# Church's Shoes: Lasts and Leathers



## Angeland (Aug 24, 2011)

I wanted to take a moment to refresh the topic of Church's styles and fits and invite others to add their informed opinions in order to help others who may be contemplating making the (substantial) purchase of a pair of these venerable shoes.

First, it may be true that Church's shoes are overpriced, but I continue to find that they are worth the investment and are an especially good option for those who love fine English shoes but who do not have wide feet. English shoes, we know, tend to run bigger in the heel and instep than many Americans can wear comfortably. Church's consistently run narrower in the heel and instep. All comments below are based on experience with shoes I've owned or currently keep in my rotation.

Second, I have found no drop off in the quality of post-Prada Church's shoes. They continue to impress.

Third, they come out of the box firm. Personally, I like this. Alfred Sargent and Crockett and Jones leathers are finished softer. Church's, like Tricker's, require a good wearing in.

Fourth, polished binder is neat stuff. It has been maligned as "corrected grain," but it should be compared to cheap leather finishes designed to hide imperfections only as high-tech polymer machine components can be called cheap plastic imitations. Yes, artificial, but for purposes of design. I have never seen Church's signature binder leather peal, flake, or otherwise fail. It looks stiff and plasticy only for the first 100 miles. After that, it looks only like itself, and it's really cool.

A word on "crup" shell cordovan. Church's uses European shell cordovan and calls it "crup." This material is standard in burgundy (although increasingly hard to find) on the Shannon and used occasionally with some other models. It is darker and less purple than Horween's Color #8 and also more "old school." It is not as "finished" as Alden's offerings in this material, which are exceptionally smooth and even in their color. Church's burgundy crup is the color of cherry cola on the rocks, and it can be rougher and with greater color variations across the shoe. If you like that old school shell cordovan look, Church's still has it. 

A word on sandalwood polished binder. Described sometimes as overpowering, this is the color and the material that is unique to Church's and in many ways it's definitive form. Try it and fear not. I have found that this odd shade and material really works for Church's designs. Like, "C" shade in Tricker's brogue boots or McDonald's hamburgers, there is nothing about sandalwood binder that one can isolate or even translate. It works for Church's shoes, and if you give it a chance to wear in you will find it has no substitute. Which is not to say it is better than anything. It is what it is.

Here are the lasts I know well. Please add your own experiences. I am only commenting on the lasts still in standard use. I know the 73 last is a legend, but as one will not find anything new on it (from Church's) I am not commenting on it.

Last 81: (Burwood, Ryder, Sahara, etc). Runs short and narrow. I drop a whole size into Church's shoes from my US fitting, but I can only do so on the 81 last if I go with a G versus standard F fitting. But in G the heel is too roomy. This is a popular last for Church's desert boots and chukkas, in which the big heel of the G fitting is mitigated. If you normally wear a 10.5 D in US, you might find a 10 F to work well and a 9.5 F too small.

Last 103: (Shannon, Cotterstock, etc). This is a great last for people with a wider forefoot and narrow heels and instep. It runs truer to UK sizes, but it is significant in its rounded and roomy toe box. The Shannon is the main model on this last, and works as dressy but stout and sturdy in that whole cut derby model. In the Cotterstock, a full brogue, this last can look a bit country and casual. I drop a whole US size into it and find the fit perfect (mostly due to the extra width up front, which mitigates what might otherwise be a short fit).

Last 173: (Grafton, etc). The 173 feels to me nearly identical to the 103 for the first three quarters of the shoe, but the toe is visibly more elongated and tapered. This feature makes a dressier and more "city" brogue than brogues on the 103 or 81. It is a little snugger across the toes than 103, but I still drop a whole size into it and they fit very well. Lately, Church's has been exploring pebble grain leathers with the Grafton, and these look great. The walnut pebble grain is especially worth picking up if you can find your size.

