Shoe care nonsense - there is no need to condition leather

[cyc wid it]

This thread has great potential. Just needs a few "nephews" thrown in.

 

[Caustic Man]

The more people comment on this thread, the less I understand it.

 

[shoepoo]

There is some truth in what you say but how you got there is beyond me You must realise there is zero agreement on shoe care, and a lot of nonsense too, unless it is just a synthesis of other people's opinions everything is in the absence of facts to go off. It is an odd first post not so much for the points you make but because it is so adamant and even slightly confrontational when you seem to have little or no first hand experience with leather (correct me if I'm wrong) you are right.

Perhaps I can clarify some things for you or at least put them in context from the POV of someone with extensive experience with shoes and shoemaking, feet and leather.

In the old days there were indeed such things as conditioners although most of them were fat based. Simply because in the old days most all leather, even veg tanned leather, was veg tanned. Such conditioners provided some water resistance and perhaps maintained the slight acid balance that leather has. Long experience and Tradition suggests that applying such conditioners on a regular but infrequent basis was beneficial. Generations of grooms, equerrys, stablemasters, and bootblacks, etc., bear witness to the efficacy of conditioning leather that's a very specific type though, not shoe leather. Such wisdom cannot be dismissed, if only because it spans hundreds of years of careful observation agreed.

Polishes (waxes) alone will not waterproof leather for very long. In wear, perhaps several hours. They don't really penetrate the leather and will flake off the surface when the leather is flexed. so what do you recommend to waterproof shoe leather ?

The main reason conditioners work, in my opinion I do respect your opinion, but it is just that... is that they keep the grain surface of the leather supple and replenish natural ***** acids and introduced fat liquors that do nourish the leather. The fibrous make up of the grain surface is vastly different from the fibrous make-up of the corium or the flesh surface and incidental layers. The grain is relatively thin but it is also relatively stiff compared to the flesh.

To some small degree conditioners may also allow fibers to slide past each other without tearing. sounds like a good theory

And that suggests an answer to your query about rough-out or suede leathers. I have observed the same thing. But it is not that such leathers will not crack, it is simply that the flesh side of the skin is so much looser and less dense than the grain surface. [And I'm speaking now of "reverse calf", not the much inferior "split" suede which is far more common esp. in lower grade shoes.] When dirt gets on the grain surface of a leather, or it loses suppleness (waxes can contribute to that loss), it cracks as much because it is so short fibered, rigid, and so dense, as from the grinding and abrasive action of dirt in the creases...although such dirt is a big, big factor not only in cracking but in the leather drying out. that makes a lot of sense and also adds to the premise i made regarding the fact that there are lots of old timers with shoes that have been re healed lots of times and all they ever did was keep a nice shine on them with Kimi shoe polish: that seems to be the key - clean and somewhat waterproof is all you need to make shoes last (my argument, not saying its fact, but other's opinions on here are not fact, just opinion).

Simply turning the leather inside out--putting the fleshside to the outside--protects the grain surface (and the nutrients that keep it supple), and any grit that is picked up is lodged in a fundamentally softer and more yielding matrix than if it were on the grain Interesting . We don't ordinarily condition or wax the fibrous fleshside, not because it doesn't need it, but because doing so would alter the appearance of the "suede"...which is what is usually wanted.

That said, historically (and even as we speak) there were highly prized leathers that were waxed or oiled on the fleshside. Why?

So it is not "cut and dried." The "waxed calf"-- a veg tanned leather that was "stuffed' with lanolin and fish oils, blackened and sized, and lasted fleshside out and then, historically, waxed and polished everyday--that I have used has shown itself to be near-as-nevermind equally resistant to cracking as the more conventional "dry" rough-out leathers. I would have though lanolin would be a desirable conditioner, assuming such a thing was necessary...

Bottom line is...and I think this is really the main point of your post...conditioners should be used sparingly; waxes don't confer nearly the protection that most attribute to them; and the, bar none, very most important thing you can do to your shoes is keep them clean--brush them often, daily even.

Great advice !

I'm a scientist who knows nothing about leather (you got that right) so I am curious why there is so so so so much garbage advice out there, not to mention a 10 different potions to put on leather that may or may not do any good/harm

Thanks for engaging !

 

[RoseGardener]

Great advice !

I'm a scientist who knows nothing about leather (you got that right) so I am curious why there is so so so so much garbage advice out there, not to mention a 10 different potions to put on leather that may or may not do any good/harm

Thanks for engaging !

This is an interesting discussion, so thanks to @shoepoo for initiating it and thanks to @DWFII for the insights.

