Understanding Leather Quality

[DrewMill]

What are you all looking for when you judge a shoe's leather quality? I have pairs from C&J, TLB, Carmina, Cheaney, Allen Edmonds, etc. What are they key characteristics you look at when judging the quality? This is purely just for my own edification and ability to compare my shoes in the effort to improve my knowledge.

 

[Blastwice]

Quality is... totally subjective.

Generally when speaking of quality of leathers, first thing is where does it come from? The tanneries people know the names of generally have reputation for 'quality' leathers, but like anything, they have products at both low and high price points so not everything from a 'quality' tannery is automatically what one would call a quality leather...

Like in America, you have Horween, which has no equal in the world for shell cordovan, but some of their cheaper products one might say are inferior to comparably priced European tannery's products. Again, all subjective. To make an even finer point, we used a type of Horween calf for a GMTO and made some beautiful shoes, but the workshop hated working with the leather. Quality or not? Depends which side of the shoes you're on, in this case.

Anyway, so next, you'd look at the leather itself. Generally for men's shoes you want smooth, unblemished leather (no veins, 'loose grain', excessive wrinkling, etc.) and the better it looks, the higher the quality. With that said, leather is meant to endure and be useful and look good for a long time, so then you have a new thing to think about: patina. How does the leather look after being flexed and worn? How about after 100 times? How about after 1000? It's impossible to know, without owning or making a lot of shoes, how leather with behave over time, so many of us end up deep in this hobby trying to figure it out.

In other words, some people might tell you a leather is 'quality' at the start, but have a different opinion later on.

The other thing to consider is that there are many different types of leather and tannages, suedes are different from calfskin shoes which are different from shell cordovan. Then you have waxed suedes & roughouts, the balls to the wall stuff with personality and scars that Truman typically makes, exotic skins, etc. Each of these you can probably find a universe of various hides and tanneries that run the gamut from high to low quality. Some people go crazy for a 'weatherproof' waxed suede while others don't care or want something that looks nicer with their suit.

Different leathers require different maker expertise too. A lot of work goes into the 'final product' look of your shoes, let's say the finishing. How much time the maker spends polishing, waxing, buffing, etc. influences the final quality too-- especially for shoes on instagram and other places which may not be worn everyday.

Some might say quality is "how tough is the leather" or "is it waterproof," but I don't really find these compelling. Very few people buy new (style-related) boots specifically to wear them in terrible conditions or routinely face conditions where the durability of leather is tested. Now certainly there are different ways of MAKING shoes with various pros and cons related to durability, but that's maybe another topic.

With that said, there is one aspect of the making that is related here, and that's clicking (where you cut the leather into pieces for the pattern). You'll find Brand Clicking < Factory Clicking < Workshop Clicking < Bespoke Clicking, which is related to price and how much time is spent on the pair, etc. Since there are small defects or at least personality in every piece of leather, human clicking is typically better at minimizing these leather issues, but takes more time and therefore has greater cost. In a factory or big brand operation, machines are clicking everything so sometimes you get a perfect hide and everything goes right, but usually you just get average clicking. You might think, well can't a machine do it perfectly every time? But let's say there's some personality in a specific place on the hide, a person can potentially adjust the pieces of the pattern so that part is say, on the inside of the calf or on the heel, where it's not so visible or obvious. Factories can minimize this somewhat by buying in bulk, saving the lesser hides for cheaper pairs, etc. but at some point they are doing a calculation while making your art. One might think, well just use 2 hides instead of one. I think you can already see the cost implications without even thinking about the fact that no two hides are the same, even when treated to the same tanning processes.

I probably left out a lot of things, but that's a start.

 

[DrewMill]

Quality is... totally subjective.

Generally when speaking of quality of leathers, first thing is where does it come from? The tanneries people know the names of generally have reputation for 'quality' leathers, but like anything, they have products at both low and high price points so not everything from a 'quality' tannery is automatically what one would call a quality leather...

Like in America, you have Horween, which has no equal in the world for shell cordovan, but some of their cheaper products one might say are inferior to comparably priced European tannery's products. Again, all subjective. To make an even finer point, we used a type of Horween calf for a GMTO and made some beautiful shoes, but the workshop hated working with the leather. Quality or not? Depends which side of the shoes you're on, in this case.

Anyway, so next, you'd look at the leather itself. Generally for men's shoes you want smooth, unblemished leather (no veins, 'loose grain', excessive wrinkling, etc.) and the better it looks, the higher the quality. With that said, leather is meant to endure and be useful and look good for a long time, so then you have a new thing to think about: patina. How does the leather look after being flexed and worn? How about after 100 times? How about after 1000? It's impossible to know, without owning or making a lot of shoes, how leather with behave over time, so many of us end up deep in this hobby trying to figure it out.

In other words, some people might tell you a leather is 'quality' at the start, but have a different opinion later on.

The other thing to consider is that there are many different types of leather and tannages, suedes are different from calfskin shoes which are different from shell cordovan. Then you have waxed suedes & roughouts, the balls to the wall stuff with personality and scars that Truman typically makes, exotic skins, etc. Each of these you can probably find a universe of various hides and tanneries that run the gamut from high to low quality. Some people go crazy for a 'weatherproof' waxed suede while others don't care or want something that looks nicer with their suit.

