# Proper use of Brannock device?



## Guy Redux (Apr 3, 2009)

Great forum, everyone.

I noticed in recent threads that store personnel were unable to use the Brannock device correctly
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=93750
which got me thinking if there was a well established method known to the AAAC gurus.

In my own case, I measured what I think is 10 mid-D on left and 9.5 D-towards-E on the right. I had a very hard time getting AE park/fifth avenue to fit because the 10D seemed long and dug in on the top part of my foot, while the 9.5E was loose in the heel.


----------



## ChiliPalmer (Nov 18, 2008)

I asked this question in a previous thread and someone posted that the Brannock device is notorioiusly unreliable.

I have found this to be accurate.

I went to the Brannock website, downloaded their instructions, and then went to a store to measure my foot.

According to the Brannock device, my foot width is B. When I finally settled on a pair of Alden Longwings, I went with a D.

This is why you see so many people starting threads asking about the lasts of different shoemakers. There isn't universal sizing in the shoe industry.

Here are the Brannock instructions:

https://brannock.com/cgi-bin/start.cgi/brannock/instructions.html


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

I've never found the Brannock very helpful. Every time I get measured with it, I measure a 12 in arch length, a 10 or 10.5 in toe length, and something between C and D ball width. Every pair of shoes I own, by contrast, is either 11.5D or 11E. And I own shoes from a number of different manufacturers.


----------



## shoefan (Oct 30, 2003)

The Brannock device has its value, if it's used consistently by a shoe salesperson. The most significant value, IMO, is that it measures the heel to ball length in addition to the overall foot length. The heel to ball measure is the most important length measure for correct fitting of a shoe.

The inherent problems for any such device are several -- first of all, as noted previously, each manufacturer has its own last numbering methodology, so what company A calls a 9D may be the same in all respects as what company B calls a 9 1/2E, or whatever. So, a Brannock device's numbering system is inherently imperfect. Second, the device only measures the width of the foot at the joint, rather than the actual girth. While both the width and the girth of the last matter, the latter is more important.

Finally, of course, the device does not measure such things as the height of the instep, the fleshiness of the foot, the shape of the foot, the width of the heel, and so on. These are all factors that can affect the selection of the proper last for a foot.

Thus, the Brannock device is most useful for a salesperson who is familiar with how each manufacturer's sizing methodology compares to that of the Brannock device, as well as how each manufacturer's shoes fit various types of feet. Alas, this level of knowledge and expertise is nearly lost in all but a few shoe stores.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Thanks.

My sons enjoy the fact that I am the only person they know (themselves excluded) who knows the name of the Brannock Device.


----------



## ChiliPalmer (Nov 18, 2008)

shoefan said:


> The Brannock device has its value, if it's used consistently by a shoe salesperson. The most significant value, IMO, is that it measures the heel to ball length in addition to the overall foot length. The heel to ball measure is the most important length measure for correct fitting of a shoe.
> 
> The inherent problems for any such device are several -- first of all, as noted previously, each manufacturer has its own last numbering methodology, so what company A calls a 9D may be the same in all respects as what company B calls a 9 1/2E, or whatever. So, a Brannock device's numbering system is inherently imperfect. Second, the device only measures the width of the foot at the joint, rather than the actual girth. While both the width and the girth of the last matter, the latter is more important.
> 
> ...


This is a quality post.

I agree the heel to ball measure is the most important. I learned that the hard way.

I also agree that finding salespeople with expertise is extremely difficult. The best salespeople I've found are the members of AAAC.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

Guy Redux said:


> I had a very hard time getting AE park/fifth avenue to fit because the 10D seemed long and dug in on the top part of my foot, while the 9.5E was loose in the heel.


Did you try a 9E or 9EEE? I often use a wide shoe not because my foot is wide, but that my girth is large or I have a high instep (never sure which). Often, I can go with a full size smaller in a wide width because of this. For example, my chucka boots are size 11 (Clarks, which run wide), but my JM balmorals are 10W, combat boots were 9.5 wide, and soft loafers are 9.5 EEE. I don't think this is unusual. You need to try lots of examples of each shoe. If the heel slips, it is too long for that width. If you size down and your toe hits the front, that shoe is not for you.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

shoefan said:


> The Brannock device has its value, if it's used consistently by a shoe salesperson. The most significant value, IMO, is that it measures the heel to ball length in addition to the overall foot length. The heel to ball measure is the most important length measure for correct fitting of a shoe.


Amen. Salespeople consistently try to fit me into a shoe that is at least a full size smaller than what I can possibly wear, based on the fact that I have very stubby toes (or, rather, toes that are curled when at rest, and thus measure as being very short). That makes for a short overall measurement, but ignores the fact that, heel-to-ball, my foot is significantly longer. When the clowns start feeling around for where my toe is through the shoe, that only throws them off further.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

The best devices for foot measurment in the show was an X-ray machine. Used during the 1950's, most shoe stores had them until the X-ray/Cancer reseach! 

Just for fun, here's the history of the Brannock devicefrom The *Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes*:

*Foot Measurement:*

A* Brannock device *is a metal foot-measuring device with a slide piece adjustable to show the length of the foot and another slide piece that can be moved to show the distance of the ball of the foot from the heel. This measurement is used in conjunction with the foot length and width measurements to determine the required shoe size. 








*Charles F. Brannock* (1903-1992) of Syracuse, New York invented the "*Brannock Scientific Foot Measuring Device*" in 1925. Brannock earned the first patent on his foot measurer on August 28, 1928, and started the Brannock Device Company, which he ran until 1992, when he died at age 89. 

Brannock grew up in the footwear business. In 1906, his father, Otis Brannock, and Ernest N. Park started the Park-Brannock Company in Syracuse, New York, USA, which became one of the largest retail shoe stores in the country. 

He worked at the family shoe store where he became interested in inventing a better foot-measuring device than the crude, ruler-like implement that was then in use. He wanted to help clerks do a better job of shoe fitting. His patent application stated that the device was "particularly simple in construction and easily operated and read by unskilled clerks."

The most common foot-sizer in the 1920s was the *Ritz Stick*, made by the American Automatic Device Company of Chicago. A wooden ruler, the Ritz could measure a foot's width and its length from heel to toe, but not at the same time. 

He spent his college days at the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity house obsessively tinkering with prototypes using an Erector set, and updating schematic drawings (often at all hours of the night, as His roommate, Roy Simmons, Sr. later recalled). 

Charles graduated from Syracuse in 1925 in business administration and begin to assemble the device in the Park-Brannock shoe store in order to give it a trial on the sales floor. 

It was a marked improvement over size-sticks because it measured not just foot length but measured the foot three ways at once: width, heel-to-toe length and length from the heel to the ball of the foot. The heel-to-ball measurement, the most critical measurement in fitting heeled shoes, made his device unique.

Originally used exclusively in his family's store it helped attract more customers with the promise of better fitting footwear. The unique sizer was "scientific" looking, and made of brightly polished aluminum.

Brannock continued to improve the device and applied for another patent on his "perfected" device, which was granted in 1929.

Charles Brannock began offering the device to shoe retailers first on a rental basis and then by sale. He personally promoted his invention at the store, in local newspapers, in national shoe trade publications, and at the National Shoe Fair in Chicago from 1938 to 1968. He encouraged shoe storeowners to use the Brannock Device when they advertised their businesses. 

By 1934, 24 shoe manufacturers distributed Brannock Devices and it was the standard foot-measuring device for the industry, as it remains today.

In 1931, Captain Guy E. Davis, the executive officer of the battleship Texas discovered that many of his sailors suffered foot problems. Poorly fitting shoes were suspected. When the battleship's supply officer bought a pair of shoes at a San Francisco store, the clerk measured his feet with a Brannock Device. The shoes fit so well that the officer ordered a Brannock for the Texas.

The Device passed with flying colors, and soon after the Naval Clothing Depot requested that the Brannock Company enter into a formal contract with the United States Government to equip the entire *U.S. Navy* with Brannock Foot Measuring Devices.

In 1947, Brannock moved the device company to a machine shop at 509 East Fayette Street in Syracuse, where it remained for 50 years. 

Charles Brannock became the CEO of Park-Brannock after both his father and Ernest Park died in 1962. Park-Brannock closed its doors in 1981, after the Hotel Syracuse offered to purchase the property for its new Hilton Tower.

Charles Brannock died on November 22, 1992, at the age of 89. Salvatore Leonardi purchased the company in 1993 from the Brannock Estate. Leonardi continues to manufacture Brannock devices in a factory in Liverpool, New York. ​The Brannock Device is based on "*barleycorn technology*" first developed in 1324. 

Barleycorn kernels (the grain of barley) were used as early as Roman times as a unit of measurement since the seeds were uniform in size. In 1324 *King Edward II of England* (King 1307 - 1327, House of Plantagenet) wanted to create a standard system of foot measurements to reduce the amount of time needed to make shoes. 

He ordered the largest foot he could find measured with barleycorn. England's then-largest foot was 39 kernels long, (12 inches!) and because three barleycorns fit into one inch, Edward divided 39 by three and decreed that the result, 13, would be the largest shoe size, and that all other sizes be measured in third-inch increments down from size 13. This also established the measurement of a foot equal to 12 inches.

British cobblers adopted the measurement method and begin to make shoes in standard sizes. Each full size, up or down, is equivalent to 1/3 inch, and each half-size is 1/6 inch. So if your foot is 11 inches long your shoe size is ten (US).


----------



## Guy Redux (Apr 3, 2009)

Wow! A reply from Andy.

Thanks everyone for the help. The instructions on the Brannock web site also indicate the importance of measuring the heel-to-ball length, which appears completely ignored by the average Bundy.

I shall return (to the quest for my first AE's).


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Andy said:


> So if your foot is 11 inches long your shoe size is ten (US).


Sorry, it ain't quite that simple. Shoe size does not correspond to the length of the foot, but to the length of the last (also called 'stick length').

Length of the last is the length of the foot plus the allowance in front of the toes. How much allowance to add is still controversial. It partly depend on the shape of the toe (a pointed toe needs more space than a square or rounded one. Austro-Hungarian shoemakers operate with very little allowance, maybe ½" or 1 ½ (English) sizes. My old books on shoemaking, talk about 3 sizes (1") allowance, while modern English bespoke makers will use less, 2 sizes or maybe 2 ½.

English sizes do not start at zero. The smallest size is 1 at 8 2/3" (220 mm), then every size continues by 1/3" (8.5 mm). The continental size "French point" is slightly more logical. Every point (size) measures 6.66 mm. so, size 40 is simply 40 x 6.66 = 266 mm. But again the size measures the length of the last, not the foot.

There is a new international system "Mondopoint", which is based on the length of the foot, not the last. The International Standard Organisation (ISO) recommended in 1980 that this system should be adopted internationally, alas, nobody has.

I believe (but I'm not sure), the Japanese system (in centimetres) is also based on the length of the actual foot.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

bengal-stripe said:


> There is a new international system "Mondopoint", which is based on the length of the foot, not the last. The International Standard Organisation (ISO) recommended in 1980 that this system should be adopted internationally, alas, nobody has.
> 
> I believe (but I'm not sure), the Japanese system (in centimetres) is also based on the length of the actual foot.


According to this website, https://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html, Japan does not use the Mondopoint System; however, Korea does using mm.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

ToryBoy said:


> According to this website, https://www.i18nguy.com/l10n/shoes.html, Japan does not use the Mondopoint System; however, Korea does using mm.


Mondo Point sizing is used mostly in sporting goods like Ski Boots and Inline Skates. Mondo Point is unisex; there is no male or female size. The largest standard Mondo Point size is 32, about a US size 14 men's. Above that most manufacturers use US or Metric/Euro sizes.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Thanks.
> 
> My sons enjoy the fact that I am the only person they know (themselves excluded) who knows the name of the Brannock Device.


I'm sure I'm getting part of this wrong...

There used to be TV Commercials for Thom McAn where Ken Berry would tell a group of awestruck kids about the magic of the Brannock Device and how it would ensure proper fit.

(Of course, the other part is that you have to rush back to buy new shoes as soon as the kid's foot gets bigger.)


----------



## Guy Redux (Apr 3, 2009)

J.Marko said:


> Did you try a 9E or 9EEE? I often use a wide shoe not because my foot is wide, but that my girth is large or I have a high instep (never sure which). Often, I can go with a full size smaller in a wide width because of this. For example, my chucka boots are size 11 (Clarks, which run wide), but my JM balmorals are 10W, combat boots were 9.5 wide, and soft loafers are 9.5 EEE. I don't think this is unusual. You need to try lots of examples of each shoe. If the heel slips, it is too long for that width. If you size down and your toe hits the front, that shoe is not for you.


9.5E and 10D. I shall persevere!


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Just to confuse matters further; I was in Church's Factory shop two years ago and asked the manager to measure my feet on Church's own device, sure that this would at least give me my accurate Church's shoe size. How wrong could I be! I wear size 11G in Churchs fairly comfortably. The device measured me size 10 HH on the left foot and size 9.5 HHH on the right foot. Of course Church's doesn't make such wide shoes , only H fit in a few models. However based on her , admittedly, vast experience, the manager told me that most men wear shoes too loose and that 10.5 G should be a good fit for me as it is a whole size up from my largest foot and should therefore accommodate the extra width needed. The result? I couldn't even get the shoes on my feet properly. Even the manager admitted defeat and said resignedly, " I think you are probably OK with 11G".

What is the moral of this story? There is no substitute to trying shoes on before buying or if buying over the phone or on line making sure you can return the shoes for a different size if needed!


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

When I was at the JM Weston store in Paris, they insisted that they measure my foot on their Brannock device. The result was that they produced a size 6.5 shoe. I could barely get my feet in them without great pain, and when I managed, I couldn't stand due to the pain, let alone walk. I usually take a UK size 7 shoe, and this size did fit me.


----------



## shoemaker (Apr 2, 2008)

Leather man said:


> Just to confuse matters further; I was in Church's Factory shop two years ago and asked the manager to measure my feet on Church's own device, sure that this would at least give me my accurate Church's shoe size. How wrong could I be! I wear size 11G in Churchs fairly comfortably. The device measured me size 10 HH on the left foot and size 9.5 HHH on the right foot. Of course Church's doesn't make such wide shoes , only H fit in a few models. However based on her , admittedly, vast experience, the manager told me that most men wear shoes too loose and that 10.5 G should be a good fit for me as it is a whole size up from my largest foot and should therefore accommodate the extra width needed. The result? I couldn't even get the shoes on my feet properly. Even the manager admitted defeat and said resignedly, " I think you are probably OK with 11G".
> 
> What is the moral of this story? There is no substitute to trying shoes on before buying or if buying over the phone or on line making sure you can return the shoes for a different size if needed!


You would think that a manager in a factory shop would have knowledge of the measurement's of the lasts they are using in their manufacturing and a tape measure is all that should be required to tell if a particular style and fit of their shoe would be suitable,Alas it's the state of the industry today


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

I'm inclined to think that the problem is not the Brannock but the manufacturers putting sizes on their shoes which aren't consistent with it.

AFAIC if I'm told that a certain shoe "runs large" and so I should wear a US10.5 not an US11, the manufacturer has simply put 10.5 on a shoe which should be sized "11".


----------

