Leather Quality and Properties

[am55]

Sometimes, on this board, people will say they bought some item and they want to know if it's any good. So then they ask people here and describe the item in words ("it was made in Italy from such-and-such leather, it has this type of stitching here, or this type of hardware here ... is this good? I paid X").

But, like, if you have the item in front of you, why don't you just put it on and see how it feels and looks? It should be obvious to you if the item is good.

You forget that often, the people doing this have little experience.

There's a well known trope in development which is the "ninja developer" - he "crushes it" and produces 10x more code than anybody else, knocks out features, etc. He also tends to get promoted out before maintenance becomes a problem... which is where experienced developers and managers would say hey, that guy is not a ninja, he's a liability to the company (it's a long debate and a case can be made either way depending on context).

Point is someone who has just started as a product manager, or entered a larger company, is now faced with output from a number of developers and it is a perfectly legitimate question to go up to the more experienced tech folks he knows and say "hey, here's what I'm seeing, what do you think?" and get the unknowns unknowns. Quality manifests itself... to the expert.

 

[ecwy]

Subjective judgments (what Hume called sentiments) are always right because they never reference anything beyond themselves. Objective judgments (what Hume called determinations), however, reference an outside quality, so they can be verified or falsified.

My point (and I think DWF's point) is that there is what you had quoted that is defined as 'Objective judgements' can and should be qualified. A consumer can and should do his best to educate himself on such objective qualities of the item that he wants to purchase. Obviously, if it is some cheap $2 item, I don't expect anyone to bother with this.

Nobody would disagree with you that developing taste is crucial. However, I think these 2 items - quality and taste - should go hand in hand and that taste should not outweigh the objective quality of an item. No matter how great an item looks, it still does not mean it should not be judged to be made of good or poor quality. I cannot agree with your statement that "the only real measure for quality, in the beginning, is whether something looks and feels great" or "To the degree quality matters, it should be obvious and manifest itself." If it was so simple and obvious, nobody would have any complaints about poor products since it was obvious it was poor from the start. Clearly, they complain because their expectations have not been met.

Personally, the objective quality dictates the value and thus the price. I would rather buy a pair of bespoke shoes than pay for GG RTW, St Crispin as I find them overpriced for their objective quality (i.e. poor value). On the other hand, something like an Enzo Bonafe is good value for it's price but you do get what you pay for (clicking seems to be for maximizing yield) or even Vass (rather rough SPI). You also have the Japanese people rather buying made in USA Alden shoes at rather inflated prices when their own RTW shoe industry (imo) produces much more refined work. Again, this is my own value judgement and it is fine if people have another view.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It has been interesting though we see it quite differently.

 

[vmss]

You are really showing how naive you are here. I know some people in the Carmina family. I can tell you that they are seriously concerned with delivering the best possible product at a price-point that they deem. At they're price-point they are an excellent value. If someone posted a rare failure is no reason to take an approach that they are inferior. Did they contact the company? Could such (any) defect happen on a Bespoke shoe? If so, would you give the maker a chance to correct the problem before you posted it on-line?
I think I also read that you mentioned a reputable repair person told you that 6 out of 10 AE shoes have damaged shanks that need to be replaced. Somehow that claim disappeared. please explain....

You really show me how judgemental you are here.
LOL I never mentioned about shanks before and never knew AE used shanks before. I did see Belos leatherworks an experienced hands on shoe repair company mention that 6 out of ten wooden shanks are broken. Since you mention it let me help you post exactly where Belos a reputable and popular shoe repair company mention about the high failure rate AE wooden shanks. Watch this video at 2:45 mark

By the way most of my collection is from Carmina Shoemaker. That doesnt mean I must remain ignorant and cannot share my personal opinion based on several pairs I have. Its not even my intention to bash this company. If you want evidence of this problem a recent sf member posted pics of holes in the linings on the Carmina thread. Carmina linings is not the greatest never liked their linings. I dont have this lining problem with other makers. All my carmina linings are detiorating for some reason. There was a rumor sometime ago that their linings came from an Indian tannery. I have a pair with pre matured holes while outsoles are still in great condition. I bought these shoes with the expectations to go several resoles. Now because of this lining problem makes a repair job almost impossible and more expensive not sure if its even worthed. Also, let say I contact Carmina about this matter do you really think they gonna change all the linings of my several pairs? Also with what linings materials if that is what they are currently using? If you want I will post a picture for you. Its my personal opinion that the linings they use are not of great quality based on the several Carmina pairs I have. This is the very reason I will not blindfully buy a pair of shoes based on brand name cache. I think experience with a shoemaker and/or brand is vitally important to make your own judgement and evaluation of its quality.

