# Alden LHS - A little tight across the ball of the left foot



## Marley (Apr 4, 2008)

Hi all,

After much anticipation, I took delivery of my first pair of LHS's in #8 SC. The length is perfect (10D when I am normally a 10.5D), but the left shoe is really pretty tight across the ball of the foot.

I know that these are handmade shoes and that slight variations will occur, but when I compare the two shoes against one another (sole against sole), the right shoe is ~3/16" wider.

Both are marked 10 B/D. What to do? Wear them and hope that they stretch a bit in width? Return them and ask for another pair of 10D's?

They are beautiful shoes and I WILL get them to fit correctly. I just want to minimize the UPS shipping back to Shoe Mart.

Thanks for any and all input!

Rgds,

Marley


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

The LHS is infamous for being, when properly sized 1/2 a size down from your usual shoe size, slightly uncomfortable at first, and then supremely comfortable when broken in. Depending on how often/hard you wear them, the process could take as little as a few months or as long as a year. That's about how long it took for mine to suddenly become slipper-comfortable. 

If you're not the patient type, you can take them to any good cobbler and have the shoes stretched a bit, or go on eBay and search for a shoe stretcher -- I got a pair for $15 that have more than paid for themselves over the years. But if you want a perfect fit that will help you understand why so many love the LHS and hold it up above all other loafers, just wear them often, perhaps with thinner socks to start with, and before you know it they'll suddenly turn that magic corner.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

I would suggest that you wear them three times on your carpeting at home. If after the third wearing the shoes are not comfortable I would return them. I assume you have not scuffed the soles by walking on a hard surface. Also, I suggest your give Ed Zapatka at Shoemart a call


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

FWIW, cordovan will stretch very little. If they hurt, out of the box, it isn't worth having a sore foot, and shoes that you paid a lot for, that aren't comfortable.

If they were 984, maybe, 986, doubtful, If you haven't worn them outside, SM gives you a year to decide. 

The UPS shipping is nothing compared to the cost of having 986 that aren't comfortable.

Once you get the size right, 984, and 986 should feel as comfortable as old boat shoes, right out of the box.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Ah, the famous--rather, infmaous--LHS strap-induced pain across the instep. Deserving of a thread of its own.

Intrepid is right: not worth it. The gents at the Alden Shop in NYC stock an LHS that's different from the 986, which is constructed on the van last. As has been discussed previously, the van last provides for lots of toe box space, but I think the barrie is more spacious overall.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

As someone who owns 3 pairs of LHS's, I can report that shell does indeed stretch, and that all 3 prs felt tight across the instep for awhile till they broke in and became very comfortable.


----------



## tntele (Apr 12, 2007)

Harris said:


> Ah, the famous--rather, infmaous--LHS strap-induced pain across the instep. Deserving of a thread of its own.
> 
> Intrepid is right: not worth it. The gents at the Alden Shop in NYC stock an LHS that's different from the 986, which is constructed on the van last. As has been discussed previously, the van last provides for lots of toe box space, but I think the barrie is more spacious overall.


Are you saying that the Alden Shop in NYC has the LHS on the Barrie instead of the Van?


----------



## ds23pallas (Aug 22, 2006)

I too, have found that my two pair of LHS have stretched with use. When new, I found them tight across the top for a few months, but gradually increasing the length of time of each wearing helped. I can wear them all day long now, with or without socks, walk a lot and be happy and comfortable. I can not due this with any moccassin constructed loafer. My feet just get too tired from the lack of support.

ds23pallas


----------



## Marley (Apr 4, 2008)

Thanks all,

I just spoke with Joe Zapatka at SM and he is sending me another pair of 10 D's to try out.

I do, in fact, have a high instep but this is not the problem.

The right shoe is like a slipper but the left shoe generates quite a bit of pressure on the sides of my foot, basically clamping my foot at the inside/outside of the ball. The instep is fine. The overall width of the left shoe is the problem.

As noted above, the two shoes back to back show a definite difference in sole width. Whether that transfers to vamp width is another question (harder to eyeball), but I have to think that if the sole is 3/16" wider at the ball than the entire shoe could be slightly wider at that point.

