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 338

post #5056 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIDER View Post


Exactly correct. And apparently speaking inside the business and outside the business while using this term gets very different reactions. Folks, the vast majority of black calfskin on the market now (and for the last 5+ years) has to be corrected.....or there wouldn't be many black shoes on the market. And despite the call for various brown shoes in places like this, shoe factories need to sell a lot of black shoes to stay in business.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by applied View Post

 

Ron,

 

Thank you for your contribution in this forum. Things like most black shoes corrected grain is actually mind blowing information. With the inferior research that I have done, it seemed like corrected grain = bad. I was hoping if you could elaborate on why that is specific to black shoes and not brown. Also, I was wondering if there is something you look for in determining the quality of leather. Many times, shoe makers may not disclose the source of the hide, and any techniques to judge leathers would be valuable. 

 

I know your probably short on time and the subject is quite broad so, if you could just direct me to a website, that would work.

 

Thanks again!

 

I'm not trying to start the next "firestorm" or trying to be argumentative.  I know my experience is quite trivial compared to yours, Ron.  That said, this is quite surprising to me, since I too am generally unable to find any sources that state that true corrected grain leather isn't atleast second rate.  Does second rate = bad?  Not necessarily.  It might be a necessary evil for people to have a good looking product that they demand.  However, second rate does mean that it isn't the best. 

 

This same type of concept has been beaten to death as you well know amongst the gemming discussions with DWFII.  The arguement being that gemming is a perfectly acceptable and durable construction method according to one side, while it inflames anger from others who are trying to make the point that it simply isn't the best.  The point that kept getting lost in translation was that DW was not trying to say that gemming doesn't have a perfectly logical place in RTW shoe construction, and that it isn't durable for what it is.  He understands the economics of the shoe industry and why gemming has become a necessary evil.  He regrets and laments the course that the shoe industry has taken in the last 150 years or so, which has made the cheapening of shoes seem normal to the masses.  His campaign has been to educate people on why gemming is inferior to hand-welting, and remove the wool from people's eyes that Goodyear-welted shoes are the absolute best available as many manufacterers would have us believe.  He isn't saying that owners of Goodyear-welted shoes should toss them in the trash and start all over with bespoke hand-welted shoes.  He has said recently that even in the heat of those old gemming threads, he never had any misconception that high quality Goodyear-welted dress shoes which are in a proper rotation, kept on shoe trees, cared for properly, and worn in city/office environments will outlast a cheaper cemented shoe any day.  He is just sick of people spending over a grand on shoes under the impression that they are getting the very best available, when they aren't.  People who can afford multiple pairs of shoes that are over a grand each could likely afford a couple of pairs of hand-welted bespoke shoes just as easily, and they would be getting a better and more durable product. 

 

Now, I may be mistaken, but this new topic of corrected grain leather sounds like it has the potential to be the same tail chasing discussion.  Goodyear-welting is the gold-standard in shoe manufactering in that it is what all others are compared to quality wise.  For something to be the gold-standard doesn't mean that it has to be the best or most ideal.  It is simply the standard that has been pegged as the basis for comparison and you can either get better or cheaper from there.  Saying that most black leathers out there are corrected grain doesn't negate the fact that it is still considered second rate.  Full grain calf-skin is the gold-standard and is considered the best for making shoes.  I assume that you are including all shoe manufacterers in your group when you say that the vast majority of black calfskin is corrected grain from the Lobbs, G&G, EG, down to Alden, AE, etc.?  Again, I'm not trying to argue, because I fully respect your experience and knowledge.  This just sounds like it would be the same surprise that was reacted to when DW started explaining that everyone's Goodyear-welted shoes use gemming, and gemming is attached using cement.... surprise!!!  All the articles said that cemented shoes are cheap, which is what brought out the strong response.  All the articles also say that corrected-grain leather is second rate, or cheap.  So is the same reaction about to happen?  SURPRISE!!!!  All your high-end black shoes are probably corrected grain!!! 

post #5057 of 10200
I didn't read your essay, but I think it is tanned to the same specs and it comes from good tanneries it is just that the Cow is a living thing and has skin imperfections like most people do. Most people don't want these imperfections on their shoes. That's my guess.

