# Edward Green fit and cost



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I'm going to purchase my first pair of Edward Green shoes. I wanted to know how the fit of Edward Greens compares to Alden and Allen Edmonds. I generally wear a 10D or 10E in AE and Alden. Would I wear a 10 in UK size or should I go down to a 9.5 UK? I know the 202 last is the classic, but what do you guys think of the 82 last? How do the two lasts compare in fit?

Also, the price. I'm looking at the Chelsea balmoral in black since I'd probably get the most use out of that shoe. Basically, I'm looking for a top notch shoe that I can wear with my Brioni and Hickey Freeman suits, mostly for evenings out, etc. I have AE park Avenues for business use.

I've seen them go for about $900 on a couple of websites in the U.S. and UK. I've seen most EGs go for about $1,300 in most places. Is $900 a deal or pretty much standard for this particular shoe?

I'm going to L.A. in about a month and can try on the EGs at Leather Soul. But I really don't want to go in there just to try on shoes and I don't want to spend $1,400 including tax for a pair that I can get online for $900, so that's why I'm asking these questions here. Thanks!


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

I have been lucky on my 2 pair of EG's but the sizing was strange to say the least. Let me say first of all that I acquired both my EG's in a consignment store. The first, the Cadogan, in black, was completely brand new, in the 202 last, and was marked inside as a 10.5 UK E/11 D Am. (I did not abbreviate the "Am" - that is exactly how it appeared in the shoe.) These fit me perfectly and I am usually a 10D. The second was a barely worn (as in once or twice around the block) pair of Dovers in brown, which are in the 606 last and are marked as a 10.5 D. These 2 fit me extremely well, but I find the 202 last more comfortable. There is some slippage of the heel in the Dover, but as the show is narrow at the toe, I cannot imagine ever fitting into an 10. At the end of the day, both fit me extremely well, and I cannot imagine a different size for me in either.

If someone can make sense of how I can be a 10.5 UK E in the Cadogan and a 10.5 D in the Dover, I would like to hear about it. I did do some research on the 202 last after I acquired the Cadogan, and the consensus appears to be that the 202 last runs small, but who really knows? I got lucky twice, I think. If you are going to pay full price, you need to make sure the fit is PERFECT for you.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Go down 1/2 size is correct for EGs.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Before you drop $1k on shoes you are completely unfamiliar with, make sure you fully understand the return policy of the web retailer.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Go to leather soul and try out some shoes; if you don't there is zero chance you'll buy something from them and I'm sure they appreciate the opportunity to try to sell you a pair. 

If the price difference is that huge, then that's really leather souls problem. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

The 82 is a slimmer version of the 202 last. I would say it's almost essential for you to have a proper fitting with these shoes. Here is a recent article on EG:

https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/edward-green-shoes-a/


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

I've only worn EG 888 last and go with a 7uk E for a perfect fit. I generally wear a US 7.5D. Only exception is the Alden Tru Balance last which fits better if sized down 1/2 a size.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

If you want to get a good fit and can afford one pair at retail, I suggest you go to to Leather Soul prepared to buy a pair of shoes. That is only fair to the store. After that you ill know your size and have some idea of which last or lasts work for your feet.

FWIW I have found the EG 202 in UK 10F to be an excellent fit. I measure 10 1/2 D on a US Brannock Device, altough because of a long instep, or short toes, the widest part of my foot is forward of the avarage location of the widest part of the foot. 

The EG 202 last is quite elegant and though comfortably wide (for my feet) in the toe area is comfortably snug in the heel - a near prfect fit. EG's in general seem to me to be much trimmer and smarter in appearance than US makers' shoes, including Alden and AE. I hope you find something you like.

BTW, why limit your EG's to dress-up occasions? Good looking shoes that fit well deserve to be part of your rotation and to be worn and enjoyed often.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Is there anyone here who knows where in the San Francisco Bay Area I can go to try on or buy Edward Greens?


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

J Lawrence Khaki's in Carmel.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

Langham said:


> The 82 is a slimmer version of the 202 last. I would say it's almost essential for you to have a proper fitting with these shoes. Here is a recent article on EG:
> 
> https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/edward-green-shoes-a/


I read the article. One thing it did not comment on, which I have notice only with the Lobb's I have tried on at N-M, and with my 2 E-G's, is how the shoe seems to cradle my foot, so that the comfort level is quite extreme. In other words, I find my feet perfectly balanced in these shoes, without a stress point anywhere. To me, that is why they are worth the money.