Last 133: (McEwan, Coleby, etc). This is a wide fitting last that wears something like a 103 G but perhaps a tad shorter. It is not as good a fit for a trimmer American foot. I drop a whole size into it, and the heel and instep are just a bit too big, which makes it feel shorter because the foot may slide. 

In general, I have found Church's G fitting variants provide more girth in the back of the shoe but do not substantially change the toe box--but that may be because with a wide forefoot and narrow heel and I am sensitive to this difference.

Good luck! Share what you know!


----------



## mcdill (Aug 13, 2013)

What an awesome thread. I am still learning about shoes, hence I tend to lurk.

I have a couple of the classics in the 173 last (Consul cap toe oxford and Chetwynd full brogue) and what I like about them is that you can get them with Church's own rubber sole (see here for the Consul's, on the Herring Shoes site). From the side, you can't tell they are rubber rather than leather. I use them as sturdy all-weather work shoes.

Kind regards


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Thrifted a pair of Church's shoes today, but need a little help figuring out which model these are.
Black captoes. Polished binder leather with a combo leather and rubber sole.

I can decipher the lettering inside to see they are size 10.5 F on a 135 last, but beyond that I can't read the model name.
Any ideas?


Looks to be quite a wide looking shoe despite being an F fitting.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

One of my all time favorite pairs of shoes.

Church's Grafton in Burgundy Crup:


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Again, I have thrifted a pair of Church's shoes and need some help deciphering the code written inside.

They are a pair of Consul, which are now made on the 173 last. Wondering if they've ever been made on different last?
This looks like 100 or 103.

Also, the size.
It looks like 8 or 8.5 F to me.
Can anyone say which?

Thanks.




EDIT: Someone told me the size is also stamped on the sole, and much more readable it is too.
8.5F is the size


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

My understanding is that years ago the Consul was made on the epic and fabled Church's 73 Last, which, to many of the discerning sartorialist's I know, was one of the finest lasts ever made for any maker.

If these are vintage Pre-Prada Church's then the chances of them being on that last are good.

And if that is the case, then you have a very distinguished piece of footwear on your hands.

Thanks.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

I only own 2 Church's, both thrifted. although the Chelsea boot was basically unworn. 1) James Chelsea boot in black, size 10.5D, obviously made for an American retailer, as per the D width stated on the inside; and 2) a black grain slip on in an 11D (not my size) made by Church's for the Woolf Bros. dept. store chain based in Kansas. At $35.00, they were a no brainer.

I too detect no drop off in quality pre or post Prada acquisition.

One day, I will take the grain slip on to Church's in London and have them make a new one for me, it is that nice.


----------



## Kendallroberts88 (Apr 25, 2015)

At $35.00, they were a no brainer.

My thoughts exactly when I stumbled upon these on eBay last night.

Any help on the last or pre-Prada?










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kendallroberts88 (Apr 25, 2015)

What shoe cream/polish will work with these?









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Odradek said:


> Thrifted a pair of Church's shoes ...


A rather odd and seemingly pointless detail: the dovetailed rubber heel tip - in a rubber heel. Or have I missed something?


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Excellent write up. Your post encouraged me to purchase a pair of UK8.5 Graftons even though a conversation with the shop in Chicago suggested I order UK9 (90). You went down a full size and your Graftons fit perfectly? Do you have any Alden's or Allen Edmonds to compare length and fit to the Church's? I'm just worried that my shoes will arrive and they won't fitness.


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Ok, I was confused.. I understood a full size down to mean -1 in the same units but you were referring to the standard UK to US conversion of -1. I guess my Graftons will be a 1/2 size too small. So much to learn.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Happened to have worn my pair of Cape Buck full brogues today. Purchased new in 1984 and still in remarkably good condition. Lovely workmanship, lovely narrow waist. Gorgeous suede!

The larger photo depicts the style quite clearly, though these are a bit beat. However the nap of the upper of my shoes is a good deal more plush, and the color richer and appears as it does in the shoes in the smaller photo.