I would love to see an experiment when someone wore a pair of shoes regularly for years and only conditioned one of them. And I’d like for someone to do the same with shoe trees.

Actually, buy two identical pairs and condition only the left from one pair and the right from the other pair. And do the same with shoe trees with another two pair of say a whole cut model, maybe the C&J Alex (the idea being that whole cuts crease more). Wear all four pairs once in four-days rotations for two years and show us the results. Now that would be interesting.

Of course I guess no one is gonna be willing to risk their shoes in that way, even for science.

I am loving shoepoo's spirit to challenge the establishment, I buy the fact that ingredients of leather conditioners failed to suggest why they will nourish the leather. I am also loving #Foreigner's suggestion of an experiment.

I am not a shoe guy but still have something like 15 pairs of shoes, I suspect most shoe dudes on this forum have more. In the end, our shoes don't get used a lot, mostly sitting in climate controlled, UV free closets. Conditioner or not, they ought to last for long time, til we are tired of looking at them. I think using shoe trees to stretch them so they don't deform might be more helpful in our cases.

Just for fun, here is an orange and apple unscientific rebuttal to shoepoo's claim: This is Stevie at 69 years old, pics was taken in 2017, her skin was remarkably free of wrinkles. Over the years, she might have challenged her body with lots of stuff, but she religiously moisturized her skin few times a day, everyday since she was a teenager. Not sure if she had brotox, not sure is wrinkle free, come to think of it, if one could have some form of brotox for shoes ...

 

[Blastwice]

What is this thread?

So I'm reading the first post. What kind of "scientist with no leather experience" are you? Why are you on a shoe forum, advancing what appears to be an agenda, while simultaneously saying you have zero experience with leather shoes.

To address your first point-- if you're buying shoes made of leather that has a polymer coating, you are almost certainly not one of the people who is in this thread. I assume you're talking about mall brands made from synthetic leathers that are mostly plastic sold in discount retailers? Of course you don't polish or care for those shoes, as the polishes and creams themselves cost more than the shoes!

Next you go on about polishes containing mostly inactive ingredients, but Saphir, which is probably one of the more common suggestions in this forum to use on your shoes, includes shea butter, ox-foot oil, lanolin, carnauba wax and beeswax as well as mink oil. If you're asking us why we use some cheap kiwi black polish or something, I imagine you're confused about where you're posting, because I'm never putting that stuff on real leather shoes.

The most nonsense thing about your post is you claim "equestrian leathers" are "different" than "shoe leathers", and then simultaneously say that "leather sofas" don't need treatment! First off, it's very clear your knowledge of leathers is non-existant, because there is no such thing as "equestrian leather" vs. "shoe leather". I have shoes made of various animal hides, all of which could potentially be used in products related to equestrian care and probably are. I don't know, I don't own horses. There is no such thing as "furniture leather" (unless you're skinning the furniture yourself!) and more importantly, it's far more common to have leather furniture treated with coatings and polymers than it is with shoes that cost more than $40 or so. And even then it's not like leather furniture lasts forever without sagging, cracking, or otherwise falling apart.

I also take surpreme issue with you bringing up "old guys didn't treat their shoes." This is not something a "scientist" would say, because it's a logical fallacy. Who are these "old guys"? Where are their shoes? Where are the shoes that didn't survive because they weren't conditioned/cared for to compare the surviving pieces to? And more importantly, what do you know about "old guys and their shoe polishing habits"?

Furthermore, different types of leather DO require different care regimens and DO react differently to various oils/creams/regimens. You don't have to be a scientist to figure this out, but owning a pair of the things you're debating about (or many) would immediately illustrate the difference. There are a hundred and one different ways to tan leather, different liquor solutions that produce different tannages, and many different animals that these hides come from all of which are probably more different than they are the same. Would you argue that Horween's signiture shell tanning is exactly the same as Rocado's or Shinki Hikaku's? If it was, why is Horween the gold standard? Are people just not as smart as you and they can't tell the difference? Despite these hides coming from the same part of the horse, the tannages couldn't be more different. You don't need to put on your scientist cape to understand this because it's visually obvious.

Then comes this paragraph:

""The other thing to consider is this: in the old days when most people wore leather shoes that could be rehealed / soled, they probably only ever used shoe polish (eg my dad's generation). They didn't have lotions and potions, though they would have kept up a respectable shine. Shoe polish protects leather from the elements, but doesn't, as far as I know, do any conditioning. However, these shoes would go on and on being resoled many times without the care often claimed nowadays.""

