Resoling suede shoes: worth the cost?

[Will]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

Good quality suede wears well. I have one pair from E. Green which have taken a beating, been resoled, doused by downpours etc. and they look better.

They have great character.

Anyone have an idea why suede shoes always seem to develop those 1" long marks on top of the toe box? FNBs have them, as do several pair of mine. They don't seem to follow a crease.

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Yet another reason that the slick/sharp look doesn't play well for me. If you are all about perfection, there is no room for the aging process, both of your body and of your clothing.

I agree with you, and strongly. That's what makes my issues with suede so odd. I think there's little a guy can to do to make himself look worse than to dress entirely in clothing that seems brand new. Yet worn suede still eludes me. I like a broken-in dirty buck, but dressier styles ... once they start to look dirty, I just can't seem to get past it. I guess that's it in a nutshell -- I don't mind the wear, I dislike the dirt. And I can't see myself sinking money into resoling suede shoes that look dirty. I'd rather buy a less expensive model -- blake stitched instead of welted, for example -- and then replace them rather than resole them.

Am I alone in this? I'm perfectly willing to admit this may be some sort of freaky psychological issue.

 

[Ed13]

I believe kudu is antelope. I have a pair of Barkers I purchased about 10 years ago that claimed the hide was kudu antelope. The leather is thicker and has a different texture than deerskin. Very nice.