John Lobb 1849 London bespoke--anyone have direct experience here?

[jazznpool]

I have great respect for John Lobb 1849 London and their ability to carry on through several generations of shoemaking at the highest level. I have enjoyed viewing several online videos which provide a peek into the entire bespoke shoemaking process involving highly skilled artisans/ craftspeople. JLL is at the top of the English bespoke shoes pricing hierarchy. I tip my cap to everyone involved including outworkers.

What I don't understand (maybe I am not understanding correctly) is how JLL can go directly to building shoes from the initial last measuring process--without the benefit of a second fitting with trial/fitting shoes. As I understand it, the English bespoke shoes standard practice involves at least one fitting with trial/ fitting shoes and proceed from there to either second fitting with trial/ fitting shoes or proceed to the final shoe building process. The practice of using fitting shoes seems essential to having greater confidence that the last will provide the desired shoe/ boot shape and a satisfactory fit.

Am I missing something here?

 

[bengal-stripe]

It's not since the year dot that John Lobb (London) works without a trial shoe. That policy was introduced by Eric Lobb (1907-1993). Eric is given great credit for manoeuvring the company safely through the turbulent post-war years. Whether the cutting out of the fitting process was based on purely economic or other considerations, I cannot say. But I think we can be sure, economics had at least a part to play in the decision.

I'm not quite sure when the change took place (maybe late 70s, early 80s) but up to that point, Lobb worked in the English tradition of fittings 'in welt'. In welt means the upper is made in premium leather. It's supposed to be to go to the finished shoe (unless things go very wrong). The insole is done in the correct way, shaped (blocked) to the last, a 'holdall' being carved, and the welt attached. At this stage does the fitting take place.

There is not very much which can the altered at that late stage. If there is a tightness somewhere, you can augment the last in that particular spot and bang it back into the shoe, relying on the upper leather stretching a bit. Hopefully you haven't stretched the leather previously too hard, so there is some stretch still remaining. If there is some fullness, you might be able to shrink the leather a bit, using moisture and heat. But if the problem is width or length of last and insole, you're rather stuck. The holdfast runs at a prescribed distance round the insole, you can neither cut off or add something to the insole without starting afresh.

Over the centuries, shoemakers invented a number of procedures and tricks to cope with fitting problems (some of them craftier, or even nastier, than others). Some will try every dirty trick in the book to avoid a remake, while others know they messed up and offer a remake. I have a pair of boots by Materna in Vienna made without a fitting. On collection they proved a bit wide, but they tightened them up until the next morning. There certainly wasn't the time to take them apart, reduce the last and remake them again. They might have raided their box of tricks, But the boots fit and have been fitting for the last 17 years. So, who am I to complain.

The same thing will apply to JLL. Stand your ground if you feel there are problems with the fit. A fitting session (or even more than one) will not be a guarantee for a good fit. On this forum there was more than one person who complaint that their first fitting with John Lobb (Paris) was an unmitigated disaster, (JLP has a very elaborated fitting procedure).

 

[jazznpool]

Thanks for your input. I thought JLL was the longtime West End leader with the largest annual volume of bespoke shoe sales. I heard or read somewhere that they employ several lastmakers. I would suppose they would lose customers if fitting problems were routine there. If I don’t hear from people who have had the experience at JLL, I’ll stop by JLL this summer and inquire. Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding about their process.

 

[Texasmade]

Thanks for your input. I thought JLL was the longtime West End leader with the largest annual volume of bespoke shoe sales. I heard or read somewhere that they employ several lastmakers. I would suppose they would lose customers if fitting problems were routine there. If I don’t hear from people who have had the experience at JLL, I’ll stop by JLL this summer and inquire. Maybe there’s something I’m not understanding about their process.

This was discussed on one of Kirby Allison's video where the Lobb son (can't remember which Lobb it is) said you're just putting off the inevitable. You're going to have to make the shoes eventually and having multiple fittings doesn't guarantee a good fit as @bengal-stripe said in his post. I'm pretty sure he was referring to my fitting experience with JLP. Even after all the fittings, the first pair was still massively off. It was so far off that they took the shoes back with no pushback and remade them. My remake and 2 subsequent pairs have been much better.

As long as JLL is willing to take back the shoes for any remake if the fit is off, then it really shouldn't matter if they have fittings or not.

My preference is there should be at least one fitting since I've never had a maker nail the fitting on initial measurements.

 

[bengal-stripe]

....having multiple fittings doesn't guarantee a good fit as @bengal-stripe said in his post. I'm pretty sure he was referring to my fitting experience with JLP.

Yes, you're right. I was referring to what you had written here, but also to member 'manton' who told the same story here at SF, only some twenty or so years earlier ("the shoes were terrible, but they made a totally new pair, even in a different design, now they're fine"). I remember the only time I met up with Manton in real life (about 2006 in London), I questioned him in detail about his JLP experience, as I had difficulties to believe such a famous firm could mess up to such an extent.

We should never forget, fits based on measurements are not based on the actual measurement but on their interpretation. Frequently allowances for ease or reductions for snugness demand a final measurement, which will be over or under size. There is also the question of different schools of last making. If any of us takes his one pair of feet to five different last/shoemakers, preferably in different parts of the world, he will come up with five different lasts. An Austro/Hungarian last, based on the teachings of Robert Knöfel will be different to a West-End (London) last or an Italian one with extra-high instep ('regal instep').

But I agree, the last from a reputable shoemaker should never been disastrous, there might be different preferences: How much length in front of the toes, should the facings on an Oxford close completely or leave a gap, how tight or how lose for the overall fit?