Leather Quality and Properties

[Munky]

Yes, I knew what I was buying and never, for one minute, thought that I was buying the real thing. I don't think that I was being critical of the manufacturer. I was just attempting to tease out a reflection on your point that you are not keen on faux dressings to the tops of shoes.

No offence meant!

 

[RogerP]

Quote:
None taken Munky, and I didn't think for a second that you were being critical of the manufacturer. I was addressing, in a broader context, the suggestion that there is a financial motivation for manufacturers to make laether which is "pretending to be something that it isn't". Which wasn't a suggestion you had made. If there is no misrepresentation, there is no objectionable pretense - and no real motive to achieve financial gain through pretense. It is simply a case of meeting consumer demand for a particular aesthetic - nothing more. Indeed, as I referenced with the leopard fur example, there are certainly some consumers who would prefer the faux item to the genuine article when it comes to certain skins.

 

[DWFII]



Yes, I knew what I was buying and never, for one minute, thought that I was buying the real thing. I don't think that I was being critical of the manufacturer. I was just attempting to tease out a reflection on your point that you are not keen on faux dressings to the tops of shoes.

No offence meant! 

Who are you addressing this to?

I have a particular antipathy to pretense...in all its forms. I have an antipathy to manufacturers of any product that pretends to be something it is not. If it's not pretense then why the almost desperate attempts to look like what it isn't pretending to be? Why the shameful attempts to characterize a product as the best of the best or the "finest quality...for the discerning few" when it objectively is not. (And the makers tacitly acknowledge that fact, simply by changing their materials and techniques when catering to the real discerning few)

If deception required cooperation to be deceived no one would be deceived more than once. Better, no one could deceive themselves.

I have an antipathy to people who pretend to be what they are not...even people they are not. I thought your remarks were addressed to me but apparently not. Or at least not in the minds of some...

[oh, and BTW, I took no offense, either...although I would reserve the right...despite pathetic and unrelenting third party attempts to co-opt it...to express that for myself.]

I have an antipathy for people who think their opinions are so important that they just have to share them whether asked or not, whether relevant or not, whether they know anything about the subject or not.

Do you think your faux lizard shoes would have been less comfortable if they presented the appearance of the native cowhide they are made of? Would they have been less comfortable if you had seen the scars or the discolouration that the print may have been hiding?

You said people buy faux lizard prints because they are fun. But if fun is the issue why don't chrome finish shoes enjoy a great following here and abroad? Why don't leathers that are plaid or that look like the are covered with leaves enjoy greater popularity? Everybody likes to have fun!

All other things being equal, would your shoes have been less "fun" if they had been real lizard?

Finally, I don't know why your faux lizard shoes feel so good to you. Given that shoes of such better quality that you feel the need to mention them don't feel so good, I'd say it has a lot to do with your feet--the tightness or looseness of the ligaments, the bone structure, body fat, age, lack of support or proper fit now and in the past when your feet were "setting" into their adult configurations. Who knows? Some people can never be comfortable no matter what they wear. I wouldn't be surprised if your feet actually feel the best swaddled in foam rubber and nylon.

But all of these discussions come back to ignorance and denial. I've seen, and confronted it in discussion after discussion from GY construction to the perils of buying used shoes. 30-40 years ago you could have canvassed a broad section of the population about smoking cigarettes and almost 90% of the respondents would have said something along the lines of "Hell, I been smoking all my life and I ain't got cancer yet."

Again...just my opinions/ biases and druthers and I'm not so wrapped up in pretense that I cannot qualify my remarks as such.

--

 

[cbfn]

I have to disagree a bit, DW, your meaning only takes construction and truth into account, not aestethics; wouldn't you then look at dyed calf leather to pretend to be something it's not? Certain people like the look of exotic leather but they don't justify the high price jump of the the real leather with regards something which looks «almost» the same and is cheaper; neither do I find people profiting on such a market as villains.

This reminds me of one guy I met which works for closely with the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, a business paid mostly by a fee that is required to be paid by everyone who owns a television in Norway. His political stance was against most government intervention and taxes, but he wanted this broadcasting fee increased as he would earn more or go bankrupt without it. As «wrong»(as lack of words for a non-native english speaker) that is, you cannot tell him he is wrong; he is profiting from a market which is there.

 

[RogerP]

Cbfn - agreed. The line defining objectionable pretense seems to be a capricious construct in this instance.

 

[DWFII]



I have to disagree a bit, DW, your meaning only takes construction and truth into account, not aestethics; wouldn't you then look at dyed calf leather to pretend to be something it's not? Certain people like the look of exotic leather but they don't justify the high price jump of the the real leather with regards something which looks «almost» the same and is cheaper; neither do I find people profiting on such a market as villains.

This reminds me of one guy I met which works for closely with the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, a business paid mostly by a fee that is required to be paid by everyone who owns a television in Norway. His political stance was against most government intervention and taxes, but he wanted this broadcasting fee increased as he would earn more or go bankrupt without it. As «wrong»(as lack of words for a non-native english speaker) that is, you cannot tell him he is wrong; he is profiting from a market which is there.

