Leather Quality and Properties



VegTan said:

Cowhide absorbs Johnson's baby lotion well. I guess cowhide has greater porosity than dead skin cells.
Pecards says food grade petroleum doesn't damage leather and stitching. I have used Red Wing Leather Conditioner made by Pecards and found it no problem. I guess corrosive petroleum based oils were removed from the market.

Click to expand...

Very clever, Hans (or should I say Rolf?).

The thing is that Pecards is trying to sell something. A something that may have started off, years past, using a harmless animal or vegetable oil which has become more expensive as a raw material than Pecards now want to pay. Mineral oil was not always there in the shoe Trade. It is a relatively new product substituting for another, harder to obtain, more expensive, material. Like corrected grain leather substitutes for full grain calf.

To be fair, the possibility exists that they have refined or homogenized the mineral oil that they are using to be better than the unrefined oil. Although I suspect that has already been the case for many, many years.

But the point is that you don't know one way or the other. Blindly, credulously, you read it on the Internet and take it as gospel. You're the perfect "mark" for their spiel. Worse however, you pass it on as truth and yourself as the insider privy to truth. Clever Hans, indeed.

Without the accumulated experience of having used mineral oil products on leather and seen the results over months and years of use...you're just mouthing someone's pitch. And you're propagating ignorance.

Hell, I would wager that Pecards themselves don't even have that first hand experience. Selected testimonials, notwithstanding.

I may be wrong...despite 40+ years of experience, times change and ultimately it's just my opinion. But wrong or not, it is an opinion based on experience, not on assumption or pretense.

wow, that is harsh, DW. but I do appreciate you always sharing your experiences with us.



JubeiSpiegel said:

Can we discuss the real advantages that last specific shoe trees have compared to generic trees? How prone to loosing its lasted shape is any given shoe, with use of a generic trees?

I have always wondered what info regarding the use of lasted trees is fact, and what part is marketing fiction.

Click to expand...

wurger said:

Here are my initial thoughts, mainly the reason to be cheap....

As for the shape, the from the vamp to the toe, that's the most shape defining parts of the shoe, but they should never deform no matter how you wear the shoes, and I guess that is where the exact shape of the lasted shoe tree will fill in those parts perfectly.

From vamp to the heel counter, the upper should wrap around our feet, so I am not too fussed about keeping the exact shape for that area.

Click to expand...

DWFII, can you please shed some light on this too? thank you.

wurger said:

wow, that is harsh, DW. but I do appreciate you always sharing your experiences with us.

Click to expand...

Harsh, indeed, but without his harshness we wouldn't have correct information. I, too, have been taught a lesson or two by DWF and am thankful for his doing so.



wurger said:

wow, that is harsh, DW. but I do appreciate you always sharing your experiences with us.

Click to expand...

Really? Well, if you appreciate my sharing, then you'll appreciate the fact that ever so often I get sick and tired of being deliberately, and pointlessly, contradicted by people who have no right or legitimacy to do so. They are not shoemakers, many don't even have more than a superficial knowledge of leather.

And how do they do it? They hide behind links from the Internet that they not only have no way to verify but no desire to take responsibility for. In the absence of that verification, in the absence of that sense of responsibility...it is just propagating ignorance.

Maybe they don't like me or like the way I express myself (oh well)...there are no requirements in that regard. But it is petty argumentativeness if they don't have any basis to support their point--just parroting words from third parties. "We salute the rank, Captain Sobel, not the man."

I don't know about you but I don't have any desire to have remote, "heard -it-on-the-grapevine", discussions with people who can't speak for themselves...who don't even know that there is a discussion going on.

Nor, for that matter, people who hide behind the words of others--others who may not even know that their remarks are being used to bludgeon folks who have no way to know any better. Or that their words are being taken out of context.

By people who have no sense of the correct context.


--

JermynStreet said:

wurger said:

wow, that is harsh, DW. but I do appreciate you always sharing your experiences with us.

Click to expand...

Harsh, indeed, but without his harshness we wouldn't have correct information. I, too, have been taught a lesson or two by DWF and am thankful for his doing so.

Click to expand...

yes, definitely, + 1 to that.



wurger said:

DWFII, can you please shed some light on this too? thank you.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't think that lasted trees do much more than good, well fitted, generic trees can do. Besides, people here on this forum often say that you shouldn't leave trees in a shoe all that long anyway.

All that said, lasted trees are not common or available here in the States. Not from the last makers I deal with...so I may not be the best person to ask.

Beyond that, rest assured that if I did have access to lasted trees, I would include them in my repertoire/ offerings in a heartbeat and never look back.

And charge accordingly.

--

...delete...wrong button.

wurger said:

wow, that is harsh, DW. but I do appreciate you always sharing your experiences with us.

Click to expand...

Styleforvm, we beat the dead horse and make cordovan shoes.

DWFII said:

Frankly, I don't think that lasted trees do much more than good, well fitted, generic trees can do. Besides, people here on this forum often say that you shouldn't leave trees in a shoe all that long anyway.

All that said, lasted trees are not common or available here in the States. Not from the last makers I deal with...so I may not be the best person to ask.

Beyond that, rest assured that if I did have access to lasted trees, I would include them in my repertoire/ offerings in a heartbeat and never look back.

And charge accordingly.

--

Click to expand...

Weren't there a last shoe tree maker posting on SF. But he stopped making custom fitted shoe trees as he was moving.



chogall said:

Styleforvm, we beat the dead horse and make cordovan shoes.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's Hans hisownself getting beat...

If he's not dead, he's at least insensible to what constitutes intelligent discussion.

--

DWFII said:

VegTan said:

Cowhide absorbs Johnson's baby lotion well. I guess cowhide has greater porosity than dead skin cells.
Pecards says food grade petroleum doesn't damage leather and stitching. I have used Red Wing Leather Conditioner made by Pecards and found it no problem. I guess corrosive petroleum based oils were removed from the market.

Click to expand...

Very clever, Hans (or should I say Rolf?).

Click to expand...

I don't think that is good taste, but as you like it. (Is Rolf Wilhelm von Osten's nickname?)

The thing is that Pecards is trying to sell something. A something that may have started off, years past, using a harmless animal or vegetable oil which has become more expensive as a raw material than Pecards now want to pay. Mineral oil was not always there in the shoe Trade. It is a relatively new product substituting for another, harder to obtain, more expensive, material. Like corrected grain leather substitutes for full grain calf.

To be fair, the possibility exists that they have refined or homogenized the mineral oil that they are using to be better than the unrefined oil. Although I suspect that has already been the case for many, many years.

Click to expand...

Petroleum oils are used as fatliquors. Do you make sure not to buy a leather fatliquored with petroleum oils?
http://www.mardenwild.com/products.html

But the point is that you don't know one way or the other. Blindly, credulously, you read it on the Internet and take it as gospel. You're the perfect "mark" for their spiel. Worse however, you pass it on as truth and yourself as the insider privy to truth. Clever Hans, indeed.

Without the accumulated experience of having used mineral oil products on leather and seen the results over months and years of use...you're just mouthing someone's pitch. And you're propagating ignorance.

Hell, I would wager that Pecards themselves don't even have that first hand experience. Selected testimonials, notwithstanding.

I may be wrong...despite 40+ years of experience, times change and ultimately it's just my opinion. But wrong or not, it is an opinion based on experience, not on assumption or pretense.

Click to expand...

That assumption is unfair. To me, just disagreement happens between Pecard and you. Do I have to e-mail Pecard to verify that they really wrote that copy & paste?

I would like you to understand the difference between personal experience and reproducible scientific results.

Experience is one type of reproducible scientific verification.

And a lot of new 'science' findings published these days are just paid corporate advertisement. From GMO safety, drug safety, to the soundness of our banking system. Everything is almost scientifically 'proved' to be reliable until the **** hits the fan. Than some genius comes out and tells the real story that disproves the former scientific findings.

Science is not always the truth.



VegTan said:

Petroleum oils are used as fatliquors. Do you make sure not to buy a leather fatliquored with petroleum oils?
That assumption is unfair. To me, just disagreement happens between Pecard and you. Do I have to e-mail Pecard to verify that they really wrote that copy & paste?

Click to expand...

So what?! Some leathers are tanned with urine...does that mean it results in a desirable leather? Does it mean it's a good idea to pee on your shoes?

And, no, to the extent that I know or can avoid it I don't buy leathers that are fat liquoured with petroleum oils. If you buy quality...or with circumspection--expending some effort, IOW...the chances of petroleum oils being used are minimized. Regardless I don't have to like it nor endorse it.

The question was asked about using mineral oil based products on shoes...implicitly dress shoes. Several people responded that it wasn't a good idea and, more importantly, why it wasn't a good idea.

You came back with a bunch of obfuscating blurbs that you have no way of commenting on or evaluating the veracity of.

It's just quibbling for the sake of quibbling. It's a sophisticated troll but trolling nevertheless. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion except contradiction. And since it's not you who authored or takes responsibility for the truth of the stuff you post, it's like you're not really in the conversation at all. And you don't have to be involved really...don't have to explain or answer for the claims you make.

Maybe you're hoping to get some shine for your industrious manipulation of Bing or Google. But it doesn't signify...not with me, at least...although I am sure that there are some here who regard any information from the Internet, regardless of how bogus, as holy writ.

The truth is that if Pecards wants to come on here and explain or defend their use of mineral oil, that's one thing. I can have a disagreement with Pecards--my 40+ years of experience versus their carnival-barker hucksterism. And hell, I might even learn something and be moved to give their product a try. At least the conversation is two way.

But that's a far more legitimate (and interesting) discussion than having you throw it in like some sabot in the loom.

VegTan said:

I would like you to understand the difference between personal experience and reproducible scientific results.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. If you really wanted to understand, you'd get some personal experience and reserve your comments for things you have first-hand knowledge about.

And for what it's worth, a person pays for personal experience. There's an investment..and an associated commitment/responsibility...sometimes literally in blood, sweat and tears. Wax under the fingernails.

Search engine results are like trash--free for the picking. You can call it "found-object-art" or bask in the perceived "legitimacy" you think they confer, but it's still rubbish. It didn't, and doesn't, require anything of you. You don't need to get your hands dirty.

Or even think.

Beyond that, personal experience and reproducible scientific results are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the case can be made that it takes the first to create the second. But you have neither one.

Bottom line is that, posting search results is neither "personal experience or reproducible scientific results." It's just hearsay. Someone else's word for it.

Post some photos of a pair of dress shoes to which you've applied Pecards on a regular basis...say, once a week for six months. Then you'll have both personal experience and the beginnings of credibility.

--

DWFII said:

carnival-barker hucksterism

Click to expand...

Now this is a gem.



JermynStreet said:

Now this is a gem.

Click to expand...

Hey! They're all golden...

Seriously, though, I'm not sure how you mean that but just to clarify--what was posted was from someone selling a product and it was fundamentally promotional material. By itself maybe nothing wrong with that or even incorrect. Although by its very nature, it should be viewed with some reservations, if not suspicion.

And in context...who's selling what? By comparison to my comments here...which have been called "educational" and "sharing" (legitimately, I think--at least that's my intent)...it is hucksterism. Esp. since there's no one here to explain, answer for, or defend the claims.