Church's Appreciation Thread

[William Kazak]

Of course, any producer will praise the quality of their product. And of course, you can like that polished look that basically doesn't require any care.

Another article:

https://bestleather.org/types-of-leather/corrected-grain/#:~:text=Corrected grain leather is leather,be imprinted on the leather.

Who said mine are corrected grain leather? Haters gonna hate.

 

[DorianGreen]

Who said mine are corrected grain leather? Haters gonna hate.

Bookbinder is corrected grain, thus "per definition" lower quality. I don't hate and respect any opinion and taste, but it's a matter of fact.

 

[shoefan57]

Bookbinder is indeed corrected as is Scotch Grain , Hatch Grain and other finishes I can’t think of just now. But the important question is why was the leather corrected. Inferior polished leathers are corrected to hide flaws and loose grain. Shoes made out of these skins look terrible after a couple of years - deep creases and sometimes flaking of the polished layer. Church’s does use skins from older calves for their polished leathers but they insist they are still high quality skins. Certainly my Church’s in Polished Binder look good after many years of wear. However I do prefer a natural finish to calf skin in general.

 

[DorianGreen]

Bookbinder is indeed corrected as is Scotch Grain , Hatch Grain and other finishes I can’t think of just now. But the important question is why was the leather corrected. Inferior polished leathers are corrected to hide flaws and loose grain. Shoes made out of these skins look terrible after a couple of years - deep creases and sometimes flaking of the polished layer. Church’s does use skins from older calves for their polished leathers but they insist they are still high quality skins. Certainly my Church’s in Polished Binder look good after many years of wear. However I do prefer a natural finish to calf skin in general.

The difference is that Bookbinder looks plasticky and artificial, whereas Scotch, Hatch and any other Grain retains a natural look and can be polished and treated.

 

[jellyroller]

My understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that bookbinder is a finish, not a leather. Shoes can be made with high quality leather and have a bookbinder finish. Bookbinder gets a bad rap because it often is used to put a high shine finish on low quality leather. Some makers, like Church’s with its bookbinder and Crockett & Jones with its cavalry calf, still use high quality leather for their shoes despite the shiny finish.

 

[Fenners81]

My understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that bookbinder is a finish, not a leather. Shoes can be made with high quality leather and have a bookbinder finish. Bookbinder gets a bad rap because it often is used to put a high shine finish on low quality leather. Some makers, like Church’s with its bookbinder and Crockett & Jones with its cavalry calf, still use high quality leather for their shoes despite the shiny finish.

This is correct, some makers use high quality full grain leather to make bookbinder. @DorianGreen is correct though to say it’s corrected grain as it’s sanded and then coated. I guess it’s true that scotch grain is corrected as it’s embossed but this certainly doesn’t make the two the same. Shell is also sanded by the tannery, and often glazed by shoe manufacturers - Alden do this for example. I personally wouldn’t touch bookbinder with a barge pole and not because it comes under the ‘corrected’ label, but because it has an acrylic coating on the leather. This means it doesn’t really accept conditioner/polish and will develop unsightly cracks and creases over time. Even if bookbinder is made using the finest calfskin, it is limited by the plastic coating in my view.

 

[Ypuh]

Both of you are correct (it can be quality, but also look bad).

Personally I don't like the look or idea that a beautiful natural product is infused with plastic. Also that you can't really polish or repair them. I enjoy doing the shoe care routine, deciding which shoes to polish to a high shine (almost none) or strive for a more matte but lustrous finish.

My criticism on this score is therefore not that Church’s use polished leathers ( that last many years IME) but that they offer fewer normal calf alternatives alongside them

This is a better description of what I feel is wrong with Church's (beside the ridiculous price increase). I'm just not interested in bookbinder, so now can't even buy them if I wanted to. Just give me a black/burgundy/few shades of brown calf option and 50% sale, and I'm interested. They can price down bookbinder by 70% and I still won't buy it, while the production costs might be the same.

 

[shoefan57]

Both of you are correct (it can be quality, but also look bad).

Personally I don't like the look or idea that a beautiful natural product is infused with plastic. Also that you can't really polish or repair them. I enjoy doing the shoe care routine, deciding which shoes to polish to a high shine (almost none) or strive for a more matte but lustrous finish.


This is a better description of what I feel is wrong with Church's (beside the ridiculous price increase). I'm just not interested in bookbinder, so now can't even buy them if I wanted to. Just give me a black/burgundy/few shades of brown calf option and 50% sale, and I'm interested. They can price down bookbinder by 70% and I still won't buy it, while the production costs might be the same.

I agree. I like polishing my shoes and find it rewarding. Polishing PB shoes holds no reward for me.

 

[PairOfDerby's]

I agree. I like polishing my shoes and find it rewarding. Polishing PB shoes holds no reward for me.

This is why I don't own any bookbinder (or cordovan). I enjoy polishing my shoes and boots. I find it therapeutic and, with a glass or two of wine, makes for a pleasant evening.
However, I do baulk at the term "corrected grain". To me, the term suggests that there are flaws in the leather. I know some manufacturers do this to cover up scars and blemishes in the leather but not the high quality shoe manufacturers. The QC at these manufacturers won't accept hides with flaws in the first place. Church's, by the way, have been using bookbinder since before 1999.

 

[Fenners81]

Grafton…

 

[PairOfDerby's]

Are they ebony?

 

[Fenners81]

Are they ebony?

I’m not sure what the colour is called by Church’s but it’s a deep burgundy. I thought it was Horween colour 8.

 

[Ypuh]

Received them also earlier this week. Unfortunately with a deep scratch occurred during shipping, so returned them. They indeed fit wider than the 325 last by C&J (which is an almost perfect fit). I have a somewhat wide foot, but not enough to warrant a G-width.

It was nice to experience some shell shoes, and the overall Church's quality is just great (on par with C&J).

 

[jellyroller]

Received them also earlier this week. Unfortunately with a deep scratch occurred during shipping, so returned them. They indeed fit wider than the 325 last by C&J (which is an almost perfect fit). I have a somewhat wide foot, but not enough to warrant a G-width.

It was nice to experience some shell shoes, and the overall Church's quality is just great (on par with C&J).

I also have a wider foot and have found Church’s G to be way too wide for me. I think it’s the wide heel rather than the forefoot that becomes problematic for me in G. F is a very nice fit, granted I only have experience with a few Church’s lasts.

@Fenners81 I love to see those shell Graftons and thank you again for the recent damage your pictures did to my bank account.

 

[Fenners81]

I also have a wider foot and have found Church’s G to be way too wide for me. I think it’s the wide heel rather than the forefoot that becomes problematic for me in G. F is a very nice fit, granted I only have experience with a few Church’s lasts.

@Fenners81 I love to see those shell Graftons and thank you again for the recent damage your pictures did to my bank account.

You’re more than welcome. Interestingly, I don’t find them too wide at all. Maybe they’re slightly wider than 325 but not by much for me.