Again, I guess I started this when I made the point that all non-aniline leather is technically "corrected-grain."

But the dyed leather is not pretending to be anything other than what it is--leather. The fact that it is dyed doesn't make it something different than what it is, anymore than brown, red, pink, or yellow skin makes a person something other than a human being.

Beyond that, I say again, it's my bias...coming, as you say, from the perspective of someone whose whole life is about the "construction and truth" of shoemaking. But I must point out that much of that bias is intimately informed by the aethetics of the shoe and the Traditions of shoemaking.

Finally, I draw your attention to something an earlier American President said--not that he's to be taken as a font of wisdom, simply that for me at least, the sentiments ring true.

President William McKinley said:

"“I do not prize the word "cheap." It is not a badge of honor. It is a symbol of despair. Cheap prices make for cheap goods; cheap goods make for cheap men...”​

I like the looks of exotics myownself--elephant, alligator, lizard, ostrich. I like the genuine article. I despise the fakes. And I can see the difference at a glance. One looks interesting and sometimes elegant, with rich textural and tonal aesthetics & the other just looks cheap.

 

[cbfn]

Of course, you have most likely have the biggest bias of all of us, which I fully understand. I also understand that you maybe see faux exotic leather the same way many view homage watches of very known models; trying to be something they knot. However, your quote leaves me with more questions unanswered than understood; is he talking about relative cheapness or universal cheapness; cheap for me, you or him? Cheap as in price with regards to the cost? I am personally a true believer of maximizing my utility with regards to my wealth; I use my own time to research the topic I am interested in, may this be shoes to cars to fountain pens. But time is money, and every second, minute, hour and day has a price and mine is low as this research interest me, but I also fully understand that some people do not; their marginal return of using time to research is not higher than the marginal cost of purchasing goods that are sub-par and probably expensive regarding price/cost - this is sadly the truth.

Edit: And it was nothing with regards to the corrected grain statement; I was merely pointing out that if you only focus on maximizing quality and not obscuring the truth, the leather should be in its original color with regards to your meaning. This is of course an extreme extrapolation of your statement, but I feel it fits as it seems like your meaning was an absolute.

 

[RogerP]

Edit: And it was nothing with regards to the corrected grain statement; I was merely pointing out that if you only focusing on maximizing quality and not obscuring the truth, the leather should be in its original color with regards to your meaning. This is of course an extreme extrapolation of your statement, but I feel it fits as it seems like your meaning was an absolute.

Indeed. If a person of one colour paints his skin a different colour he is still a human being. But he is pretending to be something he is not - a person of a different colour. Something other than his natural colour. An extreme extrapolation, as you say. But this is the problem with iron-fired absolutes.

 

[DWFII]



Edit: And it was nothing with regards to the corrected grain statement; I was merely pointing out that if you only focus on maximizing quality and not obscuring the truth, the leather should be in its original color with regards to your meaning. This is of course an extreme extrapolation of your statement, but I feel it fits as it seems like your meaning was an absolute.

Well, I don't agree with you there. And to tell the truth, I don't see or accept your logic in that regard. Perhaps that's another aspect of my bias. Or, perhaps it is, instead, an aspect of experience and knowledge and accumulated wisdom....the which, I would argue, informs all my biases, in any event.

But if your statement were true, StyleForum itself would not exist. It would have no reason to exist. If someone who is honest enough with himself to realize that he cannot afford $1000.00 shoes, goes ahead and buys a pair...you have to ask yourself "Why?!" I can't see any rational reason but I recognize two possibles---one is an irresistible even compulsive need or desire to adorn themselves. The other is pretense--posturing as something and someone they are not. The two are not mutually exclusive.

When I think of faux lizard leather I am reminded of the practice, in another century, of wearing a shirt well past its due date (for washing). And every time you wished to appear in public, you just put on a false bib/front of clean white paper and suddenly you were genteel and well-heeled and...and clean. Except to those who could smell you.

I don't dye the leather. That's the way it comes. That's dictated by the cultural and human need to ornament ourselves. If we took your logic to its logical extreme we wouldn't tan it, dye it or make it into shoes. To a small degree, I even deplore inappropriate and illogical antiquing and staining.

If nothing else, I would suggest that I'm consistent and rational within the definitions of who I am and who I aspire to be.

--

 

[Munky]

DWFII
' I thought your remarks were addressed to me but apparently not. Or at least not in the minds of some...'

My comments were not meant to be a criticism of you, nor was I talking about you. I was just expressing some opinions that were all my own. They were only 'addressed' to you in the sense that I was writing to you.

I'm not sure what you meant by 'Or at least not in the minds of some...'


DWFII
'I have an antipathy for people who think their opinions are so important that they just have to share them whether asked or not, whether relevant or not, whether they know anything about the subject or not.'

Ironically, if the above statement was referring to me, I think it is reasonable to share opinions. I don't know who would do the 'asking'. I would have thought that those will less knowledge have much to learn from those who have a great deal.

I am sorry if I have caused offence. It was in no sense an aim.

