# I really like Cheaney Shoes



## jmonroestyle (Nov 6, 2006)

I have noticed that Cheaney shoes are not discussed very much on this forum, and I am curious as to why.

I recently purchased 3 pairs of Cheaney shoes. The "Deal" which is a Dainite soled country style shoe, the "Sloane" which is a cap toe balmoral, and the "Bobby II" which is a 4 eyelet lace-up blucher. The Deal and Sloane are part of the Cheaney of England collection, while the Bobby II is part of the Avant Garde collection.

These shoes are all shown on the Cheaney web site,

https://www.cheaney.co.uk

as well as the Herring Shoes website.

https://www.herringshoes.co.uk

I am very impressed with the quality of these shoes. I would say the materials and construction rival Trickers and C&J Benchgrade. They are priced about the same as Alden shoes (when purchased from a UK retailer and one backs out the VAT tax) and built at least as well, if not even better. I would put the leather quality of the Cheaney of England and Avant Garde series above Alfred Sargent Premier series, and the Cheaney lasts fit me much better than AS.

The Sloane is the 2nd best cap toe bal Cheaney makes. The have one model a notch up in their Signature series called the Caine. I went with the Sloane because it had a wider toe box, and I need all the toe room I can get. The Sloane and Bobby II have a toe that is similar in shape to the toe on the Alden Plaza last.

I have used the AAAC search feature, and not found a whole bunch of posts from people excited about their Cheaney shoes. Here in the U.S.A. they retail for about $450, which is hardly an inexpensive shoe. I purchased mine from Herring Shoes in the UK and I am very pleased with the shoes and the excellent service of Herring Shoes.

Perhaps there are some other Cheaney shoe enthusiasts out there that would share what they like about their Cheaney shoes (or don't like about them if that is the case).

Jess


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Cheaney shoes vary considerably, from the sublime to the downright awful. The range sold by Austin Reed are amongst the worst English shoes that I have had the misfortune to see in any London store. The Ede & Ravenscroft Cheaneys are amongst the best, close to Edward Green.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Not forgetting they are owned by Church's and positioned (I think) slightly downmarket of them. They do MTO as well. They probably suffer because of Church's also being a brand that is not well regarded on the forum for the price (though some would argue differently).


----------



## jmonroestyle (Nov 6, 2006)

Rossini said:


> Not forgetting they are owned by Church's and positioned (I think) slightly downmarket of them. They do MTO as well. They probably suffer because of Church's also being a brand that is not well regarded on the forum for the price (though some would argue differently).


After experiencing the fine quality of these Cheaney shoes in full grain calf leather, not corrected grain, I don't see why I would possibly want to spend double the price for Church's shoes.

I bought a pair of Churchs about 20 years ago. The leather was super stiff and they were really uncomfortable. I tried wearing them a few times and then gave the shoes away. The leather on these Cheansy shoes looks great, and is soft and comfortable also.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Indeed. While I find the "polished binder" slightly frustrating, it does seem very hard-wearing and water-"resistant". Incidentally, I find my Church's extremely comfortable. They're all 5+ years old if that matters. But, like you, I prefer normal leather and I do find Church's these days overpriced for what they are compared to other options out there. I don't doubt Cheaney could offer better value. Whether they match Tricker's or AS, or C&J at discount prices, I don't know. Good to hear about them though.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

The Gieves and Hawkes shoes made by Cheaney are pretty nice. From taking a quick glance at the website, it looks as if they've gotten some new and better designs in their avant garde collection. Some even look Santoni-esque.


----------



## Nick V (May 8, 2007)

IMO Cheaney offers an excellent value. Not to be compared to Lobbs and the sort but, for the money you can't go wrong.


----------



## Brideshead (Jan 11, 2006)

Another attraction for me with Cheaney is that they make shoes exclusively for locally based shops. So you can find a model that is just that bit different from the main lines.

I bought a pair of Dainite soled brown grain brogues from my local shop in the Sale last month (£185 down to £150) and which are identical to these but a full brogue.










I have three pairs of Church's and (notwithstanding all the negativity here) I do find them more substantial and perhaps better finished than the Cheaneys but the Cheaneys look more attractive somehow.....