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Would you comment on the sizing of your church's? (Just to stay on topic)


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Gentlemen,

I know modern Church's are not venerated here on the Fora. But my opinion is that Church's are excellent shoes.

In fact, I would consider Church's to be only a little lower on the food chain to Edward Green.

If you want to experience the quality of Church's I would recommend you stick with the Custom Grade line.

Thanks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

mansard_roofs said:


> Would you comment on the sizing of your church's? (Just to stay on topic)


The writing is rather faded, but in the upper right there are 3 characters. The first looks like a letter "D" or a "0" the next two are more clearly 73. So I assume these are on the 73 last. Beyond that the only thing I can make heads or tails of is the bottom line that says "buck."

I recall these being sold to me as a size 10 1/2D. I currently wear a size 11D in U.S. sizes. And typically fit well into a UK size 10 in the standard width. These shoes fit very much like other English shoes I have in UK size 10.

Edit: I might add, they're very comfortable shoes. The only oddity is that they initially had a slight squeak. But when I wore them the other day, I was delighted to find that after only 33 years this has vanished!


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Flanderian said:


> The writing is rather faded, but in the upper right there are 3 characters. The first looks like a letter "D" or a "0" the next two are more clearly 73. So I assume these are on the 73 last. Beyond that the only thing I can make heads or tails of is the bottom line that says "buck."
> 
> I recall these being sold to me as a size 10 1/2D. I currently wear a size 11D in U.S. sizes. And typically fit well into a UK size 10 in the standard width. These shoes fit very much like other English shoes I have in UK size 10.
> 
> Edit: I might add, they're very comfortable shoes. The only oddity is that they initially had a slight squeak. But when I wore them the other day, I was delighted to find that after only 33 years this has vanished!


Your Short Wing Full Brogue Oxfords clearly are made on the 73 Last. Which makes them collectors items. And the fact that they are even vaguely marked as such makes them all the more desirable.

That Last is generally held to be one of the finest RTW lasts ever produced in modern times by any maker.

Sadly, Church's has discontinued that Last altogether. The 173 has replaced it, but, to my understanding it is considered to be slightly inferior.

For the record if anyone ever comes across an old 73 Last in your size I highly suggest you procure....it is worth it.....

Thanks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Watchman said:


> Your Short Wing Full Brogue Oxfords clearly are made on the 73 Last. Which makes them collectors items. And the fact that they are even vaguely marked as such makes them all the more desirable.
> 
> That Last is generally held to be one of the finest RTW lasts ever produced in modern times by any maker.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the added information. I was fond of them when I purchased them, and 33 years later still enjoy them very well. Perhaps surprisingly, my 15 year-old granddaughter has even expressed her enthusiasm for them. So the collector market will have to wait just a little while longer!


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

In appreciation of this thread, today I am shod in my Church's.

Burgundy Crup Grafton:










Happy Sunday!


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Watchman said:


> In appreciation of this thread, today I am shod in my Church's.
> 
> Burgundy Crup Grafton:
> 
> ...


Gorgeous watchman.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Just received a pair of Church's Berlin Brogues, built on the 136 last. I ordered the 90 G (true to size) and the fit seems perfect but the toes are REALLY long. Anyone else tried this model on? Interested on hearing other's opinions on the shoe. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Sena (Jan 26, 2017)

The 136 last is part of Church's City range which I believe has been switched to the office range.

I find just like yourself that the 136 fits true to size but it is just a design feature that there is more space in the toe area. Apparently it is the trend these days to have a sleek profiled shoe.

Moving onto the comments in regards to the legendary 73 last, I have heard from channels that reintroducing has been discussed. Fingers crossed!


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Thanks Sena for your feedback. Have you seen veins like these on any of your calf Church's? Is this a defect?


----------



## Sena (Jan 26, 2017)

hmmm...personally I would not expect to see such large veins. Possibly be argued that it is an acceptable characteristic of a handmade shoe but for me that would be going back for a refund. 

