Leather cracking on EGs - please advise - Page 5

These are 5 year old shoes, not 1 week old. Even if OP speaks the truth, a new pair of shoes is asking too much.

We disagree on this point to a large extent.

You say, "It technically isn't there "fault" (they didn't tan the stuff and no amount of quality control would catch it every time)".

I say, If you sell it & it's got a problem, it's ALWAYS your fault.

I own a business. Every day, things happen that are "beyond my control", or "not my fault". If something goes wrong, my client blames me 100%, and he is right to do so. If I even try to say, "it wasn't technically my fault because I relied on a 3rd party to supply me with XYZ", his (CORRECT) answer is, "You F*CKED UP BY BUYING IT FROM XYZ" STILL MY FAULT.

If the leather sellers are so unreliable, then maybe the top companies should each buy a tannery & make F*CKING 'A SURE the leather's as good as possible.

Didn't say they should replace the shoes. BUT, if they DID, the poster (who has bought 5 pairs so far), may well stay a customer & buy 5 more. Since they won't, the poster will never buy from them again + he'll tell everyone he knows about his bad experience. Bad word of mouth can cost you hundreds of customers, just by messing up once.

I think the age of the shoes is not the issue, to be honest. The point is is that if it is, say, a problem with the leather then they could have gone after two years, not five. Sure, if the shoes are ten years old then they've lasted. But they haven't. I think it would be reasonable for EG to offer either a replacement pair, half the money back in compensation, or free re-soling for life or something.

I understand your position entirely...and mostly agree, even to the extent that the seller is ultimately responsible. However, I think you are overlooking several critical issues... First (at the risk of broaching a verboten subject here on SF) it is my considered opinion that "the best" is: (a) relative; (b) in the eye of the beholder; and in the case of mass manufactured, Goodyear welted, shoes, (c) more a function of marketing hype than substance. Second, is the issue of who is really to blame. I am in no way dissing the OP but if you buy into the marketing hype and then have your expectation fall flat...who is responsible? Caveat emptor. Finally, how is the maker to objectively determine responsibility? The OP admits the shoes are five years old. A lot can happen in five years. And no aspersions to the OP, but over the years I've had people bring me in boots and shoes that were ruined...unalterably ruined...by heat. They prop their boots up in front of the campfire to dry them out and then try to tell you they never. Swear on a stack of bibles. But someone who has been in the business for any length of time knows heat damage, no mistake. If nothing else...as I mentioned before...some product that he was using had silicone or turp in it and the OP didn't know that. Or he lives in a city that has lots of smog=acid rain, etc.. The maker cannot be held responsible for those kinds of things. The maker cannot be responsible for abuse of any kind--physical or chemical. This is just a matter of policy, you see. The bottom line is that the maker has no way to verify over the space of five years how the shoes have been treated or mistreated, nevermind the veracity of the customer.

I have several leather conditioners but I'm unsure which ones contain silicone, does the list of ingredients list silicone or is it called something else? The conditioners that I have include Bic 4, Meltonian Leather lotion and Saphir Renovateur which I use on my more expensive shoes.

I've seen a pair of Lobbs and had a pair of EG crack, despite a regular & appropriate care regime. Sometimes, with regret, even the very best manufacturers can end up making a 'dud' shoe because the raw material has not behaved typically, DWFII provides an insightful explanation as to why this can happen.

QC is unable to pick up on this, only the owner is in a position to monitor how the shoe is wearing over time. Obviously before cracks appear, there are signs of bad wear, a stage where things may be mitigated if not prevented. So in my opinion a frequent inspection of ones investment is prudent.

On the matter of these EGs: the cracking is quite simply premature. Given the proper care regime was followed & provided there were no accidents, the leather has unfortunately worn badly. EG should have acknowledged this at least in some form, leather as a natural material can wear unevenly - so it would not be a complete liability for EG to have recognized this. And it's that defiant, defensive and uptight attitude that EG employs that shocks me most.

I am appalled that EG has chosen to blame the fault on the use of silicone products and feel the rambling written lecture on shoe creasing was quite un-necessary. On the whole EG do make great shoes - lots of examples, but it seems they come with the risk of bad service - growing list of examples.

+10000000

Agreed. There is a cutoff point for their liability. 5 years is well past that point for cracking leather, which is something that occurs naturally.

Can't stop laughing

On shoes, depending on where you seek to bring an action, the likelihood of proving liability on anything over 12 months old is very unlikely. But parking the liability issue, for me the deficient & potentially insulting service from EG is a bigger problem than a low percentage of their product falling short after x years.

Hi Tibo

I can give you a couple of definitive reasons that for the damage to your shoes, I'm surprised that the great gurus such as DWF11 didn't know this.

Discounting any defects in the hide or in the tanning process the main reason that you get more creasing and sometimes cracking in black shoes is that during a stage in the tanning process (fatliquouring) oils are introduced into the completely dry tanned leather which become part of the structure of the leather. More of these fats/oils are used in coloured leathers and the very least amount are used in black leathers. Thats why on the whole black leathers are less flexible and more easily damaged, thats a fact (I'm a chemist)

The other reason that most of you may have overlooked is that EG have overall the most tightly fitting shoes of any RTW shoe maker and my EG's always crease more than any other shoes. On the whole italian shoes are very roomy and crease much less.

Thank you for that explanation...I'm neither any kind of guru nor a chemist. Your remarks make sense...although (and perhaps you can further clarify) I don't understand why black leathers are subject to less fat liquoring than other colours. What is the rationale for stinting the black? ??

Sounds like they've outsourced their customer service to Nigeria

Seriously tho, was the creasing there when you sent them in for refurbishment (I'm assuming a resole)? If so I would think they would have replaced that section of leather during the process. If not, would that even be an option at this point?