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!
Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by rabiesinfrance, Sep 5, 2012.
I was just looking at the new downloadable catalogue and it appears the 2003 last is now gone, unless the 125 is the same.
2003 and 125 are not the same. 125 is a nice, slightly elongated round toe, while the 2003 is similar to Church's classic round toe 73 last iirc.
Sounds interesting... does it have more or less room in the toe box than the 2003 and 175? For me, it's always a challenge finding lasts with sufficient room up front for my toes.
The Cheaney 125 last reminds me of the Church's 173 last but I'm only basing that on internet pics
Owning both, I can say the Cheaney 125 are far roomier in the toe box than the Church 173.
Compare for example the Arthur III in an F fitting with a Chetwyn in an F fitting. You could almost size a half-size down in the Arthur.
No experience with the 2003. Was it you who had posted that the 2003 was the same as Church's 73? Cheaney's 2003 and Church's 73 both look like short round lasts to me, but apparently fit tts when converted a full size US9D = UK8F. As for the 175, I've read that it runs small and it's perhaps best to take only .5 down from your US size, i.e. US9D = UK8.5F. Again, no experience with that last.
I have the Arthur III in Dark Brown (Plough?) suede. It's quite roomy in my usual UK8 size, but I don't think I could comfortably size down to a UK7.5 on the 125 last.
^^^sorry for the misunderstanding--I don't think you can actually size down, but it is roomy enough where you could almost size down.
I was told by Cheaney that the 2003 and the Church's 73 are the same last and I definitely go down 1 full size from US to UK for those lasts. I think I mispoke when I mentioned the 175: I also go down 1 full size from US to UK in that last. I was actually wondering about the 125, and the photos below (from the Cheaney website) make the 125 (left) look very similar to the 2003 (right).
To my eye, the 125 looks to have a more straight-ahead toe, while the 2003 hooks more.
I'm pretty sure the soles in those images are identical, and I mean they used the exact same image. I suspect that it doesn't belong to either shoe.
DD, the 125 appears marginally slimmer in those pics. It also seems to have a longer vamp than the 2003, i.e. the distance between the bottom eyelets and the toecap is longer.
Thanks for the comments - now that I look closer it's clear there are significant differences in proportions. And yes, I was the guy who was told by Sheila Bone at Cheaney that the Church's 73 last was the same as the Cheaney 2003 last, just under a different name. I'm still hoping someone in Toronto will stop selling crap Chinitalian shoes and start selling the Cheaney Imperials so I can buy them...
Separate names with a comma.