 

[vmss]

My point (and I think DWF's point) is that there is what you had quoted that is defined as 'Objective judgements' can and should be qualified. A consumer can and should do his best to educate himself on such objective qualities of the item that he wants to purchase. Obviously, if it is some cheap $2 item, I don't expect anyone to bother with this.

Nobody would disagree with you that developing taste is crucial. However, I think these 2 items - quality and taste - should go hand in hand and that taste should not outweigh the objective quality of an item. No matter how great an item looks, it still does not mean it should not be judged to be made of good or poor quality. I cannot agree with your statement that "the only real measure for quality, in the beginning, is whether something looks and feels great" or "To the degree quality matters, it should be obvious and manifest itself." If it was so simple and obvious, nobody would have any complaints about poor products since it was obvious it was poor from the start. Clearly, they complain because their expectations have not been met.

Personally, the objective quality dictates the value and thus the price. I would rather buy a pair of bespoke shoes than pay for GG RTW, St Crispin as I find them overpriced for their objective quality (i.e. poor value). On the other hand, something like an Enzo Bonafe is good value for it's price but you do get what you pay for (clicking seems to be for maximizing yield) or even Vass (rather rough SPI). You also have the Japanese people rather buying made in USA Alden shoes at rather inflated prices when their own RTW shoe industry (imo) produces much more refined work. Again, this is my own value judgement and it is fine if people have another view.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. It has been interesting though we see it quite differently.

I agree with this statement.
This has been my experience as well.

 

[Dandy_dapper]

"However, I have seen Bespoke makers that live off of their reputations and deliver absolute crap. Outside, the shoe looks great. Inside (when it's taken apart) materials and methods are a laugh"

I believe that the materials and methods of most gyw shoes are a laugh. Take a look at the carmina thread. A poster shared his concern of how his linings has prematurely holes before the outsole was worn down.

Dieworkwear talked about reliance on brands cache. Really? Should we blindly go after brands without questioning the methods and materials they are using in their brands? See forexample AE post Caleres is taking advantage by selling overpriced cement crap by getting away with their name reputation. Many other brands are guilty of this practice.

Please take a look at 2:45 in this video; the gemming is totally detached from the insole. Is this shoe construction supposed to be high quality method build with high quality materials?
This is gyw shoes behind the veil. Walmart quality glue synthetic tape holding the shoe altogether and paying hundreds to thousands of dollar for these brands using this method.

So good!

 

[vmss]

You are really showing how naive you are here. I know some people in the Carmina family. I can tell you that they are seriously concerned with delivering the best possible product at a price-point that they deem. At they're price-point they are an excellent value. If someone posted a rare failure is no reason to take an approach that they are inferior. Did they contact the company? Could such (any) defect happen on a Bespoke shoe? If so, would you give the maker a chance to correct the problem before you posted it on-line?
I think I also read that you mentioned a reputable repair person told you that 6 out of 10 AE shoes have damaged shanks that need to be replaced. Somehow that claim disappeared. please explain....

If they are really concerned about delivering the best product at their price point why did they replace leatherboard heel with celastic heel and stop using metal shank covered with leatherboard with a tiny metal shank covered with huge plastic coating covering the whole heel area? I don't see that as an improvement in quality, but more as a cost cutting measure. Again not bashing the brand its their strategic decisions to max profit. My old carminas are better quality made than the newer ones. I am just reacting on your comments and have no intentions to keep going forward with this conversation. Like I said again this thread is about leather quality.

 

[starro]

I don't get the whole blow up really. Obviously micro-managing bespoke is bad. Obviously quality is shades-of-gray and not always apparent. But to elevate "aesthetics" above quality, really?

DWW is right in that no one should approach any bespoke maker with rose-colored glasses. Only a portion of the craft are totally trustworthy and can deliver the top of fit and make. When I pay top dollar for an item, I expect personal fit, make that is the best humans have come up with (with natural materials of course), and an "aesthetic" mutually agreed upon by customer and maker. To achieve those expectations, one must size up the maker fairly quickly and accurately, communicate preferences and expectations clearly, make sure they are heard and understood, follow up regularly throughout the early stages, and always have an exit strategy ready should the relationship become irreparable.

Strong mutual relationship with maker is a must, and the customer must prioritize his demands to know what he can and cannot tolerate. But at no point can aesthetics trump durability and comfort. If sleek pointy-toed shoes look "great" but pinch your foot, are you so vain as to continue wearing them?