I guess I will have to see when the next pair arrives. I'll let you know!

Thanks again,

Marley


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

The Continental Fop said:


> As someone who owns 3 pairs of LHS's, I can report that shell does indeed stretch, and that all 3 prs felt tight across the instep for awhile till they broke in and became very comfortable.


That's pretty much what the guy at the NYC Alden store told me when I tried on several pair of 986's about a month ago. I told him these felt awfully tight; he said don't worry, they'll stretch. I tried on several different sizes and widths, but the ones recommended by the salesman were pretty dang tight.

(I didn't buy them -- yet -- since I had other wardrobe things to get first.)


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

My father wore Alden LHSs for many years and occasionally ran into the same problem. Sounds like you'll know soon enough when the second pair arrives. Not even Alden or AE manufactures everything perfectly all the time. :icon_smile:

It's good, though, to hear more about the wonderful service at Shoemart. Kudos to them.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

I put my shoes on with a t shirt launcher. No problems getting them on if they are a little tight.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

When I bought my first pair of LHS years ago I found that the shoes in my usual size were comfortable but clearly too loose-fitting, even with thick socks. But 1/2-size down felt too tight across the instep, to the point where they were a bit painful. The salesman, having already given me the 1/2-size down spiel, assured me that even if I wore the smaller pair and scuffed the soles, if I was still unhappy in 60 days he'd take them back and exchange them for the larger pair. He did stress, however, that to properly break them in, I'd have to wear them on a regular basis, every day for a few hours at least if possible. So I wore them every day for a month, and pretty soon the instep stretched out, the shoes broke in very nicely, and I "got" why so many guys love this shoe.

I won't lie to you -- for a few weeks I was convinced I'd made a bad decision, and that I was wasting my time suffering through shoes that were clearly too tight. But then one day the LHS's suddenly felt great, and have ever since. I have had this exact experience with all 3 prs of LHS I own, and will gladly go through it again if I ever find a pair in Mahogany...



Joe Beamish said:


> That's pretty much what the guy at the NYC Alden store told me when I tried on several pair of 986's about a month ago. I told him these felt awfully tight; he said don't worry, they'll stretch. I tried on several different sizes and widths, but the ones recommended by the salesman were pretty dang tight.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

tntele said:


> Are you saying that the Alden Shop in NYC has the LHS on the Barrie instead of the Van?


This was what I was told. However, I've also been told that there is not an LHS constructed on the Barrie. So now I'm really confused. Additional research/inquiry needed. There are SO many Alden models--some of which are not stocked by Alden retailers--that I find it's difficult to find out what's what. Some of the models made for the Japan-only market, for instance: great looking shoes, but it's not always easy to get information about them.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

I stopped in the NYC alden shop today, after I read your original post, since I didnt think they were made on the barrie. They are made on the van last.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

If there is its not at the Alden NYC store. They stock the 986, and its made on the van last. Its the only LHS they carry. I have seen pics of a mythical pair of higher vamped LHS for the japanese market however....


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Tom Rath said:


> I stopped in the NYC alden shop today, after I read your original post, since I didnt think they were made on the barrie. They are made on the van last.


By "they" you probably mean the 986. I wasn't referring to the 986. I know/knew it was and continues to be a van last LHS. The question is whether or not there is (or has been) another LHS model that's constructed on the barrie.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Tom Rath said:


> If there is its not at the Alden NYC store. They stock the 986, and its made on the van last. Its the only LHS they carry. I have seen pics of a mythical pair of higher vamped LHS for the japanese market however....


They don't carry other LHS models in calf and other shell cordovan colors?


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

I wouldnt know, calf LHS are dead to me. I wouldnt wear them if I was barefoot and had to walk across an ocean of broken glass.

They carry the shell version in color 8, cigar and whiskey, all on the van last.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Tom Rath said:


> If there is its not at the Alden NYC store. They stock the 986, and its made on the van last. Its the only LHS they carry. I have seen pics of a mythical pair of higher vamped LHS for the japanese market however....


