Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know other threads discuss wide feet but only to ask which brands to buy. I wanted to begin a wider ( he he!) discussion on the whole subject. As an owner of wide feet - between and F and a G ( and definite G in Church's) - I think "E to EE" in U.S. - it really frustrates me how few shoe makers stock their models in wide fittings. Those that do have low stocks in wide fittings.

Yet when I spoke to the manager of Church's factory shop she said that more and more men have wide feet these days and she was pleading with Church's to make more "H" fit shoes - remember Church's and Cheaney shoesfit narrow.( I cannot even get their F shoes on with any degree of comfort) This would be like F/G or FX in EG or C&J

I do not believe that such a high percentage of men have "E" fit feet - at least not in the UK that this size is all most shops need to stock! I believe there are a lot of guys out there wearing shoes that pinch!

What I believe is happening is that ,english shoemakers are making shoes for yesterday's population and haven't adapted to modern sizing. It is to my constant annoyance that there are so few C&J models I can wear as most are made in E fit - and yes I have tried them on!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
I don't have the answers LM but I would like to purchase a number of C&J's if only they offered wider fittings. I can get along fine with the 337 in E but the shoes are the most elongated I have. Frankly, although they fit well enough, they look far too big. IIRC, many here drop a half size to absorb the length but a smaller size would be proportionately narrower and I can't get away with it.

On a slightly related note, I wonder if manufacturers should review their stock sizes. These usually run from 5.5 / 6 to 12ish but I wonder how this fits with average shoe sizes today. I took my daughter shopping last weekend for a pair of shoes and whilst in the store, a 10 year old boy was having his feet measured next to my daughter for new school shoes. Nothing strange about that except he was a size 12! The boy wasn't short but not that tall either. Feet like flippers for goodness sake. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,699 Posts
It's called the procrustean mentality; if it doesn't fit, we'll cut your foot to make it fit. A pox on all these makers and retailers who don't give a fig about actual fit. It's the same mentality that assumes that all men with a 17 1/2 neck have 34/35 inch arms. I spit on their collective faces!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I don't have the answers LM but I would like to purchase a number of C&J's if only they offered wider fittings. I can get along fine with the 337 in E but the shoes are the most elongated I have. Frankly, although they fit well enough, they look far too big. IIRC, many here drop a half size to absorb the length but a smaller size would be proportionately narrower and I can't get away with it.

On a slightly related note, I wonder if manufacturers should review their stock sizes. These usually run from 5.5 / 6 to 12ish but I wonder how this fits with average shoe sizes today. I took my daughter shopping last weekend for a pair of shoes and whilst in the store, a 10 year old boy was having his feet measured next to my daughter for new school shoes. Nothing strange about that except he was a size 12! The boy wasn't short but not that tall either. Feet like flippers for goodness sake. :eek:
Good point about length! I take a size 11 and I find it hard to credit that that puts me at the top end of length for most english makers - 12 being the longest most go with 13 in a handful of styles. This too confirms that most are making shoes for yesterday's men!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
The answer is....

to buy bespoke shoes. I'm on the opposite end of the shoe spectrum. I really need a C width, instead of the D width (US) I'm forced to buy. The C&J E fitting on the 337 last is too wide, and I'm forced to wear inserts and heavier socks (wool). The shoe manufacturers make what they sell the most of, so I don't really think its their fault. At least C&J are almost narrow enough. Cole Haan and Johnston & Murphy literally fall off my feet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
It's called the procrustean mentality; if it doesn't fit, we'll cut your foot to make it fit. A pox on all these makers and retailers who don't give a fig about actual fit. It's the same mentality that assumes that all men with a 17 1/2 neck have 34/35 inch arms. I spit on their collective faces!
Well maybe I wouldn't go that far:icon_smile_big: but I share the sentiment! I was recommended Cheaney's in an F fitting on a particular last but I've ended up with a pair of shoes that are much too narrow:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
to buy bespoke shoes. I'm on the opposite end of the shoe spectrum. I really need a C width, instead of the D width (US) I'm forced to buy. The C&J E fitting on the 337 last is too wide, and I'm forced to wear inserts and heavier socks (wool). The shoe manufacturers make what they sell the most of, so I don't really think its their fault. At least C&J are almost narrow enough. Cole Haan and Johnston & Murphy literally fall off my feet.
Indeed that is the ideal answer.

