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 823

post #12331 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

Well, I might as well just PM you about my plan later on. It's not just one pair out of waxed calf, DW. I'm looking forward to build a whole collection of stuff out of the stuff.

Sorry, not going happen. I'm a shoemaker not a leather currier.
post #12332 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Well, chrome tanning does produce a softer leather it is a relatively modern technique and faster and cheaper. As far as I know back in the day all leather was veg tanned. Veg tanned leather, to me at least seems more durable than chrome tanned leather. Maybe I am just romanticizing though.

No. You got point. Veg tanned leather is more rigid and stiff, and takes a beating in breaking in, but in reward, properly cared for, and your great grandchildren is left with an artifact that survives through everything you throw at them. However, tan the hide the wrong way and it can literally crack the first minute you handle it. Well, tan a chromed hide the wrong way and it turns into pleather. Same deal.

 

A veg tanned hide should always be well stuffed and curried because of their nature. Once done so, well maintained will keep them for ages, and they can outlast even the owner, let alone just surpassing chrome leather.

 

Chrome, I believe, went into crazy widespread use after troops in the field captured German made shoes being chromed and vegged (DW, you might have to correct me). They said chrome tanned leather can resist everything, which, to this day, I much doubt of.

 

Russian calf/reindeer/leather, was veg tanned, then treated with aromatic oil. If there were to be an ultimate leather, I think the currying process of Russian leather should be put into consideration. An aromatic oil prevents all sorts of ordeal you can name for veg tanned leather.

post #12333 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Sorry, not going happen. I'm a shoemaker not a leather currier.

I'm gonna have to cry...

post #12334 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

Yes, waxed calf, or to be real, reversed waxed calf was vegetable tanned, then literally hot stuffed. It's the hair side out, stuffed with grease, and finished on that side.

I suspect you said that wrong. Real waxed calf is flesh (not hair) side out.
post #12335 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


I suspect you said that wrong. Real waxed calf is flesh (not hair) side out.

Sorry! :D I was trying to say the "hairy side" (which means the flesh, as corrected)...

 

@patrickBOOTH this was what I was trying to say.

post #12336 of 19072
DW, have you any experience with goat leather? I bought a handmade leather journal for somebody for Christmas and the leather is from a goat. Beautiful stuff, I wonder how it would work as a shoe.

This reminds me, maybe what I am looking for is a good kangaroo leather for the winter. You have commented on how it is extremely dense and these days much better quality than calf.
post #12337 of 19072

Alden used to have dress boots out of goat skins. It'll be buttery soft and too delicate, though.

 

Now that you reminded me, veg tanned 'Roo leather sounds like another opportunity.

post #12338 of 19072

I seem to remember DW saying he was a fan of kangaroo, and its exceptional ratio of tensile strength to weight is well known.  But being so thin and light, won't it show its wrinkles a little too much for a dress shoe?

post #12339 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

DW, have you any experience with goat leather? I bought a handmade leather journal for somebody for Christmas and the leather is from a goat. Beautiful stuff, I wonder how it would work as a shoe.

This reminds me, maybe what I am looking for is a good kangaroo leather for the winter. You have commented on how it is extremely dense and these days much better quality than calf.

I've used kid and goat. goat tends to have more "hair cell" and be a bit thicker. I found both to be a bit fragile.

Some very fine examples of boots and shoes made from Morocco (which is usually goat) from the 19th century exist. The Northampton shoe Museum released a book some years ago that included a beautiful pair made by W.D. Attewell, IIRC, that were green and black Morocco.

Goat and kid...including morocco... are mostly associated with bookbinding however.

Modern kangaroo (esp. that being produced in Italy for dress shoes) is one of the most tear resistant leathers known to man. The hair cell is very fine. The leather is usually pretty thin...about the same substance as kid or goat.

attewell boot--morocco...all hand stitched, uppers as well as outsoles.

Attewell_resampled (800 x 600).jpg

--
Edited by DWFII - 12/19/14 at 8:40am
post #12340 of 19072

@DWFII Well, speaking of thickness, how would you compare 'roo and boxcalf?

post #12341 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

I seem to remember DW saying he was a fan of kangaroo, and its exceptional ratio of tensile strength to weight is well known.  But being so thin and light, won't it show its wrinkles a little too much for a dress shoe?

I think it depends on the fit of the shoe. IMO, much of the heavy creasing that people find so objectionable comes down to too loose a fit over the ball of the foot.

When we make pull on boots we don't have laces to adjust the fit so we have to be spot on--snug but not tight. [ I always say that if you can reach down and slide your fingers across the vamp of the shoe and chase surplus leather ahead of your fingers, the shoe/boot doesn't fit. ] The upshot is that we fit pretty close and I've made many, many pair of kangaroo boots and never seen extra-ordinary pipes or wrinkles.

Again, this may be due to the fit, but I don't see...all other things being equal...why that should matter. A thin calf skin won't wrinkle any better or worse.

And truth to tell, IMO, thicker leathers will tend to create coarse pipes and wrinkles. Used to be shoemakers were advised to create a little extra room inside the shoe to prevent heavier leathers from creasing so stiffly that the foot hurt.
--
Edited by DWFII - 12/19/14 at 8:35am
post #12342 of 19072
Maybe Roo is in store for some boots...
post #12343 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

@DWFII
 Well, speaking of thickness, how would you compare 'roo and boxcalf?

You can't do that. Almost every leather we talk about on this forum is leather is split. Well, probably not ostrich or 'gator...

The kangaroo I get is roughly 2 ounce, maybe 2-1/2 ounce. The French calf I get is right around 4 ounce. The Baby Calf I get from Crack is approximately <3 ounce. Most calf will have at least 3-6 ounces split off. Where do you think most "suede" comes from?

--
post #12344 of 19072
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Where do you think most "suede" comes from?

 

Now there is a thorny issue.

 

I have effectively given up on suede, having had a few pairs that just look so scruffy so quickly - and the difference between $50 shoes and $250 shoes is near zero.  What I'm wondering is two things: at what point price point does "suede" become actual suede, i.e. full thickness reverse calf, and how much better does it keep its nappy beauty?  I'm sure there are all sorts of tools and tricks to revive the stuff...but for now, I think I'll get my texture from "scotchgrain". :smarmy:

post #12345 of 19072
I'd even go as far to say that the different between $250 and $650 shoes is close to zero in terms of leather quality.
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.**