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

[ThinkDerm]



It's strange...I was working with some very fine French calf yesterday and thinking about Bick4 while using it to chase pipes.

Most of the silicone products, both commercial retail and wholesale, that I have used are great waterproofers. But Bick4 almost washes away with water. Not entirely...but I use it on dry and wet leather and can always re-wet the leather. So if there are silicones in Bick4 (not doubting) they are not there in large amounts or are in some form that I'm not familiar with...and not sure I'm concerned about.

Just some thoughts..."straight from the bench"

--

which french calf were you working with?

 

[thelonius]

wurt

A high dielectric constant = more polar. That doesn't mean a solvent is more universal. Something with a super high dielectric constant is not going to solvate something super nonpolar.

The whole concept of water water being a universal solvent is in biological context, not chemical.

Thanks, that's right. But even in a biological context, water cannot be described as "universal" simply because it isn't. Living cellular systems rely, as I sense you know, on the insolubility of membrane structures in the presence of water.

We'll actually it is - it's a scientific observation and is widely accepted as true.

You seem to have provided a rudimentary explanation of the action by which compounds dissociate - this is not why water is termed the universal solvent. The term is based on the relative static permittivity indices and the phenomena of dielectric constant, where water holds the highest value of any known solvent.

My explanation is not rudimentary at all. It's written to be understood by a larger public, unlike your comment which seeks to confuse. You have contradicted yourself in any case. "Relative" static permittivity is what it says it is - "relative". Water is not a "universal" solvent because it will not sulubilize (solvent is a substance that dissolves a solute (a chemically different liquid, solid or gas), resulting in a solution) a vast range of naturally occurring non-polar organic compounds, commonly called oils. This is particularly relevant to this thread because we're talking about leather, which has such compounds in it.

 

[thelonius]

Pretty much like box calf.

But while the stuff I'm getting from one source (Annonay--French) is, as far as I can tell, identical to box calf, another source, again French, is softer and struck through. Both are great leathers. I wish I could combine the best of both, however.

I've always felt that leather for the best shoes should be struck through. But the Annonay, for instance, has a "harder" tighter grain. And I like that, too. But you seldom see a men's weight calf that is both.

Since you're in El Paso, Charles Hardtke used to carry a French calf that was both struck through and had a good grain surface. I discovered it just as they were discontinuing it.

I thought you used Baker leather. Or is that just for the insoles/soles ?

 

[Northampton Novice]



A high dielectric constant = more polar. That doesn't mean a solvent is more universal.

Actually it does according to the scientific community. That's why, water is called the universal solvent.

Something with a super high dielectric constant is not going to solvate something super nonpolar.

Correct.

The whole concept of water water being a universal solvent is in biological context, not chemical.

Actually it's more molecular physics and would you believe it, applies to all disciplines of science.

By the way, I did not term 'water the universal solvent' but I did use the term which was coined long before I was born.

Thanks, that's right. But even in a biological context, water cannot be described as "universal" simply because it isn't. Living cellular systems rely, as I sense you know, on the insolubility of membrane structures in the presence of water.

My explanation is not rudimentary at all. It's written to be understood by a larger public, unlike your comment which seeks to confuse. You have contradicted yourself in any case. "Relative" static permittivity is what it says it is - "relative". Water is not a "universal" solvent because it will not sulubilize (solvent is a substance that dissolves a solute (a chemically different liquid, solid or gas), resulting in a solution) a vast range of naturally occurring non-polar organic compounds, commonly called oils. This is particularly relevant to this thread because we're talking about leather, which has such compounds in it.

How have I contradicted myself? By using the word relative? By stating scientific fact you accuse me of seeking to confuse.You really are pushing it.

I use the term relative as in - to other solvents, where water has the highest dielectric constant of all known solvents.It does not mean it can dissolve everything, it means water dissolves more compounds than any other known solvent. Yes it does not dissolve lipids, but nonetheless SCIENTISTS consider and term it to be the universal solvent.

My original post was talking about leather care products and solvents contained within, the single comment about water was simply to illustrate that solvents exist in many forms. I fail to see how picking up on that comment and quoting things you have read on wiki, but evidently don't understand, is contributing to this thread.

 

[thelonius]

"quoting things you have read on wiki"
Something wrong in quoting a well-composed definition?
"but evidently don't understand"
Don't worry about that. I understand more than you have the brains to suspect.

Is this contributing to the thread? I believe so, because, despite the common misuse, and very unscientific one at that, of the term "universal solvent" to describe water, as detailed in the above contributions, it is not (as you yourself recognize). It does not solubilize oils ("lipids" as you like to say - showing off your science background again, really impressive!). It is important for a discussion on leather treatments not to use such confusing statements.

For me, this particular discussion is now closed.

 

[DWFII]



I thought you used Baker leather. Or is that just for the insoles/soles ?

That's right. Baker doesn't make the same kind of leather as Annonay--different tanning process, different result, different usage. In a similar vein, although not so evident, I buy and use calf leather from all over the world. Sometimes a hide from one company will look and feel very much like that from another company or another country...but not very often. Not when you get down to cases.

 

[DWFII]



which french calf were you working with?

In the post above I was blocking some vamps from a chocolate brown, struck through French calf, for a pair of boots. That day and the next (yesterday as of this post) I was also cutting some struck-through burgundy French calf for a pair of shoes.

Yes.

 

[LittleViti]

I recently over applied the Saphir Creme Renovatrice (Edge Dressing/Resin+Pigment) to a pair of J&M Burgundy Meltons. They have seen better days and in an attempt to repair a few cracks, scratches, or scuffs along the toe and vamp, I ended up applying more of the repair creme than I should have. I realized, as instructed, it's best to apply small "eraser head" sized dabs or to dilute with Reno...alas the damage has been done now and it's clear the pigment has spread out over the vamp despite a quick attempt at removal with Reno and a mild water/vinegar solution.

