Fit of EG 82 Last Compared to 202

"The brute covers himself, the rich man and the fop adorn themselves, the elegant man dresses!"

-Honore de Balzac

Post Reply
Sator
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:44 pm

I am sure most people will be familiar with this old thread:

http://thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/vie ... php?t=6758

Of course there has also been some interesting discussion of the fit of the Carmina Robert Last vs the 82/888 and 202.

I would like to canvass some opinions to guide me on what size would best fit in the EG 82 last. I wear a US 8.5D in the 202 and 606 last. I also wear US 8.5D in the 89 last. I am sure a US 9C in the 202 would fit even better as 8.5D still feels rather short. I am interested in 82 because I am after a last both a fraction narrower and longer than the 202.

My questions are:

1.) Should I still wear my usual size of US 8.5D? If it ran less than a letter width narrower than the 202 , it would probably still fit me well.
2.) Does the 82 run a whole letter narrower than the 202? In which case should I order a US 8.5E because it runs narrower?
3.) What do people think of going up to US 9C on the 82? Does the 82 last get too pointy in C width?

Thanks in advance for your opinions.
Will

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:59 pm

I take the same size in both lasts. If anything, I should go down a width in the 82 as the extra length makes for a slightly sloppier fit.
kolecho
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:41 am
Contact:

Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:34 am

82 is narrower than 202, and longer. I would stick with your 202 size on 82 since it is narrower and longer than 202. The instep on the 82 is lower than 202 as well.
Sator
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 2:56 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:00 am

Thank you for your replies.

I take it that the widths of the 82 and 202 are fairly similar, even if the 82 runs a fraction narrower. However, it sounds like the 82 is not so narrow that people are having to go up a letter width from their usual 202 size to accommodate for this. This is what my impression of the 82 was and it is reassuring to find this being confirmed.
Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests