Is it wrong to avoid leather soles in favor of rubber due to longetivity concerns?

[teknique22]

I used to wear leather soled shoes almost exclusively until I realized I was getting them resoled and wearing down the sole within a year for some pairs - partly, this could be due to rotation and not having enough shoes, but I've also heard depending on the brand that some shoes are only made to last ~40-100 wears before needing a resole.

It is due to this assumption, and wanting to get a longer, more durable life out of my shoes that I'm heavily considering switching to rubber soles, exclusively. Is this being too pedantic? Is this a genuine concern? Am I imagining that higher quality leather soled shoes will wear out quickly?

Thanks

 

[DWFII]

All things being equal, you will get more life out of a rubber outsole than a leather outsole. And if you are in a wet environment even moreso.

But despite the denials and the rationalizations, rubber outsoles are associated with utility and functionality, not with dress or elegance. And probably always will be.

That's what you give up to save a few bucks or for increased wear. Maybe that philosophy alone lies is the reason for the disassociation of rubber with dressiness. But, personally, I think it has more to do with the ticky-tacky nature of rubber outsoles and the lack of skill and / or finesse that can be brought to bear when making shoes with them.

And in the end, it's petro-chemical sludge. Not good for man nor beast...neither in the making nor in the wearing. Every argument for a rubber outsole is an equally valid argument for corrected grain or even synthetic uppers.

If the leather outsole wears faster perhaps it is because it has such an affinity for nature that it wants to return quicker.

 

[teknique22]

All things being equal, you will get more life out of a rubber outsole than a leather outsole. And if you are in a wet environment even moreso.

But despite the denials and the rationalizations, rubber outsoles are associated with utility and functionality, not with dress or elegance. And probably always will be. that's what you give up. Maybe that knowledge alone contributes to that perception but I think it has more to do with the ticky-tacky nature of rubber outsoles and the lack of skill and / or finesse that can be brought to bear when making shoes with them.

And in the end, it's petro-chemical sludge. Not good for man nor beast neither in the making nor in the wearing. Every argument for a rubber outsole is an equally valid argument for corrected grain or even synthetic uppers.

If the leather outsole wears faster perhaps it is because it has such an affinity for nature that it wants to return quicker.

I've definitely seen some thin dainite-type leather soles on oxfords and laceups where I could barely even notice a difference without looking at the bottom of them, though. I get what you're saying if they are the clunky, large utility type rubber sole, but if it's a dress shoe and it's on a thinner rubber sole, there's absolutely no way to tell, right?

I just can't see paying $900 for a leather soled shoe to have to pay $100 more <1 yr just to replace the sole...

 

[DWFII]

I've definitely seen some thin dainite-type leather soles on oxfords and laceups where I could barely even notice a difference without looking at the bottom of them, though. I get what you're saying if they are the clunky, large utility type rubber sole, but if it's a dress shoe and it's on a thinner rubber sole, there's absolutely no way to tell, right?

Well, it depends on how hard you're looking. And people who appreciate fine things and quality...and by extension tend to define what is dressy and / or elegant...very often have learned that appreciation by looking hard. By training themselves to see...and understand...the difference between "good, better, and best."

And, acknowledging / valuing those differences, are willing to go to the extra effort and expense to acquire it.

I just can't see paying $900 for a leather soled shoe to have to pay $100 more <1 yr just to replace the sole...

There's your answer.

 

[P12OFIT]

Install Vibram Rubber Sole Protectors when the shoes are brand new and they will last for a significantly longer amount of time. This is what I've done with my AEs over the past two years, walking all seasons in NYC, and have yet to resole a single pair. Re-heel is a different story... I do that yearly.

 

[teknique22]

Install Vibram Rubber Sole Protectors when the shoes are brand new and they will last for a significantly longer amount of time. This is what I've done with my AEs over the past two years, walking all seasons in NYC, and have yet to resole a single pair. Re-heel is a different story... I do that yearly.

Do you have pictures of them? How much does it cost? I'm in NyC too, can you recommend a place to get this done? How well have they held up? Do you ever need to resolve the rubber?

 

[SuitedDx]

Almost any cobbler in NYC can do it. Nick V., a forum member, has a shop in midtown east called B. Nelson if you want a referral. I think they'll run about $50. If you wear them down you can have new sole guards put on again.

 

[J o s h]

Are you guys really hard walkers? I've never heard of needing to resole a shoe after 40 wears or 1 year.

 

[Belfaborac]

In reference to "dress and elegance": exactly *never* in the last 25+ years of wearing traditionally made shoes has anyone ever remarked on the soles of my shoes or the fact that they're covered by rubber. That *may* be because I've never encountered a lout uncouth enough to point out that fact and berate it, but a great deal of evidence suggests otherwise. What's vastly (VASTLY) more probable is that no-one has ever noticed that rubber covering.

 

[Belfaborac]

Are you guys really hard walkers? I've never heard of needing to resole a shoe after 40 wears or 1 year.

I once wore out a pair of leather soles in less than 3 months.

 

[emptym]

Certainly very few people would care whether a shoe had a topy and few would notice one. But I find it probable that those who would notice and care would be very unlikely to comment on it, at least to the wearer's face. In the 80s and early 90s, people definitely made negative comments behind the backs of those wearing rubber soled "dress" shoes. In '96 I bought my first pair with rubber soles, I think made by Sperry. Someone commented that they looked like they were made for a postal worker.

But I think Ecco, Prada, Kenneth Cole and other brands changed that as they became the default. Before that happened, the main reason people looked down on them was the fact that they had rubber soles, not because they weren't welted, or had corrected grain, or some such reason.

In any case, I like Topies (and Dainite, etc.) for some shoes. In fact, I just installed some on a pair of shell loafers. I recently got a new pair, so this older one will be for wet days or when bike/motorbike commuting: View attachment 827421

The leather soles were pretty worn down and I decided not to have them resoled because the uppers have some small tears. A cobbler would have done the topy better. But I think I got 10 pairs of topies for $26, about ten years ago. Took about an hour and a half while watching TV. Just slather contact cement on both sides, clamp down with butterfly clips on the edges overnight, bevel the edges with a Dremel tool, and polish.

 

[Belfaborac]

I find it probable that those who would notice and care would be very unlikely to comment on it, at least to the wearer's face. face.

Actually, I'm quite prepared to accept that precept. I would say though, to whom it may concern, that if you notice someone having rubber sole protectors fitted AND feel the need to comment on it in a derogatory way, to their face or otherwise, then you are frankly an insufferable snob with seriously distorted ideas of what matters in life.

 

[am55]

In reference to "dress and elegance": exactly *never* in the last 25+ years of wearing traditionally made shoes has anyone ever remarked on the soles of my shoes or the fact that they're covered by rubber. That *may* be because I've never encountered a lout uncouth enough to point out that fact and berate it, but a great deal of evidence suggests otherwise. What's vastly (VASTLY) more probable is that no-one has ever noticed that rubber covering.

FWIW not only will I systematically notice (i.e. check for at the first occasion) whether it is leather or rubber or Topy'd, I will also notice if the waist is bevelled, and whether you shined the mid section that doesn't touch the ground (incredibly rare these days). However, I agree with you (and Caesar) that it would be rude to bring it up or even give the merest sign of having noticed.

 

[Belfaborac]

I really wonder how you do that, unless the sole protectors are particularly thick or the cobbler has done a bad job. On my shoes I can't see them myself unless I kneel down, since the protectors are thin, slightly inset from the sole edge and also bevelled. As I write this and look towards my shoe racks where two pairs have yet to be fitted with protectors, I can't for the life of me discern any difference.

 

[DWFII]

In reference to "dress and elegance": exactly *never* in the last 25+ years of wearing traditionally made shoes has anyone ever remarked on the soles of my shoes or the fact that they're covered by rubber. That *may* be because I've never encountered a lout uncouth enough to point out that fact and berate it, but a great deal of evidence suggests otherwise. What's vastly (VASTLY) more probable is that no-one has ever noticed that rubber covering.

Why would anyone want to berate it? It's your choice.

If you see someone wearing a pinstriped suit that exhibits scissoring are you going to make a scene? What a strange notion! It's all but unthinkable to be so rude...except for some people, I suppose.

But like all the choices we make regarding clothing and how we present ourselves, it does say something about our priorities...and even our inconsistencies / hypocrisies.

If we aspire to some sort of aesthetic appreciation, or present ourselves as knowledgeable or as elegantly dressed, petro-chemical sludge on the bottom of your shoes gives the lie...or at least begs the question.

That seems pretty clear and obvious to me. But I would allow that those with a little less perspicacity might disagree or have different priorities...nevermind that those priorities speak volumes all by themselves.

And there is, in my opinion...esp. in the context of a forum such as this...a vast difference between snobbery and recognition of certain standards of quality / excellence / refinement. Not to mention the incurious and dumb dismissal of even the idea of standards. Few of us come here to talk about or extol the virtues of poly-viscose suits or corrected grain leather.

In my professional opinion....