Polo, C&J, Redding UK/US size adjustments

[william]

I just bought the Polo Redding made by C&J in the size that Polo calls 9.5US. It fits perfectly. I had the impression (from an email exchange with a C&J rep) that Polo sized this particular model down a whole size b/c of the 337 last. So I thought this would translate to an 8.5UK. I purchased a pair of C&J Audleys in 8.5UK from Plal last week and have worn them twice.

It's clear to me now that my sizing suspicions were wrong and now I have a fairly uncomfortable C&J handgrade. The only thing is I feel if I went up a half size my heel would slip too much.

I guess Polo uses the UK size minus half size across the board to size their shoes?

Chris

ps Living in Atlanta makes shoe shopping a royal pain in the a**. I wish I could just walk into a store and try a bunch of C&J on in person!!

 

[heavyd]

Glad they fit. I wear 11 AE but 11.5 in the Redding. Depends on width I think b/c that shoe does run a little narrow. As I mentioned in a earlier post, I have the C&J chucka by RL and it sizes the exact same.

Personally, I 'd rather keep buying them 50% off at the polo.com website

 

[william]

Originally Posted by heavyd

Glad they fit. I wear 11 AE but 11.5 in the Redding. Depends on width I think b/c that shoe does run a little narrow. As I mentioned in a earlier post, I have the C&J chucka by RL and it sizes the exact same.

Interesting. I just ordered my usual 9.5 AE size.

Originally Posted by heavyd

Personally, I 'd rather keep buying them 50% off at the polo.com website

Absolutely...me too. Plal's prices are pretty good though. $405 for handgrades and $350 for benchgrades. One could build a very impressive shoe collection just using Plal alone...that's why I'm trying to figure this sizing stuff out.

 

[Mr. Pink]

I think Polo does use he 1/2 size down for everything. So the lasts really matter. I have the Darlton penny loafer in a 12 (my normal US size) and it fits fine. I think that's a 314 last. Same for a pair of Mackays on the 888 last. But I just received the Reddings in a 12 and they are a half size too big. I've learned that on the 337 and 350 lasts I need to go down a full size.

 

[william]

Okay thanks for the info.

 

[grimslade]

This is interesting. I was wondering this myself. I've tried on C&J 337s in the NY store in an 11. I couldn't swear either way whether the 12s I got from Polo are bigger, but they fit me really well. May require a trip back to T&A to compare the 11.5s (which I did not try on).

 

[NoVaguy]

Here's what I found:

I generally wear 10.5 D for AE, with no issues except (1) the 5 last (Park Avenue) is too tight and long, and (2) most AE welted loafers are too long, and (3) the York is like just less than a quarter size loose (double zip boot), (4) the Garner (monkstrap, known to be one of AE's wider lasts) is slightly loose.

Most AE laceups, and other monks fit fine (MacNeil, Hillcrest, Cornell, Dellwood, Stockbridge, Ellis, Walton, etc).

Ok, here are my experiences with the RL Polo's.

For the RL Polo Chawner (double buckle monk) - I found 10.5D to be a good fit.

For the Darlton Shell Cord. Wingtip - I found 10.5D to be tight widthwise, fine lengthwise.

For the RL Redding Chelsea - I found 10.5 to be a tad slightly long and fairly tight width-wise.

For the RL Halmore Chelsea - I found the 10.5 to be fine lengthwise, slightly tight width-wise.

For the Shell Cordovan Penny Loafer (forget the model name) - I found them to be too loose.

For the RL Holland Suede Jodphur - I found it to fit fairly well.

(I bought and decided to resell all of the above, though).

I have a few other RL's, but can't remember the model names. The massive laceup boots with the double buckle thing at the top fits fine, although I think I'll resell those as well.

 

[Baron]

How does the fit of the 337 compare to the 348? I have a pair of Drummonds in 8.5EUK, and they fit perfectly. That's odd, as I wear 9.5D or 10D in everthing else. Should I assume that the 337 9EUK would be correct (as I'd normally assume) or would I also wear an 8.5E (or 9D for the Redding) to match my fit in the 348?

 

[grimslade]

My experience is that the 348 is tighter (narrower) through the balls of the feet than the 337. This, despite appearances and expectations to the contrary.

 

[heavyd]

Originally Posted by grimslade

My experience is that the 348 is tighter (narrower) through the balls of the feet than the 337. This, despite appearances and expectations to the contrary.


are we certain this redding boot is a 337 handgrade?

just seems odd to let hundreds go at $330 on sale...

 

[grimslade]

Originally Posted by heavyd

are we certain this redding boot is a 337 handgrade?

just seems odd to let hundreds go at $330 on sale...

Well, I was referring to actual C&J handgrades and 348s that I've tried on, not the boots in question. I don't have the Reddings, but I do have the Hollands, which I am pretty confident are on the 337 last. The Holland has channeled soles, unlike the C&J chelseas, but the insoles are only half-lined, in contrast to, say, the Polo Bentons. So are the "full" handgrades? I really don't know. They strike me as likely to be built to spec for RL. They are certainly not the stock C&J jodhpur boot, which has a rounded toe and stitched-aloft soles.

EDITED to remove erroneous speculation about the Redding vs. Holland fit. They are on different lasts, and the Reddings maybe fit a little narrower. Construction-wise, they are otherwise comparable (channeled soles, half-lined insoles, a chunkier welting than, say, the Bentons).

 

[NoVaguy]

Hmmm, I found that my redding fit differently then my holland. I don't think they were the same last. Both worth owning, though.

 

[minimal]

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

Hmmm, I found that my redding fit differently then my holland. I don't think they were the same last. Both worth owning, though.

Interesting you mention this: I bought both the Holland and the Redding. The Holland has a "337" in it's id#, while the Redding has a "338". They definitely fit differently: the Holland a bit wider. And the "square" of the toe on the Holland is a bit wider. Comparing them both to my C&J Weymouths, the Holland seems to be identical except the toe is a *tiny* bit wider. The Redding is noticably more narrow in the midsection and toe.

Thanks to all you SFers out there: after seeing that "Polo Sale" thread show up near the top for a friggin week, I finally clicked in to see what you were all talking about. And now I've got 3 pairs of stunning shoes at an excellent discount, thanks to you.

 

[grimslade]

very good to know. thanks guys. the holland has more sole extension than the weymouth, which may account for the size difference.

 

[minimal]

Originally Posted by grimslade

very good to know. thanks guys. the holland has more sole extension than the weymouth, which may account for the size difference.

I don't think so: if you look at both from the top they are noticeably different. But, I add that one has elastic gussets, while the other has the jodpur-type opening. And the soft-square toe shapes are different: narrower on the Redding.

Both are just beautiful. A great score.