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 1124

post #16846 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post


Through email Lexol said that their cleaner is between 6 and 7 and their conditioner is between 5 and 6.

Stop deliberately being dense.

Shitting in a box and sending it to you isn't a "life" threat, unless of course somebody's shit is radioactive or something.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Either way, it isn't acidic. Neutral isn't great either.

 

Both are higher than the leather pH you've claimed.  So according to your logic, both of them alters the acidity of the leather, so neither of them are great for leather.  True?!?!?

post #16847 of 19079
Yes.
post #16848 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

That's exactly what he is, just douche enough to fly under the radar. At least I own my douchebaggery.

Two words: David Copeland.


Well, back when all that (with Travers) was getting ready to go down, someone posted a wonderful bit about how certain people come on a forum and lurk for a time and/or repeatedly ask inane questions that have already answered.

This goes on for a while and then one day our hero is suddenly an expert--answering the questions of other, more recent newbies.

The final step is when this fundamentally clueless, inexperienced, willfully ignorant individual...unwilling to do the work or really put the time in...starts seeing himself as a font of all wisdom...and worse, believes it.

Then the cycle starts all over again.

There's no shortage of such people here on SF. I think they may be in the majority. And again, nature abhors a vacuum and with T gone...well, "it's a dirty job but someone has to do it." (PS...I rather liked T--he was, if nothing else, harmless)

The only thing I know to do is hammer on the lack of hands-on experience, the fundamental "heard it on the grapevine" nature of such postings. Stick to what you know in your hands from personal experience/work, don't pretend, and be willing to detail your sources.

That, or ignore them.
post #16849 of 19079
Lexol has a stellar reputation. A good one even hear on SF.
If you read the labels on their conditioner,cleaner and,ph you will not find a list of ingredients.
Are they to the Man behind the curtain? Hoodwinking all of us fools?
Are they being deceptive? I suppose a conspiracy theorist would draw that conclusion.
Me? I just think they are protecting their product and have every right to do so. Like it or not......
post #16850 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by axon17 View Post

Again, I'd say, "secrets of the trade". 

I understood that the first time you wrote it.
A far cry from being deliberately misleading though.
That's my point.....
post #16851 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Well, back when all that (with Travers) was getting ready to go down, someone posted a wonderful bit about how certain people come on a forum and lurk for a time and/or repeatedly ask inane questions that have already answered.

This goes on for a while and then one day our hero is suddenly an expert--answering the questions of other, more recent newbies.

The final step is when this fundamentally clueless, inexperienced, willfully ignorant individual...unwilling to do the work or really put the time in...starts seeing himself as a font of all wisdom...and worse, believes it.

Then the cycle starts all over again.

There's no shortage of such people here on SF. I think they may be in the majority. And again, nature abhors a vacuum and with T gone...well, "it's a dirty job but someone has to do it." (PS...I rather liked T--he was, if nothing else, harmless)

The only thing I know to do is hammer on the lack of hands-on experience, the fundamental "heard it on the grapevine" nature of such postings. Stick to what you know in your hands from personal experience/work, don't pretend, and be willing to detail your sources.

That, or ignore them.

 

Travers went down because he flipped repeatedly against random posters in this thread (I think), not because he was harmless, innocent or push over the edge as you've described.

 

Interesting that you are the proponent of personal experience/work but sometimes lacks the courtesy of respecting other's work/experiences that conflicts against your own.

post #16852 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick V. View Post

Lexol has a stellar reputation. A good one even hear on SF.
If you read the labels on their conditioner,cleaner and,ph you will not find a list of ingredients.
Are they to the Man behind the curtain? Hoodwinking all of us fools?
Are they being deceptive? I suppose a conspiracy theorist would draw that conclusion.
Me? I just think they are protecting their product and have every right to do so. Like it or not......

Some time ago, @MoneyWellSpent did a comparison of all the big name shoe manufacturers who advertise their shoes as being "the best made" or ""Traditional construction", etc., but who make GY welted shoes.