I would actually disagree with comments above, I feel the brand has slipped since the Prada takeover. I saw a friends Bespoke Grafton that he had made which shows that Church's still can make a stunning shoe everything about it was just perfect. But....generally speaking from what I have seen, I feel people are paying for the brand with better quality shoes at a cheaper price available on the market.


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

I need to make a trip to Northampton one of these days. Whiskey Shell Cordovan Graftons?


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

mansard_roofs said:


> I need to make a trip to Northampton one of these days. Whiskey Shell Cordovan Graftons?


Unless you know something I don't, Church's has never offered Whiskey cordovan.

They confine themselves to black and #8. And I don't see them doing it anytime soon.

Thanks.


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Do these look like Polished Binder? And why do you think it is so black across the instep?


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

New replacement Berlins arrived today (different color) and these are plagued with deep impressions at the eyelets, sloppy burnishing, and poor stitching. These are not seconds and they are not marked S on the soles. I'm close to giving up on the marque.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Spoiler






mansard_roofs said:


> New replacement Berlins arrived today (different color) and these are plagued with deep impressions at the eyelets, sloppy burnishing, and poor stitching. These are not seconds and they are not marked S on the soles. I'm close to giving up on the marque.






This is unfortunate. May I ask how much you paid?

Although the above cited issues are less than desirable...they are certainly not the end of the world either.

I have seen similar issues with shoes and boots from other makers.

Thanks.


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Watchman said:


> This is unfortunate. May I ask how much you paid?
> 
> Although the above cited issues are less than desirable...they are certainly not the end of the world either.
> 
> ...


Sure it's wearable but the damage looks mechanical and careless, not worthy of the 'custom grade' moniker. I didn't pay full price but it wasn't cheap either at $400 US


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Spoiler






mansard_roofs said:


> Sure it's wearable but the damage looks mechanical and careless, not worthy of the 'custom grade' moniker. I didn't pay full price but it wasn't cheap either at $400 US






Ok. Actually you made out quite well for 400 IMO. I would of paid that for those. They certainly are as nice or nicer than anything you would of gotten here for that same amount.


----------



## mansard_roofs (Jan 13, 2017)

Watchman said:


> Ok. Actually you made out quite well for 400 IMO. I would of paid that for those. They certainly are as nice or nicer than anything you would of gotten here for that same amount.


I think they're going back. I'm too OCD.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

mansard_roofs said:


> I think they're going back. I'm too OCD.


Very well then. Just remember one of the issues you are bemoaning will always be covered up by shoe laces.

The other issue I have to squint my eyes on a Retina Display to see it properly.

AE and Alden are notorious for letting issues like these slide past their QC. And most of the time they are more expensive than 400.

Thanks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Watchman said:


> Very well then. Just remember one of the issues you are bemoaning will always be covered up by shoe laces.
> 
> The other issue I have to squint my eyes on a Retina Display to see it properly.
> 
> ...


I'm with Watchman on this. They're a deal! :happy:

And I'd happily wear them as-is with such slight imperfections! Two wearings, and a perfect pair will have far more.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Flanderian said:


> I'm with Watchman on this. They're a deal! :happy:
> 
> And I'd happily wear them as-is with such slight imperfections! Two wearings, and a perfect pair will have far more.


Yes Sir. It is just so hard to get a pair like that from the US.


----------



## Total-ac (May 18, 2018)

I have just stumbled across a pair of boxed (used, but in good condition) of Church's Grafton black binder shoes made on the 73 Last. Based on the conversation above I assume this is a relatively rare pair of Church's. 

These shoes would have belonged to my Granddad who used to work in a tailors along Saville Row, London between 1960-1990 and I can only assume that is when he would have acquired them in this time period. I was wondering if anyone here would be able to provide any more information on this particular shoe? 

If these shoes are collectible I would love to be able to hold onto them as a lasting legacy and wear them for special occasions, and also be able to tell the story that goes along side them. 

Any help would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The collectiblety of the shoes is not the issue. The driver(s) in this instance is(are) you feelings for your Grandfather and your desire to memorialize your memories of him. Listen to your gut on this one!


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Church's fabled 73 last has long been heralded by Sartorialists galore as being one of the finest RTW lasts ever made by any maker.

If the shoes are indeed the 73 Last then that means they were made before the Prada era and hearken back to a time when Church's would have been mentioned in the same breath as Edward Green and Lobb.

Enjoy Grandpa's shoes and wear in good health!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I was fortunate enough to pick up a pair of Cape Buck Custom Grade in '84 on the 73 last, and I'm still wearing them! The photo below shoes the hide and last rather well.

But these have been refurbished, and I have *no idea* why someone chose contrasting thread to stitch the welt! :fish:


----------



## Cassadine (Aug 22, 2017)

Flanderian said:


> I was fortunate enough to pick up a pair of Cape Buck Custom Grade in '84 on the 73 last, and I'm still wearing them! The photo below shoes the hide and last rather well.
> 
> But these have been refurbished, and I have *no idea* why someone chose contrasting thread to stitch the welt! :fish:


It comes down to personal opinion, but I think the contrasting thread on the welt looks nice on those. The refurb looks well done, as well.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Cassadine said:


> It comes down to personal opinion, but I think the contrasting thread on the welt looks nice on those. The refurb looks well done, as well.


Yes, it does look well done, and of itself, looks OK. But it detracts a bit from one of the most significant virtues of the shoe; that its looks are elegant enough to serve as underpinning for *some* rather sober business suits.


----------



## Alan004 (Nov 1, 2014)

I'm rather late on this thread.. but put my two cents in I must. The 73 last can still be had gentleman, even today. Pay the extra 100 quid and have a pair made bespoke. I had a pair of Royal Phillips made on the 002 in 11.5F and they are beautiful. I saw them in Quantum of Solace (Bond), I had to have a pair. It took me 3 years to work out my correct size, but once I did.. and the UK announced Brexit... the pound dumped down $1.19, I pulled the trigger. 21% VAT off and you have a gorgeous pair of Royal Phillips for less than $560.00.
I digress. My next acquisition will be a pair of Shannon's, bespoke on the original 224 last. Not this nonsense 103 Prada are pushing. Here are some images I saw of new old stock Shannon's in the 224 last from two pairs being sold on eBay years ago. They of course were not my size, but none the less I kept the images for when I was ready to order a pair in my size from the factory. And also some images of the Phillips on the 002 I now have. Always remember gentlemen.. your dream pair of Church's is only an extra 100 quid away (bespoke) and you can literally step back in time. Enjoy.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2020)

Hi, I want to buy the burwood's online, i am a EU42 in other designer sneakers, but am unsure for dress shoes. I have flat feet, do you suggest the UK8 G in this model? Thanks


----------



## johndory89 (May 7, 2020)

Hi, i want to buy the burwood model on the 81 last but am unsure what size. I am a 42/42.5 in other designer sneakers but unsure for dress shoes. I have flat feet and am thinking of buying the uk8 G in this model, would that be correct? Thanks


----------



## johndory89 (May 7, 2020)

I have tod's loafers in a 8 which are too narrow for my foot..


----------



## Ted007 (Aug 26, 2020)

If anyone is looking for Last 73 Size 9D I've just seen this on ebay


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2020)

Hello Shoe lovers ! I have been looking for a pair of Church's as elusive as a solar eclipse !

They're the * Adwell Ebony Bright Calf with flat black laces and oblique toe box on 135 last by Church's* . They made them around 2008 or 2009 for a Clothier called Leffot . Anybody has anything about this pair ?

I have been scouring the Internet for years now and even contacted Leffot in New York City and Church's in the UK . Their answer is invariably the same " its out of production "! Can you believe I even offered to buy the last at any price they want ! Their answer was a resounding " no " !

Any help ?


----------



## ItalianStyle (Mar 13, 2017)

Like these?


















Not my favorite shoe... I actually don't like the last...


----------