----------



## jmonroestyle (Nov 6, 2006)

omairp said:


> The Gieves and Hawkes shoes made by Cheaney are pretty nice. From taking a quick glance at the website, it looks as if they've gotten some new and better designs in their avant garde collection. Some even look Santoni-esque.


It is very interesting to know that there are a number of exclusive Cheaney shoes available that are made for various retailers.

I took a look at the Gieves and Hawkes web site, and saw they have some very nice Cheaney shoes available that are not part of Cheaney's stock line.

Does anyone have any links to other online retailers, in the UK or elsewhere, that has exclusive Cheaney shoes in their online catalog? I know about Joseph's Shoes in Philadelphia. Any others?

Jess


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

I have had three pairs of Cheaney's top line shoes and they were very good. Not as good as Tricker's i'm afraid but good nonetheless.

I rather like this shoe in their signature range:










I saw the shoe in person last time I visited Edwards (UK retailer in Manchester). Unfortunately the love affair was short lived as the heel is oversized. I don't think the shoe featured a 360-degree welt, but that didn't stop the heel from looking as though it had. This would be fine for a a country shoe but not for a dress shoe (someone should also explain this to AE :icon_smile_wink.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

The venerable old Canadian shoe making brand of Dack's now sells re-badged Cheaney shoes. I was recently in Toronto and missed another Dack's sale, but I compared the Cheaneys with the Church's (which Dack's also sells) and I was more favourably impressed with the Cheaneys than the Church's. Flawless shoes, as long as one recongizes they are not using the best leathers on the uppers. Having been somewhat disappointed by Alden recently, I will probably go back to Dack's/Cheaney, as the shoes I saw in Toronto were much better finished than the Aldens I've seen (and just bought).

DocD


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Rebranded Cheaneys vary considerably, not just in specification but quality control too. Cheaney and Church's approve blemishes and mistakes that would be rejected as seconds by C&J. Austin Reed's Cheaneys are generally poor, especially sale shoes, but I liked jjl5000's Raleigh -very elegant.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

*Cheaney quality*

As another poster has said Cheaney are owned by Church's shoes - or to put it more accurately both are owned by Prada. So, Church's are often damned by association and therefore Cheaney's are doubly damned by association - with Church's and Prada.

In the UK they retail for considerably less than C&J benchgrade - around £180 - 220 but I am not convinced they are as good as C&J.

A member of staff at Church's told me that it is a fact that the price difference between Church's and Cheaney's is because the Cheaney branch of the company uses lower quality leathers than Church's.

I think a few of their lasts are more attractive than Church's and I can not understand why Church don't offer an Adelaide in their main collection.

Cheaney are probably better value than Church's £ for £ because Church's , I believe, are overpriced. However they are not as overpriced as some esteemed members might think. I spoke to a retailer of high end English shoes ( not Herrings but I won't disclose my source:icon_smile_wink. I told him that many people on here do not rate Church's quality, lasts etc and also that the opinion of many is that they are overpriced. He said that they are a "little" overpriced - but only by £20-30 a pair., due to them trading on their name. He did say he knows for a fact that Church's very carefully cost out their shoes and the prices are not plucked out of thin air. So I assume the same is true for Cheaneys.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Leather man said:


> As another poster has said Cheaney are owned by Church's shoes - or to put it more accurately both are owned by Prada. So, Church's are often damned by association and therefore Cheaney's are doubly damned by association - with Church's and Prada.


This connection of ownership is really irrelevant because they do not operate as one company, they all have separate factories and production lines. Cheaney is not a down-market extension of the Church's brand, it's an entirely different brand altogether. Who cares if Cheaney is owned by Prada if they let Cheaney operate as it is?

Rolls-Royce is owned by VW, and Mercedes by Chrysler, but that doesn't mean that they are at all comparable.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

omairp said:


> This connection of ownership is really irrelevant because they do not operate as one company, they all have separate factories and production lines. Cheaney is not a down-market extension of the Church's brand, it's an entirely different brand altogether. Who cares if Cheaney is owned by Prada if they let Cheaney operate as it is?
> 
> Rolls-Royce is owned by VW, and Mercedes by Chrysler, but that doesn't mean that they are at all comparable.


I entirely agree :icon_smile: I was just expressing what some might be thinking and what I've read some say.