Such advertising is an obvious deception if not an outright lie. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to twig to that fact, given that even among the most ardent defenders of GY is is generally recognized that HW is a better construction.

It might take someone who doesn't really care to understand or change their preconceived opinions to ignore, deny or defend such advertising.

But if the shoe manufacturers do it, what is to prevent the shoe product manufacturers from doing it? Or maybe it's only the people you talk with and whose products you represent who are immune.

BTW and FWIW, this was the main point i was making in my original comments here.

That said, I agree with you...as long as there is no law against deceptive advertising, the makers "have every right to do it."

And we have every right...maybe we even have an obligation (to honour if nothing else)...to be skeptical and suspicious of hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 10/8/15 at 9:25am
post #16853 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by axon17 View Post
 

Again, I'd say, "secrets of the trade". 

 

All those written specs and data filed with regulatory bodies/agencies discredited in one easy catch phrase.  Secret of the trade!

post #16854 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Some time ago, @MoneyWellSpent did a comparison of all the big name shoe manufacturers who advertise their shoes as being "the best made" or ""Traditional construction", etc but who make GY welted shoes. Such advertising is an obvious deception if not an outright lie. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to twig to that fact given that even among the most ardent defender of GY is is generally recognized that HW is a better construction. It might take someone who doesn't really care to understand or change their preconceived opinions to ignore, deny or defend such advertising.

But if the shoe manufacturers do it, what is to prevent the shoe product manufacturers from doing it? Or maybe it's only the people you talk with and whose products you represent who are immune.

BTW and FWIW, this was the main point i was making in my original comments here.

That said, I agree with you...as long as there is no law against deceptive advertising, the makers "have every right to do it." And we have every right...maybe we even have an obligation (to honour if nothing else)...to be skeptical and suspicious of hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims.

Then again to accuse based on pure speculation is itself deceptive and at the very least unfair.
post #16855 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Interesting that you are the proponent of personal experience/work but sometimes lacks the courtesy of respecting other's work/experiences that conflicts against your own.

OK, tell us about yours...are you a shoemaker? Have you ever made a pair of shoes? Do you have literally decades of trial and error in pursuit of one singular goal.Or hand-on experience with thousands of widely disparate leathers and products?

Have you even gone so far as to read tracts on leather chemistry the effects of products on leather? or are you just relying on Internet postings, searches and the limited and probably misinterpreted occasions when you've polished or cleaned your own shoes?

I'm not diminishing your experiences, I'm putting them in context and comparing them with reality and sources that can objectively be called expert or authoritative. Your experiences are good as far as they go. But from what you've said and demonstrated, that's not very far.

In my view a good deal of what you post falls far short of the bar and I'm not just talking about shoe care products. If you do not have those hands-on experiences, if you have not put yourself out or expended the energy to personally verify...esp. through your vaunted "scientific method"...then it's just pretense.
post #16856 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick V. View Post

Then again to accuse based on pure speculation is itself deceptive and at the very least unfair.

Again, your comment is mis-directed. Is misdirection.

My statements regarding deception are not, in and of themselves, accusatory esp. in the face of the evidence. They are simply fact.

For you to reach such a conclusion, ignores your own comments about the product makers not putting their list of ingredients on the label.

To coin a phrase..."if the shoe fits, wear it."
post #16857 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Again, your comment is mis-directed. Is misdirection.

My statements regarding deception are not, in and of themselves, accusatory esp. in the face of the evidence. They are simply fact.

For you to reach such a conclusion, ignores your own comments about the product makers not putting their list of ingredients on the label.

To coin a phrase..."if the shoe fits, wear it."

Not true you ranted about being misleading with nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Then making assumptions based on that evidence. That's where it becomes unfair.
It surprises me that a person that considers them-self an authority in the field would do such a thing.
post #16858 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


OK, tell us about yours...are you a shoemaker? Have you ever made a pair of shoes? Do you have literally decades of trial and error in pursuit of one singular goal.Or hand-on experience with thousands of widely disparate leathers and products?

