EvanTheMenace
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
All,
Wanted to start a conversation around burnishing and get everyone's take. For whatever reason, I'm not a huge fan of burnishing. I'm in the market for a pair of leather double monk's and went to Leffot today with the intention of purchasing the below pair of Edward Green Westminsters. From the pictures online, I did not notice the rather strong burnishing on the toes and when I tried them on, although they felt great and are undoubtedly beautiful, I just couldn't justify the investment for a shoe that I don't absolutely love (also didn't realize how square the toe is, which I also don't love). Frankly, I don't know how to articulate why I don't love burnishing, I just can't help feeling that way. I guess I feel like these Westminsters would look more classic without it and that burnishing in general is a bit too aggressive. I know that this is a sweeping - and likely wrong - generalization but I feel that burnishing can be a means for shoemakers to try to make their products look more quality/attractive/trendy than they are.... a way to cover up and compensate for a lesser product. Perhaps I feel that without burnishing, the leather is truly naked and has to stand on it's own. Obviously EG leather, and the general product, is of the highest quality but I just feel that it cheapens the shoe - or at least looks that way... perhaps it's from my poorer days looking at Aldo or DSW shoes covered in burnishing but I just can't shake my distaste for it.
Interested to hear if I'm in the minority here and how people generally feel about burnishing.
Look forward to it.
And BTW - decided to go for a bit cheaper pair of Carminas on the Inca last. Also considered William II's but am going to save my big purchase for a pair of MTO EG Arlington's in tobacco suede later this year. Those are what the kids call, the bomb.
Wanted to start a conversation around burnishing and get everyone's take. For whatever reason, I'm not a huge fan of burnishing. I'm in the market for a pair of leather double monk's and went to Leffot today with the intention of purchasing the below pair of Edward Green Westminsters. From the pictures online, I did not notice the rather strong burnishing on the toes and when I tried them on, although they felt great and are undoubtedly beautiful, I just couldn't justify the investment for a shoe that I don't absolutely love (also didn't realize how square the toe is, which I also don't love). Frankly, I don't know how to articulate why I don't love burnishing, I just can't help feeling that way. I guess I feel like these Westminsters would look more classic without it and that burnishing in general is a bit too aggressive. I know that this is a sweeping - and likely wrong - generalization but I feel that burnishing can be a means for shoemakers to try to make their products look more quality/attractive/trendy than they are.... a way to cover up and compensate for a lesser product. Perhaps I feel that without burnishing, the leather is truly naked and has to stand on it's own. Obviously EG leather, and the general product, is of the highest quality but I just feel that it cheapens the shoe - or at least looks that way... perhaps it's from my poorer days looking at Aldo or DSW shoes covered in burnishing but I just can't shake my distaste for it.
Interested to hear if I'm in the minority here and how people generally feel about burnishing.
Look forward to it.
And BTW - decided to go for a bit cheaper pair of Carminas on the Inca last. Also considered William II's but am going to save my big purchase for a pair of MTO EG Arlington's in tobacco suede later this year. Those are what the kids call, the bomb.