----------



## chirpy415 (Aug 18, 2013)

You can try Edward Greens on at Saks in SF (they have the chelsea, plus a couple others). Brooks Brothers (next to Saks) also has a few pairs to try. I think Neiman Marcus in Palo Alto might also have some, but I might be confusing those with JL.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

chirpy415 said:


> You can try Edward Greens on at Saks in SF (they have the chelsea, plus a couple others). Brooks Brothers (next to Saks) also has a few pairs to try. I think Neiman Marcus in Palo Alto might also have some, but I might be confusing those with JL.


You are right, I forgot about BB & Saks.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

RogerP said:


> Before you drop $1k on shoes you are completely unfamiliar with, make sure you fully understand the return policy of the web retailer.


And that the last is suitable to your foot shape.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

peterc said:


> I read the article. One thing it did not comment on, which I have notice only with the Lobb's I have tried on at N-M, and with my 2 E-G's, is how the shoe seems to cradle my foot, so that the comfort level is quite extreme. In other words, I find my feet perfectly balanced in these shoes, without a stress point anywhere. To me, that is why they are worth the money.


I'm not sure that you should expect the article to have commented on your own experience of shoe fit, but it does sound as if you may be fortunate in having found a good fit. I know it is what the people at EG would hope for, but the match between people's feet and RTW lasted shoes necessarily cannot always be very close. For that, people sometimes have to have bespoke shoes.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

Langham said:


> I'm not sure that you should expect the article to have commented on your own experience of shoe fit, but it does sound as if you may be fortunate in having found a good fit. I know it is what the people at EG would hope for, but the match between people's feet and RTW lasted shoes necessarily cannot always be very close. For that, people sometimes have to have bespoke shoes.


Langham, you make a wise observation regarding my comment. I should have clearer and said that while I have many shoes that fit me well, none I have ever tried on have fit me like Lobbs or EG, and that, therefore, it would not surprise me that others have similar experiences with Lobbs and EG.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

peterc said:


> Langham, you make a wise observation regarding my comment. I should have clearer and said that while I have many shoes that fit me well, none I have ever tried on have fit me like Lobbs or EG, and that, therefore, it would not surprise me that others have similar experiences with Lobbs and EG.


I have 3 pairs of EGs - I concur they fit me better than other shoes - among others - Lobbs, G and G, C and J.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Fit has little to do with the brand and everything to do with the last. If you find a last from a particular maker that fits your feet exceptionally well - that's great - but it doesn't mean all shoes from that brand will fit you well; it doesn't mean that particular shoe will fit someone else particularly well, and it most certainly doesn't mean that all shoes from that brand will fit others well.

I have shoes from Vass, Carmina, EG and G&G that all fit me exceptionally well. There are also shoes from each of those makers which fit me horribly. Some lasts work, others not at all.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Makes sense but I have 3 pairs of EGs - 202, 888, and 82 last. All fit equally well. Probably a bit more room in the toes of the 888 last but all very comfortable without any binding but at the same time great support. I don't really get it but for me the EGs are magic on my feet.


----------



## TsAr (Mar 21, 2013)

I would suggest you to visit a physical store and try the sizes out.....for UK sized generallly its better to go down by 1 or 1/2.... But every shoe company has different sizes that depends on shoe last....


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

If you drop 1K on a pair of shoes without trying them (or a facsimile of them) on, well...a fool and his money.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

JBierly said:


> Makes sense but I have 3 pairs of EGs - 202, 888, and 82 last. All fit equally well. Probably a bit more room in the toes of the 888 last but all very comfortable without any binding but at the same time great support. I don't really get it but for me the EGs are magic on my feet.


Sure. There are 3 Carmina lasts that fit me very well, also. There are three for sure that don't. And they make something like 16 different lasts. And that variation is to be expected. Different lasts exist so as to accommodate varied foot shapes within a given size. If all the lasts from a given maker fit you well, that would be good news for you and very bad news for everyone whose feet weren't shaped exactly like yours. It would also beg the question of why that maker bothered to offer many different lasts that all fit more or less the same.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Fit has little to do with the brand and everything to do with the last. If you find a last from a particular maker that fits your feet exceptionally well - that's great - but it doesn't mean all shoes from that brand will fit you well; it doesn't mean that particular shoe will fit someone else particularly well, and it most certainly doesn't mean that all shoes from that brand will fit others well.
> 
> I have shoes from Vass, Carmina, EG and G&G that all fit me exceptionally well. There are also shoes from each of those makers which fit me horribly. Some lasts work, others not at all.


It's true to say that fit is everything to do with the last. Nevertheless, most brands have some association with a certain shape: Crockett & Jones, Edward Green and Gazio & Girling all tend to favour a fairly slender, 'elegant' if not actually rather pointy shape. This is all for aesthetic reasons, and their skill as shoemakers then lies in being able to make that shape accommodate their customers' feet, and these will not always be elegant. With lasts of varying slenderness they can do this quite well for most customers, but only up to a point. I favour Crockett & Jones but have rather agricultural feet and so only certain of their lasts are comfortable for me. On the other hand, I find Loake shoes - which are notably less 'elegant' - and also Tricker's, are always a good fit - for me.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I went to Saks in SF and tried on the Cheaney in the 82 last, since that's all they have. That's all Brooks Brothers in SF had too. The size written in the shoes that fit said 9.5/10 E. So does that mean I'm a size 9.5 UK, and 10 American? Can someone tell me exactly what the size means, the SA couldn't really tell me. Do Edward Greens only come in one width?

Would you EG fans go for the 82 last or the 202 last? I'm leaning to the 202 since it seems to be more traditional.

I'm either going to buy the shoes from Sky Valet in D.C. or Edwards of Manchester in the UK. Any reviews of these retailers? Thanks a lot guys.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I have gotten very good service from Sky Valet. I have also gotten excellent service from EG in London. Just call them up with credit card in hand.

As to sizes, you are correct about the 9.5/10 being UK and US sizes respectively. 

EG's come in widths. I wear a 10/10 1/2 F in the 202 last. My nominal US size is around 10 1/2 D or E depending on the brand. The fit of the EG 202 lasted shoe in my size is superior to any other ready made dress shoe I have worn. That may not be the case for you. 

The 202 is a traditional shape. 

Try to get an EG catalog. There are enough variations on the captoe in terms of brogueing patterns to enable you to buy many pairs of somewhat similar shoes. My favorite EG style is the Chelsea. I have a pair in black and two pairs in chestnut. (With the passage of time and polishing each pair has become somewhat differently colored than the others.) I also have a couple of other models in various browns, and one pair of Canterburys in black and one in burgundy. I wear the various brown ones much of the time and the black ones to funerals and weddings, and occasionally in the evening. 

I think oxford style shoes look much better with straight lacing than with crossed lacing. There are websites that cover this subject in painful detail.

Ask whomever you order from about polish. A cream such as Meltonian or Saphir will give good results. I generally use Meltonian as it is lss densely pigmented than Saphir and emphasizes the variations in the leather, but Saphire is good to use when shoes are scuffed or you want to slightly nudge to color of a pair of shoes in the direction of the color of the polish. There are lots of threads on the subject.

Oh, and do order shoe trees and keep them in the shoes when not wearing them.

Good luck,
Gurdon


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

triklops55 said:


> I went to Saks in SF and tried on the Cheaney in the 82 last, since that's all they have. That's all Brooks Brothers in SF had too. The size written in the shoes that fit said 9.5/10 E. So does that mean I'm a size 9.5 UK, and 10 American?


That is what the numbers mean, but more significant is whether that size in that last in that model from that brand fit you comfortably. If it did, then at least you have some basis upon which to order with greater confidence. Also - don't assume that you are genrally a "UK 9.5" based upon this one fitting alone. I wear shoes that are notionally UK 8.5, 9 and 9.5 - all from different brands. And sometimes I take a different size withing a given brand, depending on last and model.

I have no experience with Sky Valet, but have defiitely heard good things about Edwards of Manchester. I do have multiple orders from these guys in Sweden https://www.skoaktiebolaget.se/ and have found their service to be impeccable.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

triklops55 said:


> * * *
> 
> I've seen them go for about $900 on a couple of websites in the U.S. and UK. I've seen most EGs go for about $1,300 in most places. Is $900 a deal or pretty much standard for this particular shoe?
> 
> * * *


Yes, $900 is a good deal. The going rate at Saks and Brooks appear to be $1,200 to $1,300. Although Brooks runs sales regularly, in many instances Edward Green shoes are excluded.

Where can you get EG for $900? Unfortunately, due to the high price that's a good deal.

I am a firm believer in buying the shoes in a store where you can try-on different shoes and sizes. I would buy online only after getting a few pairs and having familiarity with the fit and last.

Good luck.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

son of brummell said:


> Yes, $900 is a good deal. The going rate at Saks and Brooks appear to be $1,200 to $1,300. Although Brooks runs sales regularly, in many instances Edward Green shoes are excluded.
> 
> Where can you get EG for $900? Unfortunately, due to the high price that's a good deal.
> 
> ...


Skyvalet has some at the $875.00 price point, but limited sizes.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

I received my Edward Green Chelseas in black today from Edwards of Manchester.
I got them in the 82 last.
I paid just under $900 including shipping. That's significantly less than the approximate $1,400 I would have paid at Saks in San Francisco.
Got them in three days! That's from England to California.
Now, I have some questions about care. I didn't get the lasted shoe trees, and I guess it would probably be a good idea to buy those? Does it really make a huge difference if they are lasted or generic trees?
Also, you guys that are EG fans, what shoe polish/cream would you recommend? I want to keep the shoes looking great and am not sure if the Lincoln Wax I use for my other shoes is the best way.
I appreciate everyone's help. Thanks!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Lasted shoe trees are nice to have, but I don't find the make a great deal of difference as compared with good quality generic cedar trees.

For shoe care I would recommend a Saphir trio of Renovatuer, black cream polish and black wax.

Congrats on the new shoes - very solid deal.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

If you are ever in San Francisco, consider visiting the Cobblers who are in the Crocker Galleria and Embarcadero One (same cobbler, 2 locations). They do a nice saphir polish for $25.00 and they are very nice people. And, it is a nice experience. Enjoy walking in your EG's here in the City, have a cup of coffee at Nespresso and have a nice polish done for your shoes.


----------



## Greenshirt (May 22, 2013)

I own both EG Chelsea in 202 last and AE Park Avenue, both in black calf. EG is a size 7.5 while AE is a size 8. Both shoes have been fitted with the original shoe tree from both brands.

Impressions: 
- Even with 202 last, EG has a nicer last shape compared to the little "bobbly" AE.
- AE has a better fitting and wears comfortably than EG.
- I got my EG in an online store in NYC at a little above $1000, while AE is only 1/5 of the EG price which I bought from a brick and mortar store.

I tend to wear my AE Park Avenue for my daily office wear, while my EG is taken out only during some evening and formal functions.

I tend to love my AE Park Avenue more.


----------



## sacafotos (Jan 28, 2014)

I'm finding the British to make narrower shoes than I thought. I'm an 8E on Brannock but can wear 7.5EE or 8.5D. In Alden Barrie I'm a 7.5-8D. I understand lasts and the difference they make.

How does the EG 202 last work for wider feet? I have a slightly higher instep than most. 

I'd love to score a pair of the cadogan in walnut, but nervous to buy without trying on the last. It's an 8.5D

I'm in SF, so I'll see if Saks or BB carries something in this last.

I was leaning toward a new pair or AE Fifth Ave because of the custom sizing I can order, but I'd rather change it up and add some British to my collection.


Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder. -- Rumi

Jacket: 36S/38S. 
Shoes: 7.5EE-8.5D.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

The 202 last is a little wider than some of the other ones. I have EGs in the 82 last and in the 888 last. The 82 is slighly wider than the 888, and I believe the 202 is slightly wider than the 82. I wear an E width in most Aldens and Allen Edmonds and my EGs are E widths as well.


----------



## sacafotos (Jan 28, 2014)

triklops55 said:


> The 202 last is a little wider than some of the other ones. I have EGs in the 82 last and in the 888 last. The 82 is slighly wider than the 888, and I believe the 202 is slightly wider than the 82. I wear an E width in most Aldens and Allen Edmonds and my EGs are E widths as well.


Thanks! Makes me a bit more confident to snag the EG Cadogan. It's an 8.5 US medium width, I'm pretty sure they'd fit my 8E feet.

Are you saying the 202 last compares favorably with a US E width?

I know a UK F is typically a US D width. UK K I believe is typically a US E width.

Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder. -- Rumi

Jacket: 36S/38S. 
Shoes: 7.5EE-8.5D.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

I am not sure my post is going to help the OP, but I thought I'd chime in. I have a pair of Cadogans that I found locally, brand new in a consignment store. They are marked, on the inside of the shoe, on 3 lines of text as follows: 10½ E 202
91022 
11 E AM

The shoes fit me very well and I am usually a U.S. 10 D.

I have done some reading on the 202 last and I have concluded that the last fits small, at least on my foot, and that I am going to need to size up on this last. Since I suspect the shoes I bought were a sample, it is possible they are mis-marked, size wise, but in any event, I would urge the OP caution as EG's are normally too expensive to make a mistake on.

Awesome shoes, though.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

sacafotos said:


> Thanks! Makes me a bit more confident to snag the EG Cadogan. It's an 8.5 US medium width, I'm pretty sure they'd fit my 8E feet.
> 
> Are you saying the 202 last compares favorably with a US E width?
> 
> ...


The 82, which is a tiny bit narrower than the 202, in the E width fits my foot well and I generally wear a U.S. E width. I tried the EGs 202 in F and they were far too wide.


----------

