Show us your new shoes
Discussion
tuffer said:
They are bloody lush, my leather pair above are breaking in nicely so now off to find a pair like yours.
Those are 1808, the made in England range, and come in at £220, retail price anyway. But they do the Mitchum and I think they are going to put that on a rubber sole too shortly, and that is £180, at retail.
Hutchinson is a nice Chelsea, chocolate suede and a Burgundy gusset, leather sole with rubber stick on.
I was looking for dainite soled shoes in the summer, the guy in the Cheaney shop told me that the style I liked was in the half price sale because they were selling off the leather soled version to make way for them changing it to rubber only. On his advice I bought the leather soles cheap, when I wear them out I'll get them to resole with dainite.
gizlaroc said:
It is purely a comfort thing, and the fact it works so much better for the UK weather than leather soles too.
It is a very hard sell to get someone to buy a classic with a Danite sole, but once they have had their first pair they don't tend to go back to leather.
We tend to do more of the 1880 range, so many are available as leather and rubber sole, and price points are or were the same, average I guess is £220, something like that, and a lot of it is also perception, for some reason many feel when spending that sort of money it has to be leather.
Some of the rubber soled version went slightly more expensive than the leather sole version last year and that actually helped get people to have a go with them.
Tinfoil hat time.It is a very hard sell to get someone to buy a classic with a Danite sole, but once they have had their first pair they don't tend to go back to leather.
We tend to do more of the 1880 range, so many are available as leather and rubber sole, and price points are or were the same, average I guess is £220, something like that, and a lot of it is also perception, for some reason many feel when spending that sort of money it has to be leather.
Some of the rubber soled version went slightly more expensive than the leather sole version last year and that actually helped get people to have a go with them.
In my opinion the reason Dainite is now enjoying increased saleability (in your experience) over leather is nothing to do with comfort nor the English weather. Consider that Dainite has been available for well over 100 years and is only just starting to outsell leather.
I attribute Dainite's newfound popularity to the modern customer being less interested in the craft and tradition of shoemaking and wanting the more utilitarian option. Most men in my experience view shoes as a necessity rather than a luxury and understandably expect rubber to be the superior material (particularly with a salesman such as yourself extolling its virtues
). If I had a pound for every time I have heard "Well, you wouldn't want leather tyres would you?" as some kind of relevant argument to prove the shortcomings of leather I could afford to have my leather soled shoes resoled a week before my Dainites failed. 
I liken rubber soles to diesel engines - superior under a strict set of circumstances but not the purist's choice.
or, rather less negatively, stylish people are making more conscious choices about everyday and weekend shoes... rather like cars. Being as most people are at work 5 days out of 7, not really surprising that 'daily beater' shoes have hard-wearing soles. Surely better than the bulk of the great unwashed who wear entirely rubber shoes, square toes, never polish, two pairs for a tenner... etc
IR - your post kind of suggests that anyone that wears rubber soles is a pleb that knows nothing about shoes.
Sole chose depends on lots of factors including;
How much walking you need to do in wet conditions
Your walking gait and how hard you are on your shoe toes
How formal your shoes need to be
General looks of the shoe
Previous experiences of different sole types
etc.
For me, I like to have a selection of shoes with different soles, from leather to full on commando. If I know it's going to be wet outside, I will typically pick a Dainite sole.
Sole chose depends on lots of factors including;
How much walking you need to do in wet conditions
Your walking gait and how hard you are on your shoe toes
How formal your shoes need to be
General looks of the shoe
Previous experiences of different sole types
etc.
For me, I like to have a selection of shoes with different soles, from leather to full on commando. If I know it's going to be wet outside, I will typically pick a Dainite sole.
I think there's more to the dainite thing than it being a somehow 'less-worthy' option. I like wearing suede boots, but leather soles to a rugby match, or a walk to the pub in winter or whatever are generally less appealing and less suitable. For me, possbily like many of gizlaroc's customers, it's a conscious, practical, but no less aesthetically important choice.
That said, I'd resist paying more for it than leather, but I certainly don't see it as a sub-optimal option. For formal or work shoes, I'd invariably favour leather; both have their place in a chap's wardrobe.
That said, I'd resist paying more for it than leather, but I certainly don't see it as a sub-optimal option. For formal or work shoes, I'd invariably favour leather; both have their place in a chap's wardrobe.
InductionRoar said:
Tinfoil hat time.
In my opinion the reason Dainite is now enjoying increased saleability (in your experience) over leather is nothing to do with comfort nor the English weather. Consider that Dainite has been available for well over 100 years and is only just starting to outsell leather.
I attribute Dainite's newfound popularity to the modern customer being less interested in the craft and tradition of shoemaking and wanting the more utilitarian option. Most men in my experience view shoes as a necessity rather than a luxury and understandably expect rubber to be the superior material (particularly with a salesman such as yourself extolling its virtues). If I had a pound for every time I have heard "Well, you wouldn't want leather tyres would you?" as some kind of relevant argument to prove the shortcomings of leather I could afford to have my leather soled shoes resoled a week before my Dainites failed.
I liken rubber soles to diesel engines - superior under a strict set of circumstances but not the purist's choice.
It's far simpler than that. Some people are prepared to lose a small degree of the aesthetic in order to not do a Torvill and Dean on wet pavements, or get trench foot.In my opinion the reason Dainite is now enjoying increased saleability (in your experience) over leather is nothing to do with comfort nor the English weather. Consider that Dainite has been available for well over 100 years and is only just starting to outsell leather.
I attribute Dainite's newfound popularity to the modern customer being less interested in the craft and tradition of shoemaking and wanting the more utilitarian option. Most men in my experience view shoes as a necessity rather than a luxury and understandably expect rubber to be the superior material (particularly with a salesman such as yourself extolling its virtues
). If I had a pound for every time I have heard "Well, you wouldn't want leather tyres would you?" as some kind of relevant argument to prove the shortcomings of leather I could afford to have my leather soled shoes resoled a week before my Dainites failed. I liken rubber soles to diesel engines - superior under a strict set of circumstances but not the purist's choice.
FreeLitres said:
IR - your post kind of suggests that anyone that wears rubber soles is a pleb that knows nothing about shoes.
That wasn't the intended tone of my post. FreeLitres said:
For me, I like to have a selection of shoes with different soles, from leather to full on commando. If I know it's going to be wet outside, I will typically pick a Dainite sole.
Rubber certainly has its place but to equate Dainite's current sales success to its superiority or attribute this to two factors which have remained largely unchanged since its inception is IMO missing the point. FreeLitres said:
Sole chose depends on lots of factors including;
How much walking you need to do in wet conditions
Dainite are no doubt more water resistant and would stand up to frequent saturation a lot better than leather.How much walking you need to do in wet conditions
FreeLitres said:
Your walking gait and how hard you are on your shoe toes
Toe taps are more resistant to wear and are replaceable without the requirement of a full resole.FreeLitres said:
How formal your shoes need to be
Leather will always win here...FreeLitres said:
General looks of the shoe
...and here.FreeLitres said:
Previous experiences of different sole types etc.
I agree. If you have a preference toward a specific material for a specific use then that will be the correct one for you.I wasn't suggesting Dainite was the pleb's choice (as you so eloquently put it
) and as you say there is room for both in a well stocked rotation but I do like to put my head above the parapet and defend the traditions of shoemaking whenever possible. 
13m said:
It's far simpler than that. Some people are prepared to lose a small degree of the aesthetic in order to not do a Torvill and Dean on wet pavements, or get trench foot.
I see you have exaggerated your points for comedic effect but I will bite nevertheless. You say "lose a small degree of the aesthetic". Are you sure the difference is that small? I would say that the difference can be quite profound.
Neither trench foot nor skating down the pavement are likely to be avoided by wearing rubber soles though I will concede that polished leather and carpet are undoubtedly the most dangerous combination known to man.
FreeLitres said:
Hey Gizlaroc - as someone that has access to lots of brands an styles of shoes/boots I'm interested to know - what do you tend to wear yourself? Do you have a large personal collection, or do you tend to just have a few favorites that gets lots of wear?
New Balance. 
I tend to wear J Shoes as a smart casual, like their more distressed look, they have a classic look with a twist and very comfy.
I have worn this one of theirs non stop this autumn...
Loake I do wear a lot of, think their 1880 stuff is great and a good price point. But I actually like their suede casuals best of all, Mojave, Sahara etc.
I am really liking Geox too. Been very impressed with them.
And, the brand I think is unbeatable is Rieker.
We used to buy that for the old boys, wide fit and a bit funkier looking than Padders or other whatever it is old people seem to end up in at some point in their lives.
But now we sell so many to people all ages.
This sort of thing...
That retails for £65 and is arguably the most comfortable shoe anyone will ever own. I love them.
idiotgap said:
I was looking for dainite soled shoes in the summer, the guy in the Cheaney shop told me that the style I liked was in the half price sale because they were selling off the leather soled version to make way for them changing it to rubber only. On his advice I bought the leather soles cheap, when I wear them out I'll get them to resole with dainite.
Have you considered a stick on sole?InductionRoar said:
Tinfoil hat time.
In my opinion the reason Dainite is now enjoying increased saleability (in your experience) over leather is nothing to do with comfort nor the English weather. Consider that Dainite has been available for well over 100 years and is only just starting to outsell leather.
I attribute Dainite's newfound popularity to the modern customer being less interested in the craft and tradition of shoemaking and wanting the more utilitarian option. Most men in my experience view shoes as a necessity rather than a luxury and understandably expect rubber to be the superior material (particularly with a salesman such as yourself extolling its virtues). If I had a pound for every time I have heard "Well, you wouldn't want leather tyres would you?" as some kind of relevant argument to prove the shortcomings of leather I could afford to have my leather soled shoes resoled a week before my Dainites failed.
I liken rubber soles to diesel engines - superior under a strict set of circumstances but not the purist's choice.
No, nothing to do with that. In my opinion the reason Dainite is now enjoying increased saleability (in your experience) over leather is nothing to do with comfort nor the English weather. Consider that Dainite has been available for well over 100 years and is only just starting to outsell leather.
I attribute Dainite's newfound popularity to the modern customer being less interested in the craft and tradition of shoemaking and wanting the more utilitarian option. Most men in my experience view shoes as a necessity rather than a luxury and understandably expect rubber to be the superior material (particularly with a salesman such as yourself extolling its virtues
). If I had a pound for every time I have heard "Well, you wouldn't want leather tyres would you?" as some kind of relevant argument to prove the shortcomings of leather I could afford to have my leather soled shoes resoled a week before my Dainites failed. I liken rubber soles to diesel engines - superior under a strict set of circumstances but not the purist's choice.
The reason leather has done so well for so long is because most of the shoemakers are old farts, they were stuck in a time warp, plus the only places high end/priced shoes sold in any number were the big cities, London, New York, Paris etc. and in cities the leather sole ruled due to the style of the shoes often being worn.
In the last 5 or so years we have seen a real change within the shoe industry, many of the people running the companies have retired, e have gone from having loads of 70 year old blokes running things to much younger guys who let the design teams and marketing departments have more say in what is being made, and that is generally what is being asked for by the customer too.
How is a Danite sole any different in construction to a leather sole?
I don't really get your analogy to be honest. Diesel vs Petrol?
More like the guy who stands in a Porsche showroom saying "Yeah, they are OK I guess, but anything made after 1982...............".
Shaw Tarse said:
idiotgap said:
I was looking for dainite soled shoes in the summer, the guy in the Cheaney shop told me that the style I liked was in the half price sale because they were selling off the leather soled version to make way for them changing it to rubber only. On his advice I bought the leather soles cheap, when I wear them out I'll get them to resole with dainite.
Have you considered a stick on sole?Problems are all solved now. Southern rail are so dreadful I'm not renewing my season ticket, I've been trying out cycling part of the way to give me extra options and flexibility when they can't lay a train on, so now I commute in cycle gear and a lot of my shoes live at the office. For a rainy day external meeting I'd wear the Solovair shoes I bought a few weeks ago which are basically British made Doc Martens under a new name the old brand having gone to someone who gets the shoes manufactured in Asia.
InductionRoar said:
I see you have exaggerated your points for comedic effect but I will bite nevertheless.
You say "lose a small degree of the aesthetic". Are you sure the difference is that small? I would say that the difference can be quite profound.
Neither trench foot nor skating down the pavement are likely to be avoided by wearing rubber soles though I will concede that polished leather and carpet are undoubtedly the most dangerous combination known to man.
The difference is quite profound with a commando sole, less so with Dainite and I've got several pairs with rubber soles that I doubt you would be able to tell are rubber.You say "lose a small degree of the aesthetic". Are you sure the difference is that small? I would say that the difference can be quite profound.
Neither trench foot nor skating down the pavement are likely to be avoided by wearing rubber soles though I will concede that polished leather and carpet are undoubtedly the most dangerous combination known to man.
I disagree with you about slipping; I spent many unhappy years trudging round a wet London and in my leather soled shoes it was treacherous at times. Once back in the office in a well-worn pair of leather soled shoes there was usually a vague sensation of rising damp.
You don't get those problems with rubber soles. Try 'em, of you haven't already.
CharlesdeGaulle said:
I really like that. Any links old chap?
None left now I don't think.I may have the navy one left, we sold those better and reorderd a few weeks back, I will look on Tuesday and PM you. PM me your size. It will be a very good PH price.
Grey ones are back in in Feb.
gizlaroc said:
No, nothing to do with that.
The reason leather has done so well for so long is because most of the shoemakers are old farts, they were stuck in a time warp, plus the only places high end/priced shoes sold in any number were the big cities, London, New York, Paris etc. and in cities the leather sole ruled due to the style of the shoes often being worn.
So you have moved on from your original assertion that it is a combination of durability and comfort that has led to Dainite's current popularity and on to attributing its prior lack of popularity to the fact that most shoemakers are old farts and stuck in a time warp? The reason leather has done so well for so long is because most of the shoemakers are old farts, they were stuck in a time warp, plus the only places high end/priced shoes sold in any number were the big cities, London, New York, Paris etc. and in cities the leather sole ruled due to the style of the shoes often being worn.
Not sure where you are getting your information regarding the age of shoemakers from or even what relevance you think that would have on their work but it is worth noting that Nicholas Templeman is some twenty years younger than the CEO of Apple. I think this (carefully curated to prove my point) fact proves that age has no bearing on the output of the individual but rather the market they are catering for.
I have no doubt that leather soled shoes did (do?) rule in the cities for the reasons you say though the country gents were having their shoes made by the same "old farts" and could have just as easily specced Dainite had they desired. I have never seen any vintage shoes soled with rubber which would suggest that few such commissions were ever made, despite its apparent superiority and availability.
gizlaroc said:
In the last 5 or so years we have seen a real change within the shoe industry, many of the people running the companies have retired, e have gone from having loads of 70 year old blokes running things to much younger guys who let the design teams and marketing departments have more say in what is being made, and that is generally what is being asked for by the customer too.
I think when we confuse marketing with craftsmanship and popularity with quality we are comparing apples with dinosaurs. gizlaroc said:
How is a Danite sole any different in construction to a leather sole?
There is no similarity between leather and rubber.You said in your earlier post that "it is a very hard sell to get someone to buy a classic with a Danite sole". Why do you feel the need to convert these customers? How do you convince them?
gizlaroc said:
I don't really get your analogy to be honest. Diesel vs Petrol?
More like the guy who stands in a Porsche showroom saying "Yeah, they are OK I guess, but anything made after 1982...............".
I think you do get it but I also see the relevance of yours and agree. Hand-built classics will always attract a different audience which I think is an equally appropriate analogy.More like the guy who stands in a Porsche showroom saying "Yeah, they are OK I guess, but anything made after 1982...............".
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff