durability of shoes seem to be a priority - Page 3

Are those wingtips EG too?

those are some well loved shoes.

Those are indeed nice shoes but I'm sure worn in rotation with dozens of other shoes. Any shoe seldom worn and well maintained as yours will look fine after a year.
Maybe let those age a decade.

Responding to NORE:

People tend to take better care of items they've invested in. Clearly you take impeccable care of your shoes, hell I wonder if you even bend your feet when you walk! But if you spend $750 on shoes, you'll be damn sure you baby them a lot more than a pair of $125 shoes. Again, I think styling and care are what make these shoes truly different from a pair of Bostonians or Cole Haan. If someone took that kind of care of a lesser brand, along with a large rotation of shoes (as mentioned prior), they would look equally new.

By the way, those shoes look amazing, but you already know that.

ive said this more than once - durability as a concept is hugely overabused here.

i like "craft quality" shoes because: (1) the looks (2) leather quality ... and at a not distant (3) the (somewhat romanticized) idea that the shoes can age WITH me ............


i love getting shoes back from re-crafting service and seeing new life breathed into them

Stunning shoe NORE...how do you keep them from creasing?

I've found it rather easy to wipe out creases temporarily. I spend a bit of this evening working on a pair of John Lobb plain-toes--removed wax, heavy conditioner, then a lot of polish, then wax. All the while, a Woodlore Epic in each shoe. By the end, the creases were gone. Then I took the shoe tree out and bent the toe cap and viola, the creases were back in full force just like that. I guess I'm the sort that would prefer to evaluate shoes while they are being worn.

And Nore, while those are indeed beautiful shoes, without knowing the wear pattern, it's hard to know whether to be impressed. How many days have those shoes seen, how long were those days, and how many of those days were spent walking outside on concrete, pavement, gravel, mud, grass? Was it in a 3-shoe rotation or a 30-shoe rotation?

I like the analogy of Super 100s wool vs Super 180s wool because I've found this to be true with shoes too. The aforementioned Lobbs have beautiful looking leather that is very soft and has a great shine, however it's terribly thin and creases in a very ugly way; it also scuffs easily, and I've had to have the leather repaired when what would have been a scuff on another shoe actually cut into the leather. I'm sure it's a premium leather, but I would not call it durable in the slightest.

Yup. Malverns ordered directly from EG. Prolly my last order

I love them but really don't baby them at all.

When I bought and was wearing the brown pair the most I had a 3 shoe rotation. I am up to 8 now. My limit is 10.

When you say take care, do you mean polishing them when they need it or using the vox method of walking? I just polish my shoes when they look like they need it and maybe use conditioner when they look thirsty. That's all.

They are creased but using lasted trees helps to avoid deep creases that dry into the leather.

I don't spend my days walking around Manhattan but they have seen wear. I think the most wear my shoes see is from the pedals in my car. That clutch pedal is murderous on shoes. As far as rotation, I have had a maximum of 8 pairs of shoes for the last couple of years. At the time these two pairs were photographed I had 2 other pair besides. In the winter and heavy rain I wear overshoes which have obviously prevented the soles from premature degradation due to water and salt.

Those photos were taken for the shoe p0rn thread because I hadn't purchased a pair in a while and missed posting new pr0n. Then it dawned on me that shoes I had already posted pics of still look great. So I reposted. I'm one of the guys that appreciates lickable soles, but also wants to see the shoe after it has been worn a good deal. Thus the Shoes with Character thread.

Wool is wool. A better analogy is wool vs. Poly-viscose. Or in the case of shoes, leather vs naugahyde or fiberboard.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding and/or unsupported opinion in this thread...mostly coming from people who haven't been here for very long.

In the $50.00-$200.00 range, there is probably very little difference in the quality...materials and construction techniques...of shoes. And such shoes represent a market where employing a designer is not gonna be in the cards. Cement or GY construction. Fiberboard insoles are a real possibility. Fiberboard or celastic toe and heels stiffeners. Fiberboard heel stacks.

At the $500.00-$800.00 price point, quality is significantly better. Few or no fiberboard insoles at this level. Little corrected grain leather at this level. GY construction mandates fiberboard or celastic toe stiffeners.

$1000.00-$2000.00. Again quality ratchets up. To the untrained or uneducated eye this may not be readily apparent--but quality, style, elegance is always in the details and the attention to details. Also at the $1k mark you start getting into bespoke or shoes made with Traditional non-factory techniques. Durability is far better even if you never take advantage of it.

A few additional points...soft leather does not equate to good leather. Especially not for shoes. Of course "soft" can be subjective but to a shoemaker, the last thing he wants is soft leather.

One can make the case for the "durability" and the utility of all kinds of things that are objectively crap. During the worst of the American Civil War, wool uniforms were made of re-felted cutting room scraps. This material was wool. It also fell apart when it got wet. It was known as "Shoddy."

I had an entertainment center for 20+ years that sat in my living room and now occupies a place of honour in my shed. It is made of particle board. It is wood. It is functional. It will fall apart if it gets wet. It is contemporary "shoddy." And nothing can change that.

Shoes can be made of plastic. And "shoddy"--fiberboard insoles (the shoemaking equivalent of particle board). To one degree or the other most shoes sold in the US incorporate some elements of expedience such as plastic, paper or fiberboard.. But make no mistake it is price that is the draw, not durability, not quality...and dern sure not "style."

And nothing can change that.

Edited by DWFII - 10/15/11 at 7:16am

You missed the $200 to $500 category where, if I had to guess, the vast majority of shoe purchases, even here live.

That would include most AE, Alden, Loake, Church, Premier Alfred Sargent, Cheaney, Benchgrade C&J, etc.

Yes and no. I didn't miss it. It's kind of a mish-mosh of the worst and the best of the categories on either side of it. You've still got GY construction, synthetic toe and heel stiffeners, some corrected grain leathers lingering, some fiberboard insoles, and especially at the lower end only lip-service being paid to design.