Originally Posted by dieselman89
What do you mean? You are already getting the rubber replaced, or you are adding toppys to another shoe?
I still cannot make up my mind. If you anticipate wearing leather soles shoes for day-to-day purpose (walking in the street, to work, on your feet a few hours) wouldn't it make sense to get the rubber? I cannot see why it would be better to wear leather soled shoes around a city....
I think you are thinking of the wrong guy, I would rather drill a hole in my testicle than get topy's put on my shoes.
I have another pair of shoes that the leather is worn down. It is another C&J pair. I find that on their benchgrade shoes the stock soles are absolutely garbage, it takes nothing to get them to wear down. Nick did two other pairs of C&J's for me with JR's one of which was two years ago, longer than the stock soles lasted on them.
The whole topy vs. leather vs. dianite has been debated to death in other threads. It all comes down to preference, but all I have is my own personal experience, which I will quote below from another thread:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH
For what it is worth all of my Crockett & Jones benchgrade shoes had leather soles that were slippery as all hell, especially on tile, or marble floors. I had numerous near wipe-outs in the lobby of my office building. Any time I walked with either Bakers or JR oak bark tanned soles this never happened. It seems like cheaper sole replacements get very "slick" with wear, while oak bark tanned soles develop a kind of "nap" almost like suede, or nubuck after wearing them down a bit. This nap gives a lot more traction, much more than my Dianite soles ever did on all surfaces, including wet streets. Needless to say after all of these experiences I only use oak bark tanned soles and I replaced my Dianites. In addition any shoe that I have had replaced with oak bark the soles have lasted probably 3 times as long as other standard leather soles. Just some food for thought.