 

[DWFII]

FWIW...

I've been doing this for near onto 50 years (apologies if pointing that out if that offends some). Fifty years is a long span of time to focus on one thing. That's longer than some people in this thread have been alive. I have seen and done and worked on all manner of shoes and leather.

Some considerations:

First and foremost there is nothing more subjective, amorphous, and transient than aesthetics.

What do you consider a beautiful last? Or more specifically a beautiful toe shape? Whatever it is, twenty years ago, you...you...wouldn't have given it a second glance.

If there was ever a subject that could generate a lot of meaningless chatter and disagreement, it is the subject of aesthetics...what is beautiful vs. what is ugly. Hell, if you get up on the wrong side of bed today, or if your girlfriend dumps you, your perspective on what is beautiful...or even on what looks good on you...will change. Significantly and maybe even permanently. Nothing about aesthetics is objective. No two people will agree on what is beautiful. Or ugly. Nothing about what is beautiful or ugly can be verified or stipulated...even between two people. Or from day to day, month to month, year to year.

In the face of that, there is no basis for communication among people about aesthetics. Even gentle discussions become an exercise in who can impose their will and their own prejudices on the other(s).

Bottom line is...for any of us...who the hell cares what anyone else thinks is beautiful or looks good? I mean really! All that glitters is not gold. And those silver gum wrappers lying in the gutter are worthless despite the excitement that our "magpie eyes" generate.

To get along, to have a discussion...to have a discussion forum...we have to simply accept that people have different perspectives, different eyes and move on.

Move on to things that can be verified...simply because they can, and do, form the basis for consensus and even the sharing of information, as daunting and distasteful as that may be.

It's a mysterie to me that the "ardent thinker" inevitably, invariably, at some point in any conversation, wants to discard everything that can be verified in favour of "feeling" and "sentiment". I suspect it is because "feelings" cannot be discredited for being informed by false assumptions or singular perspectives. And if only...if only...everyone "feels' the same then people who disagree can be excluded and a "safe space" established where simple truths and facts can be ignored.

I'm a "linear thinker." I believe in logic and the existence of objective (even if not absolute) truth...based on practice, observation, verification and reproducibility. That said, I don't don't reject feelings. I just think they are individual and beside the point in any larger context not involving self-promotion. Nor do I think aesthetic considerations need to be dismissed. They play a major part in things we gravitate to and enjoy. But no matter how hallowed or universally revered, they cannot be ever be stipulated for all people.

And that means that to give any significant weight to them, in any discussion, just results in blather. No consensus, no agreement.

And that's why I'm a linear thinker.

 

[DWFII]

...
1. Nails that come through the footbed on finished shoes.
2. Shoes that don't fit well.
3. Things that are just straight up ugly (the worst sin)
4. Things that take forever to be delivered.
5. Things that don't get delivered at all!
6. Lasts that look like blobs (connected to point three, but ugliness is such a sin, it can't be emphasized enough)
7. Makers that are a huge headache and hassle to work with (seriously, what's even the point in the end if you have to deal with someone unpleasant?)

The list goes on forever

Yes it does, but in my fifty years of making bespoke shoes and boots, I have seen very little of what you describe with competent makers. The point was made by someone else that to compare poor quality bespoke with good quality RTW is bad form if not rank sophistry.

1) I have never had nails come up through the footbed of the shoes or boots I make...simply because I don't use nails. And most of the bespoke makers I admire don't either.

And, IMO and observations, this can and does happen more often with RTW than with bespoke. I know of zero manufacturers that don't use nails.

2) Bespoke makers at least start with the foot--a connection to the human being. RTW starts with a last...no connection. Makers who care about the technical and rational aspects of what they are doing don't often make major mistakes in fitting, outside of the learning years. If all the maker is concerned with is the aesthetics of the shoe, the shoes will never fit anyone exactly. Nor will it make a difference to either the maker or the consumer.

And there's another aspect of this...people who come to a bespoke maker are almost invariably looking for the same fit that they are experiencing with their RTW shoes...but somehow ineffably better. And nevermind if their RTW shoes fit them correctly to begin with.

3) Who determines what is "ugly?" You? You get to decide for all of us?! Same applies to "taste."

Beyond that if you have ugly misshapen feet, bespoke shoes will necessarily reflect that...if they are going to fit at all. See #2.

4) "Forever" is what? Twice as long as it tales you to run down to the local Thom McCann outlet and and "grab a snack?" Twice as long as it takes to get in on a group buy with G&G? A 3 year old Single Malt will probably meet all your expectations. Look no further.