FWIW, there are obvious differences between the leather on AE's and even Aldens. There are obvious differences in the leather of my G&G's compared to my C&J. I think you can see the difference pretty clearly. AE's to me all look pretty corrected, I don't know if it is the leather, or their sprayed on finish, but I think better, less corrected leather is pretty noticeable. Non handgrade C&J's looks slightly corrected to me, AE's definitely, not so much with Lobb, EG, G&G to my eye.
post #5058 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I didn't read your essay, but I think it is tanned to the same specs and it comes from good tanneries it is just that the Cow is a living thing and has skin imperfections like most people do. Most people don't want these imperfections on their shoes. That's my guess.

FWIW, there are obvious differences between the leather on AE's and even Aldens. There are obvious differences in the leather of my G&G's compared to my C&J. I think you can see the difference pretty clearly. AE's to me all look pretty corrected, I don't know if it is the leather, or their sprayed on finish, but I think better, less corrected leather is pretty noticeable. Non handgrade C&J's looks slightly corrected to me, AE's definitely, not so much with Lobb, EG, G&G to my eye.

 

Surely you read it in order to know how to respond. biggrin.gif  Your response is well understood, and is the very reason that corrected grain leather exists.  If people didn't mind imperfections, they wouldn't go through the effort of removing them.  The point is, correcting the grain is removing part of the leather grain surface, and is technically weakening the material (albeit only a small and trivial amount if some cases).  I think my point still stands though.  I too can see a difference in the leathers amongst manufacterers mentioned above, but those differences don't necessarily amount to corrected grain or full grain.  One of the reasons that high-end shoes are so expensive is because they are purchasing leather from their tannery suppliers that is nearly perfect.  The imperfect hides are passed on to lower quality manufacterers who pay less.  That goes back to the "pulling the wool over our eyes" point I was trying to make.  All of the manufacterers that are StyleForum "approved" claim to be purchasing the finest quality calfskin, which implies that they aren't correcting the grain.  They imply that their cutters are only using the best parts of the hide, implying that they cut around imperfections that may exist. 

 

I really don't want to be heard as the next torch bearing, campaign running, quality pusher.  If the form of "correction" that is used on black calf shoes in the high-end manufacterers is deemed appropriate and acceptable, then I'm ok with it.  I wear black so seldom that one pair of black calf captoes will probably last me a lifetime.  I am fine with the "gold-standard" that I described above, even if it isn't the best.  I am simply trying to say that the sources available to the common person (non-industry insiders), would imply that corrected grain is second rate, and it isn't used by high-end shoe makers.  If this isn't true, it needs to be exposed.   

post #5059 of 10200
Let's call a spade a spade. All shoes are shit unless they are bespoke.
post #5060 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Let's call a spade a spade. All shoes are shit unless they are bespoke.

 

Fair enough. musicboohoo[1].gif

post #5061 of 10200

From OSHA on terpentine  toxicity. There are more toxic substances out there, but I would not want to be exposed to any more of it than I could avoid. Certainly not if my reward was shinier shoes. If the best job I could get involved some risks of chemical exposure, I would have to think about the danger vs finding a safer job. But the worst that could happen from being careful with shoe care products is MAYBE my shoes are not as shiny. That is a chance I am happy to take. Wearing gloves, eye protection, and ample ventillation sounds good minimal precautions for any chemical exposure.

