Vintage Dress shoe appreciation, tips, maintenance and advice

[smfdoc]

Please note: I resent @smfdoc description to his wife that I was somehow responsible for him cutting open those shoes (even if it’s true). He could have at least made up an excuse.

My wife knows I am particularly susceptible to peer pressure. And...I may have stretched the story just a bit for the sake of the post.

 

[suitforcourt]

My wife knows I am particularly susceptible to peer pressure. And...I may have stretched the story just a bit for the sake of the post.

There is a Chinese saying when it comes to stretching the truth:
"@smfdoc added salt and vinegar"


Things would be pretty bland without salt and vinegar. So keep stretching I say!

 

[wasmisterfu]

Today’s episode of “WTF are they thinking?” is brought to you by Wishful Thinking: Because Reality Sucks.

Here we have an eBay listed pair of 50’s French, Shriner & Urner’s:

Now, you might be thinking “Fu, what’s wrong with those, those look pretty darn nice - plus, aren’t those almost identical to a pair you own?”.

And you’d be right on all counts (though mine have less wear). So what’s wrong? This is what’s wrong:

That’s a BIN only, no Best Offers listing.
I paid $50 (fifty) bucks for mine. WTF are they thinking?

Ebay listing, if you absolutely must have them: https://ebay.to/2Y36uV4

 

[wasmisterfu]

My wife knows I am particularly susceptible to peer pressure. And...I may have stretched the story just a bit for the sake of the post.

My offer still stands: if it helps, she can call me and I’ll explain that none of this is really all that weird.

 

[Pedlar]

Those are cool; what’s the vintage on those Dack’s? I’ve never held water bison, what’s the hand like on those uppers?

EDIT: Correcting thoughts on date per @Paul902 ’s helpful info on Dack’s side markings.

Hey, thanks for asking. Yeah, I like them quite a bit. I got them from a Canadian seller at a very fair price and they’ve exceeded expectations. I was a little worried about a few points of their construction/condition but it seems to be working out and I expect to give them lots of wear.

To answer your questions: I am not sure how old they are. I thought the side markings (spoilered pic below) indicated they were made in 1982 but the 82 seems to be the last not the date of manufacture; and the hand is really good— the water bison feel reminds me of the grain leather on C&J and Alfred Sargent pairs I have in that it’s soft, supple and relatively thick.

Spoiler: Overly long musings on my Dack’s water bisons

So there’s some good, bad and ugly to this pair, probably like most (all?) vintage shoes. It keeps it interesting, right?

First, the numbers. The 82 in the bottom right.

There was quite a bit of writing on the insole but it’s mostly gone/indecipherable. I would not have known to peg them as Dack’s if the seller had not listed them as such. Perhaps there are traces of the circular Dack’s 150th anniversary seal, which I’m told was used from 1984-87.

Re:fit — I was expecting some slop given the 3 eyelets but they’re just the right kind of snug. I think some of that comes from a nicely defined heel curve— but that made them heel-biters at first. I’ve rubbed Bick 4 into the top of the heel and gently worked the leather back and forth a few times and sure enough, they’ve softened up.

The curve seems more extreme than this pic indicates.

The front of the shoe is lined with white cloth. The lack of leather lining/structure probably contributes to both the adaptability of the fit and the pronounced creasing/rolling/shape-shifting of the toes. If this was a fancier pair, I’d probably mind this but with these I think it looks cool.

(Got some thumb in that pic, looks like)

There was a spot in the back of one shoe where the leather felt drier and looked discolored and had a wound of some sort. I was worried it was cracking and not too long ago, Suit and I discussed sanding, etc. Happily, Bick 4 and some dark cream has taken it mostly out of sight and the conditioning and wear (working the leather?) seems to be be restoring the feel of that particular spot. I’m hoping it was more a scrape than a crack.

When I was grabbing pics this morning, I forgot this spot... I guess that shows how much of a problem it seems right now.

The soles on these must have been walked about off, judging from the dramatic thinning visible in parts of the sole edge. However, someone did a neat job of installing a rubber sole saver and Biltrite heels, so I’m good to go for quite awhile I think.

The bit of original (?) sole still visible looks pretty battle-scarred. I gave it some conditioning too.

And finally, I’ve got some deeper cleaning to do on the uppers...when I got them I gave them a fairly gentle scrub with saddle soap before conditioning. But in bright light, the gray...gunk...down in the lower parts of the grain is all too apparent. I’m planning to get some Bick 1 or Lexol cleaner and go at them with a soft toothbrush. Or maybe try hot water and toothbrush before going to cleaners.

I’m assuming this is gunk and not the look of well-aged water bison.

Any other suggestions are welcome, if anyone’s read this far.

I hope everyone’s having a good Monday— I’m off to stomp around a state park (mostly on pavement and docks) in C&J Pembrokes.

