Church's Ryders

Cheverian

These are probably the last high-end shoes on my must-have list. But I have questions that maybe someone here can answer:

1.) Are they comfortable shoes? My assorted C&J's are precious to me, but they're not Nike Airs in terms of comfort. Of course, you should expect that with boots like these. And insoles, etc., can make great shoes feel even better.

2.) Comparable to other suede chukkas, are they worth the price? I don't care about literal screen accuracy, but one of the things I like about the Churches is that they're not desert boots (of which I have many). I like that they have a little more formality to them. But other makers (i.e. Loach, even Florsheim) make semiformal suede chukkas, too.

3.) What is your sizing recommendation? I normally take a 10.5 US, but I have a narrow foot and in certain lasts, things get funky. For instance in the Allen Edmond's 511 last I am an 11.5B! On the other hand I have been happy in my 9.5 Islays (insoles help).

Thank you in advance for any advice you might have.

Paul

Peppermill

1.) It took me quite some time to break these in (still not all the way there). Compared to an unlined desert boot like Clarks or a pair of sneakers it takes forever. But then again, you will be wearing these a lot longer than most sneakers. As with all quality shoes, after that first uncomfortable break in period they will last you a long time and feel a lot better than every "ready out of the box shoe"

2.) They are quite stocky/crude compared to some other, more dressy chukkas because of the boxy look (if that makes any sense). I always thought that slimmer/more pointy chukkas look a lot more formal. The classic collection of Church's is still good but a lot of their "fashion" models aren't worth the money. I had to send my Ryders back to Churches because there was a problem with the sole. They fixed it but you wouldn't expect anything like that to happen to a pair of 500 euro shoes. If you like the look of the Ryders and like C&J why not give the Chiltern a try? http://www.crockettandjones.com/product/chiltern-darkbrown

3.) The last Church's use for the Ryders is quite short and roomy in the toes. I take a 10G in their 173 last (my Consuls and Chetwynd) but a 10G was wayyy too roomy for me in their 81 last so I take a 10F.

I hope this helps but if you have any more questions please let me know.

DB6

I found I needed a half size larger than my usual shoes - not convinced the last shape suited my foot tbh. Considering a pair of C&J (milton or tetbury suede).

You could also have a look at Cheaney Jackie in suede - I don't have them but Cheaney are a respected make too.

TheExit148

I have the Ryder boot. I bought it in a 10F UK. I range depending on brand between 10D or E - 11D (US sizing).

I wear mine a lot as the boots work well with jeans, and also business casual for work. They are right between the Clarks desert boot and the C&J Tetbury in terms of shape, which I like.

JMac88

TheExit148 wrote:

They are right between the Clarks desert boot and the C&J Tetbury in terms of shape, which I like.

Do you mean in terms of width? With the former being wider, and the latter being slimmer? Just want to know as I have wide feet but always wanted some Tetbury's.

Asp9mm

Suede Tetbury's are superb.

nafets47

Asp9mm wrote:

Suede Tetbury's are superb.

Agreed that is what I bought.

Commandant

In terms of sizing, I generally wear 10.5 US and 95 UK for the Church's Ryder

Vandrell

I have had mine for years and they are my go to casual boots. IMO they get better with age and the more you wear them and they are really comfy. I spent a week being dragged around NYC shopping with the wife and had no problems.

I have the Terbury's in sude as well amd they are also awesome. I would say they look a little smarter than the Ryders so you could get away with wearing them with more things.

Size wise i am always a 10.5 in crockett and jones and churches but my Ryders are an 11.

Cheverian

The Tetburys sound like a good option. The narrowness of those has given me pause because I'm worried they might seem pretty formal (even in suede) for an all-around shoe.

Peppermill

Cheverian wrote:

The Tetburys sound like a good option. The narrowness of those has given me pause because I'm worried they might seem pretty formal (even in suede) for an all-around shoe.

As a casual boot the Tetbury doesn´t fit the bill all that well. If you are looking for something similar in style to the Ryders the Tetburys wouldn´t be my first choice. For me, just my personal opinion mind you, they are too elongated and pointy to serve as a real chucka boot. C&J do make several other types of Chucka boots, so more than enough options. And of course the Ryders are also quality footwear.

kadd

Peppermill wrote:

Cheverian wrote:

The Tetburys sound like a good option. The narrowness of those has given me pause because I'm worried they might seem pretty formal (even in suede) for an all-around shoe.

As a casual boot the Tetbury doesn´t fit the bill all that well. If you are looking for something similar in style to the Ryders the Tetburys wouldn´t be my first choice. For me, just my personal opinion mind you, they are too elongated and pointy to serve as a real chucka boot. C&J do make several other types of Chucka boots, so more than enough options. And of course the Ryders are also quality footwear.

I agree with peppermill. In my opinion they are not great for casual wear as they are too narrow for jeans. when I tried them on they were very nice, and more formal. But not suitable for what I wanted. I have a pair of C&J Chilterns as they fit me better than the Church's Ryders

Cheverian

The Chiltern seems like a good option. I am looking for something between a too-casual chocolate brown desert boot and a stylish but elongated suede chukka. The Ryders may not be exactly right, but what I am after is how they functioned in QOS, as a quality boot that worked well in a variety of looks and circumstances.

Portent

Cheverian wrote:

The Chiltern seems like a good option. I am looking for something between a too-casual chocolate brown desert boot and a stylish but elongated suede chukka. The Ryders may not be exactly right, but what I am after is how they functioned in QOS, as a quality boot that worked well in a variety of looks and circumstances.

Try taking a look at the Loake Kempton or Loake Pimlico (they are very slightly different colours and the Pimlico is slightly more pointed, while the Kempton is slightly more rounded). They are three eyelet though so slightly taller than a two eyelet Ryder or true desert boot.

Another option, although slightly more expensive than the Loakes is the Barker Orkney. For each of these shoes you can get leather or suede in different shades.

Westward_Drift

I can recommend both the Pimlico and the Kempton. While Loake doesn't sell the Kempton in a chocolate brown, Herring Shoes does. They rebranded the Kempton as the Campton.

I believe Herring Shoes is having a sale through Sunday.

Portent

Westward_Drift wrote:

I can recommend both the Pimlico and the Kempton. While Loake doesn't sell the Kempton in a chocolate brown, Herring Shoes does. They rebranded the Kempton as the Campton.

I believe Herring Shoes is having a sale through Sunday.

Just wanted to add two things; Herring have superb customer service and the Loake Kempton and Pimlico are both from their 1880 range (so English made, not outsourced to cheaper labour).

Westward_Drift

A correction: the dainite soles are on the Gosforth IIs. Here's the link. It's called cigar but looks like a dark brown.

http://www.herringshoes.co.uk/herring/gosforth-ii-rubber_chukka-boot/cigar-suede

It's also available in a black calf should you find the C&J Tetburys run too narrow for your foot.

Cheverian

Thank you all for the input!