**The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**

[JermynStreet]

Please explain to me, in how far is shell more durable than calf?
I am surprised that you are asking about this one, as I thought that it was generally accepted and well known. I assume you are familiar with Horween's video on Vimeo?

http://www.styleforum.net/t/119369/shell-cordovan-vs-regular-leather/0_100

http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/showthread.php?79695-Cordovan-vs-Calf

People swear by it's ability to rebound from damage that would otherwise be permanent in calfskin by rubbing it with some conditioner and/or smoothing it with a deer bone.

One of my favorite statistics is that there are more boots that saw service during World War I still in existence today than boots that saw service during World War II because cordovan was the favored material for boots during World War I. End of this article: http://howtospendit.ft.com/mens-fashion/6955-plenty-of-horsepower

Truthfully, a google search about the durability of shell will show that it would be harder to find sources that say it isn't more durable than calf, rather than the other way around. Way to many results come up that are supportive of the extremely strong nature of shell, so don't think for a second that the above sources are the only ones.

Once again, please explain to me in how far shell does require more skill in manufacturing than calf.
Horween dubs it "the art of tanning at it's finest": http://horween.com/leathers/shell-cordovan/ Obviously they sell it, so there is a degree of sales pitching going on, but since they make many many types of leather, they are also in a great position to determine which one is the "finest" as far as an artform is concerned.

When making shell cordovan, there is definitely skill involved in sorting, separating, cutting, and identifying the shell which is not a process involved in making calfskin. With calf, the hide is removed from the animal and the tanning process begins in earnest. The shell area of the horse requires skill to isolate and properly make once it is removed from the rest of the horse hide. Again, in the video above, you can see many manufactering steps that each require skills not needed in manufactering calfskin... from the isolating of the shell area, to the cutting of it, to the shaving it down (but not shaving too much), to the glass-rod polishing, etc. Just because they make it look easy doesn't mean it isn't a skilled process. It often requires many years of experience to make something "look" easy.

This article from Gentleman's Gazette is a good read: http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/cordovan-leather-from-horween/ The article points out that "Because of it's qualities, beauty and durability, it found its way to Spanish royalty, who facilitated the spread of cordovan leather throughout Europe and the world through marriage with other royal families."
"In the late 19th century, German tanners had mastered the art of tanning shell cordovan butts. The product was sold as "Spiegelware", which literally translates to "mirror goods.""
"Around the same time, German and Dutch tanners imported the skill of cordovan tanning to the U.S. In the early 20th century, American tanners further improved the tanning techniques to make it softer and more appropriate for shoes."
"The tanning of cordovan takes about six months and more than a hundred processes and therefore, very few tanneries remain in the world that can still produce this kind of leather."

Rarity never was and never will be a characteristic of quality.
Perhaps agree to disagree here. This is a subjective statement, just as the definition of quality is subjective. The definition of quality as defined here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quality seems to fit into much of the information I have presented here. Rarity often goes hand in hand with social status or exclusivity, and one of the fitting definitions of quality is social status or rank.

MWS-just wanted to commend your efforts again on a well thought out, well organized addition. Thank you for your valuable contributions! I wish I could construct such complete and supported responses in as little time as you do. Right on.

 

[gaseousclay]



Please explain to me, in how far is shell more durable than calf?



People swear by it's ability to rebound from damage that would otherwise be permanent in calfskin by rubbing it with some conditioner and/or smoothing it with a deer bone.

I took a spill on my keister this winter and my shell cordovans took a nice scuff on the side. i've heard the same comments about how the scuffs will buff right out with a deer bone or conditioner. the conditioner method clearly didn't work which leaves me with having to buy a $30+ deer bone. don't know if I want to waste my money on a deer bone to test a theory. others have also recommended using a spoon to smooth out the scuffs

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

I took a spill on my keister this winter and my shell cordovans took a nice scuff on the side. i've heard the same comments about how the scuffs will buff right out with a deer bone or conditioner. the conditioner method clearly didn't work which leaves me with having to buy a $30+ deer bone. don't know if I want to waste my money on a deer bone to test a theory. others have also recommended using a spoon to smooth out the scuffs

Yeah, many theories float around out there about getting flaws out of cordovan. The deer bone seems to work quite well, and seems to be worth the money. I've heard the spoon trick as well. The point as it pertains to my response above is that shell can and does respond to therapy in ways that calf doesn't, thus making it potentially more durable. I don't know how your scuff looks, but it may be worth trying the deer bone on if you can spare the money.

 

[Numbernine]

I have on several occasions , for restoration purposes, scrubbed shell cordovan with a very stiff nylon brush under running water until it resembles. wet suede . after it dried it buffed to a high gloss(think uncle macs shoes ) in @ 10 -15 min

I don't recommend my Dr Frankenstein methods but simply wish to point out the durability of shell also reading member cranes thread on the wolverine shell boot should remove any fear of the delicacy of this leather

 

[hanskl]

It seems that Cordovan has far greater abrasion resistance than calf, however it also seems Cordovan is severely lacking tensile strength. This is evidenced by the difficulty of lasting Cordovan (as seen in a previous posted video).

The explanation for these characteristics seems to be that Cordovan is much denser (good abrasion resistance), but at the same time the fibers are also shorter (poor tensile strength) than calf.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

It seems that Cordovan has far greater abrasion resistance than calf, however it also seems Cordovan is severely lacking tensile strength. This is evidenced by the difficulty of lasting Cordovan (as seen in a previous posted video).

The explanation for these characteristics seems to be that Cordovan is much denser (good abrasion resistance), but at the same time the fibers are also shorter (poor tensile strength) than calf.

This is absolutely true. However, the amount of pulling force subjected to the leather during forepart lasting is far greater than any force that will be subjected to the shoe during wear. So, if the leather isn't damaged during the making process, it should be perfectly fine after that.

 

[Numbernine]

i

It seems that Cordovan has far greater abrasion resistance than calf, however it also seems Cordovan is severely lacking tensile strength. This is evidenced by the difficulty of lasting Cordovan (as seen in a previous posted video).

The explanation for these characteristics seems to be that Cordovan is much denser (good abrasion resistance), but at the same time the fibers are also shorter (poor tensile strength) than calf. 

i quite agree I understand a percentage of shoes are lost in the original lasting . it also seems to cause problems in older shoes that have been left sitting as the shell dries and stiffens

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

i

i quite agree I understand a percentage of shoes are lost in the original lasting . it also seems to cause problems in older shoes that have been left sitting as the shell dries and stiffens

Hmm... now that I haven't heard. But then again, I could care less what happens to a product that is neglected. Entropy will set in on anything that isn't cared for and used properly. "Use it or lose it" as they say. If this does occur, it must be the exception to the rule, and it must take several decades. There are far too many stories out there of people who find a pair of old dusty shell shoes in their dad's or granddad's closet that they then shine up and show to be completely wearable.

 

[Numbernine]

As a buyer and user of vintage shell I obviously agree with the idea but many is the tale of nos florshiems cracking on their maiden voyage .a sad scene considering proper conditioning could prevent this in most cases

 

[bucksfan]

Please explain to me, in how far is shell more durable than calf?
I am surprised that you are asking about this one, as I thought that it was generally accepted and well known. I assume you are familiar with Horween's video on Vimeo?

http://www.styleforum.net/t/119369/shell-cordovan-vs-regular-leather/0_100

http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/showthread.php?79695-Cordovan-vs-Calf

People swear by it's ability to rebound from damage that would otherwise be permanent in calfskin by rubbing it with some conditioner and/or smoothing it with a deer bone.

One of my favorite statistics is that there are more boots that saw service during World War I still in existence today than boots that saw service during World War II because cordovan was the favored material for boots during World War I. End of this article: http://howtospendit.ft.com/mens-fashion/6955-plenty-of-horsepower

Truthfully, a google search about the durability of shell will show that it would be harder to find sources that say it isn't more durable than calf, rather than the other way around. Way to many results come up that are supportive of the extremely strong nature of shell, so don't think for a second that the above sources are the only ones.

Once again, please explain to me in how far shell does require more skill in manufacturing than calf.
Horween dubs it "the art of tanning at it's finest": http://horween.com/leathers/shell-cordovan/ Obviously they sell it, so there is a degree of sales pitching going on, but since they make many many types of leather, they are also in a great position to determine which one is the "finest" as far as an artform is concerned.

When making shell cordovan, there is definitely skill involved in sorting, separating, cutting, and identifying the shell which is not a process involved in making calfskin. With calf, the hide is removed from the animal and the tanning process begins in earnest. The shell area of the horse requires skill to isolate and properly make once it is removed from the rest of the horse hide. Again, in the video above, you can see many manufactering steps that each require skills not needed in manufactering calfskin... from the isolating of the shell area, to the cutting of it, to the shaving it down (but not shaving too much), to the glass-rod polishing, etc. Just because they make it look easy doesn't mean it isn't a skilled process. It often requires many years of experience to make something "look" easy.



This article from Gentleman's Gazette is a good read: http://www.gentlemansgazette.com/cordovan-leather-from-horween/ The article points out that "Because of it's qualities, beauty and durability, it found its way to Spanish royalty, who facilitated the spread of cordovan leather throughout Europe and the world through marriage with other royal families."
"In the late 19th century, German tanners had mastered the art of tanning shell cordovan butts. The product was sold as "Spiegelware", which literally translates to "mirror

goods.""
"Around the same time, German and Dutch tanners imported the skill of cordovan tanning to the U.S. In the early 20th century, American tanners further improved the tanning techniques to make it softer and more appropriate for shoes."
"The tanning of cordovan takes about six months and more than a hundred processes and therefore, very few tanneries remain in the world that can still produce this kind of leather."

Rarity never was and never will be a characteristic of quality.
Perhaps agree to disagree here. This is a subjective statement, just as the definition of quality is subjective. The definition of quality as defined here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quality seems to fit into much of the information I have presented here. Rarity often goes hand in hand with social status or exclusivity, and one of the fitting definitions of quality is social status or rank.

Great write-up, and great article links - a couple I've never run across. Thanks!

 

[RogerP]

Great write-up, and great article links - a couple I've never run across. Thanks!

Ditto that. The Horween video on the tanning process for shell was most informative as well.

 

[glenjay]



i quite dissagree with that part!! i think when you read that pigment  is 0,1part is refering on % of the product!! in cream paste the 0,3 is oil's thats why its more creamy! the pigment in both cases has exactly the same density !! the diference is in the wax-oil's ratio.

so i think in 100gr of paste there is :95gr wax's -4 gr oil's(and solvents) - 1 gr pigment
 and in 100 gr of paste there is : 67gr wax's - 33gr oil's(and solvents)- 1 gr pigment
the pigment in % ratio is exactly the same in both products!

at my opinion wax paste when u want to get a hier shine is better(the pigment stiks better cause the sticky nature of the wax) and when u want to conditioning paste is the master(ecxept dedicated products)

Perhaps I wasn’t clear about how shoe polish works in relation to colored pigment. I will try to explain in more detail.

First, you are really underestimating the percent amount of solvent in shoe polish. Most shoe polish, paste or cream, is comprised of mostly solvent; then wax, then oil, then pigment. I didn’t include solvent in my math because it is not germane to the amount of pigment in the polish.

I haven’t just read what goes into polish, I have worked with the formulas, and even have my own shoe polish line that has received very good reviews from members of this forum.

Each ingredient in shoe polish serves a different purpose. The purpose of the solvent is to keep the wax in the polish soft enough to be able to spread it onto a shoe (a candle made of shoe polish would be a pretty soft candle, even made out of paste polish). Once shoe polish has been applied to the shoe, the majority of the solvent evaporates.

The solvents in shoe polish (like turpentine) are considered volatile oils which evaporate rather quickly. Pigment does not evaporate.

The oil in shoe polish (both in paste and cream) is there to help condition the shoe leather, and is therefore absorbed into the leather fiber. But, the molecular structure of pigment does not allow it to be absorbed into the leather fiber like oil.

It is important to note at this point that one of the main distinctions between pigment and dye is that pigment is insoluble and dye is soluble. This is the main reason that wax is the medium that the pigment resides in, because the pigment is not soluble by the oil or the solvent in shoe polish. The pigment is simply suspended in the wax.

Because of this my math is valid for the ratio of pigment in the two polish types (paste and cream).

It is a common assumption that dye and pigment are the same thing, but they are not. Most shoe polish, that I am aware of (Saphir, Meltonian, GlenKaren,…), uses pigment for coloring, not dye.

 

[OzzyJones]

QED!

 

[benhour]

probably my english is not as good as to say the same thing i think in my language to say it in english!! first of all the example i gave was imaginary and not true numbers!! i thought that was obvious but probably it wasnt! btw i really know how the solvents work and why they are there!

if you talk about ratio of wax and pigment yes you are right but if you speak about ratio of final product and pigment you are rong!!

i hope i ll say it correctly now!! when the paste polish says that it has 2% pigment and the wax polish say it has 2% pigment , at the same amount of both we ll have the same amount of pigment !!! ofcourse different amount of wax!!!

i know that pigment stays in the wax thats why i said about the sticky nature of wax!! probably we say the same thing and maybe i misunderstand something!!

 

[EnsitMike]

I was given a full set of Allen Edmonds Carnauba shoe polish as a gift the other day. Does anyone have any opinions or experience with it?