 

[RogerP]

Munky - nobody here need ask permission of anyone else to post on any given thread. Nor do they need o be invited to do so. Sharing thoughts, opinions and experiences is indeed the point of a forum such as this. Again, I can see nothing you have done that could reasonably give offence to anyone.

 

[DWFII]

Munky,

DWFII
They were only 'addressed' to you in the sense that I was writing to you. 

That's what I thought but I tried to make sure by asking "who are you addressing?"
 

DWFII
'I have an antipathy for people who think their opinions are so important that they just have to share them whether asked or not, whether relevant or not, whether they know anything about the subject or not.'

Ironically, if the above statement was referring to me, I think it is reasonable to share opinions. I don't know who would do the 'asking'. I would have thought that those will less knowledge have much to learn from those who have a great deal. 

The "above statement" was not referring to you...is was an attempt to tactfully point out that opinions and ignorance are not the answer to anyone's questions. Nor, in my mind, were they sought, called for, or wanted in the discussion between yourself and myself. It's unfortunate that you got caught in the middle of a long standing relentless campaign on the part of several individuals to disrupt rational, civilized conversation and call into question anything that challenges their own sense of importance.

That said, while I respect and admire...and agree with...your acknowledgement that "that those wi(th) less knowledge have much to learn from those who have a great deal," quite clearly not everyone shares your open-mindedness or your respect for others.

It might be said that there is a corollary to your observation, however...namely that those who have knowledge and experience have an obligation to share it with those who come seeking...and those who don't have experience, or knowledge, and no desire to learn, have an obligation to butt out, rather than spread their ignorance.

I took no offense from anything you said, I said as much. Here it is re-quoted for clarity:

[oh, and BTW, I took no offense, either...although I would reserve the right...despite pathetic and unrelenting third party attempts to co-opt it...to express that for myself.]

My issue is that I was trying my best to answer your questions and those remarks you directed at me...either by prefacing with my username or quoting my remarks...while simultaneously trying to ignore the pushy, arrogant, presumptuous, whiny remarks coming out of Trollhaugen.

I thought you and I were having a conversation on issues of substance and merit. At least one individual, however, seems to have decided that he was being ignored or excluded...despite a proven history of not being able or willing to contribute anything of substance...and as a result had decided not only to kibitz but answer your posts for me and as if he were me--as if your question/remarks had been addressed to him.

I reserve the right to speak for myself. I resent it when someone interprets, conflates, or redacts my words and/or presumes to speak for me. I reserve that right for myself.

As for the individual in question--I am sure...and he has demonstrated repeatedly... that in his own mind he can answer your questions (everyone's questions) better and in more depth than I can. If you believe that as well, all you have to do is quote his remarks, and address your questions to his username, rather than mine.

--

 

[cbfn]



But if your statement were true, StyleForum itself would not exist. It would have no reason to exist. If someone who is honest enough with himself to realize that he cannot afford $1000.00 shoes, goes ahead and buys a pair...you have to ask yourself "Why?!" I can't see any rational reason but I recognize two possibles---one is an irresistible even compulsive need or desire to adorn themselves. The other is pretense--posturing as something and someone they are not. The two are not mutually exclusive.

No one is rational, that is a theoretical assumption that often is the difference between theory and reality.

I also think the rest of your statement assumes that the people only live for external acception and verification; that we do not dress for ourselves, but for others. For me, that is not correct - there is certainly a mix, but I mainly dress for my own interest and how it gives a new dimension to life.

I do not own a pair of faux leather shoes, and I actually do not find both real and faux very attractive. However, if I was interested in buying a pair I would probably go for one with faux leather; the marginal cost of getting the real thing does not exceed MY marginal increase in utility at the moment. When I am finished studying and get a full-time job, that might change. But for right now, I can not simply share your view.

Nevertheless, I probably have a percentage point of the knowledge you contain, and I love reading and learning from your post.

 

[DWFII]



No one is rational, that is a theoretical assumption that often is the difference between theory and reality.

That's true but it is an ideal that the best of us aim for...and should, don't you think?

I also think the rest of your statement assumes that the people only live for external acception and verification; that we do not dress for ourselves, but for others. For me, that is not correct - there is certainly a mix, but I mainly dress for my own interest and how it gives a new dimension to life.

And that's not true...did I mention "personal adornment"? I think I did.

Nevertheless, I probably have a percentage point of the knowledge you contain, and I love reading and learning from your post.

 

[Munky]

Thank you for that, DWFII, it clarified you position very well.

I suppose I would take a slightly 'softer' view of people who disagree with a knowledgeable one. Like you, I am considered an expert in my own field. I hope I would never stop a student - at any level - from expressing opinions, arguing with received knowledge and generally putting forward a view that hadn't occurred to me, or one that I didn't particularly agree with. Argument between experts is also important. I guess that we remain students all of our lives.This thread is a form of education for a lot of people like me. I hope there is room for everyone and that the thread remains inclusive.

I am sorry about putting your quotes in inverted commas; I haven't yet worked out how to take chunks out of the text in order to put them in context! Some expert!

Best wishes, Munky.