Actually Prada don't infere much with Church's either - at least no more than Cheaneys. To read some one might think Prada dictate everything that happens at Church's! FWIW they are not quite so separate as you think. Church and Cheaney leather is bought together and stored in the same warehouse but are of different grades as I said before. They also share the same distribution warehouse nowadays and there is a certain fluidity regarding sharing craftsmen.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

omairp said:


> . . . and Mercedes by Chrysler. . .


It was the other way round actually, although Chrysler has now been 'disposed of'.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I am grateful for you guys posting all of this information. I don't think we've seen it here before.

DocD


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Cheaney are a seriously underated manufacturer. 

Over the years I've owned numerous pairs from their various ranges. The quality of leather is quite noticeable. 

Their signature range are very well made and the leathers are vey nice, the hand burnishing is also quite good. Cost wise they go for around the £200 ($400) mark.

As you come down the ranges the quality of leather reduces, certainly not to the point of being poor but just doesn't have the 'feel' of the signature range.

Construction is very good and consistent across all the ranges, some of the newer styles have 'matrix welted' soles. When asked Cheaney advised this was a trimming of the outer edge of the sole to give a finer appearance.

I've recently purchased two pairs of the style Brompton (squared toe derby) from the factory shop. At £100 a pair I don't think you can go wrong for an every day shoe for work. I'm certainly pleased, as I'm quite heavy on shoes and they do take a hammering, the double leather soles hold up well and certainly last much longer then the (equivilant) Loakes I've had in the past.

Talking to the gentlemen in the shop, Cheaney are certainly very busy and spend a lot of manufacturing time producing for various retailers. From what I saw in the factory shop Cheaney certainly can make shoes that are of a very high quality, there were a few pairs on my last visit for a company called Fox's which didn't get shipped for whatever reason. They had channelled soles and the leather was equal if not better than the signature range.

The bottom line for me is that they've always fitted me well, have worn well and have stood up to a couple of factory repairs along the way. For what I've paid I've got no complaints.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

*A very good summary*

I think this is a very good summary of Cheaney's shoes. Church's also make a "matrix" sole ( not surprisingly of course) and I didn't know what it meant until now - so thank you fo rthe explanation!

I agree the Signature range has some lovely stuff in it. My problem is that I find the F width is too narrow for me and nearly all Cheaney's are "F" width.


----------



## Bishop of Briggs (Sep 7, 2007)

Leather man said:


> I agree the Signature range has some lovely stuff in it. My problem is that I find the F width is too narrow for me and nearly all Cheaney's are "F" width.


That's my problem too but I have bought a couple of G's from the Cheaney shop in New Bond Street.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I just noticed today that Cheaney has updated their website, with more consistent if less artful photography of their shoes. Personally, I'm really happy with my Cheaney Turner II shoes. The leather uppers are a bit thin but the construction is tough and solid, and well finished. The insole leather is a superb piece of leather.

Can anyone comment on which of their "lines" is the best, ranking down to the worst?

DocD


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Doctor Damage said:


> I just noticed today that Cheaney has updated their website, with more consistent if less artful photography of their shoes. Personally, I'm really happy with my Cheaney Turner II shoes. The leather uppers are a bit thin but the construction is tough and solid, and well finished. The insole leather is a superb piece of leather.
> 
> Can anyone comment on which of their "lines" is the best, ranking down to the worst?
> 
> DocD


The Signature range are their top shoes followed closely by the Avant Garde down to the essentials range which may or may not have some highly polished corrected grain leather.

I've owned Signature range (Original Turner) and Avant Garde and found the quality very good in both. The insoles I've always found very comfortable and mould very well.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Cheaney shoes look better in their shop in New Bond Street than on the internet pages.


----------



## MarkusH (Dec 10, 2004)

omairp said:


> Rolls-Royce is owned by VW, and Mercedes by Chrysler, but that doesn't mean that they are at all comparable.


I don't really know where to start, but I will give it a try:

1. Rolls-Royce is owned by BMW. Current models mainly share the engine with BMW, but a model based on the BMW 7 series is in the works.
2. Mercedez Benz is owned by Daimler, which used to own Chrysler, but sold it.

3. Bentley is owned by Volkswagen AG, which acquired Rolls Royce Motors, but not the Rolls Royce brand. The VW Phaeton is build on the same platform as the Bentley Continental, so the two are indeed highly comparable.