Different leathers require different maker expertise too. A lot of work goes into the 'final product' look of your shoes, let's say the finishing. How much time the maker spends polishing, waxing, buffing, etc. influences the final quality too-- especially for shoes on instagram and other places which may not be worn everyday.

Some might say quality is "how tough is the leather" or "is it waterproof," but I don't really find these compelling. Very few people buy new (style-related) boots specifically to wear them in terrible conditions or routinely face conditions where the durability of leather is tested. Now certainly there are different ways of MAKING shoes with various pros and cons related to durability, but that's maybe another topic.

With that said, there is one aspect of the making that is related here, and that's clicking (where you cut the leather into pieces for the pattern). You'll find Brand Clicking < Factory Clicking < Workshop Clicking < Bespoke Clicking, which is related to price and how much time is spent on the pair, etc. Since there are small defects or at least personality in every piece of leather, human clicking is typically better at minimizing these leather issues, but takes more time and therefore has greater cost. In a factory or big brand operation, machines are clicking everything so sometimes you get a perfect hide and everything goes right, but usually you just get average clicking. You might think, well can't a machine do it perfectly every time? But let's say there's some personality in a specific place on the hide, a person can potentially adjust the pieces of the pattern so that part is say, on the inside of the calf or on the heel, where it's not so visible or obvious. Factories can minimize this somewhat by buying in bulk, saving the lesser hides for cheaper pairs, etc. but at some point they are doing a calculation while making your art. One might think, well just use 2 hides instead of one. I think you can already see the cost implications without even thinking about the fact that no two hides are the same, even when treated to the same tanning processes.

I probably left out a lot of things, but that's a start.

Absolutely incredible response. Thank you

So I guess it's really hard to distinguish between similar shoes just by touch or sight. It really comes down to understanding the hides before they become shoes.

 

[Blastwice]

Absolutely incredible response. Thank you

So I guess it's really hard to distinguish between similar shoes just by touch or sight. It really comes down to understanding the hides before they become shoes.

Well you did ask about how to judge leather quality, so I answered that.

I think generally for shoes, brands tend to stick within the same thresholds of leather quality around similar price points. So like Carmina for instance has many different types of calf and suede and it's mostly all the same price for similar types of models (boots, shoes, and so on). These are all 'quality' leathers and their pricing reflects that. Carmina is not going to, for instance, introduce one color of suede that satisfies a color need but is very low quality, as it would reflect poorly on their brand.

Prices within a brand tend to be the easiest way to tell what leather is perceived higher quality by the maker/producer.

Smaller outfits and individual makers tend to work with some of the best quality leathers, because they are producing objects that will essentially exist as representations of their work, so they do better finishing/use better materials/etc. However they are limited by their smaller business networks too, so they may not have as much purchasing power as bulk factories or luxury market.

If you read up on it, many of the luxury fashion producers straight up bought tanneries to ensure they would get the best hides and that they would be in control of their raw materials.

For shoes there are many distinguishing clues to quality. Leather is but one.

 

[DrewMill]

Well you did ask about how to judge leather quality, so I answered that.

I think generally for shoes, brands tend to stick within the same thresholds of leather quality around similar price points. So like Carmina for instance has many different types of calf and suede and it's mostly all the same price for similar types of models (boots, shoes, and so on). These are all 'quality' leathers and their pricing reflects that. Carmina is not going to, for instance, introduce one color of suede that satisfies a color need but is very low quality, as it would reflect poorly on their brand.

Prices within a brand tend to be the easiest way to tell what leather is perceived higher quality by the maker/producer.

Smaller outfits and individual makers tend to work with some of the best quality leathers, because they are producing objects that will essentially exist as representations of their work, so they do better finishing/use better materials/etc. However they are limited by their smaller business networks too, so they may not have as much purchasing power as bulk factories or luxury market.

If you read up on it, many of the luxury fashion producers straight up bought tanneries to ensure they would get the best hides and that they would be in control of their raw materials.

For shoes there are many distinguishing clues to quality. Leather is but one.

Thanks again. I really appreciate all the insight.

 

[Son Of Saphir]

What are you all looking for when you judge a shoe's leather quality? I have pairs from C&J, TLB, Carmina, Cheaney, Allen Edmonds, etc. What are they key characteristics you look at when judging the quality? This is purely just for my own edification and ability to compare my shoes in the effort to improve my knowledge.

Once you see a shoe made with high quality leather you can never unsee it.


Upper leather quality
The best quality calf leather will have:
- a nice tight grain all over that looks nice
- shallow pores that are even all over and don't go too deep.

Both of these things makes for a prized leather that glistens and shines with minimal effort.
It looks stunning in person.

The problem is....most shoes don't have this quality today.
Not even wholecuts by Hermes/John Lobb have that quality.
Some vintage 1940's etc have that quality and some of Lattanzi's better shoes have that quality but not much else.

Add to this....a natural bark tanned upper instead of chrome tanned and you will get a natural patina on a shoe develop that is far superior to any manmade patina develop within months.
When everything is done right shoes will have a beauty you don't see much in the world today.

Sole leather quality
You don't see much of the great sole leather anymore either.
The really great sole leather is vintage and so tough that it can't be cut with a knife.
It wears like iron and is far superior to Bakers etc.
Probably the best leather soles today are from the Martin tannery,
but still nothing compared to the old leather quality decades earlier.