Honestly, I can't take you seriously at all after this. Please show the evidence that they "probably only ever used shoe polish". How did you come to this conclusion? What percentage of "your dad's generations' shoes" were reheeled and resoled multiple times? I mean, did you even think logically about this paragraph for even a second before you posted it? "these shoes" -- which shoes? Can you show me facts and figures that breakdown what shoes you're talking about, the makers, the construction standards, etc. or did you literally just write a sentence that's your own vision of how the world should have been back in the day to prove your point?

And why would you think they didn't have potions or lotions? I just conditioned a leather dog collar with a tub of mink oil that was made in the 50s. Should I assume this tub of mink oil is a mirage and it didn't actually exist during your "dad's generation"?

I also find it strange that as a "scientist" I can't go one sentence without running into a typo, spelling error, or grammatical error and half of the stuff you're claiming in this thread equates to: "I don't know the answer, but I think the person I'm responding to is wrong." I've never heard of anyone in the scientific community take that attitude towards anything.

 

[mensimageconsultant]

I am loving shoepoo's spirit to challenge the establishment, I buy the fact that ingredients of leather conditioners failed to suggest why they will nourish the leather. I am also loving #Foreigner's suggestion of an experiment.

I am not a shoe guy but still have something like 15 pairs of shoes, I suspect most shoe dudes on this forum have more. In the end, our shoes don't get used a lot, mostly sitting in climate controlled, UV free closets. Conditioner or not, they ought to last for long time, til we are tired of looking at them. I think using shoe trees to stretch them so they don't deform might be more helpful in our cases.

Just for fun, here is an orange and apple unscientific rebuttal to shoepoo's claim: This is Stevie at 69 years old, pics was taken in 2017, her skin was remarkably free of wrinkles. Over the years, she might have challenged her body with lots of stuff, but she religiously moisturized her skin few times a day, everyday since she was a teenager. Not sure if she had brotox, not sure is wrinkle free, come to think of it, if one could have some form of brotox for shoes ...

Stevie Nicks wears makeup and is very sun-avoidant.
http://www.elleuk.com/life-and-cult...-nicks-fleetwood-mac-interview-isle-of-wight/
Also, she credits genetics, and the excess weight hides wrinkles.

Getting back to leather care, would @DWFII agree that leather (for shoes and other purposes) was thicker 70+ years ago and therefore less in need of TLC?

 

[DWFII]

Getting back to leather care, would @DWFII agree that leather (for shoes and other purposes) was thicker 70+ years ago and therefore less in need of TLC?

Not really. Go back a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago and you might not find any chrome tan...or very little. Shoe were mostly made entirely of veg. Getting back to thickness, however, certainly the machines for splitting leather have gotten much better in the intervening years, but today prime calfskin can be upwards of 20 sq. ft. whereas back in the day the really prime stuff would have been half that or even less for "milk calf." Hides coming off of smaller animals would have been thinner.

The basic and most significant difference between leather back in the day and leathers today, is feed and chemicals and age at slaughter. Animals are rushed to slaughter and forced to growth and larger sizes through hormones and other chemicals in the feed. Functionally that means leather today is less dense the fiber mat is less tight and the hides bigger.

 

[1st Step]

What is this thread?

So I'm reading the first post. What kind of "scientist with no leather experience" are you? Why are you on a shoe forum, advancing what appears to be an agenda, while simultaneously saying you have zero experience with leather shoes.

To address your first point-- if you're buying shoes made of leather that has a polymer coating, you are almost certainly not one of the people who is in this thread. I assume you're talking about mall brands made from synthetic leathers that are mostly plastic sold in discount retailers? Of course you don't polish or care for those shoes, as the polishes and creams themselves cost more than the shoes!

Next you go on about polishes containing mostly inactive ingredients, but Saphir, which is probably one of the more common suggestions in this forum to use on your shoes, includes shea butter, ox-foot oil, lanolin, carnauba wax and beeswax as well as mink oil. If you're asking us why we use some cheap kiwi black polish or something, I imagine you're confused about where you're posting, because I'm never putting that stuff on real leather shoes.

The most nonsense thing about your post is you claim "equestrian leathers" are "different" than "shoe leathers", and then simultaneously say that "leather sofas" don't need treatment! First off, it's very clear your knowledge of leathers is non-existant, because there is no such thing as "equestrian leather" vs. "shoe leather". I have shoes made of various animal hides, all of which could potentially be used in products related to equestrian care and probably are. I don't know, I don't own horses. There is no such thing as "furniture leather" (unless you're skinning the furniture yourself!) and more importantly, it's far more common to have leather furniture treated with coatings and polymers than it is with shoes that cost more than $40 or so. And even then it's not like leather furniture lasts forever without sagging, cracking, or otherwise falling apart.