Have you even gone so far as to read tracts on leather chemistry the effects of products on leather? or are you just relying on Internet postings, searches and the limited and probably misinterpreted occasions when you've polished or cleaned your own shoes?

I'm not diminishing your experiences, I'm putting them in context and comparing them with reality and sources that can objectively be called expert or authoritative. Your experiences are good as far as they go. But from what you've said and demonstrated, that's not very far.

In my view a good deal of what you post falls far short of the bar and I'm not just talking about shoe care products. If you do not have those hands-on experiences, if you have not put yourself out or expended the energy to personally verify...esp. through your vaunted "scientific method"...then it's just pretense.

 

No I am not a shoemaker.  Nor a leather tanner.  Nor a chemist.  And I don't think you were the latter two either. 

 

You tend to throw your decades of shoemaking experiences or age as a weight for your arguments. I have great respect for your experiences, but no respect of the use of age/experience as a cornerstone to arguments. 

 

As an example, without any/much experiences with flushed metal toe taps, you've claimed that they are noisy to walk on and damages the inseaming.  Neither of your claims were verified to be true.  Instead of readily admit your mistakes, you clubbed other people's hands-on experiences with your decades of shoemaking experience wrapped in pseudo science/logic.

 

The byproduct of age and experience should not be the lack of humility and intellectual curiosity.

post #16859 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick V. View Post

Not true you ranted about being misleading with nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Then making assumptions based on that evidence. That's where it becomes unfair.
It surprises me that a person that considers them-self an authority in the field would do such a thing.

Circumstantial evidence? What do you know about circumstantial evidence? I have personally called nearly every maker of shoe products that I use to ascertain ingredients, and looked hard for the ingredient list of every product that has crossed my work bench, and I have paid attention to the comments of others who have complained on here SF about smells and reactions, etc.. Nothing circumstantial about it esp. in the face of my attempts to obtain more info and doubly esp. since I have personally applied many of these products with my own two hands and seen the results both short term and long term.

But all that flies in the face of the fact that I didn't accuse anyone specifically...I simply suggested ...in another post to another fellow which you obviously didn't digest every well...that redacting ingredients, like any redaction of information, is a good sign, or at least one sign, that deception is the intent.

I, personally, don't think that such a statement falls into the category of accusation nearly as well as your remarks implying that I would misstate what my daughter would do with regard to revealing what goes into the dishes she creates.

In other words...to put it bluntly...I think you redact information and make accusations too readily to be calling the kettle black.

As far as "unfair" is concerned...poor babies...what's fair about redacting vital information that consumers can use? What's fair about deliberately misstating or misleading the public? What's fair about lying?

And what's unfair about pointing out such practices?

I think your perspective about fairness...or even about what constitutes authority and/or relevant experience is badly skewed.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 10/8/15 at 10:50am
post #16860 of 19079
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post



You tend to throw your decades of shoemaking experiences or age as a weight for your arguments. I have great respect for your experiences, but no respect of the use of age/experience as a cornerstone to arguments. 

The difference there is that I earned the lessons that came from those experiences. And they are real, based on real life...not speculation and clishmaclaver. I have earned the right...and because of that I even consider it a duty...to offer my credentials when people who have none set out to contradict or challenge me.

You tend to blithely dismiss your ignorance and use that as a weapon, stubbornly insisting...like a blinkered mule...that your idea of what is right or which way the cart should go is paramount.

Like so many in our society/culture, you want the credit and the accolades but are unwilling to work for, or earn, them.

I offer my experience as a counterweight to your intransigence. It is citing sources. It is examining and exploring and analyzing the mechanics of a technique, situation or material. I am certain that for people who are really and truly interested in understanding and learning, that that approach is far better than gritting your teeth, stolidly shaking your head, and repeating what you've just said...without any real or consistent substantiation in any form.

I say put up or shut up

--
Edited by DWFII - 10/8/15 at 11:11am
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.**