5) This can happen with any business...it's a red herring. What's the old joke-- a man is cleaning out his dresser and runs across a 20 year old claim tag for a watch that he took into be repaired. He goes into the repair shop and presents the tag and the watchmaker says "come back on Tuesday."

6) See #3.

7) This illustrates the whole point about "ardent thinkers" and feelings--if you can't be patient enough, human enough, to deal with the maker as a person, perhaps you are really and truly better off dealing with a machine and the ticky-tacky of infinitely cloned products. Safe spaces. And solipsism to the nth degree.

Bespoke makers start off with the desire to make shoes. Manufactures predicate all their endeavours on the desire to make an profit. Bespoke makers...at least the bespoke makers I admire and aspire to be like...have, in their lexicon at least, if not in their hearts, the goal of fitting each customer perfectly and making each customer happy. And on top of that, making a beautiful shoe....just for the "joy" of creation. The same cannot be said....

We all make mistakes but when you start defining people by their mistakes rather than by how many times they get up after being knocked down, you quickly run the risk of becoming a misanthrope--except it's a misanthropy the whole purpose of which is to make you, and only you, feel good.

 

[DWFII]

Because I am a "linear thinker" I have to point out, if only in passing, that by logic, by rationality, by every objective standard that anyone can propose, handwelting done by a competent shoemaker produces the best made, longest lasting shoe that can be made.

Handwelting is "Best Practices." Goodyear Welting is "Good-enough Practices." GYW shoes pretend to be HW shoes but they are not...and never can be. GY masquerades as Traditional. It poses as quality. But in that regard, it's just as false and deceptive as the companies whose advertising proclaims them to be "superior" and "most traditional," etc..

All things being equal, every aspect--from techniques to materials to potentials points of failure--of handwelting is objectively superior to the same techniques and materials commonly used in GY. This assertion is verifiable, reproducible and objectively indisputable short of interjecting "feeling" and "sentiment" and singular biases.

Some manufacturers have a "bespoke" department--G&G is one, IIRC. Make a handwelted shoe on a highly regarded factory last, using the self-same techniques and the same quality of materials as a competent...merely competent, not necessarily a master...bespoke shoe maker would use and the result will be, by an order of magnitude, a better made shoe than the same shoe, on the same last, made with GY.

 

[VRaivio]

My, my how this thread blew up during the last few days! Evidently leather is a hot topic.

 

[DWFII]

My, my how this thread blew up during the last few days! Evidently leather is a hot topic.

Is that a bad thing? Conversations tend to do that.

 

[Themandan]

FWIW...

I've been doing this for near onto 50 years (apologies if pointing that out if that offends some). Fifty years is a long span of time to focus on one thing. That's longer than some people in this thread have been alive. I have seen and done and worked on all manner of shoes and leather.

Some considerations:

First and foremost there is nothing more subjective, amorphous, and transient than aesthetics.

What do you consider a beautiful last? Or more specifically a beautiful toe shape? Whatever it is, twenty years ago, you...you...wouldn't have given it a second glance.

If there was ever a subject that could generate a lot of meaningless chatter and disagreement, it is the subject of aesthetics...what is beautiful vs. what is ugly. Hell, if you get up on the wrong side of bed today, or if your girlfriend dumps you, your perspective on what is beautiful...or even on what looks good on you...will change. Significantly and maybe even permanently. Nothing about aesthetics is objective. No two people will agree on what is beautiful. Or ugly. Nothing about what is beautiful or ugly can be verified or stipulated...even between two people. Or from day to day, month to month, year to year.

In the face of that, there is no basis for communication among people about aesthetics. Even gentle discussions become an exercise in who can impose their will and their own prejudices on the other(s).

Bottom line is...for any of us...who the hell cares what anyone else thinks is beautiful or looks good? I mean really! All that glitters is not gold. And those silver gum wrappers lying in the gutter are worthless despite the excitement that our "magpie eyes" generate.

To get along, to have a discussion...to have a discussion forum...we have to simply accept that people have different perspectives, different eyes and move on.

Move on to things that can be verified...simply because they can, and do, form the basis for consensus and even the sharing of information, as daunting as that may be.

It's a mysterie to me that the "ardent thinker" inevitably, invariably, at some point in any conversation, wants to discard everything that can be verified in favour of "feeling" and "sentiment". I suspect it is because "feelings" cannot be discredited for being informed by false assumptions or singular perspectives. And if only...if only...everyone "feels' the same then people who disagree can be excluded and a "safe space" established where simple truths and facts can be ignored.