I also take surpreme issue with you bringing up "old guys didn't treat their shoes." This is not something a "scientist" would say, because it's a logical fallacy. Who are these "old guys"? Where are their shoes? Where are the shoes that didn't survive because they weren't conditioned/cared for to compare the surviving pieces to? And more importantly, what do you know about "old guys and their shoe polishing habits"?

Furthermore, different types of leather DO require different care regimens and DO react differently to various oils/creams/regimens. You don't have to be a scientist to figure this out, but owning a pair of the things you're debating about (or many) would immediately illustrate the difference. There are a hundred and one different ways to tan leather, different liquor solutions that produce different tannages, and many different animals that these hides come from all of which are probably more different than they are the same. Would you argue that Horween's signiture shell tanning is exactly the same as Rocado's or Shinki Hikaku's? If it was, why is Horween the gold standard? Are people just not as smart as you and they can't tell the difference? Despite these hides coming from the same part of the horse, the tannages couldn't be more different. You don't need to put on your scientist cape to understand this because it's visually obvious.

Then comes this paragraph:

""The other thing to consider is this: in the old days when most people wore leather shoes that could be rehealed / soled, they probably only ever used shoe polish (eg my dad's generation). They didn't have lotions and potions, though they would have kept up a respectable shine. Shoe polish protects leather from the elements, but doesn't, as far as I know, do any conditioning. However, these shoes would go on and on being resoled many times without the care often claimed nowadays.""

Honestly, I can't take you seriously at all after this. Please show the evidence that they "probably only ever used shoe polish". How did you come to this conclusion? What percentage of "your dad's generations' shoes" were reheeled and resoled multiple times? I mean, did you even think logically about this paragraph for even a second before you posted it? "these shoes" -- which shoes? Can you show me facts and figures that breakdown what shoes you're talking about, the makers, the construction standards, etc. or did you literally just write a sentence that's your own vision of how the world should have been back in the day to prove your point?

And why would you think they didn't have potions or lotions? I just conditioned a leather dog collar with a tub of mink oil that was made in the 50s. Should I assume this tub of mink oil is a mirage and it didn't actually exist during your "dad's generation"?

I also find it strange that as a "scientist" I can't go one sentence without running into a typo, spelling error, or grammatical error and half of the stuff you're claiming in this thread equates to: "I don't know the answer, but I think the person I'm responding to is wrong." I've never heard of anyone in the scientific community take that attitude towards anything.

Thank you, but you should've posted this when the " Lil scientist " showed up, this response would put a "End" to this conversation, I guess it has, I would love to see a pair of the Square toes he's sporting!

 

[1st Step]

Hi all - a provocative title, but bear with me: There are loads of articles of how to keep leather shoes in tiptop conditioned shape. However, there are some huge logic gaps in all that (in my opinion) nonsense advice:
1 Is there any scientific comparison of eg a shoe that has been conditioned/polished vs just cleaned?
2 Most leather shoes have a polymer coating (like car seats) and this protects the leather and stops conditioner getting through. Patent leather is an extreme form of this
3 What oil/creme is good for leather anyway? The closest thing to leather oil would be lanolin as that's produced by the skin, but that isn't in most polish/conditioners
4 Suede/nubuck/analine leather does not need conditioning (just nap cleaning) and they seem to fair perfectly fine with no conditioner - ergo, why would a leather with a protective coating on top need conditioning?
5 Leather sofas get much more flexing in use than a shoe and need no cremes and potions to make them less prone to cracking.
Polish and other potions are there simply to keep the leather protected, they have little or nothing to do with 'nourishing' or 'feeding' or 'conditioning' the leather.
As an aside, this is what Clarks put in their Matt Leather Restorer: water, acrylic resin, silicone and fragrance. I.e. no conditioning, just some stuff to make them waterproof and smell nice.
Discuss!....

Please, Post A Pair or Two of Your Shoes!

 

[ShoeWho]

So much BS in the op I don't know where to start. Maybe instead of wasting time posting ignorant nonsense you could read the Shoe Snob blog.

 

[benjamin831]

Provocative title and provocative in your ignorance.

 

[Bertrand]

interesting posts!

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Maybe there is a point to all of this.

 

[OldTown]

Polish keeps vibrancy in the color of your shoes.

 

[rikod]

I totally understand the OP. I tend to troll myself, particularly when I’m drinking (I’m drinking now).

to me, some things don’t require an explanation (much less a chemical one), I just trust what my eyes see and what my hands feel. I love leather and have many things leather from shoes to gun holsters to knives sheaths and wallets.

when you care for them every few months they just look and feel better.