 

[Paul902]

Hi @Pedlar, Nice bison's. It is cool to see a pair in brown. The "82" we feel is the number of the last. Looking at the sock liner, what is similar looks quite similar to my black pair that have the circular 150th anniversary logo, made 1984 to 1987, as well as "Made in Canada" and "Imported Water Bison." Also note the side markings on mine show 3347 opposed to your 2347, where the leading 3 denotes black and 2 denotes brown.

 

[wasmisterfu]

My parents bought the entry level K-Car as well. The vinyl seats were fun to sit on during the humid summer days. And lemme tell ya about the AC system (aka hand cranked windows and hot air spewing from the vents)...

It's cool how your family had both the Aspen and K-Car. The first one brought about the demise of Chrysler, while the latter saved it.

I've been reading about Iacocca and came across this extremely funny (well, funny to me) piece about his difficulties with Henry Ford II.

------------------------

When Ford fired Iacocca, the company had made a $2 billion profit. When asked why Iacocca was let go, Ford simply stated: Sometimes, you just don't like someone.

To which Iacocca responded: When a person is 25% jerk, they're in trouble. Henry II was 95%.

Dude, and I’m not kidding, the K car was so much better than the literally dangerous F-body Aspen/Volaré twins, that a simple boxy car could save the company is evidence of that fact.

Spoiler: off topic tangent about Aspen’s

70’s Detroit products were often incredibly and dangerously bad. Though, in fairness, by modern standards, everything made in the mid and late 70’s was pure garbage - my brothers 280z was cool, but my foot went through the floorboard in 84 - it was only 5 years old. But that F-body Aspen was something special in its level of badness - it would stall in the middle of left turns (and only left turns), it’d stall going down hills, throwing my mother into a panic as the power brakes and steering went out. It’d stall in the middle of the Lincoln tunnel.

When it didn’t stall, my mother had to battle the absolutely spooky handling characteristics due to the geometrically “unstable” transverse leaf suspension. On at least two occasions I can remember, we had full blown oversteer induced spin outs, while on back roads.

Then there was the rust. One of my formative memories was father shouting at me to stop picking at the rusting front passenger-side fender, which was rusting from the chrome headlight “surround” back. I guess my dad didn’t get the recall notice about that.

But, there were the days I loved that car: the last day of vacation when it was time to pack up and head back... but it wouldn’t start. My dad would be out there stomping mad, yelling at the thing while spraying dry gas in the carb and cranking it until the battery died. But we knew we were getting at least another day of vacation, thanks to that car. That happened on more than one occasion.

In contrast, other than a problem with the radio (it would intermittently stop working), the Aries wagon always started on the first try, handled reasonably well, and was just plain boring. It didn’t have AC, but it did have cloth seats, which were a nice upgrade from the burn inducing vinyl in the Aspen. Other than the ridiculous wood grain siding, it was comparative bliss. And to car buyers who’d suffered through a decade of Chevette’s, Aspen’s and Pinto’s, the K car was a comparative miracle.

 

[Pedlar]

Hi @Pedlar, Nice bison's. It is cool to see a pair in brown. The "82" we feel is the number of the last. Looking at the sock liner, what is similar looks quite similar to my black pair that have the circular 150th anniversary logo, made 1984 to 1987, as well as "Made in Canada" and "Imported Water Bison." Also note the side markings on mine show 3347 opposed to your 2347, where the leading 3 denotes black and 2 denotes brown.

Thank you, Paul. That’s good information about the side markings. The shared research on these vintage lines is great.

 

[right_hook]

I recommend skipping the soap. The problem isn't that they're dirty, the problem is that they're dried out. And if you're not careful, soap could dry them out more.

I cant agree with you here.
Maybe it's not the biggest problem here but it's still a problem. I think its always apropriate to start with cleaning. Doing this you let conditioner fully penetrate the leather. And you dont mix conditioner and grime/mud on the leather.
I use Lexol glycerin rich leather soap and should say it doesn't dry out the leather. Its even makes it pliable and little softer. Not magical effect of course, but that little bit you really glad to take with cleaning.

 

[wasmisterfu]

I cant agree with you here.
Maybe it's not the biggest problem here but it's still a problem. I think its always apropriate to start with cleaning. Doing this you let conditioner fully penetrate the leather. And you dont mix conditioner and grime/mud on the leather.
I use Lexol glycerin rich leather soap and should say it doesn't dry out the leather. Its even makes it pliable and little softer. Not magical effect of course, but that little bit you really glad to take with cleaning.

I’m with @right_hook on this, I use Kiwi’s soap (using a brush and water), which is glycerine and lanolin heavy and does a terrific job of both getting deep seated grime off the shoe and getting basic nutrition into the leather quickly.

@right_hook is, IMHO, on the money, rubbing conditioner (even conditioner cleaner) into a shoe that’s covered in dust, dirt, dried wax, etc., is effectively an abrasive action (especially at the microscopic level). Whereas, using a shoe formulated saddle soap, applied via brush, is a very effective way of getting a lot of crap off a shoe quickly and non-destructively.

After soaping, and allowing to dry, I then apply AE Leather Lotion (as many passes as needed, based on how dried out the shoe was at the start). IMHO, you definitely won’t make the shoe more dried out using a modern shoe-formulated saddle soap, and you’ll be getting harmful contaminants off the leather before doing anything else.

I’ve heard the arguments, for years, against Saddle Soap, but I’ve never seen on iota of actual proof that contemporary, quality, shoe intended Saddle Soap, is anything other than beneficial. In fact, it’s the first step I take with virtually every pair I acquire (well, except for suede and such).

 

[suitforcourt]

Not my shoes. Anyone 7.5D? Amazing price for shell Hanover:

Hanover LB Sheppard Burgundy Shell Cordovan Wingtip V Cleat Oxfords Size 7 5D for sale | eBay

Find great deals on eBay for Hanover LB Sheppard Burgundy Shell Cordovan Wingtip V Cleat Oxfords Size 7 5D. Shop with confidence.

www.ebay.ca

 

[tocohillsguy]

It’s probably very minor. Generally, when you see shoes with factory defect stamps, they went on to be sold as “seconds”, a practice that continues with companies like AE.

A shoe with a serious known structural defect didn’t (and doesn’t today) make it off the line, primarily for liability reasons. Generally, seconds were sold with warranty coverage and, in AE’s case, continue to be eligible for recrafting.

That said, sellers need to be aware that FR/FD/seconds/etc. branding means the shoe is automatically worth less, as they sold for substantial discount back in the day.

A word of caution on this subject when it comes to Allen Edmonds. I was told by a AE rep that the seconds sold through their outlet are as you described....good shoes with minor flaws; flaws that could often be corrected during a recraft. However, those marked "no warranty" (and possibly "FD" or "factory defect") and sold through non-AE outlets have more significant problems that are not generally fixable. For example, I once picked up a pair of "no warranty" AE Hales. They looked fine, but the captoe on one of the shoes would deform and push on my toes when I walked.

 

[wasmisterfu]

Not my shoes. Anyone 7.5D? Amazing price for shell Hanover:

Hanover LB Sheppard Burgundy Shell Cordovan Wingtip V Cleat Oxfords Size 7 5D for sale | eBay

Find great deals on eBay for Hanover LB Sheppard Burgundy Shell Cordovan Wingtip V Cleat Oxfords Size 7 5D. Shop with confidence.

www.ebay.ca

If it weren’t for my investment in 13 and 14 size shoes (technically I’m a 13.5), I’d seriously consider losing my toes for that deal.

 

[tocohillsguy]

A word of caution on this subject when it comes to Allen Edmonds. I was told by a AE rep that the seconds sold through their outlet are as you described....good shoes with minor flaws; flaws that could often be corrected during a recraft. However, those marked "no warranty" (and possibly "FD" or "factory defect") and sold through non-AE outlets have more significant problems that are not generally fixable. For example, I once picked up a pair of "no warranty" AE Hales. They looked fine, but the captoe on one of the shoes would deform and push on my toes when I walked.

Additionally, AE won't warrant a recraft of a shoe marked "no warranty" or defective. If the shoe is destroyed during the recraft, I think all they will give you is a few bucks or perhaps the price of the recraft as credit towards new shoes.

 

[madhat]

A word of caution on this subject when it comes to Allen Edmonds. I was told by a AE rep that the seconds sold through their outlet are as you described....good shoes with minor flaws; flaws that could often be corrected during a recraft. However, those marked "no warranty" (and possibly "FD" or "factory defect") and sold through non-AE outlets have more significant problems that are not generally fixable. For example, I once picked up a pair of "no warranty" AE Hales. They looked fine, but the captoe on one of the shoes would deform and push on my toes when I walked.

Additionally, AE won't warrant a recraft of a shoe marked "no warranty" or defective. If the shoe is destroyed during the recraft, I think all they will give you is a few bucks or perhaps the price of the recraft as credit towards new shoes.

The "no warranty" shoes sold on ebay can either be deemed too bad to sell as seconds or are worn returns. They can't sell worn shoes as seconds, so sometimes there really is nothing wrong other than some minor wear. I've bought several this way.
The "no warranty" is to stop people from buying thirds and trying to return them to an AE store. AE will still recraft them, but as you said they are unlikely to warranty them. You've likely paid less than $150 for them anyway, so it's cheaper to go buy another third than a recraft anyway.