Probably the 99162 and 99362. 
edit: Both are van. "Long vamp" construction, similar to the 725.


----------



## Philip12 (Aug 24, 2005)

Now that the NYC Alden store has been mentioned. I got a pair of 986s from them, and noticed that the edge of the sole is much longer (especially at the toe) than my other 986s. Is this a peculiarity of the Alden NY store?


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

the extension of the soles on Aldens doesn't seem to be an exact science. I have 2 pair of Alden for Brooks penny loafers and the soles are slightly different in terms of sole extension. I doubt the NYC alden store is an different in that regard.


----------



## Hobson (Mar 13, 2007)

Perhaps some of the differences mentioned are a result of the fact that the shoes are handmade. When I was in the Alden shop in NYC, I was told that one could try on two different pairs of the same shoe in the same size and have two different impressions of fit.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Duck said:


> I put my shoes on with a t shirt launcher. No problems getting them on if they are a little tight.


I'm not sure I understand this, but the visual certainly made me laugh!


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

I agree with the posters who note that Alden's consistency isn't perfect from shoe to shoe. Sometimes I line up all my hand-made Aldens in a row next to a pair of lime-green Crocs, and I just can't believe how much the Aldens are all over the map compared to the perfect symmetry between the two injection-molded Crocs. For shame, Alden! I said for shame!


----------



## Tucker (Apr 17, 2006)

Tom Rath said:


> I wouldnt know, calf LHS are dead to me. I wouldnt wear them if I was barefoot and had to walk across an ocean of broken glass.


A little severe, no? Why the hate? I really like my 984s. My lined shells don't see much use down here when it's this hot.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

I dont begrudge you for liking your 984s. More power to you. To me, however, there is nothing that compares to the depth of shell for penny loafers. I find calf LHS to be extremely unattractive, from an aesthetic standpoint. 

The colors are flat, lack depth, and arent attractive to my eye. As far as coolness goes, I generally wear my unlined BB shells with no socks, so heat isnt really an issue. I wore a pair after work yesterday, it was 97 degrees in nyc, I didnt notice any difference in hotness.


----------



## The Continental Fop (Jan 12, 2007)

Are the calf versions of Alden's LHS finished differently than the now-discontinued 725 Long Vamp Handsewn loafer? I ask because I haven't seen any of the calf LHS's in person, and because my dark brown 725s are downright gorgeous, one of my very favorite shoes. Different from shell, but no less attractive, and certainly deeper and richer in character than, say, my brown AEs. 

Are the calf LHS's made of lesser-looking calf than the old 725? That would be a shame.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

So it turns out the shoe that was/is the object of inquiry is actually constructed on the Grant last (about which I know nothing) and is not an LHS. Toe box is not as round as the van last on which the LHS is constructed. I guess it would be considered dressier. A special/custom make for the Alden Shop and available in both burgundy and black shell cordovan. Apologies for the confusion.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Aside: has anyone seen a pic of the 6716? They look nearly identical to the 986.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*the calf LHSs look great*

Sorry to strike a contrarian note--I value harmony on this forum among all posters--but I just can't get why anyone would describe the calf Alden uses as "flat". At least not on any of the calf Alden's i own, and I wore a pair of the calf LHS's for about 11 years. "Depth" vs. "flatness" seems to be a function of how the wearer polishes and cares for the shoes, as much as anything.

I do think this argument is, for the most part, among the shell-obsessed (count me as one). We love shell and have developed an appreciation for its unique appearance. And have a finely-tuned eye that allows us to spot it at a distance. But most people probably wouldn't notice a difference.

Just my .02

Markus


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

Markus said:


> Sorry to strike a contrarian note--I value harmony on this forum among all posters--but I just can't get why anyone would describe the calf Alden uses as "flat". At least not on any of the calf Alden's i own, and I wore a pair of the calf LHS's for about 11 years. "Depth" vs. "flatness" seems to be a function of how the wearer polishes and cares for the shoes, as much as anything.
> 
> I do think this argument is, for the most part, among the shell-obsessed (count me as one). We love shell and have developed an appreciation for its unique appearance. And have a finely-tuned eye that allows us to spot it at a distance. But most people probably wouldn't notice a difference.
> 
> ...


