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

[JermynStreet]

Agreed with all of this...but let's bring economics back into this. I do think shoes can be an investment, just not one that appreciates itself. I think Patrick brought up the point a few days ago that you aren't making it to the company oval office in a pair of square-toed Cole Haans. Thus, in the same way that investing in a wardrobe can yield unquantifiable dividends (social clout, sex appeal, appearance of intelligence), the choice to spend money on a slick pair of shoes can return more money than otherwise. Of course, this depends on whether someone in the hiring position pays attention to these things (in finance and law, people do). I think having one or two really nice pairs of shoes in the arsenal if you are in a position where it matters might actually be a good investment.

Or, in other words, money well spent.

 

[mediahound]

Anyone use Collonil products? I recently tried some of their leather conditioner cream and was impressed.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

On a similar topic, is it just me, or do "cheap" shoes nowadays look far worse on average than they did even just a few years ago? I am fully aware that I may just be used to seeing nice shoes and can't see past them, but periodically I will walk through regular shoe stores at the mall or department stores just for fun, and I really think that the shoe industry is becoming more polarized. Cheap shoes seem to be getting worse, only reinforcing the cost-effectiveness of decently constructed shoes.

I look at other men around me who are wearing dress shoes that are clearly cemented average department store quality leather shoes, but they don't look that bad per se. They are usually black or dark brown, have a decent shine, and have all leather soles. They just aren't high-end shoes. I used to wear them too. I don't tend to see these types of shoes at stores anymore.

I have a pair of shoes in a box in my closet that I keep for fun that I've had since I was 18 years old. They are bench-made, from Spain, deerskin, leather soles and heels with rubber inserts. They are Blake stitched. I bought them at a shoe store that carries shoes of average quality, and I paid an average price for them. I wore them for about 12 years as my Sunday and dressy occasion shoes. They still have their original soles, and the uppers are still in great condition. During the same time frame, I also had a pair of brown Bostonians made from some corrected grain leather, but they sure didn't look like plastic. They had cemented leather soles with full rubber heels. They were made in Italy, and were average quality shoes found at average department stores.

Now, however, there seems to be this huge void between the lowest cost high-end shoes (Allen Edmonds, Cheaney, Loake 1880, etc.) and "cheap" shoes. Johnston and Murphy and Cole-Haan make a few models that may still fit into that middle-ground category, but they charge as much as you would pay for a pair of Allen Edmonds seconds, and they are far inferior in quality.

If I go down to my local Macy's right now, I'll find Bostonians, Stacy Adams, Florsheims, and a few Italian named shoes. They will be absolutely horrible looking, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have even given them a second glance even before I knew what a nice shoe was. They truely do look like they have a plastic coating on them if they are in fact made from leather, which most aren't. Most have a synthetic "looks like leather" sole that is made of some leather colored laboratory product.

 

[Munky]

The 'fit' issue can be a complicated one. The most comfortable 'shoes' I have had (and I am on my second pair) are Nike Air-Max. They are recommended by osteopathic surgeons for those with chronic back pain. This is an example, perhaps, of how excellence in fit doesn't automatically come with 'good' shoes. This is not, particularly, an endorsement of Nike trainers, nor a buying suggestion for people on this site, but just a point about fit and comfort.

 

[David Copeland]

Leaving the economic arguments to one side, I suspect there are at least two psychological considerations attached to good shoes. First, we like good shoes because of the way they look, how they feel and that fact that they have 'quality' (although I am not sure that the latter can always be taken for granted when held up against cost). Second, and this is a delicate one, I suspect we like wearing them because we imagine other people will admire them. They may or they may not but my guess is that fewer people admire our shoes than we would imagine. The people who are most likely to admire them are other people who like shoes. I suspect, to other people, they are just 'shoes'. I doubt that many people who buy good shoes do so for their utility value. However, there will also be a group of extremely rich people who will just buy good shoes because they buy good 'everything'.

Thank you for your comment.

I would also add that many biographies of well-to-do folks place as much importance, if not more, on the choices of styling their hair with little regard to costs. A good looking hair style/cut is probably the first area of a gaze before heading downward from the neck to shoes. It's all important.

My employer, when interviewing prospective candidates for positions, would judge each portion of an applicant's care of themselves toward the care they would provide to our clients and how they would care for the relationships of colleagues.

David

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Agreed with all of this...but let's bring economics back into this. I do think shoes can be an investment, just not one that appreciates itself. I think Patrick brought up the point a few days ago that you aren't making it to the company oval office in a pair of square-toed Cole Haans. Thus, in the same way that investing in a wardrobe can yield unquantifiable dividends (social clout, sex appeal, appearance of intelligence), the choice to spend money on a slick pair of shoes can return more money than otherwise. Of course, this depends on whether someone in the hiring position pays attention to these things (in finance and law, people do). I think having one or two really nice pairs of shoes in the arsenal if you are in a position where it matters might actually be a good investment.

I agree that these incidental effects can take place when wearing nicer attire of any sort.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

The 'fit' issue can be a complicated one. The most comfortable 'shoes' I have had (and I am on my second pair) are Nike Air-Max. They are recommended by osteopathic surgeons for those with chronic back pain. This is an example, perhaps, of how excellence in fit doesn't automatically come with 'good' shoes. This is not, particularly, an endorsement of Nike trainers, nor a buying suggestion for people on this site, but just a point about fit and comfort.

Fair enough. Apparently Cole-Haan uses some Nike Air technology in some of their "dress" shoes.

Trainers aside, I'd go out on a limb and say that you have a better chance of a well fitting shoe by going high-end rather than with average department store brands.

 

[David Copeland]

I remember seeing some good posts about caring for new shoes before you wear them, but I can't find them in searches now

Basically, I did these steps for my burgundy and dark brown shoes:

1. Cleaned shoes with damp cloth
2. Applied saphir rennovateur with chamois all over in a circular motion (Read later that fingers are best)
3. Waited 3-4 minutes, then brushed off with horse hair brush
4. Applied a neutral saphir MDO all over with chamois
5. waited 3-4 minutes then brushed off with horse hair brush
6. repeated this step two more times. then used a chamois to buff it out in the end to get a matte patina

Does anything sound off?
Should I have added something in?
What are your thoughts on the neutral saphir MDO?
BTW, they were both bleeding color. That's to be expected, right?

I really appreciate your help. Reading this thread has been fun, confusing and everything in between

There is a nice video I posted in a previous link on Pre-Maintenance: CLICK HERE

 

[Munky]

Yes, I agree that - trainers apart- it is likely that good shoes are likely to fit better than cheap ones. What I would do, though, is leave the door open on the issue. A certain type of cheap shoe might fit very well. Overall, though, the generalisation holds.

 

[David Copeland]

for anybody, especially patrickb, do you think / have you found shell will be more durable than calf? I'm assuming yes, but do you think it is as durable as people say? especially longevity wise?

I have seen collections of 90 pairs of high quality shoes, boots, and loafers - all in Calfskin - by some who began rotating their items after they started with just a few in the early years. They have never chosen shell, have kept their calfskins in excellent condition, and have used the savings of Calfskin to purchase newer styles over the years. Shell will probably last many generations after you are dead. If you take care of the calfskin version, you may be pleased.

On the other hand, I have seen some pretty impressive shines in Shell that calfskin may never be able to match. Perhaps a mix of both would be good.

David

 

[NeedStyleHelp]

There is a nice video I posted in a previous link on Pre-Maintenance: CLICK HERE

Thanks, David! I like the video.

Do you, or others, have any thoughts on using a neutral cream polish (saphir MDO) instead of a colour one?

 

[JermynStreet]



The 'fit' issue can be a complicated one. The most comfortable 'shoes' I have had (and I am on my second pair) are Nike Air-Max. They are recommended by osteopathic surgeons for those with chronic back pain. This is an example, perhaps, of how excellence in fit doesn't automatically come with 'good' shoes. This is not, particularly, an endorsement of Nike trainers, nor a buying suggestion for people on this site,  but just a point about fit and comfort. 

I wouldn't be taking advice from an osteopathic surgeon-they practice interior medicine. Did you mean orthopedic surgeon?

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

I wouldn't be taking advice from an osteopathic surgeon-they practice interior medicine. Did you mean orthopedic surgeon?

Could be either one. Osteopathic surgeons are simply surgeons who went to an Osteopathic medical school rather than a traditional one. They practice Osteopathic medicine, which is a more holistic approach to healthcare. Any branch of medical practice, including Orthopedic surgery, may have Osteopathic doctors or surgeons. Using shoes to help back pain would definitely fall in line with Osteopathic approaches.

I'm not trying to put words in Munky's mouth though.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Is that the difference between a DO and an MD?

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Is that the difference between a DO and an MD?

Yep.