grc1
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,500
- Reaction score
- 3,270
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!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
You mean TG73, and burnham looks good
I'd second ttownmd's advice that you're more or less in the same fit universe with a 9F versus a 9.5E - I normally take 9.5E with an addition on the instep because mine is high, but I have a ("standard") 9.5F Rothschild and a 9F Sinatra. The differences are subtle - noticeable, but I'm clearly within the 9-9.5 E/F fit universe and there'll always be an element of compromise with standard-fit non-bespoke shoes. Generally speaking, I'm happy with the 9.5E as my default, but I think the 9F will work better on the wholecut Sinatra since I expect the single piece of leather will eventually "give" more than pieces that are stitched together. The 9F feels/looks ever so slightly shorter (it could be psychological, I've not bothered to measure) and I feel like I have more or less the same room against the sole - where I feel a difference is over the vamp, where it fits more snugly, as I intend for a whole-cut. As far as the 9.5F for the Rothschilds versus my 9.5Es, to be honest I can't really tell much difference.
Hope that helps!
I wear a 9.5F in MH71. Last summer I tried on a 10E during a visit to SkoAB and it was certainly a no go. Too much volume especially in the forefoot which would cause excessive creasing over the vamp. Not worth the risk for a $1000+ shoe.
That looks like the round deco to me. Or it could be the photo angle on a DG70. Either way, you're right - it's gorgeous.