This all probably sounds like amateur hour, but in an attempt to restore these shoes does anyone know if Renomat will succeed in stripping all of the repair creme off back to the base? I plan to apply Renomat, Dubbin, and then back to Reno before using any pommadier or wax again.

Thanks

 

[BootSpell]

Quote:
Thanks for the always helpful info, DW.

 

[DWFII]



Thanks for the always helpful info, DW. 

Yr. Hmb. Svt.

 

[jaywhyy]

Actually it does according to the scientific community. That's why, water is called the universal solvent.
Correct.
Actually it's more molecular physics and would you believe it, applies to all disciplines of science.

By the way, I did not term 'water the universal solvent' but I did use the term which was coined long before I was born.
How have I contradicted myself? By using the word relative? By stating scientific fact you accuse me of seeking to confuse.You really are pushing it.

I use the term relative as in - to other solvents, where water has the highest dielectric constant of all known solvents.It does not mean it can dissolve everything, it means water dissolves more compounds than any other known solvent. Yes it does not dissolve lipids, but nonetheless SCIENTISTS consider and term it to be the universal solvent.

My original post was talking about leather care products and solvents contained within, the single comment about water was simply to illustrate that solvents exist in many forms. I fail to see how picking up on that comment and quoting things you have read on wiki, but evidently don't understand, is contributing to this thread.

I’m just going to provide my two cents here and end it at that. I have no wish to get in a debate with you, but I do feel obligated to clarify any misinformation you present.

You keep appealling to the “scientific community” as your only evidence for why you consider water as the universal solvent. You don’t provide any empirical or mechanistic evidence. You don’t provide a citation or source. Plus the fact that you don’t speak for the scientific community--which I consider myself to be a part of--means you don’t have any evidence at all.

Here’s the accepted mechanism for solvation in chemistry. You bring up molecular physics which deals with intramolecular forces i.e. bonding, but solution chemistry deals with intermolecular forces (IMFs), though it all boils down to thermodynamics. For solvation to occur, the free energy drop resulting from solute-solvent IMFs must exceed the drop that results from solute-solute and solvent-solvent IMFs. In other words, thermodynamic stability has to increase. Macroscopically, this is where the “like-dissolves-like” concept that is taught in gen chem 1 comes from.

Water is very polar--like you mentioned with the high dielectric constant--but it’s the very stable hydrogen bond IMFs of water that dictates water solubility. For something (X) to be soluble in water, it must form hydrogen bonds (or ion-dipole) with water, and the sum of the X-water hydrogen bonds/ion-dipole must be lower in free energy than the sum of the X-X IMFs + water-water hydrogen bonds. This is only true with solutes like ionic salts (ion-dipole IMFs galore) and molecules where hydrogen-bonding moieties predominate. The former is why salt and DNA are soluble in water, and the latter is why carbohydrates and ethanol are soluble.

Nonpolar molecules and many polar molecules are insoluble in water, usually because the water-water hydrogen bonding is very strong, and so are van der Waals forces between two large nonpolar molecules. Most lipids--fats, oils, waxes--are not soluble in water because these compounds typically have very long hydrocarbon regions that form very strong/stable van der Waals attractions, precluding water solvation. Polar molecules like butanol and pentanol are also insoluble in water because while they can form hydrogen bonds with water through their hydroxyl groups, they are too few to override the free energy drop you would get from the water-water hydrogen bonds and van der Waals attractions between the hydrocarbon tails. The fact that water cannot solvate everything makes it not the UNIVERSAL solvent.

Water being the universal solvent is something that is usually taught in introductory biology, notably in Campbell’s Biology which is the most used college textbook for gen bio 1. That’s because most biologically relevant molecules are soluble in water--carbohydrates, nucleic acids, proteins. Unfortunately, biologists as a whole are pretty clueless when it comes to chemistry except those involved in MCB.

Cheers

Edit: Also, you say "water dissolves more compounds than any other known solvent". That's again true for biological context, but not chemical. Ether, for example, is a much more useful solvent in organic chemistry.

 

[GothamRed]

I recently over applied the Saphir Creme Renovatrice (Edge Dressing/Resin+Pigment) to a pair of J&M Burgundy Meltons. They have seen better days and in an attempt to repair a few cracks, scratches, or scuffs along the toe and vamp, I ended up applying more of the repair creme than I should have. I realized, as instructed, it's best to apply small "eraser head" sized dabs or to dilute with Reno...alas the damage has been done now and it's clear the pigment has spread out over the vamp despite a quick attempt at removal with Reno and a mild water/vinegar solution.

This all probably sounds like amateur hour, but in an attempt to restore these shoes does anyone know if Renomat will succeed in stripping all of the repair creme off back to the base? I plan to apply Renomat, Dubbin, and then back to Reno before using any pommadier or wax again.

Thanks

Renomat will remove the Creme Renovatrice (I believe Renomat is even mentioned on the Creme Renovatrice box) — slow and easy on the Renomat, though.

 

[LittleViti]

Renomat will remove the Creme Renovatrice (I believe Renomat is even mentioned on the Creme Renovatrice box) — slow and easy on the Renomat, though.

Thanks @RedDevil10 -- I guess I missed the mention of Renomat on the box, I appreciate the advice.

 

[Munky]

Yes, Renomat will remove any Renovatrice from the body of the shoe. Renovatrice does take a steady hand! It's worth it, though, when applied only to the edge of the sole.

I have wondered about its use in changing the colour of shoes. My guess is that the results would be unpredictable.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

I am proud to announce that I was about to polish my shoes last night, but I didn't.