# How long do high end shoes last?



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

On the *I've got 2 pairs of Chukkas *thread that Victor C started there is a comment by Leather Man that Victor's CT and Loake Chukkas will serve him well but that he should not expect them to have the longevity of a pair of Churches or shoes from C&J.

My question is whether higher end shoes really do provide more in terms longevity and not just better fit feel and appearance. It's my contention that it is likely that the majority of properly constructed Goodyear Welted shoes will, with care and rotation, last as long as any other. What are other members thoughts and experiences on this?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

My thoughts? In Leather Man I do trust! 

Better materials = greater longevity.


----------



## cbird (Oct 27, 2006)

Sure, better materials, better construction, and inherent rebuildability mean that real quality shoes will last many years. My main experience is a pair of Alden cordovans that looked as good eight years after purchase as they did two months after purchase (with a couple of Alden recraftings) and probably would still be going strong if I hadn't given them away (my feet stretched too much to fit anymore). These were worn at least two or three times per week for eight years and were also used for many long walks as well. It really makes more sense to go from $150 semi-disposables up to AE or Alden (or to one of the many fine English makes) rebuildables - every wearing will provide superior comfort at, ultimately, a lower cost per wearing.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

I'm curious as well - a salesman at the Ralph Lauren store confidently said that a good pair of high-end shoes should last a lifetime (thirty to forty years).

I have maybe a dozen pairs of shoes, not counting specialty footwear such as bowling, golf, and tuxedo shoes. I tend to favor three or four pair.

Most are Aldens, the oldest of which is about six years, when I upgraded to that class of shoe. Maybe it's because I've got a big, wide foot, but I tend to wear out shoes not by wearing down the heel and sole (which are easily replaceable), but by making the sides so floppy that every shoe eventually fits like an old pair of Bass bucs.

I've sent my shoes off to Alden to be redone and have been very pleased with the results. A highly recommended shoe repair place here in Atlanta charges as much for new soles and heels (from the ground up) as Alden does for their service, but Alden gives you shoe trees and bags in the deal. They currently have my favorite pair of black cap-toe bluchers, and I'll see how they do if I want to entrust any more to them. If they weren't $400 shoes, I'd NEVER pay that much for maintenance.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

cbird said:


> Sure, better materials, better construction, and inherent rebuildability mean that real quality shoes will last many years... It really makes more sense to go from $150 semi-disposables up to AE or Alden (or to one of the many fine English makes) rebuildables - every wearing will provide superior comfort at, ultimately, a lower cost per wearing.


I'm with you here,cbird. But my post was not about how long semi-disposable shoes (generally cemented soles) will last compared with 'rebuildable' (usually Goodyear welted soles) shoes, but rather with the difference in longevity between shoes like AE, and their British price -point and quality- equivalents such as the Loake 1880 range and similar, and the much pricier labels such as C&J and Church.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Miket61 said:


> I'm curious as well - a salesman at the Ralph Lauren store confidently said that a good pair of high-end shoes should last a lifetime (thirty to forty years).


Yes. I'd like to quantify exactly what 'good' means in terms of characteristics that determine length of service. Had I bottomless pocket I'd certainly look at the $600 and upwards dollar shoes rather than the $200 to $400 but I do feel that I'd be paying for detail and luxury not necessarily durability.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Yes. I'd like to quantify exactly what 'good' means in terms of characteristics that determine length of service. Had I bottomless pocket I'd certainly look at the $600 and upwards dollar shoes rather than the $200 to $400 but I do feel that I'd be paying for detail and luxury not necessarily durability.


To this gentleman, a "good" shoe would include those who make them for Ralph Lauren and Brooks Brothers - Alden, AE, Edward Green - which start around $400 and go up into the stratosphere.

Presumably one criteria he considered was a Goodyear welt, which allows for many re-solings.


----------



## Dogtooth (Sep 9, 2008)

The trouble with this question and any answers that follow is that there are almost too many variables to get a true answer.

For example the man who owns at least several pairs of top end shoes having a pair of Loakes in the list and wears them accordingly may have one answer.

Compare this to the man who owns one or two pairs of say Loakes and wears them daily to work but keeps his one pair of top end shoes for weekends.

You would really need to do a scientific or at least well controlled test to give all the shoes a fair chance.

Bob

PS Typing this whilst wearing a pair of Loake Royal Brogues and I expect them to last a long time as long as I look after them like my other shoes.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Dogtooth said:


> The trouble with this question and any answers that follow is that there are almost too many variables to get a true answer.
> 
> For example the man who owns at least several pairs of top end shoes having a pair of Loakes in the list and wears them accordingly may have one answer.
> 
> ...


A good post. And one that I agree with. It would be interesting if a member with a combination collection of lower and higher end 'quality' shoes could comment. It's interesting that you mention Loake Royals. Whenever these are talked of, someone will invariably criticise them for being 'corrected grain'. And yet Church use in shoes costing 3 times as much a leather they refer to as 'polished binder', which a search of this site informs me is exactly the same as 'corrected grain'. Now I do know from experience, and my cobbble assures me that this is correct, that there are huge difference in sole qualities insosar as durability is concerned. But for someone like me, who always has a sole guard applied to a new pair of shoes, this is not an issue. And anyway can an oak bark sole really last 3 times as long as the kind used on the likes of Loake Royals? By the way, what kind of lining do they have?


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> A good post. And one that I agree with. It would be interesting if a member with a combination collection of lower and higher end 'quality' shoes could comment. It's interesting that you mention Loake Royals. Whenever these are talked of, someone will invariably criticise them for being 'corrected grain'. And yet Church use in shoes costing 3 times as much a leather they refer to as 'polished binder', which a search of this site informs me is exactly the same as 'corrected grain'. Now I do know from experience, and my cobbble assures me that this is correct, that there are huge difference in sole qualities insosar as durability is concerned. But for someone like me, who always has a sole guard applied to a new pair of shoes, this is not an issue. And anyway can an oak bark sole really last 3 times as long as the kind used on the likes of Loake Royals? By the way, what kind of lining do they have?


Hector,

Approximately 2 years ago I used to alternate two pairs of shoes for work. The shoes in question were Loake Gloucester & C&J Aintree. Both styles from the "Top" ranges offered by said manufacturers.

Firstly the cost, Loakes came in at £130, C&J at £350. Both are manufactured in the same way, i.e Goodyear welted, both had leather soles/heels (inc quarter rubber tip) but the C&J have Oak Bark soles, full leather linings.

Secondly, caring for the shoes. Both were cleaned after wear, polished once a week using the same polish and both had shoe trees in them from the moment I took them off.

Lastly, wear. Both shoes were alternated every other day so that neither were worn two days running. The Loake shoes, were comfortable although a little firmer under foot, after (approx) 11 months the soles had worn through. The uppers had small cracks starting to appear in the creases across the vamp. Inside the linings in the heel had started to wear and the lining in the toe area had nearly worn through. The leather around the heel area became very 'loose', it felt as though the heel stiffner was breaking down. The general condition was ok, but the shoes looked a lot lot older than what they actually were.

In contrast the C&J's are still going strong on their original soles to this day, albeit getting very close to wearing through. The uppers are showing no signs of age, no cracking or looking aged prematurely. The linings are in excellent condition with very little sign of wear. the sock liner is in ok condition and will last until the soles go and they're returned to C&J for repair.

In my experience the more expensive shoe (and C&J Handgrades are worlds apart from Loakes) will outlive it's less expensive counterpart. I'm not talking Loakes down, in fact I like a lot of their styles and the 1880 range are nice well made shoes. If you're going to put sole protectors on that will increase the sole life significantly.

Since that time I've expended my collection significantly and the rotation cycle is greatly increased resulting in a longer life expectancy.

Hope this is of some use to you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The only shoes that can be said to have lasted a lifetime will be the ones you're buried in...and then you won't know about it anyway


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Groover said:


> Hope this is of some use to you.


A very informative post, Groover. So in your experience, the C&J really were a better buy. The Loakes did very badly showing cracks in the uppers after only a year! I have just retired a pair of Dexter Goodyear welted after 10 years of wearing them at least 3 or 4 times a week because of small cracks in the uppers and I have a pair of 13 year old cemeted K shoes that I've worn pretty frequently yet still have uppers in excellent supple condition. The cemeted soles were a problem and I had my cobbler stitch them to the upper as best he could.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> So in your experience, the C&J really were a better buy. The Loakes did very badly showing cracks in the uppers after only a year! .


Yes, the C&J were a better buy even though they were nearly 3 three times as expensive.

I was disappointed in the Loakes to be honest, not so much in that tiny cracks or splits were starting to appear but because they just looked years older than what they were. That said, I like some of their styles and will no doubt own some more in the future, perhaps I was just unlucky with that pair.


----------



## Des Esseintes (Aug 16, 2005)

Indeed, many variables at work here, clearly type of construction, pattern of wear and quality of shoe care but others, too.

Just as a personal benchmark, entirely not representative, of course, I still own a pair of Lobbs made about 20 years ago and still in outstanding shape, as well as one of my fathers old Wildsmith (R.I.P. - Wildsmith that is, not my father, fortunately) suede brogues, probably about 40 years old, a bit dried out but still perfectly wearable. Several other pairs of mine are between 15 and 20 years old, easily.

dE


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Des Esseintes said:


> Just as a personal benchmark, entirely not representative, of course, I still own a pair of Lobbs made about 20 years ago and still in outstanding shape, as well as one of my fathers old Wildsmith (R.I.P. - Wildsmith that is, not my father, fortunately) suede brogues, probably about 40 years old, a bit dried out but still perfectly wearable. Several other pairs of mine are between 15 and 20 years old, easily.
> 
> dE


What frequency of wear have these Lobb and Wildsmith had?


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

I have a pair of Lobb RTW (William) and a pair of Weston (Chasse) that are about 20 years old, have been worn approximately once a week, have taken some appalling abuse and are still in rotation. The Westons are in a condition such that Weston's Belgian country manager asked me last year whether it was a relatively recent special order (the original tan colour has aged beautifully into a very rich and deep brown). I retired two other pairs of Weston last year after 17 years.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

All this talk about shoe maintenance like resoling high end shoes etc after 4 years or so. I think for some people when the need calls for their shoes to be mended they would prefer to throw them away and buy another pair, rather than take them to a shoesmiths or sending them off somewhere.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

VictorC said:


> All this talk about shoe maintenance like resoling high end shoes etc after 4 years or so. I think for some people when the need calls for their shoes to be mended they would prefer to throw them away and buy another pair, rather than take them to a shoesmiths or sending them off somewhere.


But isn't one of the reasons for paying more for a good shoe in the first place because they are not wear and throw away?

Mr Donuts: Any chance of photos of these shoes?


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

VictorC said:


> All this talk about shoe maintenance like resoling high end shoes etc after 4 years or so. I think for some people when the need calls for their shoes to be mended they would prefer to throw them away and buy another pair, rather than take them to a shoesmiths or sending them off somewhere.


When a complete overhaul costs $125 (as Alden offers), it doesn't make sense to be that diligent with a $160 pair of Cole-Haans.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Miket61 said:


> When a complete overhaul costs $125 (as Alden offers), it doesn't make sense to be that diligent with a $160 pair of Cole-Haans.


The prices of this service, recomended by another member, may make it feasible to repair rather than discard some less expensive shoes: 

https://www.americanheeler.com/ 

However, one will want to avoid the recent experience of a friend of mine who was very disappointed to be charged ~$50.00 USD by a local shop to have a favorite pair of $30.00 USD shoes resoled. Obviously, he should have asked the cost of the repair before commissioning its execution&#8230;

Note that even a $50.00 USD pair of shoes can give more than five years of service on their original soles while maintaining nearly original appearance when properly maintained and rotated.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Mr Donuts: Any chance of photos of these shoes?


I would oblige except my camera recently decided to go on a sabbatical...


----------



## Des Esseintes (Aug 16, 2005)

Hector Freemantle said:


> What frequency of wear have these Lobb and Wildsmith had?


The Lobb boots don't touch the pavement very often, admittedly, as their colour doesn't make them suitable for wear with city suits and I have a reasonably large selection of leisure / country shoes for the remaining two days of the week - I guess twice a month, but only between September and April? The Wildsmith suede brogues are worn throughout the year, again, not very often for the same reason; as they were my father's until about seven or eight years ago, they may have been used more frequently though for the first thirty years of their life.

dE


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I think the longevity of shoes relies on the care.

It is probably true that a pair of Lobb or Alden Shells will last a lifetime, but they'll probably go through 3 or 4 resolings which if you get the recraft at a place like AE is $100 a pop.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Des Esseintes said:


> The Lobb boots don't touch the pavement very often, admittedly, as their colour doesn't make them suitable for wear with city suits and I have a reasonably large selection of leisure / country shoes for the remaining two days of the week - I guess twice a month, but only between September and April?
> 
> dE


So the Lobb boots have really only had about 360 outings over 200 years and generally haven't had to deal with concrete. I wonder how they compare in appearance to the Lobbs belonging to Mr. Donuts that have had 1120 wearings!


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Has anyone got any pics of a pair of shoes that needed resoling. And then the after pics of when they had been resoled.

I dont think ive had a pair of shoes long enough or worn them often enough for them to be resoled.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Hector, to put this into perspective, 1) I am assuming that my Lobbs are a poor cousin of dE's Lobbs, that is, Edward-Green-made Lobbs vs Lobbs emanating from a few doors up from Locke; and 2) I expect mine to be retired within the next year.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Hector Freemantle said:


> ...My question is whether higher end shoes really do provide more in terms longevity and not just better fit feel and appearance. It's my contention that it is likely that the majority of properly constructed Goodyear Welted shoes will, with care and rotation, last as long as any other. What are other members thoughts and experiences on this?


Hector, you may be on to something but, answers to your question may be skewed by the nature of the beast, buying the high end shoes. It would be interesting to see how many pair of shoes, those who buy high end shoes, have in rotation vs how many those who buy entry grade shoes might have in rotation. Put another way, how many times a year do each pair of shoes get worn?

I suspect, most who buy high end shoe brands also have significantly more pairs of shoes in rotation and consequently, each pair is worn less frequently. In my own case, with AE's, Alden's, Cheney's, Crockett and Jones, I also have Bass, Bostonians, Clark's, Johnson and Murphy's, and a few others. Assuming each pair gets worn with equitable frequency, each pair gets worn no more than six times per year. At that rate, neither the expensive or the cheap shoes will ever wear out. To further complicate the issue, the shoe fancier's psyche can affect the frequency of wear and consequently the rate at which a shoe wears out...as weather conditions deteriorate, the less expensive shoes are worn more, in an effort to preserve one's investment in high end shoes. I guess my answer to your question would be a qualified...probably(!) but, will we ever know for sure? In any event, thank-you for a pleasantly, thought provoking question.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> But isn't one of the reasons for paying more for a good shoe in the first place because they are not wear and throw away?


But isnt it that even expensive shoes need maintence and re soling etc after four years of wear or so? So i'm sure if you can resole Loakes as well, arent loakes shoes going to last as long as say CHurchs and all the other high end shoes?


----------



## icky thump (Feb 2, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> On the *I've got 2 pairs of Chukkas *thread that Victor C started there is a comment by Leather Man that Victor's CT and Loake Chukkas will serve him well but that he should not expect them to have the longevity of a pair of Churches or shoes from C&J.
> 
> My question is whether higher end shoes really do provide more in terms longevity and not just better fit feel and appearance. It's my contention that it is likely that the majority of properly constructed Goodyear Welted shoes will, with care and rotation, last as long as any other. What are other members thoughts and experiences on this?


