Show us your new shoes
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
A few points there.
A lot of the people running the shoe companies were of an age where they believed that using rubber soles impacted on the image of their brand. Some shoes were offered with them but they tended to be the chunkier stuff, the ones for the farmers or for your weekend house in the Cotswolds.
However, many of the old guard within the footwear industry have moved on now, a hell of a lot in the last 5-10 years, and at the same time we have been seeing tweeds, Barbour and god forbid hipsters etc. being very much the look about town, we have seen a move towards more and more 'classic' shoes with Danite or Goodyear Commando soles.
Of course there will always be exceptions and those who pretty much only produce leather soled shoes, but you can not get round the fact there has been an amazing increase in sales and shoes offered with these units from all the main footwear brands.
I am glad you have taken my posts in the way in which they were intended - a defence of leather rather than the condemnation of rubber. A lot of the people running the shoe companies were of an age where they believed that using rubber soles impacted on the image of their brand. Some shoes were offered with them but they tended to be the chunkier stuff, the ones for the farmers or for your weekend house in the Cotswolds.
However, many of the old guard within the footwear industry have moved on now, a hell of a lot in the last 5-10 years, and at the same time we have been seeing tweeds, Barbour and god forbid hipsters etc. being very much the look about town, we have seen a move towards more and more 'classic' shoes with Danite or Goodyear Commando soles.
Of course there will always be exceptions and those who pretty much only produce leather soled shoes, but you can not get round the fact there has been an amazing increase in sales and shoes offered with these units from all the main footwear brands.
Obviously you are in a far better position to comment on the sales success rubber is currently enjoying but again I would be reluctant to equate such statistics to one being superior over the other. If you asked any bespoke shoemaker anywhere in the world I would expect their figures to be the complete opposite of yours which again does not prove anything other than their customer's preference.
gizlaroc said:
Comfort or old farts?
Both, once people try a Danite version of their favourite shoe many don't go back to the leather version. The industry has had to shake off the image that 'if it is not leather it is not a proper shoe', and I would say it is almost there. You can see from the amount of guys on the forums who send off their classic leather to have a rubber unit attached.
I would expect the synthetic option will always have a certain stigma (rightly or wrongly) attached to it in any craft which is steeped in history and tradition. Gold is far from the best material for jewellery but many see it as the desirable option regardless.Both, once people try a Danite version of their favourite shoe many don't go back to the leather version. The industry has had to shake off the image that 'if it is not leather it is not a proper shoe', and I would say it is almost there. You can see from the amount of guys on the forums who send off their classic leather to have a rubber unit attached.
gizlaroc said:
It is the same with leather vs synthetic on winter boots, many of the European brands think we are mad for wanting leather on a winter boot, over there they sell loads of synthetic. Say synthetic to them and they think, breathable, quick drying, waterpoof, easy care blah blah blah.... Over here we think 'plastic'.
Breathable is one benefit which rubber soles do not enjoy over leather but otherwise yes rubber is superior in all those ways.gizlaroc said:
Why do we try and get them to have a go with a rubber unit?
Because 9 out of 10 people prefer them once they have lived with them, they wear better, the feel safer under foot, they tend to be far more comfortable from new (I admit a leather sole is nice after a few months when it has properly moulded to your foot) and you can leave yourself a little more room in it as the sole will flex, so no slipping on the heel, and these days you can't tell what the sole is when wearing them. Long gone are the days when if you wanted rubber soles you could have it in farmers yellow leather in a chunky brogue gibson or boot only, most of their ranges ae offered in leather or rubber.
How do I convince them? Get them to try both on. They then convince themselves.
Well, if it is the customer's ultimate preference based on having tried both then who am I to say any differently? Because 9 out of 10 people prefer them once they have lived with them, they wear better, the feel safer under foot, they tend to be far more comfortable from new (I admit a leather sole is nice after a few months when it has properly moulded to your foot) and you can leave yourself a little more room in it as the sole will flex, so no slipping on the heel, and these days you can't tell what the sole is when wearing them. Long gone are the days when if you wanted rubber soles you could have it in farmers yellow leather in a chunky brogue gibson or boot only, most of their ranges ae offered in leather or rubber.
How do I convince them? Get them to try both on. They then convince themselves.
I don't understand the bit in bold but otherwise I agree with your sentiments.
gizlaroc said:
I don't get why you think construction of a goodyear welted leather or rubber sole is different?
The only difference I can think of is sometimes we would put a midsole on a thin Danite unit if the original shoe had a very thick leather sole.