 

 

 

Quote:
  1. Effects on Animals: Turpentine is an eye, mucous membrane, and skin irritant and a central nervous system depressant in animals. The oral LD(50) in rats is 5760 mg/kg, and the LC(50) in the same species is 12 g/m(3) for 6 hours [RTECS 1989]. Cats exposed to a 540- to 720-ppm concentration of turpentine exhibited signs of immediate eye and mucous membrane irritation and had mild convulsions; at a concentration of 1440 ppm, they developed paralysis within 150 to 180 minutes [HSDB 1989]. No adverse effects were noted in dogs exposed to 180 ppm for 3.5 hours/day for 8 days [ACGIH 1986, p. 615]; however, raising the concentration to 818 ppm and exposing the dogs for 3.5 to 4.5 hours caused nausea, incoordination, mild paralysis, and weakness [Clayton and Clayton 1981, p. 3245]. Exposure of rats to a 12- to 20-mg/l (2150- to 3600-ppm) concentration for 1 to 6 hours and of mice to a 29-mg/l (5200-ppm) concentration for 2 hours produced seizures and apnea; at autopsy, however, no pulmonary lesions were noted in these animals [AIHA 1979]. Injection of turpentine into rabbits' eyes produced shrinkage of the orbit and corneal opacification [Grant 1986, p. 961]. In one study, dermal application of turpentine produced skin tumors in rabbits but not in mice [Clayton and Clayton 1981, p. 3245]; in another experiment, however, painting the skin of mice with 240 g/kg turpentine did cause tumors [RTECS 1989].
  2. Effects on Humans: Turpentine is a skin, eye, mucous membrane, and upper respiratory tract irritant in humans. It may also cause skin sensitization and central nervous system, gastrointestinal, and urinary tract effects. The lowest estimated oral dose reported to be lethal in humans is 441 mg/kg [RTECS 1989]. Exposure to a 75-ppm concentration for 3 to 5 minutes irritates the nose and throat, and exposure to a 175-ppm concentration irritates the eyes and may be considered intolerable by human volunteers [Grant 1986, p. 961; Proctor, Hughes, and Fischman 1988, p. 500]. Ingestion of turpentine causes a burning pain in the mouth and throat, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, excitement, ataxia, confusion, stupor, seizures, fever, and tachycardia and may cause death due to respiratory failure [Proctor, Hughes, and Fischman 1988, p. 500]. Toxic glomerulonephritis and bladder irritation, with hematuria, albuminuria, oliguria, and dysuria, have been associated with overexposure to the vapor of turpentine in the past [AIHA 1979]; however, the more purified form of turpentine now in use appears to have decreased the incidence of or to have eliminated turpentine-induced nephritis [Proctor, Hughes, and Fischman 1988, p. 500]. Splashes of the liquid in the eye produce severe pain and blepharospasm; conjunctival redness and temporary corneal erosion may also occur, but these effects are reversible [Grant 1986, p. 961]. Chronic skin exposure to turpentine may produce a hypersensitivity reaction, with bullous dermatitis and/or eczema [Clayton and Clayton 1981, p. 3244; Sittig 1985, p. 907]. A case-control study of workers in particle-board, plywood, sawmill, and formaldehyde glue factories demonstrated a statistically significant association between chronic exposure (longer than 5 years) to terpenes (the principal component of turpentine) and the development of respiratory tract cancers [HSDB 1989].

Edited by dbhdnhdbh - 5/9/13 at 11:41am
post #5062 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbhdnhdbh View Post

From OSHA on terpentine  toxicity. There are more toxic substances out there, but I would not want to be exposed to any more of than I could avoid. Wearing gloves, eye protection, and ample ventillation sounds good minimal precautions for any chemical exposure.

 

 

 

i guess this guy is living dangerously:

 

 

post #5063 of 10200
:shrug:
post #5064 of 10200

Glenjay

 

 

 

Quote:
Water is not an integral part of the structure of leather

Don't take my word for it. Look it up in "Tanning Chemistry, the Science of Leather" by Arthur Covington, now Emeritus Professor of Leather Technology, University of Northhampton. This is considered the standard leather chemistry textbook. In it he says

 

 

 

Quote:

An important part of the structure of collagen is the role of water, which is an integral part of the structure of collagen and hence of its chemically modified derivatives.... (Chapt 1, 1.4, p. 10)