But I don't think they make what they sell most of, I think they sell what they make most of - if you get my meaning.

I symapthise with you as my dad has your width and once Church's stopped selling C width in the UK he stopped buying their shoes.

My guess though is that more men have wide feet and find both makers and styles restrictive - which when one is prepared to pay £300 plus seems a bit galling!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
P.S. - I am assuming that an english "F" is an American "E" and an english "G" is an American "EE" and an english "H" is an American "EEE"

Thus in some makes I am EE and in others like Edward Green I can take an American E as long as the last isn't narrow - eg the 808 - then things are tight. I was measured at Church's Factory as an "H" or "HH"! which translates, I think as "EEE or EEEE" - but I would need to go bespoke for that - Church's do make about four styles only in black on H last but no one else does!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts
The reason is, most people don't walk a lot. Therefore, they have narrow feet.

To have the widest feet, you should spend a lot of time going barefoot as a child and not wear shoes.

Since formal mens' shoes are an historically upperclass item of dress, they have tended to emphasise the slimness of the wearers' feet, to contrast with the wide toebox boots of the peasant.

These features have carried over into modern high end shoes.

In addition, narrow shoes have a squeezing effect on feet, an effect meant to civilize the uncivil and uncouth, as well as the young. This effect stems from Victorian methods of discipline, the tall stiff collar, and starched shirt. Just like corsets, and pointed shoes did for ladies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
You know you are right - that's what we need - a good bit of discipline! Now how does one bind feet these days:icon_smile_big:

It is my impression that in the UK most men do not have narrow feet however but wide feet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
998 Posts
What I believe is happening is that ,english shoemakers are making shoes for yesterday's population and haven't adapted to modern sizing. !
Why so few wide shoes? You live in England.

American shoe makers make shoes for big American feet.

Now that poses the question...why do we have more people with bigger feet here than there? I have 3 answers.

1- a larger population. More people here with big feet.

2-We eat more.. Bigger people=bigger feet.

3-Lots of cross breeding.

Now #3 is a theory. But I believe it's possible that the more ancestors you have that weren't British the bigger your feet. Simple enough.

So a simple and effective solution would be for British men and women to marry someone other than a fellow Brit and eat more.
In 3-6 months more Brits will be bigger with wider feet and in 18-20 years your children will be born with bigger feet. Easy enough.

Church's, CJ and Edward Green will wise up guaranteed.

In the meantime order Allen Edmonds or Alden shoes..They know big feet:icon_smile_big:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
All this complaining. Gentlemen, you don't know how lucky you are.
I wear 4 E running shoes. In fact, many 4 E running shoes ( trainers)
are too narrow. In addition, I have proportionally narrow heels and low
insteps. Allen Edmonds, Alden, etc do not fit. I have learned not to believe
the shoe salesman when snug-fitting shoes in the store may "broken in"
with time. The same with stretching. Well-constructed shoes do not
change appreciably with wear or stretching. Twenty-five years ago
I could wear a few Churches or Allen Edmonds models in 3E. Those
models no longer exist. Also my feet have expanded with time.
Three years ago, in Vienna, I found one model of Ludwig Reiters that kind of
fit... not perfectly, but adequately for dress shoes. And it was a new last!
I bought two pairs. This was after visiting Vass in Budapest, Balint and
several others in Vienna. I cannot afford bespoke and would not trust
bespoke unless I could travel for try-ons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
What I believe is happening is that ,english shoemakers are making shoes for yesterday's population and haven't adapted to modern sizing. It is to my constant annoyance that there are so few C&J models I can wear as most are made in E fit - and yes I have tried them on!
What is/has happened is that most people are [strike]idiots[/strike] ignorant, both buyers and marketers.