I'm a "linear thinker." I believe in logic and the existence of objective (even if not absolute) truth...based on practice, observation, verification and reproducibility. That said, I don't don't reject feelings. I just think they are individual and beside the point in any larger context not involving self-promotion. Nor do I think aesthetic considerations need to be dismissed. They play a major part in things we gravitate to and enjoy. But no matter how hallowed or universally revered, they cannot be ever be stipulated for all people.

And that means that to give any significant weight to them, in any discussion, just results in blather. No consensus, no agreement.

And that's why I'm a linear thinker.

You, sir, have won the internet for today.
Bonus points for the wider application of your statements.

 

[Nick V.]

You really show me how judgemental you are here.
LOL I never mentioned about shanks before and never knew AE used shanks before. I did see Belos leatherworks an experienced hands on shoe repair company mention that 6 out of ten wooden shanks are broken. Since you mention it let me help you post exactly where Belos a reputable and popular shoe repair company mention about the high failure rate AE wooden shanks. Watch this video at 2:45 mark

By the way most of my collection is from Carmina Shoemaker. That doesnt mean I must remain ignorant and cannot share my personal opinion based on several pairs I have. Its not even my intention to bash this company. If you want evidence of this problem a recent sf member posted pics of holes in the linings on the Carmina thread. Carmina linings is not the greatest never liked their linings. I dont have this lining problem with other makers. All my carmina linings are detiorating for some reason. There was a rumor sometime ago that their linings came from an Indian tannery. I have a pair with pre matured holes while outsoles are still in great condition. I bought these shoes with the expectations to go several resoles. Now because of this lining problem makes a repair job almost impossible and more expensive not sure if its even worthed. Also, let say I contact Carmina about this matter do you really think they gonna change all the linings of my several pairs? Also with what linings materials if that is what they are currently using? If you want I will post a picture for you. Its my personal opinion that the linings they use are not of great quality based on the several Carmina pairs I have. This is the very reason I will not blindfully buy a pair of shoes based on brand name cache. I think experience with a shoemaker and/or brand is vitally important to make your own judgement and evaluation of its quality.

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I lost track.
I have been dealing with AE shoes on a daily basis for over 4 decades. I can't recall the last time I saw a wooden shank in a pair of their shoes.
They don't use shanks. How someone can come up with a ratio of "6 out of 10" of their wooden shanks break is beyond me. They also do 270 degree welts. Still no shank. As was mentioned in the video that shoe was re-soled before (1/2 sole) I suppose the previous repair person could have put that shank in.

I respect your comment about "not intending to bash" Carmina. Did you even give them a chance to rectify the problem before posting your dissatisfaction with the inferior shoe linings they presumably use? Here again, we deal with quite a bit of Carmina's If they had a consistent problem with their liners don't you think I would be aware of it?
Now because of this lining problem makes a repair job almost impossible and more expensive not sure if its even worthed
Why would you NOT take this up with Carmina. If it's a valid complaint don't you think it would be fair of you to give them an opportunity to rectify the problem before posting the matter on a public forum. I wouldn't call it bashing but I would call it unfair.

Have you ever had any problems with the Bespoke shoes that you may (may not) have made for you?

 

[vmss]

Thank you for pointing that out to me. I lost track.
I have been dealing with AE shoes on a daily basis for over 4 decades. I can't recall the last time I saw a wooden shank in a pair of their shoes.
They don't use shanks. How someone can come up with a ratio of "6 out of 10" of their wooden shanks break is beyond me. They also do 270 degree welts. Still no shank. As was mentioned in the video that shoe was re-soled before (1/2 sole) I suppose the previous repair person could have put that shank in.

I respect your comment about "not intending to bash" Carmina. Did you even give them a chance to rectify the problem before posting your dissatisfaction with the inferior shoe linings they presumably use? Here again, we deal with quite a bit of Carmina's If they had a consistent problem with their liners don't you think I would be aware of it?
Now because of this lining problem makes a repair job almost impossible and more expensive not sure if its even worthed
Why would you NOT take this up with Carmina. If it's a valid complaint don't you think it would be fair of you to give them an opportunity to rectify the problem before posting the matter on a public forum. I wouldn't call it bashing but I would call it unfair.

Have you ever had any problems with the Bespoke shoes that you may (may not) have made for you?

Thank you for the shank info. Its good to know what materials shoe makers use in their construction.

I read somewhere believe in the AE thread that the newer AE shoes use wooden shanks.