I guess we differ in one regard - I don't value harmony as you do. Harmony bores me. Discord brings discussion and eventually a broader value to all the members.

I just took delivery of a pair of alden tan wintip boots, and they are uniform and flat looking. Your opinion differs. My opinion isn't an attack at you. I think Alden calf looks flat, you don't.

The only thing that really matters is how you feel about them right?


----------



## abc123 (Jun 4, 2006)

I can't say I really care much for Alden's calfskin either. There is no scenario where I would take calf over the same shoe in shell. Suede, yes, but not calfskin. 

I only own the unlined version of the LHS, but it is in the exact same size as I wear in every other Alden/AE/C&J shoe I own (10.5D). No tightness at all, in fact it was probably the most comfortable/best fitting Alden shoe out of the box that I have purchased. 

Is the lined version appreciably tighter compared to the same size unlined version?


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

I like the way Alden's burgundy calf takes a shine, and the way it gets darker over time and polishings. It's cooler and feels more familiar on the foot than shell. How does this make the 984 different from the 986 or from the Brooks LHS in shell? I'm truly curious about this.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

abc123 said:


> Is the lined version appreciably tighter compared to the same size unlined version?


No. Of all the Brooks LHSs in shell I've tried on, the fit in my size has ranged from spot on to slightly tight. In the 986, from spot on to _very _slightly loose.


----------



## abc123 (Jun 4, 2006)

bd79cc said:


> No. Of all the Brooks LHSs in shell I've tried on, the fit in my size has ranged from spot on to slightly tight. In the 986, from spot on to _very _slightly loose.


Interesting, good to know. Thanks!


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Just to chime in, my 986's were also a little tight across the instep of my right foot, which is slightly larger than my left. However, after only a few wearings, they're now as comfortable as any shoes I own.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

I find that my unlined pennys from BB have stretched more than the lone pair of lined pennys I own. Might just be perception though, who knows.

Take a look at this boots I just bought (and am putting on ebay):










These are tan calfskin. To me, they are so flat in appearance. They arent burnished at all, and their color is so uniform in nature. With years of wear that should change, but I was really turned off by the color of these. To those that like Alden calfskin, am I crazy, do you actually see some depth to this color?


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

^ I agree, they look flat. I have definitely seen and admired tan calf shoes that had more of a luster than this.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

TR-
Have you scuffed the soles? If not, unless final sale, could be returned to the store


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Tom Rath said:


> [. . .] am I crazy, do you actually see some depth to this color?


No, you're not crazy. Alden's calfskin starts out with that very uniform, somewhat grainy, almost plasticky look that you can clearly see in the picture. This is a very jarring look next to the smooth texture and deep almost viscous lustre of shell!

As opposed to shell, which is hard to vary or modify over its service life, calfskin will take on character only through the conditioning, polishing, and successive wearings to which you subject it. My Brooks tassels in burgundy calfskin were _ugly _when I bought them, but after a year of weekly polish and conditioner, and twice-weekly wearings, the color's gotten darker (especially at the seams and edges) and the lustre much deeper.

I think the inent is for the lighter calfskin Aldens to end up with an antique look similar to that on a pair of tan Edward Greens or "The Rider Treatment" on a pair of Marteganis


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

bd79cc said:


> I think the inent is for the lighter calfskin Aldens to end up with an antique look similar to that on a pair of tan Edward Greens or "The Rider Treatment" on a pair of Marteganis


I think this is correct.


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

bd79cc said:


> No, you're not crazy. Alden's calfskin starts out with that very uniform, somewhat grainy, almost plasticky look that you can clearly see in the picture. This is a very jarring look next to the smooth texture and deep almost viscous lustre of shell!
> 
> As opposed to shell, which is hard to vary or modify over its service life, calfskin will take on character only through the conditioning, polishing, and successive wearings to which you subject it. My Brooks tassels in burgundy calfskin were _ugly _when I bought them, but after a year of weekly polish and conditioner, and twice-weekly wearings, the color's gotten darker (especially at the seams and edges) and the lustre much deeper.
> 
> I think the inent is for the lighter calfskin Aldens to end up with an antique look similar to that on a pair of tan Edward Greens or "The Rider Treatment" on a pair of Marteganis


I guess I'm just used to that deep sine of shell. I've owned Alden shells for a decade that have never been polished, just brushed infrequently.

