The London Lounge

Are EG's 888 and 82 lasts similar in fit, except for the toe shapes? Could it be said that they related to each other in the way that the 606 and 202 are?

Many thanks.

I believe that is correct. Both were designed by Tony to update and improve the fit of the 202 and 606, respectively.

I am under the (mis?)impression that the 82 is an older EG last, used most commonly by Foster & Sons for the EG-produced private label shoes. Given the 2-digit last number, I wouldn't think this is a new last. Of course, I am sure Tony can weigh in and enlighten us.

Tony told me that he desinged the 82 himself. The numerical designation refers to the year in which John Hustlik bought and revived the company.

Edward Green lastology is indeed a science. There are rumours about plans for a chair at Cambridge (held by our friend Benedict Spinola).

Last 82 is a recent design by Tony to update 202 and give it a bit more panache, (just as the 888 is an update and replacement of 802).

Lance, you are referring to either 32 or 33 (both long-time EG standards). One of them was originally designed for Fosters.

Why EG now, for the 82, reverted back again to two-digits after for a long time all the new developments had three digits, only God and Tony will know.

Rolf

Sorry, don't know how to edit:
Last 888 is upgrade of 808.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your learned responses.

I realise, however, that my question should have been, more precisely, "Are the 888 and 82 sufficiently related that I may I order something on the 82 last even though I have never been fitted for it, providing I know the size I take in the 888?"

One is able to do that with the 202 and 606.

The 82 last fits me exactly like the 202, and I love the look. It's closer to bespoke than any show I've ever seen.

The 888 is slightly narrower in the toe box than the 606 and I am mildly unhappy with both the fit and the look of the shoe from the top (though it's better with brogueing than on a plain toe).

I never ordered the relatively sort-lived 808 so have no basis for comparison.

Another to consider is the 88 last. The main run of shoes I got from Wildsmith are based on this, and are still really comfortable even if the counters are looking a bit frowsy in some cases. Very slightly squared toe-- kind of a relaxed 606, but a bit slimmer through the heel than the 202. Green will make more on this pattern if asked (I've asked, but not yet decided).

Though the 82 is a bit longer than the 202, it is slimmer in the toe than the 888 making it fit more like the 202 than the 888. I have a 202, 82, and 888 in the same size and find the 888 a bit long whereas the other two fit better. Note, however, I have vastly different styles in each last which also affects fit.

I'm not sure if you've seen this already or not, but it may be of help:
http://img25.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=eg606-eg888.jpg

Hi Guys

Just to clarify, the 606, 202 are the same family and the 888,82 last are the same family, the last that was produced for Fosters was the 88 last and the 32,33 last were the parents of the 202,606.

so the EG last order goes like this.

first the 32 round toe last
second the 33 square toe version of the 32
third the 202, adapted 32 to fit better
fourth the 606 square toe version of 202
fifth 808 elegant square toe based on the 88 but did not fit well
sixth 89 developed for R.Lauren as a better fitting 808
seventh 888 bespoke looking last developed from 202 but longer and narrower toe box
eighth 82 round toe based on 888

ther have been other lasts produced by EG but mostly for other customers, not EG core range.

there are also numerous slip-on last, but there development history is not as striaght forward.


Tony

Tony, thank you for your comprehensive explanation. Most tempting to experiment.

However, why not produce a polished wood display set of all available lasts for the Burlington Arcade shop for customers to chose from? I personally find it very difficult to visualize these things. With true bespoke one trusts the artisan, but MTM is more difficult, and to see is to believe. Instead of being tempted one leaves the shop in doubt and defers the decision ad infinitum.

Nobody else can offer such a wide range, so it is surely a competitive advantage that should be emphasized.

Thank you Mr. Gaziano!

Thank you TVD, thats a very interesting idea, i'll mention it to our MD and let you know if there are any developments.

Tony

Tony wrote:Hi Guys

Just to clarify, the 606, 202 are the same family and the 888,82 last are the same family, the last that was produced for Fosters was the 88 last and the 32,33 last were the parents of the 202,606.

so the EG last order goes like this.

first the 32 round toe last
second the 33 square toe version of the 32
third the 202, adapted 32 to fit better
fourth the 606 square toe version of 202
fifth 808 elegant square toe based on the 88 but did not fit well
sixth 89 developed for R.Lauren as a better fitting 808
seventh 888 bespoke looking last developed from 202 but longer and narrower toe box
eighth 82 round toe based on 888

ther have been other lasts produced by EG but mostly for other customers, not EG core range.

there are also numerous slip-on last, but there development history is not as striaght forward.


Tony

Is there a round-toe equivalent of the 88?
I gather that the 33 and the 88 are close cousins?