or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › **The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

**The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.** - Page 744

post #11146 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

I used pure neatsfoot oil. Seems to absorb very well into bark tanned soles.

Yes, but you should be aware that the more oil you put on the more the leather is softened and the more the fiber mat is loosened. In terms of resistance to abrasion, too much oil is not dissimilar to water in softening the outsole and wet outsoles wear much faster than dry outsoles.
post #11147 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Yes, but you should be aware that the more oil you put on the more the leather is softened and the more the fiber mat is loosened. In terms of resistance to abrasion, too much oil is not dissimilar to water in softening the outsole and wet outsoles wear much faster than dry outsoles.

Thanks for the concern, D, but again, I only oil the sole as per need, not THAT frequently. I am aware of the counterproductive effect as well.

post #11148 of 19072
VSC contains petroleum distillates. It says it right on the front of the bottle right next to the word "Warning".
post #11149 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

VSC contains petroleum distillates. It says it right on the front of the bottle right next to the word "Warning".

I'm sitting here looking at a box/bottle. It not only contains petroleum distillates but turpentine as well...and is "harmful if swallowed." Turpentine is distilled from pine resin, so I suppose you could call it a "natural" ingredient. But you could say the same thing about arsenic or even crude oil--they are "naturally occurring" substances.

The point is that advertising is, by definition, misleading and even deceptive. But I suppose that as long as people insist on defining words according to their own singular, individual, lights, they have to accept the unique definitions of others, too. Of course nobody really knows what's what or even what the other guy is talking about under those circumstances...all the better to sell you something, my dears.
post #11150 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

VSC contains petroleum distillates. It says it right on the front of the bottle right next to the word "Warning".

Yup, and it only work as a glaze cream. 

post #11151 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

Yup, and it only work as a glaze cream. 

Not according to the manufacturer's website:
Quote:
"...designed to deep clean leather pores while nourishing and moisturizing leather fibers to protect and restore."

"Used and recommended by antique restorers and museum curators to restore valuable antique leathers, libraries to maintain fragile leather bound books, antique camera restorers, shoe and leather goods manufacturers and tanneries throughout the United States."

"Fortified with mink oil and lanolin, Venetian Shoe Cream in Jars will soften and protect leather while replacing the necessary oils."
post #11152 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Not according to the manufacturer's website:

Well, can we all believe them? I don't really think if I can believe them. I am currently owning a tank of the cream (slight exaggeration - only a 32 oz. container) of the cream, and from what I see, I can really tell that this thing is only advantageous in glazing and polishing, not really the kind of cream that nourish.

post #11153 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

Well, can we all believe them? I don't really think if I can believe them. I am currently owning a tank of the cream (slight exaggeration - only a 32 oz. container) of the cream, and from what I see, I can really tell that this thing is only advantageous in glazing and polishing, not really the kind of cream that nourish.

I'm not currently using or recommending it but there's lots of products out there that aren't significantly better...or worse.

If we can't believe them, it begs the question: why do we believe Saphir or Collinil (sp?) or any of a dozen other products? Who can we believe, IOW?

Frankly, I doubt there's much difference in any of the formulas (with the rare exception) across the board...not when you get right down to it.
post #11154 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


I'm not currently using or recommending it but there's lots of products out there that aren't significantly better...or worse.

If we can't believe them, it begs the question: why do we believe Saphir or Collinil (sp?) or any of a dozen other products? Who can we believe, IOW?

Frankly, I doubt there's much difference in any of the formulas (with the rare exception) across the board...not when you get right down to it.

I don't really know what to say. I guess you got point.

 

The thing is, test and results exist for such reason. Well, I believe in Saphir because I used it, and the result is just as expected. I cannot believe in, say, VSC, because I used the product and it was never as expected, e.g. 

 

As of the formula, yes, that is still pretty big a mystery...

post #11155 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

I don't really know what to say. I guess you got point.

The thing is, test and results exist for such reason. Well, I believe in Saphir because I used it, and the result is just as expected. I cannot believe in, say, VSC, because I used the product and it was never as expected, e.g. 

As of the formula, yes, that is still pretty big a mystery...


Lies and statistics...that's all test results are.

There was another discussion (in this thread I believe?) about veg tanning versus chrome tanning. IIRC. pB had posted a video clip about the toxicity of chrome tanning. Another member posted an EPA study (test and results) that showed that vegetable tanning was toxic, too. But when you read the fine print, it turned out that the studies were done with a micro organism. As I pointed out at the time there's lots of compounds that are toxic to micro organisms that are not toxic to human beings...that are even beneficial--garlic being one of them. And vice-versa.

But the EPA was trying to make a broader point that was not supported by the data and it was accepted by at least one or two people here who read ...perfunctorily...the report.

I've used Saphir and VSC and many, many, other products over the course of the 40+ years I've been in the Trade. I've had the opportunity to observe and evaluate all those products on a wide range of leathers and in a wide range of conditions.

My conclusion is that if you wouldn't put it on your skin...for whatever reason--toxicity, irritation, greasiness--don't put it on leather. The skin test is the only sure-fire way to avoid issues. And the only test worth talking about.

So...if you don't mind having "mink oil" (identified by a chemist as generally pig fat) or turp or petro-chemicals (naptha, benzene, mineral oil) on your skin, the leather won't mind either.
post #11156 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by PattyC View Post

I'm selling a pair of shoes where I had a rubber topy placed over the sole. I had someone ask me if they were to remove the topy, would there be any permanant glue residue or something of the like. Gonna ask the cobbler I used, but I was just wondering if anyone here would know as well

I'v done this before and its fine as long as a cobbler does it and uses sandpaper to get rid of any residue (for aesthetic reasons)

post #11157 of 19072
DWFII Sharp point. I couldn't argue further.
post #11158 of 19072

Thanks DWF for the answer. I guess I'll consider it but not top priority at all it seems.

 

I don't know if this belongs here but I just received a pair of Carmina double monks and it looks beautiful. However, the sole of one side has this gap shown below. I don't know what to make of it but I can see the inside. Should I return them? I'm afraid water might get inside and mess things up.

 

 

 

 

post #11159 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by SushiOfTheGods View Post
 

Thanks DWF for the answer. I guess I'll consider it but not top priority at all it seems.

 

I don't know if this belongs here but I just received a pair of Carmina double monks and it looks beautiful. However, the sole of one side has this gap shown below. I don't know what to make of it but I can see the inside. Should I return them? I'm afraid water might get inside and mess things up.

 

 

 

 

They forgot to glue the channel back on (or the glue came off). These are closed channel soles that help hide the stitch: done by splitting the leather at the edge, sewing teh welt, and gluing the flap back on. They skipped the last step on these, or the glue didn't hold.

Not fatal and fixable, but based on how you like you new shoes to look, ymmv

post #11160 of 19072
Return them. Its an defect and they shouldn't let that pair leave factory in the firs place
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › **The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**