It would be slippery and its also not lined up very well. Looks like a kid nailed that heel on.
Originally Posted by MalfordOfLondon
Slippery is an understatement.
Originally Posted by goodlensboy
But why would JL do it?
Leather heels with rubber corners were unknown until the late 50s. Until then it was either all rubber heels (for cheap shoes) or all leather heels (for luxury shoes and bespoke). Unfortunately the corner of an all-leather heel wears down in next to no time, hence the need to protect the heel with strategically placed nails (a row all around the heel and a second row in the outside corner was a quite frequently used configuration).
The seller states the shoes were made in the early 90s (and the presence of three Royal Warrants confirms that they cannot have been produced before the 70s). At this time the heavily nailed heel would have been replaced by the “1/4 rubber” heel. don’t know why Lobb reverted with these shoes to a more ancient method of heel construction. Maybe the customer asked for it.
I agree, the placing of the nails wasn't to the highest standards in this particular case.
As an aside, Edward Green produced the early RLPL shoes (late 90s) with all leather heels and 110 or so nails (presumably at RL’s request), but they didn't come like that for very long. For all I know, punters might have fallen on their backside and complained, so the specification was changed.