ElPrincipe
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
Forgive the repetition on this topic... but judging from my own searches (probably not exhaustive) and the nature of the query, I think it might be a bit of a new one...
Okay, so I already own like a dozen pairs of cedar shoe trees - they're the split-toe variety in a generic size L (they look like this)
Backstory
At some point the place where I get them from changed the design slightly, so that they are shorter overall, but the wood that makes up the forefoot was made a bit chunkier and wider. I figured that the pro of this design is that the length-ways tension is reduced, but is offset by the wider front (i.e., less overall tension required to push the toes apart for wider shoe spaces).
I own about half in the older longer version, and half in the newer shorter. Overall I'd say I prefer the newer version because of the reduced tension.
However, the old design - with the narrower wood - is still naturally better for narrower shoes. And guess what? I just bought some more shoes which are somewhat narrow.
The problem
Therefore, I want to reduce the tension in my older pairs so that there is less "pushback" against the heel of the shoe, which I feel is excessive. I can see that this is certainly doable in some way, as a simple screw on the side of the heel conveniently allows you to unfasten it, exposing the metal tube and allowing you to take out the spring.
I guess I'm wondering: should I saw down the metal tube, or alter/replace the spring inside to achieve this?
I brought this problem to my cobbler but he shot down the idea before I could fully explain it, saying that he doesn't do "joinery" (seriously). I might take it to another store, but thought I'd float the idea here first.
And finally... the never-ending shoe tree debate
Also, is there some kind of innate problem with split-toe shoe trees as opposed to other designs? Whilst visiting my cobbler, he also (rather inexplicably) denigrated my shoe trees by telling me to "get some proper shoe trees" as a solution, and brandished this type at me:
He said my type would "stretch shoes", but I pointed out that these also have tubes (two in fact) which also have springs, which therefore also have tension... to which he had no reply.
I must say, I have not tried every single type. At the very beginning, when I started investing in trees, I tried both the split-toe style and the "fuller" kind pictured above. I personally preferred the split-toe as they went in and out of my shoes easier and fully filled out the forefoot, preserving the shape of the shoe.
In my opinion, the primary purpose of shoe trees are to reduce unsightly creases and bends in the leather after each wear. And these occur primarily in the forefoot. Moisture absorption is secondary. So when people advise by simply saying "size down" when there is a question of fit, I would say no: make sure the forefoot is properly filled first and foremost! Agree?
Thanks
Okay, so I already own like a dozen pairs of cedar shoe trees - they're the split-toe variety in a generic size L (they look like this)

Backstory
At some point the place where I get them from changed the design slightly, so that they are shorter overall, but the wood that makes up the forefoot was made a bit chunkier and wider. I figured that the pro of this design is that the length-ways tension is reduced, but is offset by the wider front (i.e., less overall tension required to push the toes apart for wider shoe spaces).
I own about half in the older longer version, and half in the newer shorter. Overall I'd say I prefer the newer version because of the reduced tension.
However, the old design - with the narrower wood - is still naturally better for narrower shoes. And guess what? I just bought some more shoes which are somewhat narrow.
The problem
Therefore, I want to reduce the tension in my older pairs so that there is less "pushback" against the heel of the shoe, which I feel is excessive. I can see that this is certainly doable in some way, as a simple screw on the side of the heel conveniently allows you to unfasten it, exposing the metal tube and allowing you to take out the spring.
I guess I'm wondering: should I saw down the metal tube, or alter/replace the spring inside to achieve this?
I brought this problem to my cobbler but he shot down the idea before I could fully explain it, saying that he doesn't do "joinery" (seriously). I might take it to another store, but thought I'd float the idea here first.
And finally... the never-ending shoe tree debate
Also, is there some kind of innate problem with split-toe shoe trees as opposed to other designs? Whilst visiting my cobbler, he also (rather inexplicably) denigrated my shoe trees by telling me to "get some proper shoe trees" as a solution, and brandished this type at me:

He said my type would "stretch shoes", but I pointed out that these also have tubes (two in fact) which also have springs, which therefore also have tension... to which he had no reply.
I must say, I have not tried every single type. At the very beginning, when I started investing in trees, I tried both the split-toe style and the "fuller" kind pictured above. I personally preferred the split-toe as they went in and out of my shoes easier and fully filled out the forefoot, preserving the shape of the shoe.
In my opinion, the primary purpose of shoe trees are to reduce unsightly creases and bends in the leather after each wear. And these occur primarily in the forefoot. Moisture absorption is secondary. So when people advise by simply saying "size down" when there is a question of fit, I would say no: make sure the forefoot is properly filled first and foremost! Agree?
Thanks