For *years* I thought I was a size 8.5-9 because *as a child* I wore a very narrow shoe, and when, after years in the military and working jobs where I was on my feet alot, I would go shoe shopping I got the most comfort from shoes about that size.

It wasn't until 2-3 years ago, after reading here and doing some research, that I found out that I am a 7.5 EE in American sizes.

I think this is one reason you see so many people in gym shoes/trainers. Those shoes, being much softer, will distort more to fit ones foot than a good leather shoe.

There is sort of a "vicious cycle", or "downward spiral" that develops--people don't know that to get a comfortable shoe it has to fit properly, so they assume that dress shoes aren't comfortable. They then buy trainers or casual/walking shoes (which tend to be a little wider and softer IME), which means fewer people are buying dress shoes, which causes manufacturers and retailers to make/stock only the stuff that fits "most" people, which means less comfortable for most people, rinse lather repeat.

Hopefully we'll get "mass customization" technology soon, whereby you can have your foot "scanned" and the shoe will be MTM for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
964 Posts
Hello,
I find it very confusing trying to compare width fittings across all of the different brands. For example I wear a G in Church's, an F when buying EGs on the 202 last, an E when buying EG side gusset shoes on the 82 last (just because the elastic gives a little I think), an F in Grensons, a G in Sanders and, most confusing of all, I'm a standard "5" width fitting at Tricker's! I've noticed that there are now some Tricker's "7" width shoes in the factory shop and can't even begin to imagine how wide those must be!

What makes things really hard in my opinion is how often a shoe seems to fit well in "controlled conditions" in a shop but can actually start to rub when used for serious walking.

Chris.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Hello,
I find it very confusing trying to compare width fittings across all of the different brands. For example I wear a G in Church's, an F when buying EGs on the 202 last, an E when buying EG side gusset shoes on the 82 last (just because the elastic gives a little I think), an F in Grensons, a G in Sanders and, most confusing of all, I'm a standard "5" width fitting at Tricker's! I've noticed that there are now some Tricker's "7" width shoes in the factory shop and can't even begin to imagine how wide those must be!

What makes things really hard in my opinion is how often a shoe seems to fit well in "controlled conditions" in a shop but can actually start to rub when used for serious walking.

Chris.
Yep.

F/G - Church's although I prefer G & have been measured as such
F - EG 888
E/F - 202/606/82
5(E) - Tricker's 1829 last
F - G&G

In the case of EG & G&G, I am on the limit of their width fittings (OK I know EG offer the 202 in a G).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
What is/has happened is that most people are [strike]idiots[/strike] ignorant, both buyers and marketers.

For *years* I thought I was a size 8.5-9 because *as a child* I wore a very narrow shoe, and when, after years in the military and working jobs where I was on my feet alot, I would go shoe shopping I got the most comfort from shoes about that size.

It wasn't until 2-3 years ago, after reading here and doing some research, that I found out that I am a 7.5 EE in American sizes.

I think this is one reason you see so many people in gym shoes/trainers. Those shoes, being much softer, will distort more to fit ones foot than a good leather shoe.

There is sort of a "vicious cycle", or "downward spiral" that develops--people don't know that to get a comfortable shoe it has to fit properly, so they assume that dress shoes aren't comfortable. They then buy trainers or casual/walking shoes (which tend to be a little wider and softer IME), which means fewer people are buying dress shoes, which causes manufacturers and retailers to make/stock only the stuff that fits "most" people, which means less comfortable for most people, rinse lather repeat.

Hopefully we'll get "mass customization" technology soon, whereby you can have your foot "scanned" and the shoe will be MTM for you.
There's a lot of truth in this and it is kind of my point - I believe, and it can only be a belief based on anecdote, that many men in the UK think they have a "normal" width foot but find dress shoes uncomfortable so give up except for work and then they put up with shoes that pinch thinking that's what dress shoes do!

If Edward Green only offer the 202 last in a G fit this makes my point. If a company like that doesn't offer a fit wider than F ( their F is wider than most) then what hope is there?
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top