I bought a pair of Allen Edmonds Park Avenues in 1995. The uppers started to split in 2005 and they saw a lot of wear. They have been fixed and I still own them but have seen better days.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

VictorC said:


> But isnt it that even expensive shoes need maintence and re soling etc after four years of wear or so? So i'm sure if you can resole Loakes as well, arent loakes shoes going to last as long as say CHurchs and all the other high end shoes?


Well that was my original supposition. Groover, however, has provided evidence above that this is not the case. In his case at least!


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> the shoe fancier's psyche can affect the frequency of wear and consequently the rate at which a shoe wears out...


I love it. All we need is a math wizard now to turn this into a law.Move over Newton.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Today I am wearing a pair of BrooksEnglish (Church's) quarter brogues that I bought 20 years ago. They've been resoled with Rendenbach oak-tanned soles and sadly are starting to show small splits along the top edge around the heel. As a stopgap I've had those splits stitched up by a local cobbler, but the splitting means that these won't make it to the next pair of soles. The shoes still have several years of wear left, however. Needless to say, they've been assiduously cared for. Cedar shoe trees, shoe bags, lots of Meltonian cream, lots of brushing and buffing, lots of edge dressing, and last but not least lots of elbow grease to apply it all.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Today I am wearing a pair of BrooksEnglish (Church's) quarter brogues that I bought 20 years ago. They've been resoled with Rendenbach oak-tanned soles and sadly are starting to show small splits along the top edge around the heel. As a stopgap I've had those splits stitched up by a local cobbler, but the splitting means that these won't make it to the next pair of soles. The shoes still have several years of wear left, however. Needless to say, they've been assiduously cared for. Cedar shoe trees, shoe bags, lots of Meltonian cream, lots of brushing and buffing, lots of edge dressing, and last but not least lots of elbow grease to apply it all.


But i doubt they look as nice as a new pair would. Got any pics?


----------



## &Son (Feb 18, 2008)

VictorC said:


> But i doubt they look as nice as a new pair would. Got any pics?


In some ways I bet they look much better!


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Today I am wearing a pair of BrooksEnglish (Church's) quarter brogues that I bought 20 years ago. They've been resoled with Rendenbach oak-tanned soles and sadly are starting to show small splits along the top edge around the heel. As a stopgap I've had those splits stitched up by a local cobbler, but the splitting means that these won't make it to the next pair of soles. The shoes still have several years of wear left, however...


Have you always used a shoe horn? I think not doing so can contribute to splitting in this area. But, anyway, seeing as they have been stitched and that area is generally covered, I personally would enjoy them as long as the shoe holds out in its entirety.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

&Son said:


> In some ways I bet they look much better!


I agree. As good furniture can, really good shoes that have successfully withstood the ravages of time can develop amazing character.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Have you always used a shoe horn? I think not doing so can contribute to splitting in this area. But, anyway, seeing as they have been stitched and that area is generally covered, I personally would enjoy them as long as the shoe holds out in its entirety.


Ive got a shoe horn but i dont think i know how to use it properly. I seem to find it easier to put my shoe on without the use of a shoehorn, as opposed to using the shoehorn.
Things like how far the shoe horn has to go down the length of the shoe confuses me.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> I agree. As good furniture can, really good shoes that have successfully withstood the ravages of time can develop amazing character.


But sometimes i wonder if youve had shoes for that long. WOnt they be a bit musky smelling inside the shoes. That is why i buy new shoes, for fear my shoes smell inside, even if i cant smell anything. I fear people would be able to smell my shoes even with my foot inside the shoe sometimes. Thats paranoia for you.


----------



## Des Esseintes (Aug 16, 2005)

VictorC said:


> But sometimes i wonder if youve had shoes for that long. WOnt they be a bit musky smelling inside the shoes. That is why i buy new shoes, for fear my shoes smell inside, even if i cant smell anything. I fear people would be able to smell my shoes even with my foot inside the shoe sometimes. Thats paranoia for you.


Disposable plastic "galoshes" as used in operating theatres may be just the ideal solution for you - no hygiene hazard whatsoever, they look nicest when new, require minimal care, and you will be able to afford a new pair of shoes every day! If you can find a supplier selling them in a buttoned boot style with subtle brogueing, make sure you post some pictures.

dE


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Brilliant!


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

VictorC said:


> Ive got a shoe horn but i dont think i know how to use it properly. I seem to find it easier to put my shoe on without the use of a shoehorn, as opposed to using the shoehorn.
> Things like how far the shoe horn has to go down the length of the shoe confuses me.


You could try Google or Youtube. There might be a video somewhere. Or perhaps there's a section on this in Andy's Encyclopedia. I personally only insert it behind the heel. You might try that and see if it works for you.


----------



## Armscye (Jan 9, 2004)

*Pre-prada Churches at age 30*

I bought a pair of burgundy Church captoes in 1978 when I arrived in Manhattan. They were resoled and fitted with Topys around 1996. They are now just about broken in, but several decades from being worn out.

Perhaps owning a large rotation helps, but there is no barrier to a lifetime of wear from a high-grade shoe properly maintained.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Armscye said:


> I bought a pair of burgundy Church captoes in 1978 when I arrived in Manhattan. They were resoled and fitted with Topys around 1996. They are now just about broken in, but several decades from being worn out.
> 
> Perhaps owning a large rotation helps, but there is no barrier to a lifetime of wear from a high-grade shoe properly maintained.


A very encouraging post for Church. I wonder if post-Prada Church are the same?

When you say no barrier to a lifetime of wear, are you saying that high-grade properly maintained shoes should last virtually for ever? Surely the constant wear on the uppers caused by flexion must cause them to give out sooner or later. I suppose the thickness and suppleness of the leather used for the upper must play a big part here as well as care.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Here's what I know. Apart from differences in the quality of calf leather say between a Loake at one end and an Edward Green at the other end other factors affect the lifespan of good shoes. Principally how the leather is dried has a great bearing on the life of the shoes. The lower end of the decent shoe market quick dry their skins in order to be able to have a great turn over and so a cheaper product, whereas Churchs , C&J etal and above have their skins naturally dried - this takes much longer. The result? Heat dried skins crack much earlier in their life than naturally dried skins. Edward Green have their skins tanned twice which they say give even greater life to their shoes. Apart from quality of stiching and so on the other factor in the lifespan is the quality of sole leather - is it slow tanned or quick tanned, oak bark tanned and if so for how long? The more often you need to resole the shorter the lifespan of the shoe - or if y ou use stick on soles the cheaper sole units will crack under foot whereas the more expensive ones will not.

These are some of the reasons a £300 shoe will last longer than a £120 shoe


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

But we live in a throwaway society. Like watches. They are so cheap people throw them aways when the battery dies.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Leather man said:


> Here's what I know. Apart from differences in the quality of calf leather say between a Loake at one end and an Edward Green...


I've always wondered what quality of leather means in terms of durability. With a leather jacket, where you are dealing with a much greater expanse of material,
the differences in leather is very striking generally in terms of softness. However the most luxurious and expensive skins do not necessarily outlast the coarser harder skins.



Leather man said:


> Heat dried skins crack much earlier in their life than naturally dried skins. Edward Green have their skins tanned twice which they say give even greater life to their shoes.


This makes sense.



Leather man said:


> ...if y ou use stick on soles the cheaper sole units will crack under foot whereas the more expensive ones will not...


I've never had a leather sole crack. I have 13 tear old cemented K shoes - a shoe of about a Clarks' quality (with a sole guard) that are in great condition.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> Hector, you may be on to something but, answers to your question may be skewed by the nature of the beast, buying the high end shoes. It would be interesting to see how many pair of shoes, those who buy high end shoes, have in rotation vs how many those who buy entry grade shoes might have in rotation. Put another way, how many times a year do each pair of shoes get worn?
> 
> I suspect, most who buy high end shoe brands also have significantly more pairs of shoes in rotation and consequently, each pair is worn less frequently. In my own case, with AE's, Alden's, Cheney's, Crockett and Jones, I also have Bass, Bostonians, Clark's, Johnson and Murphy's, and a few others. Assuming each pair gets worn with equitable frequency, each pair gets worn no more than six times per year. At that rate, neither the expensive or the cheap shoes will ever wear out. To further complicate the issue, the shoe fancier's psyche can affect the frequency of wear and consequently the rate at which a shoe wears out...as weather conditions deteriorate, the less expensive shoes are worn more, in an effort to preserve one's investment in high end shoes. I guess my answer to your question would be a qualified...probably(!) but, will we ever know for sure? In any event, thank-you for a pleasantly, thought provoking question.


As eagle says, rotation of shoes and infrequent wear will insure your shoes do last a lifetime. I also have many pairs of shoes, some are years and years old, none have ever needed a resole or even a replaced heel, so that tells you about how frequently I wear any one pair and they will last at least my lifetime.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

guitone said:


> I also have many pairs of shoes, some are years and years old, none have ever needed a resole or even a replaced heel...


The part about the heel is remarkable. You are either incredibly light on your feet or don't walk in your shoes at all!


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Hector Freemantle said:


> The part about the heel is remarkable. You are either incredibly light on your feet or don't walk in your shoes at all!


No to both, I just don't wear any of them often.....with about 25 pair I can wear a pair once a month or so.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

guitone said:


> No to both, I just don't wear any of them often.....with about 25 pair I can wear a pair once a month or so.


You still must be light on your feet. My shoes begin to shoe heel wear after very few wearings.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

My heels go down slow as well. I cant imagine them eve r wearing out completlely to the point im an inch shorter because the heels worn away so much.

BTW, doe anyone know if you can wipe the upper leather part of the shoe with anything other than water. You know sometimes you feel the top part of the shoe has been exposed to too much germs and you feel water doesnt really clean the shoe before putting shoe polish on them.
My dog has stood all over my shoes. You get my drift i think.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Try soaking them in vinegar overnight.:devil: You're joking, right?


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

VictorC said:


> My heels go down slow as well. I cant imagine them eve r wearing out completlely to the point im an inch shorter because the heels worn away so much.
> 
> BTW, doe anyone know if you can wipe the upper leather part of the shoe with anything other than water. You know sometimes you feel the top part of the shoe has been exposed to too much germs and you feel water doesnt really clean the shoe before putting shoe polish on them.
> My dog has stood all over my shoes. You get my drift i think.


Clean them with saddle soap if you are concerned and then polish.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Hector Freemantle said:


> You still must be light on your feet. My shoes begin to shoe heel wear after very few wearings.


Well at my heaviest I was about 160 pounds, right now I am 135 pounds, so that may have something to do with it as well.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

guitone said:


> Clean them with saddle soap if you are concerned and then polish.


I heard about saddle soap. What is it? Its not like a bar of soap is it? But its safe for the shoe and i can buy anywhere i guess. Never seen it before though.


----------



## comrade (May 26, 2005)

I own a pair of AE Saratogas that are probably 25 years old.
The last few years I have worn them infrequently. Nevertheless,
they are presentable without having ever been "recrafted" at
the factory. Saratogas are no longer made


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

VictorC said:


> I heard about saddle soap. What is it? Its not like a bar of soap is it? But its safe for the shoe and i can buy anywhere i guess. Never seen it before though.


Saddle soap is sold in cans like shoe polish. It is used on saddles or anything leather. I always keep some around, you can even use a spray. It will clean your leather, or you can use something from Coach called leather cleaner if you don't want something you have to add some water to in order to spread it on your leather item. I have used it off and on for years and have never seen it damage leather.

From Wikipedia, they don't love it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddle_soap

here is one type


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

VictorC said:


> Yes guitone thanks for that info. I'll stick to water for now, but will keep a look out for saddle soap when i have time.


