  8. jaygee

    jaygee Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    now, this is a useful thread, so can anyone comment on 358 last on the handgrade stuff? I tried 348 in E, and it was way too tight even after half size up.

    Does anyone have any experience with the suede Tetbury boot on the 358. I take a US 9d/e and was going to size up to a CJ 8.5e. Now it seems that mightn't be enough.
     


  9. mg428

    mg428 Senior member

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Is the 360 really that much wider than the 337?

    I've seen all sorts of discussion on this, but can't get a feel for how wide it really is -- can anyone confirm its width in relation to the 337?

    Many thanks!


    I think this thread has become too subjective-- First, there is not so much difference amongst the lasts that come after 337, i.e. the ones wider than 337. Second, I do not have equal experience with the shoes that I own. For instance, I very recently bought a monk shoe on 360 last that I have only tried on carpet so far. However, I have worn a pair of my shoes made on 318 last many times. The uppers strechted a bit. Third, I would say, in terms of ball area my feet is a regular fit, however, in terms of instep, my feet is high. As a matter of fact, I might be thinking some lasts are narrow, although they are not indeed.

    NONETHELESS, if we take 337 last as basis for a regular list having normal width, I believe my sequence prior to 337 is pretty accurate. The sequence of 348 and 240 may interchange, as I do not have any experience with 348 last, and I placed 348 prior to 240 according to my understanding from other forumites' comments on 348 last. Although I also do not have any experience with 317 last, as far as I understand from other forumites' comments, it is pretty narrow to such that it should be placed prior to both 348 and 240. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Some Peal & Co. shoes are made on this last so owners may confirm) As to the sequence coming after 337, please feel free to correct my sequence, but as I said above, unlike the lasts narrower than 337, there are small incrementals amongs that lasts wider than 337, meaning that I would not say one is substantially wider than the other. Nevertheless, as to your question, perhaps it would be correct to interchange 360 last with 325 last. So my revised sequence is as follows:

    238 < 324 < 317 < 348 < 240 < 330 < 337 < 341 < 236 < 318 < 360 < 325
     


  10. mg428

    mg428 Senior member

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008


  11. California Dreamer

    California Dreamer Senior member

    Messages:
    5,737
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Can anyone suggest where last 339 (C&amp;J Kent loafers) might fit into the scheme of things?
     


  12. pwc008

    pwc008 Active Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2014
    If last 238 is the narrowest, this explains why I fit the Chelsea 3 well in a UK 9.5E. However, assuming 360 is the widest, or second widest, I thought I would be a UK 9E as I am in C&J generally (Portman 3 and Westfield).

    However, I took delivery of the Weybridge in a 9E today and it is indeed tight in the toebox, though not unbearably so in the left foot. My right foot is more the problem as it usually is.

    I did a fair bit of walking today so I am going to hold onto them until the morning to check fit. They may have to go back. Expensive to return shoes to the UK.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by