Question:
For those who have shoes in 88 last, please help with some questions:
- What is your size and width in 88?
- What is your size and width in 82, 888 or 606?
- What is the instep height of 88 like relative to 82 and 888?
Many thanks.
Answer:
I don't have a pair on the 88 because they don't fit me very well. I can't close the lacing and even in an F width, they still feel a little tight.
Based on the statement above, you might think my feet were extremely wide, so lets get this in perspective:
On the 888 & 82 (also in an F), the laces close almost fully and the width is perfect.
On the 202 / 606, F is too wide and E a little snug.
Answer:
Laces are not supposed to close fully. There should be a quarter to half inch gap.
Answer:
Are you confusing 88 with another last (808 maybe)? 88 hasn’t been in main-stream production for some twenty years or so. I don’t think, you would have been able to try on a made-up pair.
I have just recently placed an order for a pair in last 88, size 9C. I will report here once the shoes are ready. It might be worth considering, going up ½ size but down in width. (Instead of 9F, 9 ½E maybe.)
Answer:
I have Old Berkeley on the 88 in dark oak and it fits much tighter across the toes than 808or 888, otherwise it's the same for me.
Answer:
Actually, I've been thinking about this thread and I am pretty sure he is mistaking the 88 for the 888. The description of a more narrow shoe is in keeping with the 888, which is perhaps the narrowest of all of their current lasts, judging from my brief encounter trying a pair on about a year ago.
I was reading this article in TWoHES:
It says that the 808 was developed during John Hulstik's time at EG as a bespoke looking last. Apparently, it was the first ever long nosed last in EGs catalogue - long and narrow. It says that the width across the ball joint is similarly narrow like the 88 but with an extended nose and a semi-square toe shape.
Tony Graziano has written on LL that the 808 did not fit very well (unfortunately he didn't say why) and that because of this the 888 was developed. The RLPL 89 last is apparently a modification of the 808 to make it fit better according to him. Again, I am uncertain what modifications where made to make the 89 a better fitting last. I am also unclear as to how the 888 is different to the 808.
Here is a picture from the same issue comparing the 808 and the 888:
My impression is that the 808 has a slightly more pronounced curvature to the outside edge of the toe, whereas the 888 is less curvaceous and almost rectangular in form. I also get the feeling that the 888 is just a tad squarer nosed, but I would gladly be corrected on that point.
My pair of 88s in C width are due out in October.
Answer:
I tried the 808 in the same size and width that I wear in 82 and 888. It is very narrow. I could barely squeeze my feet in. Makes 82 and 888 seem like 202.
Answer:
Perhaps that was the modification that they made to the 808 to create the RLPL 89 last. It might explain why the 89 last seems to run a bit wide - they might have overcompensated a wee bit.
Answer:
Here once again is a brief blurb in TWoHES on the 88 last:
They say that it works particularly well with captoe Oxford shoes with its quite round semi-square toe shape. They say that the ball joint is fairly slim with a well shaped waist. They think it is a well balanced and natural looking last. The 88 was modified into its long nosed derivatives, the 808 and 888 lasts.
The Berkeley pictured is on the 88 last in D width.
Answer:
If I understand it correctly, in the 808 (which was created for the original ‘top-drawer’ range) the point where the last curves in (on the outside) to hit the tip, is rather further back than in other EG lasts. So it catches many people’s pinkie toe.
Sator, I’ve got my copy of “World of High-End Shoes” on order, although, unlike you, I won’t be able to understand the text. (I always hope, there are enough international orders to encourage the publishers to add a supplement with English translation to all copies, delivered outside of Japan.)
Answer:
I wonder if the problem with the 808 that you describe would be corrected by going up a size and down a width ie elongating it even more so that the toe box is a bit roomier. However, I just tried manipulating the image of the 808 to make it longer and, unlike the 88, I can't say that I was particular enamoured of the results.
Original on the left and elongated on the right:
Yes, in the latest WoHES there is a lot of estorica on EG lastology. There is even a small blurb on how the 202 last was modified in the 1990s and that before that there were TWO different 202 lasts. One was just faintly more pointy and was used for full brogues. They have pictures side by side of the two old 202s and I really struggle to see the difference.
They also discuss the 32, 33, and 201 lasts. There is also a whole page of deleted catalogue models. They actually say that the most classical last for the Dover is the 32.
Also check out the gallery of medallions on the bottom of p54.
When I have time I might do a translation of the interview with bespoke shoemaker, Eric Cook (whose shoes grace the cover). Of course, I will translate it into German if only to drive Aportnoy and friends crazy. Das sollte doch spass machen, oder? :laugh:
Answer:
:censored: :fence:
I can always use Alta Vista Babel Fish...:(
Answer:
8E across the board for me. 88 is the least comfortable, by far. I wouldn't get another pair on it.
Answer:
On reflection, I think you are probably correct. Apologies for the confusion gents.
Exactly my experience - assuming it was the 808 and not the 88.
Answer:
Uh oh. Portnoy, do you have a pair of Dovers on the 32?