I misunderstood your question, sorry. I thought you were talking about the construction of the sole rather than the shoe. Yes, from a shoe construction point of view there is no difference I am aware of though from a finishing point of view there is a whole world of potential differences which not even the most ardent fan of rubber could look past. Dainite doesn't look much different to a double leather soles from the side so, IMO quite suited to the rugged terrain and bad weather that you would associate with double leather which is where my utilitarian comments came in. As I said in an earlier post I do have a pair of Dainite soled boots and these get used in conditions that leather wouldn't enjoy too much (salt, mud etc) so they do have their place in my wardrobe.The only difference I can think of is sometimes we would put a midsole on a thin Danite unit if the original shoe had a very thick leather sole.
gizlaroc said:
I don't get your analogy regarding petrol with diesel, I am guessing you said it as a bit of a put down or because you genuinely believe people who buy rubber soled shoes don't appreciate quality shoes. Either I think is nonsense. 
Absolutely not - my analogy was not intended as a put down of any kind. Diesel is superior to petrol in many quantifiable ways but they are rarely bought by the purist who appreciates the finer details of N/A petrol. Maybe a more suitable analogy would have been a mechanical movement vs quartz. Quartz is undoubtedly the more accurate option and requires little to no servicing so from a functional point of view far superior, though many people feel the history and workmanship behind a handmade movement is worth its shortcomings.
gizlaroc said:
Anyway, Happy New Year folks! 
Edited by InductionRoar on Monday 2nd January 13:26
gizlaroc said:
You can see from the amount of guys on the forums who send off their classic leather to have a rubber unit attached.
I wonder how much of this is simply down the practicalities of the climate we live in?If I could step outside every day and be guaranteed warm dry weather and clean pavements I've no issue with leather soles.
As it is I dread any kind of lengthy walk in my leather soled shoes especially in this kind of weather as you know you're going to be sliding around soaking up god knows what.
When my shoes need resoling I'll be interested to know if the manufacturer offers it as an option.
FreeLitres said:
... so which sole is best then?
For UK weather I am going to say Dainite as the best all rounder. Getting caught in the rain in leather soles can be a nightmare.
Having said that I wear a suit much less than I used to so a heavier sole is less of an issue - I tend to agree that a suit with rubber soles can look strange.
InductionRoar said:
I don't understand the bit in bold but otherwise I agree with your sentiments.
What I meant by that was.....For years we have buying shoes too tight.
The reason being is most shoes have very little flex in the sole, the shank is there to give support to the waist of the shoe, however it is often cut longer than needed to make sure the sole doesn't flex too far and cause the sole to split. Rubber soles are more often than not made of soft resin rather than proper rubber on cheaper models and if they get too cold they can crack if they flex too much, and leather soles simply don't flex all that much if they are even a half decent thickness. If they are thin enough to really flex they tend to be a much more dressy looking sure, think 1970s moccasins.
We had to wear are shoes tight because without flex in the sole (like you get with something like a running shoe) if they are not tight you slip at the heels and they are not comfortable.
However, most people will be roughly half a size bigger at sat 8pm than they are at 8am when they put their shoes on, so when do you buy your shoes? 9am? 1pm? 5pm?
So it is always a slight compromise.
What would be best for our feet is no shoes at all, let our feet just do what they want to do, obviously that can't happen. Breathable running shoe or lightweight sandal is probably next best, but we like nice shoes.
Putting on a Danite or similar in a regular brogue, Oxford, Gibson etc., not a chunky boot, can give you proper flex and allow you to buy it a little bigger than if it were on a regular leather unit. I now often buy all my shoes half a size to a whole size bigger and they feel more like slippers.
This is a regular Loake brogue with a Danite sole....
You can buy them with loads of room in them, your feet breathe nicely and they are super comfy no matter what time of day it is, I often get to get undressed at midnight and think "Oh, still have my shoes on from this morning." Where as with many of my more 'structured' leather sole versions by the time I get home from work I look forward to taking them off, certainly in the first few months anyway.
For me having space around me feet far outweighs any breathability gains from having a leather sole.
We are now of course starting to see more flexible leather soles, rather than one thick piece of leather they have 5 or 6 thing layers, think ply on a skateboard, bends without splitting.
But that is what I meant by that comment.
Edited by gizlaroc on Monday 2nd January 14:01
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: When my shoes need resoling I'll be interested to know if the manufacturer offers it as an option.