----------



## ade2504 (Sep 5, 2007)

*Clements & Church Shoes*

Clements & Church have their shoes made by Cheaney and are really nice. I had a pair for my wedding and have been really pleased. Take a look on their website. (www.clementsandchurch.co.uk)


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

ade2504 said:


> Clements & Church have their shoes made by Cheaney and are really nice. I had a pair for my wedding and have been really pleased. Take a look on their website. (www.clementsandchurch.co.uk)


Love the pic of the shoes. Sadly no shoe pics on the website,


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Today I am wearing my one pair of Cheaneys: They are Belgraves, a brown-suede perfed captoe balmoral. 

They are well worn and have given good service for about five years now. I'll probably be replacing them soon, possibly with another pair of Cheaneys, assuming the suede Belgrave is still made.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Cole-Haan English made shoes were once made by Cheaney, should they still proffer an English line. C-H had a few English the last time I checked their web site a couple of years ago. Styling may be dubious.

When Kent & Curwen (Japanese ownership?) was resurrected in London a few years ago they featured Cheaney. Is K&C extant?


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

jamgood said:


> Cole-Haan English made shoes were once made by Cheaney, should they still proffer an English line. C-H had a few English the last time I checked their web site a couple of years ago. Styling may be dubious.
> 
> When Kent & Curwen (Japanese ownership?) was resurrected in London a few years ago they featured Cheaney. Is K&C extant?


The London shop is now closed; their site says they'll reopen somewhere else in the city, but doesn't say when (given the current retail climate, one wonders). Otherwise, it's all about selling the K&C version of _le style Anglais_ in the Far East:


----------



## Chief (Jan 21, 2009)

*Cheaney*

There was a guy from Cheaney in the John Lewis department store a few weeks back demonstrating how Goodyear welted shoes are stripped down for a re-craft. He had both Cheaney and Church's shoes with him.

I got chatting with him about the differences and he said "not much". Of the differences he mentioned:

1) Churches use less of the hide than Cheaney - he said something like 70% v's 80% used.

2) Churches use thicker leather in certain parts - I assume he meant the sole?

3) Churches shoes are air dried (referring to glue) whereas Cheaney use a machine/heater or something.

The guy basically implied Cheaney were much better value for money but both were good shoes.


----------



## shatal (Oct 20, 2008)

I like their styles but unfortunately, I can't wear them as most of their shoes come in F fitting and I have wide feet.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

Chief said:


> 2) Churches use thicker leather in certain parts - I assume he meant the sole?


It would apply to the uppers, depending on the shoe model.


----------



## BAB (Dec 22, 2007)

Gentlemen!
Any good sources of Cheaney on the web (apart from Herring), e.g. British ebay?


Thanks!


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Chief said:


> There was a guy from Cheaney in the John Lewis department store a few weeks back demonstrating how Goodyear welted shoes are stripped down for a re-craft. He had both Cheaney and Church's shoes with him.
> 
> I got chatting with him about the differences and he said "not much". Of the differences he mentioned:
> 
> ...


On point 2 he will mean areas like heel and toe explaining why Church's shoes hold up so much longer. He will also mean certain models, explainig why Cheaney country shoes are much flimsier than Church's country models.

On point 3 - its not at all clear. It could apply to the tanning stage - I know Church's insist on air dried skins whereas companys making cheaper shoes have the skins machine heat dried. Either way even if your interpretation is correct it is an additiional cost to Church.

On point 1 , using less of the hide implies Church's are being more picky than Cheaney.

I was also told by a Church's manager that the quality of skins Church use is higher than Cheaney. He said "To understand the difference across our company, think of it this way - Church spare no expense, it is the product alone they have in mind, Cheaney are more cost conscious and so that comes into play more for that part of our company"

I do not think you can draw the implication from what the Cheaney guy told you that essentially Cheaney shoes are practically as good as a Church's shoe for less money. Don't get me wrong, I like some Cheaney models very much and their latest stuff is very attractive indeed, if only I could fit into it, but you do get what you pay for in the English shoe industry - I looked into that question long and hard before taking the plunge many years ago in deciding which makes to indulge in!


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

BAB said:


> Gentlemen!
> Any good sources of Cheaney on the web (apart from Herring), e.g. British ebay?
> 
> Thanks!


eBay is good source; also look for Gieves & Hawkes and English-made Paul Smith shoes, they made by Cheaney.

Websites:
- they have a sale
https://www.edwardsofmanchester.co.uk/ - they have a sale
https://www.andersonsofdurham.co.uk/


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Leather man said:


> On point 2 he will mean areas like heel and toe explaining why Church's shoes hold up so much longer. He will also mean certain models, explainig why Cheaney country shoes are much flimsier than Church's country models.
> 
> On point 3 - its not at all clear. It could apply to the tanning stage - I know Church's insist on air dried skins whereas companys making cheaper shoes have the skins machine heat dried. Either way even if your interpretation is correct it is an additiional cost to Church.
> 
> ...


+1 LM

Whilst being the same company, Church's defiantely use the better skins or the better part of the skins. Whilst that infers a quality difference it should be noted that Cheaney shoes have always been to a high standard and the Signature grade lines are excellent.

I've found over the years Cheaney to be the adventerous arm (in terms of styles/lasts) of the Church's group, which I can only assume is a position the group has deliberately setup. They frequently bring out new lasts, new styles (3 times a year on occasions) whilst the core catalogue only changes every 2 years. I get the impression that the group send the feelers out into the market place with new lines from Desborough whilst maintaining it's core business from St James's. The group is doing well (after my last visit) so it would seem the setup & approach works.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

ade2504 said:


> Clements & Church have their shoes made by Cheaney and are really nice. I had a pair for my wedding and have been really pleased. Take a look on their website. (www.clementsandchurch.co.uk)


Leather Man,

This is that shoe:

https://www.julesb.co.uk/menswear-1...y-black-bell-shoes-109948.htm?attributes[2]=1

Here's another on the same last:

https://www.julesb.co.uk/menswear-1...-leather-punched-109939.htm?attributes[2]=112

Made on the 11525 last, which is very long and narrow.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

I recently bought a pair of Cheaney- made Herring Asquith as slight seconds from Herring. Had I not paid only 95GBP for them I would have been disappointed. I am a great fan of Loake 1880 and the Herring own label version of the same and can honestly say that I prefer the Loake. The leather seems to be the same to me and the soles are thicker in the Loakes. However, my preference could be clouded by the fact that the 026 last on which the 1880s are built is to my eyes and foot ideal.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Groover said:


> Leather Man,
> 
> This is that shoe:
> 
> ...


Thank you Groover for the links. It certainly is a very elegant looking shoe. I also agree with you that Cheaney is the more adventurous arm of the Church/Cheaney group and that the Signature range is rather nice!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Lots of good info in this thread!

For trivia buffs, I just tore out the sock liners from my Cheaney Turner II brogues (last 2003) to replace them and noticed the insole has a size printed on it (photo below). The shoes are labelled size 10.5F, whereas the insole says 10.5 EE.

https://img12.imageshack.us/i/cheaneyinsole2.jpg/


----------



## rwjones (Jan 29, 2009)

Dug up this thread in a search and was wondering.. does P. Lal still have the best deals on Cheaneys (about $200+shipping)?

I had a pair of AEs picked out but now I'm beginning to think I'll give Cheneays a whirl since they're roughly the same price.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Doctor Damage said:


> Lots of good info in this thread!
> 
> For trivia buffs, I just tore out the sock liners from my Cheaney Turner II brogues (last 2003) to replace them and noticed the insole has a size printed on it (photo below). The shoes are labelled size 10.5F, whereas the insole says 10.5 EE.
> 
> https://img12.imageshack.us/i/cheaneyinsole2.jpg/


One is the American sizing and one the British sizing but its very unexpected that it is the American sizing that is on the insole!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Leather man said:


> One is the American sizing and one the British sizing but its very unexpected that it is the American sizing that is on the insole!


It certainly explains why the F width is too wide for you, since F is Cheaney's standard "medium" width.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

*Cheaney vs Dack's (sizing):*

Now that Dack's has gone out of business the only way I can get Cheaney shoes is by ordering directly from the UK. I bought a pair of Peal/C&J shoes a month ago, thinking they might be better, but I returned them because the fit was poor and in my opinion they are not as robust or solid as my Cheaney shoes. However, ordering directly from the UK presents a sizing issue, so I contacted Cheaney about sizing of the shoes Cheaney made for Dack's. Here's what they said:


> Sizing is a complicated issue. Canadian and US sizes are generally one size down on the length and one width fitting up when compared to UK sizes. I have spoken to the person in charge of production to ascertain whether the sizes on shoes produced for Dacks were made on true US sized lasts or on UK sized lasts. However, the answer is not clear-cut, as we have apparently done both! If you are a 10D in US/Canadian produced shoes, you would need a UK 9F. F is the standard UK width fitting.


I wear a 10.5D in American shoes and a 10.5D/F in the shoes made by Cheaney for Dack's, so it's pretty clear that Cheaney re-labelled their shoes for Dack's. Now I am pretty certain that I know the size I need to order for Cheaney. (Church's, helpfully, prints both US and UK sizes on their boxes destined for North America.)

*Cheaney refurbishment:*

I also asked Cheaney about refurbishment and this was their response:


> With regard to refurbishment, the cost will be £95 per pair (oak bark soles are £110) inclusive of return carriage within the UK and we would appreciate the remittance with your shoes, together with your contact details. Cheques should be made payable to 'Cheaney Shoes Ltd'.
> 
> The refurbishment process normally takes approximately 6 working weeks and the shoes should be returned to:
> 
> ...


Hopefully this is useful information for some of you guys!


----------



## Nick V (May 8, 2007)

Doctor Damage said:


> *Cheaney vs Dack's (sizing):*
> 
> Now that Dack's has gone out of business the only way I can get Cheaney shoes is by ordering directly from the UK. I bought a pair of Peal/C&J shoes a month ago, thinking they might be better, but I returned them because the fit was poor and in my opinion they are not as robust or solid as my Cheaney shoes. However, ordering directly from the UK presents a sizing issue, so I contacted Cheaney about sizing of the shoes Cheaney made for Dack's. Here's what they said:
> 
> ...


I have always maintained that Cheaney is among the best value for men's high-grade shoes. I suspect that value will increase since the Church cousins recently bought the company. If you have further questions regarding Cheany products contact Sheila Bones. She is great, very diligent.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Leather man said:


> One is the American sizing and one the British sizing but its very unexpected that it is the American sizing that is on the insole!


Actually EE is used by some English shoe manufacturers. It is an increment between E and F fittings.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Nick V said:


> I have always maintained that Cheaney is among the best value for men's high-grade shoes. I suspect that value will increase since the Church cousins recently bought the company. If you have further questions regarding Cheany products contact Sheila Bones. She is great, very diligent.


I agree - I've just had a lot of email communication with Sheila Bones and I would say she is just wonderful. Prompt and helpful replies , nothing too much trouble.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Lots of good info in this thread!
> 
> For trivia buffs, I just tore out the sock liners from my Cheaney Turner II brogues (last 2003) to replace them and noticed the insole has a size printed on it (photo below). The shoes are labelled size 10.5F, whereas the insole says 10.5 EE.
> 
> https://img12.imageshack.us/i/cheaneyinsole2.jpg/





Leather man said:


> One is the American sizing and one the British sizing but its very unexpected that it is the American sizing that is on the insole!





Checkerboard 13 said:


> Actually EE is used by some English shoe manufacturers. It is an increment between E and F fittings.


*If one is UK and one US surely it should be 10.5F : 11 or 11.5EE?

EE seems to be used occasionally as a UK fitting or maybe as an export label for a market that uses UK sizes but their own fittings.*


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Leather man said:


> I've just had a lot of email communication with Sheila Bones and I would say she is just wonderful. Prompt and helpful replies , nothing too much trouble.


That's the person who responded to my message. As you say, she's a great rep who takes the trouble to ask if she doesn't know.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Someone on StyleForum recently stated that the Cheaney 2003 last and the Church's 73 last were the same last, shared between the two brands. Can anyone here confirm that, or dismiss it?

Sorry, I don't have the link to the SF thread.


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

The current line of excellent Stephen Kempson shoes are made to his requirements by Cheaney and they are excellent in every respect and detail. My sense is that the top of the line Cheaneys are first rate shoes.


----------