So basically what you are saying is I need to wear theses twice a week, polish them at least once a week, and in a year they will start to look attractive? I will pass.


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*Flat*



Tom Rath said:


> Take a look at this boots I just bought (and am putting on ebay):
> These are tan calfskin. To me, they are so flat in appearance. They arent burnished at all, and their color is so uniform in nature. With years of wear that should change, but I was really turned off by the color of these. To those that like Alden calfskin, am I crazy, do you actually see some depth to this color?


After they are worn a while (maybe a couple of weeks) and polished (alternating between a darker polish and a light tan color) and they ought to get some depth.

At the present, though, this is probably irrelevant.


----------



## Marley (Apr 4, 2008)

Aaaaahhhh. Perfect.

The second pair of 10D's made all the difference. These LHS's are definite keepers!

Thanks to all for the help and advice.

Now on to a pair of lace-up Aldens, most likely the saddle shoes!

Rgds,

Marley


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Marley, that's very good news. Thank you for posting the follow-up. I'm glad to hear that Alden & the sales outlets stand behind the product. Even the best get it slightly off sometimes but when it's properly taken care of then all is well. 

I'm saving up for a pair of Alden shell plain-toe bluchers which in my mind is the perfect shoe from a great company one can count on.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## CBtoNYC (Jan 24, 2008)

ds23pallas said:


> I too, have found that my two pair of LHS have stretched with use. When new, I found them tight across the top for a few months, but gradually increasing the length of time of each wearing helped. I can wear them all day long now, with or without socks, walk a lot and be happy and comfortable. I can not due this with any moccassin constructed loafer. My feet just get too tired from the lack of support.
> 
> ds23pallas


Can anyone besides ds23pallas and the Continental Fop weigh in on the "tight across the instep" issue? I just picked up a pair of 986's, and sure enough, wearing them around the house it's tight at the top of the foot...
What ds and Fop said about the shoe stretching is reassuring, but I want to make doubly sure, given the price of the shoes.
BTW, I have a pretty high instep as it is, but when trying shoes on in the Madison Ave. shop, I couldn't go wider or longer, because then the foot would slip and slide too much.

Thanks for any input.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

^ This question certainly merits a search of the archives as there have been several threads addressing this issue.

In brief, your experience with the LHS tightness across the instep is common. However, there seems to be a divergence of opinion about whether or not the shoes will stretch sufficiently to make this go away. Personally, I've been told that shell does not stretch nearly as much as calf, so I'm always curious to hear from those who have had a different experience.

tjs


----------



## wolfhound986 (Jun 30, 2007)

My experience: I have both Alden shell and calf LHS, both are a bit tight across the instep at first. Calf breaks in somewhat faster and will stretch slightly more than shell over time. The shells took much longer to break in, they are heavier but will eventually conform to your feet. Start out wearing them for an hour or two, then incrementally increase the time worn. In time they will fit quite well.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

My 986 were tight across the instep. I kept wearing them, and the tightness lessened by the end of the day, but then the next time I took them out, that same twinge returned. I got tired of dreading to put them on lest I feel the twinge. I bit the bullet and had my cobbler stretch them and they came back perfect. They have been my favorites ever since.


----------



## jhcam8 (Aug 26, 2008)

Tom Rath said:


> Take a look at this boots I just bought (and am putting on ebay):


What size are they? Can't you sell them here?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Tom Rath said:


> bd79cc said:
> 
> 
> > No, you're not crazy. Alden's calfskin starts out with that very uniform, somewhat grainy, almost plasticky look that you can clearly see in the picture. This is a very jarring look next to the smooth texture and deep almost viscous lustre of shell!
> ...


There is something to be said for the personal discipline of shining shoes regularly.


----------