 

The involvement of water in structure is an important feature of collagen, because it influences the relationships between drying and subsequent leather properties. If the drying conditions are severe enough to remove water close to the triple helix, the fibre structure can approach close enough to allow the formation of additional chemical bonds. This adversely affects the strength of the leather by embrittling the fibre structure and the handle or feel of the leather is stiffended.( page 13)

 

 

 

The water in collagen can be divided into three main groups: structural water, bound water, and bulk water. Bulk water has a liquid-like character and can form ice crystals at 0oC. Bound water exhibits a structure between solid and liquid, and does not freeze at 0oC. Structural water molecules are part of the fibre structure and behave like a solid.

 

In the earliest stage of drying there may be sufficient bulk water on the surface of a leather for it to act like a liquid water surface. Evaporation occurs at a constant rate, which is proportional to the surface area of the leather (A), mass transfer coefficient (Kg) and to the difference between the vapor pressure of the water at the surface temperature (Ps) and the partial pressure of water in the air (Pa). Chap 18, Drying, p.421-422)

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Part of the process of converting skin to leather is to modify the collagen structure by replacing the oxygen atoms in the hydrogen bonding with amino acids in the tanning solution

 

Well, you cannot "replace oxygen atoms with amino acids". Chemistry does not work that way. Amino acids contain oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms are much smaller than amino acids, and amino acids would not fit into the locations where oxygen atoms are found in the amino acid chains of collagen- or for that matter, any other protein. To the extent that hydrogen bonds are formed then they would have to be with atoms like oxygen. Since the proteins are made of amino acids, the hydrogen bonds are between hydrogen atoms and oxygen or nitrogen. So, if you "replaced" an oxygen atom with an amino acid, you would have replaced it with a molecule that contained oxygen and nitrogen, and hydrogen bonds would still form. But you could not do this because the protein structure would not permit it.

 

 

 

Quote:
Fats are not permanently bound to leather;

 

Yes they are as part of modern leather fat liquoring. This is part of the reason that leather loses little fat during its lifetime. The methods used to fat liquor involve carefully controlled temperature, ionic strength, pH, emulsification, and agitation- chemistry again. The fats then bind to the leather and stay there. You might see "Theory and Practice of Fat Liquoring" and "Fat Liquoring pt1" and "Fat Liquoring pt2" ,all published in World Leather. In times past leather was treated with oils and waxes that did not bind to the fibers, would migrate out, and had to be replaced. This was the work of curriers. That business appears to be about gone, since fat liquoring took over.

 

 

 

Quote:
Conditioning is done to replace any oils (that are lubricating the fibril bundles) that have been lost, (to things like cleaning, stripping, stepping in a puddle, and oxidation, to name a few).

 

Conditioning is done primarily to adjust the moisture content of the leather. In studies of leather properties, the samples are "conditioned" at standardized relative humidity to adjust the water content. Adding oil to replace lost oil may be necessary if the piece has been treated with something that can remove the fat (like the VOC's discussed above). But if you do not do this, then modern leather will lose little of its fat in normal use. 

 

In a related discussion on AAAC, the member calfnkip, who is in the tannery business, had the following comments

 

 

 

Quote:
...when the leather arrives at the shoe factory, it is fully fatliquored / conditioned and ready to be made into shoes that are meant to give years if not decades of service.
 
Under normal use, small amounts of these fatliquors may leach out of the shoe’s leather due to the flexing it’s subjected to when you walk. The quantities that migrate out of the leather this way are pretty small and shouldn’t compromise the integrity of the collagen fibers for some time - - often quite a few years if the tanner has done his job properly. And you are correct that it is not really possible to restore all the fatliquors, greases, waxes and other compounds that are applied to footwear leathers during the tanning process.

 

He does not elaborate on why is it not possible to restore the fat liquoring, but the problems are: the fat liquoring is performed with the leather in a drum, heated, with a series of chemicals that are not available to the consumer, under pH and ionic strength conditions that are adjusted for the particular liquor and leather. All sides of the leather are exposed. At the end of this process, some of these conditions are carefully altered to complete the binding, extraction of emulsifiers, or in other ways. These cause permanent changes in the leather, which may not permit more fat liquor to be added.

 

In response to a question on this topic, Steve Gilbert of the American Leather Chemists Association posted this comment 

 

 

 

Quote:
...under normal conditions there is not need or in reality no real  possibility to re fatliquor a finished leather article.     It is part of a chemical process during tannage.   

If you search Science Citation Index, you will find papers describing the uses of humectants in maintaining the water content of finished leather. PEG, sorbitol, and glyercol seem to be the most common.

post #5065 of 10200
This thread used to make me happy, now it makes me sad : (
post #5066 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crat View Post

This thread used to make me happy, now it makes me sad : (

I hear ya man
post #5067 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crat View Post

This thread used to make me happy, now it makes me sad : (

Some more of your handy work would make me happy:)

post #5068 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbhdnhdbh View Post

Glenjay



Don't take my word for it. Look it up in "Tanning Chemistry, the Science of Leather" by Arthur Covington, now Emeritus Professor of Leather Technology, University of Northhampton. This is considered the standard leather chemistry textbook. In it he says








Well, you cannot "replace oxygen atoms with amino acids". Chemistry does not work that way. Amino acids contain oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms are much smaller than amino acids, and amino acids would not fit into the locations where oxygen atoms are found in the amino acid chains of collagen- or for that matter, any other protein. To the extent that hydrogen bonds are formed then they would have to be with atoms like oxygen. Since the proteins are made of amino acids, the hydrogen bonds are between hydrogen atoms and oxygen or nitrogen. So, if you "replaced" an oxygen atom with an amino acid, you would have replaced it with a molecule that contained oxygen and nitrogen, and hydrogen bonds would still form. But you could not do this because the protein structure would not permit it.




Yes they are as part of modern leather fat liquoring. This is part of the reason that leather loses little fat during its lifetime. The methods used to fat liquor involve carefully controlled temperature, ionic strength, pH, emulsification, and agitation- chemistry again. The fats then bind to the leather and stay there. You might see "Theory and Practice of Fat Liquoring" and "Fat Liquoring pt1" and "Fat Liquoring pt2" ,all published in World Leather. In times past leather was treated with oils and waxes that did not bind to the fibers, would migrate out, and had to be replaced. This was the work of curriers. That business appears to be about gone, since fat liquoring took over.




Conditioning is done primarily to adjust the moisture content of the leather. In studies of leather properties, the samples are "conditioned" at standardized relative humidity to adjust the water content. Adding oil to replace lost oil may be necessary if the piece has been treated with something that can remove the fat (like the VOC's discussed above). But if you do not do this, then modern leather will lose little of its fat in normal use. 

In a related discussion on AAAC, the member calfnkip, who is in the tannery business, had the following comments




He does not elaborate on why is it not possible to restore the fat liquoring, but the problems are: the fat liquoring is performed with the leather in a drum, heated, with a series of chemicals that are not available to the consumer, under pH and ionic strength conditions that are adjusted for the particular liquor and leather. All sides of the leather are exposed. At the end of this process, some of these conditions are carefully altered to complete the binding, extraction of emulsifiers, or in other ways. These cause permanent changes in the leather, which may not permit more fat liquor to be added.

In response to a question on this topic, Steve Gilbert of the American Leather Chemists Association posted this comment 



If you search Science Citation Index, you will find papers describing the uses of humectants in maintaining the water content of finished leather. PEG, sorbitol, and glyercol seem to be the most common.
Everybody knows that
post #5069 of 10200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlind View Post

Some more of your handy work would make me happy:)
Until this (sh*t)storm blows over this will be my last contribution to this thread devil.gif

post #5070 of 10200
I guess the only gentlemanly way to put this is you Sir, are a moron.
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.**