Most will now. Find a decent local shoe repairer, you can get them to replace a leather with Danite or similar.
You might want to ask them to put a midsole in, they will give you a feel a bit more like the leather ones, a bit stiffer.
Rich_W said:
Why so many?
And why 3 different manufacturers?
Three sets as they were 50% off and as running shoe's go 'off' after about 500 miles three should last the yearAnd why 3 different manufacturers?
I usually run in Brooks Adrenalin but none were on sale....!
Saucony as I've worn before and rate as equal to Brooks
Asics as many runners I know use these and through recommendation
Puma .. took a punt as they maybe OK or maybe not.
Common thread is they are all support biased for someone who over pronates during running (rolls over onto their ankle)
HTH
Happy new year to all
gizlaroc said:
What I meant by that was.....
For years we have buying shoes too tight.
The reason being is most shoes have very little flex in the sole, the shank is there to give support to the waist of the shoe, however it is often cut longer than needed to make sure the sole doesn't flex too far and cause the sole to split. Rubber soles are more often than not made of soft resin rather than proper rubber on cheaper models and if they get too cold they can crack if they flex too much, and leather soles simply don't flex all that much if they are even a half decent thickness. If they are thin enough to really flex they tend to be a much more dressy looking sure, think 1970s moccasins.
We had to wear are shoes tight because without flex in the sole (like you get with something like a running shoe) if they are not tight you slip at the heels and they are not comfortable.
However, most people will be roughly half a size bigger at sat 8pm than they are at 8am when they put their shoes on, so when do you buy your shoes? 9am? 1pm? 5pm?
So it is always a slight compromise.
What would be best for our feet is no shoes at all, let our feet just do what they want to do, obviously that can't happen. Breathable running shoe or lightweight sandal is probably next best, but we like nice shoes.
Putting on a Danite or similar in a regular brogue, Oxford, Gibson etc., not a chunky boot, can give you proper flex and allow you to buy it a little bigger than if it were on a regular leather unit. I now often buy all my shoes half a size to a whole size bigger and they feel more like slippers.
This is a regular Loake brogue with a Danite sole....
You can buy them with loads of room in them, your feet breathe nicely and they are super comfy no matter what time of day it is, I often get to get undressed at midnight and think "Oh, still have my shoes on from this morning." Where as with many of my more 'structured' leather sole versions by the time I get home from work I look forward to taking them off, certainly in the first few months anyway.
For me having space around me feet far outweighs any breathability gains from having a leather sole.
We are now of course starting to see more flexible leather soles, rather than one thick piece of leather they have 5 or 6 thing layers, think ply on a skateboard, bends without splitting.
But that is what I meant by that comment.
Ah I see. I didn't know if you were referring to heel slip or slipping on your heels. For years we have buying shoes too tight.
The reason being is most shoes have very little flex in the sole, the shank is there to give support to the waist of the shoe, however it is often cut longer than needed to make sure the sole doesn't flex too far and cause the sole to split. Rubber soles are more often than not made of soft resin rather than proper rubber on cheaper models and if they get too cold they can crack if they flex too much, and leather soles simply don't flex all that much if they are even a half decent thickness. If they are thin enough to really flex they tend to be a much more dressy looking sure, think 1970s moccasins.
We had to wear are shoes tight because without flex in the sole (like you get with something like a running shoe) if they are not tight you slip at the heels and they are not comfortable.
However, most people will be roughly half a size bigger at sat 8pm than they are at 8am when they put their shoes on, so when do you buy your shoes? 9am? 1pm? 5pm?
So it is always a slight compromise.
What would be best for our feet is no shoes at all, let our feet just do what they want to do, obviously that can't happen. Breathable running shoe or lightweight sandal is probably next best, but we like nice shoes.
Putting on a Danite or similar in a regular brogue, Oxford, Gibson etc., not a chunky boot, can give you proper flex and allow you to buy it a little bigger than if it were on a regular leather unit. I now often buy all my shoes half a size to a whole size bigger and they feel more like slippers.
This is a regular Loake brogue with a Danite sole....
You can buy them with loads of room in them, your feet breathe nicely and they are super comfy no matter what time of day it is, I often get to get undressed at midnight and think "Oh, still have my shoes on from this morning." Where as with many of my more 'structured' leather sole versions by the time I get home from work I look forward to taking them off, certainly in the first few months anyway.
For me having space around me feet far outweighs any breathability gains from having a leather sole.
We are now of course starting to see more flexible leather soles, rather than one thick piece of leather they have 5 or 6 thing layers, think ply on a skateboard, bends without splitting.
But that is what I meant by that comment.
Edited by gizlaroc on Monday 2nd January 14:01
I like the detail of your posts though I am conscious of derailing the thread too much however...
...shoes should be worn snug and if the fit is correct heel slip will not occur even on double leather. Tight is just as wrong as loose and attributing rubber with the ability to wear shoes that are too big as a positive I would say is creating a benefit where there isn't one.
I do see however that I unlikely to win any converts here though in the interests of balance here is one very easily demonstrable way in which leather is much, much better.
Truly world class workmanship and whilst I agree they have their shortcomings they are a work of art which elevates them above being merely functional.
InductionRoar said:
gizlaroc said:
A few points there.
A lot of the people running the shoe companies were of an age where they believed that using rubber soles impacted on the image of their brand. Some shoes were offered with them but they tended to be the chunkier stuff, the ones for the farmers or for your weekend house in the Cotswolds.
However, many of the old guard within the footwear industry have moved on now, a hell of a lot in the last 5-10 years, and at the same time we have been seeing tweeds, Barbour and god forbid hipsters etc. being very much the look about town, we have seen a move towards more and more 'classic' shoes with Danite or Goodyear Commando soles.
Of course there will always be exceptions and those who pretty much only produce leather soled shoes, but you can not get round the fact there has been an amazing increase in sales and shoes offered with these units from all the main footwear brands.
I am glad you have taken my posts in the way in which they were intended - a defence of leather rather than the condemnation of rubber. A lot of the people running the shoe companies were of an age where they believed that using rubber soles impacted on the image of their brand. Some shoes were offered with them but they tended to be the chunkier stuff, the ones for the farmers or for your weekend house in the Cotswolds.
However, many of the old guard within the footwear industry have moved on now, a hell of a lot in the last 5-10 years, and at the same time we have been seeing tweeds, Barbour and god forbid hipsters etc. being very much the look about town, we have seen a move towards more and more 'classic' shoes with Danite or Goodyear Commando soles.
Of course there will always be exceptions and those who pretty much only produce leather soled shoes, but you can not get round the fact there has been an amazing increase in sales and shoes offered with these units from all the main footwear brands.
Obviously you are in a far better position to comment on the sales success rubber is currently enjoying but again I would be reluctant to equate such statistics to one being superior over the other. If you asked any bespoke shoemaker anywhere in the world I would expect their figures to be the complete opposite of yours which again does not prove anything other than their customer's preference.
gizlaroc said:
Comfort or old farts?
Both, once people try a Danite version of their favourite shoe many don't go back to the leather version. The industry has had to shake off the image that 'if it is not leather it is not a proper shoe', and I would say it is almost there. You can see from the amount of guys on the forums who send off their classic leather to have a rubber unit attached.
I would expect the synthetic option will always have a certain stigma (rightly or wrongly) attached to it in any craft which is steeped in history and tradition. Gold is far from the best material for jewellery but many see it as the desirable option regardless.Both, once people try a Danite version of their favourite shoe many don't go back to the leather version. The industry has had to shake off the image that 'if it is not leather it is not a proper shoe', and I would say it is almost there. You can see from the amount of guys on the forums who send off their classic leather to have a rubber unit attached.
gizlaroc said:
It is the same with leather vs synthetic on winter boots, many of the European brands think we are mad for wanting leather on a winter boot, over there they sell loads of synthetic. Say synthetic to them and they think, breathable, quick drying, waterpoof, easy care blah blah blah.... Over here we think 'plastic'.
Breathable is one benefit which rubber soles do not enjoy over leather but otherwise yes rubber is superior in all those ways.gizlaroc said:
Why do we try and get them to have a go with a rubber unit?
Because 9 out of 10 people prefer them once they have lived with them, they wear better, the feel safer under foot, they tend to be far more comfortable from new (I admit a leather sole is nice after a few months when it has properly moulded to your foot) and you can leave yourself a little more room in it as the sole will flex, so no slipping on the heel, and these days you can't tell what the sole is when wearing them. Long gone are the days when if you wanted rubber soles you could have it in farmers yellow leather in a chunky brogue gibson or boot only, most of their ranges ae offered in leather or rubber.
How do I convince them? Get them to try both on. They then convince themselves.
Well, if it is the customer's ultimate preference based on having tried both then who am I to say any differently? Because 9 out of 10 people prefer them once they have lived with them, they wear better, the feel safer under foot, they tend to be far more comfortable from new (I admit a leather sole is nice after a few months when it has properly moulded to your foot) and you can leave yourself a little more room in it as the sole will flex, so no slipping on the heel, and these days you can't tell what the sole is when wearing them. Long gone are the days when if you wanted rubber soles you could have it in farmers yellow leather in a chunky brogue gibson or boot only, most of their ranges ae offered in leather or rubber.
How do I convince them? Get them to try both on. They then convince themselves.
I don't understand the bit in bold but otherwise I agree with your sentiments.
gizlaroc said:
I don't get why you think construction of a goodyear welted leather or rubber sole is different?
The only difference I can think of is sometimes we would put a midsole on a thin Danite unit if the original shoe had a very thick leather sole.
I misunderstood your question, sorry. I thought you were talking about the construction of the sole rather than the shoe. Yes, from a shoe construction point of view there is no difference I am aware of though from a finishing point of view there is a whole world of potential differences which not even the most ardent fan of rubber could look past. Dainite doesn't look much different to a double leather soles from the side so, IMO quite suited to the rugged terrain and bad weather that you would associate with double leather which is where my utilitarian comments came in. As I said in an earlier post I do have a pair of Dainite soled boots and these get used in conditions that leather wouldn't enjoy too much (salt, mud etc) so they do have their place in my wardrobe.The only difference I can think of is sometimes we would put a midsole on a thin Danite unit if the original shoe had a very thick leather sole.
gizlaroc said:
I don't get your analogy regarding petrol with diesel, I am guessing you said it as a bit of a put down or because you genuinely believe people who buy rubber soled shoes don't appreciate quality shoes. Either I think is nonsense.
Absolutely not - my analogy was not intended as a put down of any kind. Diesel is superior to petrol in many quantifiable ways but they are rarely bought by the purist who appreciates the finer details of N/A petrol. Maybe a more suitable analogy would have been a mechanical movement vs quartz. Quartz is undoubtedly the more accurate option and requires little to no servicing so from a functional point of view far superior, though many people feel the history and workmanship behind a handmade movement is worth its shortcomings.
gizlaroc said:
Anyway, Happy New Year folks!
Edited by InductionRoar on Monday 2nd January 13:26
Leather uppers with synthetic soles do not provide the breathability necessary to keep the fungus at bay. Leather upper and soles does provide the necessary breathability but, as pointed out, durability, particularly during wet miserable winters, made affordability a real issue.
Many years ago I tried the purists' anathema of stick on rubber soles. The result was the best of both worlds - enough breathability to keep the affliction under control and good durability at an affordable price.
The secret is to break the shoes and soles in first in dry conditions. This allows the sole to flex/mould to the foot and provides a rough-upped sole to which the rubber cover sole can be bonded. The cover soles are then replaced every 18 months or so at a fraction of the cost of a full re-sole. The other advantages are that the original leather sole remains supremely comfortable as it is moulded to the foot and no slip/sliding in wet conditions.
I do nothing else these days - buy leather soled shoes, break them in and then get a thin rubber cover sole bonded on. In this way it is the durability of the uppers that really governs the life of the shoe not the sole!
El stovey said:
Are they men's shoes? The raised tapered heel looks a bit vulgar and effete.
Heelstacks are one of the few places shoemakers are given free reign to show their skills off without affecting fit.
Here are some more traditionally executed heels which are still tapered, pitched and canted but less extreme than the Japanese offerings.
InductionRoar said:
They are indeed men's shoes though as you say rather more flamboyantly executed than is commonplace. I'm not sure they are raised; I think it is the fact that the heel is so narrow that it accentuates the height - though the customer of this pair may well have requested a slightly raised heel so maybe it is.
Heelstacks are one of the few places shoemakers are given free reign to show their skills off without affecting fit.
Here are some more traditionally executed heels which are still tapered, pitched and canted but less extreme than the Japanese offerings.
These shoes, although slightly more traditional and masculine, appear to have a raised "flamboyant" heel made from MDF. They are showing signs of excessive wear after no doubt, being worn for a few minutes on carpet. Heelstacks are one of the few places shoemakers are given free reign to show their skills off without affecting fit.
Here are some more traditionally executed heels which are still tapered, pitched and canted but less extreme than the Japanese offerings.
I assume they are for pantomime use and have a large silver buckle on the front. Dick Whittington perhaps?
If men are really short, isn't it better to accept it rather than wear these high heels?
They even have the inscription "special" on the heel.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 2nd January 16:44
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff