LOAKE APPRECIATION THREAD

[cbfn]

Jesper is very knowledgable about shoes and I think he is correct. Loake, even the 1880-line, is not very good quality IMO.

 

[Munky]

A lot of it depends on what we can afford, cbnf. Those of us on restricted budgets tend to be very appreciate of Loake 1880s!

 

[Aerolord]

Hey guys, need some advice.

I will soon be purchasing two pairs of Loake, mainly Tan Buckingham and Dark Brown Cannon, but I do not know my size. Knowing how I purchase shoes last time, I never get a good and perfect fit, never. My shoes are always loose and this time, the two Loake shoes will be the more expensive shoes that I will be buying and I would like to know...

What is a good fit?

I managed to try Buckingham locally, a size 7 is too loose, a size 6 fit is snugged but cause a slight uncomfortable at the back of my feet. The store did not carry any shoes of size .5 and so I am unable to determine if 6.5 is perfect for me or should I just stick with 6?

Thank you.

 

[Munky]

Areolord, only you can answer this question. The issue of 'fit' is subjective and you need to try on a few pairs of both of the shoes you want to buy and see which is the most comfortable. It will help if the shop you buy them from can measure your feet. Also, take advice from them about fit. In my experience, they can see beyond the fit in the shop and have a considered opinion about what the shoes may feel like down the line.

Also, bear in mind the variation in fit between different makes of shoe. I have shoes that range from 10 to 8 and a half. Try to get the hang of makers' standards of fit. But, if at all possible, try on various shoes, as suggested, above.

 

[Aerolord]

Areolord, only you can answer this question. The issue of 'fit' is subjective and you need to try on a few pairs of both of the shoes you want to buy and see which is the most comfortable. It will help if the shop you buy them from can measure your feet. Also, take advice from them about fit. In my experience, they can see beyond the fit in the shop and have a considered opinion about what the shoes may feel like down the line.

Also, bear in mind the variation in fit between different makes of shoe. I have shoes that range from 10 to 8 and a half. Try to get the hang of makers' standards of fit. But, if at all possible, try on various shoes, as suggested, above.

It's hard to find shoes locally to try though. There is a Church's boutique locally, think it will be any help to find a good Loake sizing?

 

[theinsomniac]

Hey guys, need some advice.

I will soon be purchasing two pairs of Loake, mainly Tan Buckingham and Dark Brown Cannon, but I do not know my size. Knowing how I purchase shoes last time, I never get a good and perfect fit, never. My shoes are always loose and this time, the two Loake shoes will be the more expensive shoes that I will be buying and I would like to know...

What is a good fit?

I managed to try Buckingham locally, a size 7 is too loose, a size 6 fit is snugged but cause a slight uncomfortable at the back of my feet. The store did not carry any shoes of size .5 and so I am unable to determine if 6.5 is perfect for me or should I just stick with 6?

Thank you.

What's the size you normally buy? Sounds like 6.5 might be the one to me.

If the 6 is tight at the back when you're just trying it on, it'll probably be more pronounced when you actually walk in them. At least that's been the experience for me when I thought the shoes were fitted 'snug'.

 

[cbfn]



A lot of it depends on what we can afford, cbnf. Those of us on restricted budgets tend to be very appreciate of Loake 1880s!

Quality is not dependent on budget. However, as a recently graduated student I know the struggle of being on a strict budget, and I already own a couple of Loakes 1880-line; while they are excellent shoes compared to what 99.9% of people usually wear, my years here have made me understood what high quality really is.

 

[Claus]



What is a good fit?

IIRC, Bengal-Stripe offered the best description I've come across: A shoe should feel like a firm handshake from the heel to the ball, and your toes should have enough room to play the piano.

Additionally, there should be a space of about 1/2 an inch from the tip of your toes to the tip of the shoe, but this is hard to test correctly. It should be sufficient, however, if the size of the shoes are close to your measured size.

The problem with pre-selecting a certain model is that you also pre-select a certain last-width combination. For instance, the Cannon and the Buckingham are both made on the Capital last in F.

This determines the form of the shoe. If it doesn't match the form of your feet, changing the size may not be sufficient to achieve a good fit.

If you really want these models, UK 6.5 is probably the better decision, since it's generally easier to reduce the volume of a shoe by adding inlays in the heel or below the tongue. Any good shoemaker should be able to do this for you.

 

[alexSF]



Quality is not dependent on budget. However, as a recently graduated student I know the struggle of being on a strict budget, and I already own a couple of Loakes 1880-line; while they are excellent shoes compared to what 99.9% of people usually wear, my years here have made me understood what high quality really is.

I definitely agree, Loake are very good shoes until compared side by side with superior shoes, the BIG difference is in the lasts- volumes- shapes, they make a huge difference in quality and beauty feeling, definitely more than materials used.

For example when I put my Cannon on capital last next to my EG on 82 last, the loake last (and especially heel shape and heel height) look ridiculously coarse.
Forgiving the comparision and wearing them they are surely nice, albeit not so comfortable. (All my loakes almost feel like there isn't cork filling under insole)

In the same league, I strongly prefer Sanders talking of comfort and general finish, unfortunately their range lack of similar alternatives to 1880 range and is more casual oriented.

 

[Odradek]



I definitely agree, Loake are very good shoes until compared side by side with superior shoes, the BIG difference is in the lasts- volumes- shapes, they make a huge difference in quality and beauty feeling, definitely more than materials used.

For example when I put my Cannon on capital last next to my EG on 82 last, the loake last (and especially heel shape and heel height) look ridiculously coarse.
Forgiving the comparision and wearing them they are surely nice, albeit not so comfortable. (All my loakes almost feel like there isn't cork filling under insole)

In the same league, I strongly prefer Sanders talking of comfort and general finish, unfortunately their range lack of similar alternatives to 1880 range and is more casual oriented.

I think Loake 1880 are very good, but yes, I do notice the soles being quite hard.

I would love a pair of Sander Belgrade, but they are carried by so few shops that you never see them or get a chance to try them on.

 

[Munky]

There certainly is, if not a correlation between cost and quality, then an association, cbnf. To use a reductio ad absurdum, most people who go anywhere near shoes would probably admit there is a difference between John Lobb custom made and Clark's slip ons. The difference would be both in quality and price.

Interestingly, the contributors, above, are comparing Loake's with other, more expensive shoes. They also seem to be suggesting that those more expensive shoes also have more quality.

 

[BrooksLauren77]

I definitely agree, Loake are very good shoes until compared side by side with superior shoes, the BIG difference is in the lasts- volumes- shapes, they make a huge difference in quality and beauty feeling, definitely more than materials used.

For example when I put my Cannon on capital last next to my EG on 82 last, the loake last (and especially heel shape and heel height) look ridiculously coarse.
Forgiving the comparision and wearing them they are surely nice, albeit not so comfortable. (All my loakes almost feel like there isn't cork filling under insole)

In the same league, I strongly prefer Sanders talking of comfort and general finish, unfortunately their range lack of similar alternatives to 1880 range and is more casual oriented.

Sanders Ambassador range is priced similarly to Loake 1880, no? I've seen oxford shoes in that range.

 

[alexSF]



Sanders Ambassador range is priced similarly to Loake 1880, no? I've seen oxford shoes in that range.

I really like their Casual / Mcnairy / Thom Browne ranges, and I own/owned and handled lots of models,
but honestly I never found their Ambassadors range interesting, too "old man" lasts and styles, some really UGLY like their penny loafer.
Diplomats are nicer but I don't have experience with them.

Their best is obviously the casual/country range and private labeling.

 

[ajc2162]

Jesper is very knowledgable about shoes and I think he is correct. Loake, even the 1880-line, is not very good quality IMO.

Hi cbfn, have a look at the heading of this thread. I'm sure it wasn't your intention but have you considered the negative impact of your post?

It's like turning up at a wedding and telling all the happy family guests that the bride's doesn't look very nice "IMO" - and then leaving and closing the door behind you.

It tends to throw a cloud over the whole proceedings.

You obviously know a lot about shoes; so how about explaining the reasons why Loake are of poor quality and what other shoes we should be looking at that provide better quality at a similar price point?

 

[Munky]

Your comment, cbfn, seems to have a had a ripple effect. Other contributors immediately raise the issue of how much better other shoes are than Loakes. Ajc is right; this is thread about Loake appreciation. If you don't appreciate Loakes, why not post your comments on another thread?