Victor, maybe you can help me? I have a toothbrush but I can't figure out which end goes in the mouth. Or does it matter?

Man, I just know you're having a great time with this Borat-esque stuff. (And I appreciate your cleverness in doing so.)


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

well-kept said:


> Victor, maybe you can help me? I have a toothbrush but I can't figure out which end goes in the mouth. Or does it matter?
> 
> Man, I just know you're having a great time with this Borat-esque stuff. (And I appreciate your cleverness in doing so.)


No im not being like Borat as im being serious. But i have limited knowledge on style and fashion stuff. Im new to maintence, and not at all confident aboiut what is right and not right, but want to learn. Heres a good place and people answer queries no matter how insignificant they sound.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

VictorC said:


> My heels go down slow as well. I cant imagine them eve r wearing out completlely to the point im an inch shorter because the heels worn away so much.
> 
> BTW, doe anyone know if you can wipe the upper leather part of the shoe with anything other than water. You know sometimes you feel the top part of the shoe has been exposed to too much germs and you feel water doesnt really clean the shoe before putting shoe polish on them.
> My dog has stood all over my shoes. You get my drift i think.


I think the purpose of using a little water on the uppers is just to remove dirt, and not to disinfect. Shoe polish contains stuff like turpentine which probably kills a lot of germs. But you do have a point.Shoes do spend a lot of time on the ground and move promiscuously from area to area. It might be an uidea to 'glove up' prior to polishing.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

comrade said:


> I own a pair of AE Saratogas that are probably 25 years old.
> The last few years I have worn them infrequently. Nevertheless,
> they are presentable without having ever been "recrafted" at
> the factory. Saratogas are no longer made


Sounds like a very good shoe!


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> I think the purpose of using a little water on the uppers is just to remove dirt, and not to disinfect. Shoe polish contains stuff like turpentine which probably kills a lot of germs. But you do have a point.Shoes do spend a lot of time on the ground and move promiscuously from area to area. It might be an uidea to 'glove up' prior to polishing.


Oh so something like kiwi shoe polish which i use probably kills a lot of germs. THats good to hear. Than i might forget about using saddle soap which seems a bit troublesome.

BTW for shoe longevity or good looking shoes, what would people say is the biggest important thing you can do for them.
For example would you say polishing them or using shoe trees would be the single most important thing for shoes if you had the choice.?


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

VictorC said:


> For example would you say polishing them or using shoe trees would be the single most important thing for shoes if you had the choice.?


Polish.


----------



## VincentC (May 23, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Polish.


polish? I would agree. Some people dont like lines in their shoes though i hear. I dont think i mind too much about lines really as long as they are polished and clean.
But then i guess some people might prefer shoe trees to polish and just use water if they were to choose.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Yes. I'd like to quantify exactly what 'good' means in terms of characteristics that determine length of service. Had I bottomless pocket I'd certainly look at the $600 and upwards dollar shoes rather than the $200 to $400 but I do feel that I'd be paying for detail and luxury not necessarily durability.


Just in case any of the posters on this thread are still around:

The Loake shoes that I referred to 12 years ago are still in service. Surprisingly, the best of a collection of five, a Thames from the 2nd tier Shoemaker range still look new. All topyed from day one.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Just in case any of the posters on this thread are still around:
> 
> The Loake shoes that I referred to 12 years ago are still in service. Surprisingly, the best of a collection of five, a Thames from the 2nd tier Shoemaker range still look new. All topyed from day one.


Thanks for the update, though I'm not surprised. Well looked after quality tends to stick around! 👍


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> Thanks for the update, though I'm not surprised. Well looked after quality tends to stick around! 👍


But, Flanderian, were we not arguing in 2008 that high-end shoes lasted longer?


----------



## richard warren (Dec 10, 2015)

For many ordinary people, the definition of “high end”has changed. Things were once ordinary commonplace goods have become luxuries, so that high end now means sturdiness (say, Alden shoes) where it used to mean more refined or even delicate (I’m thinking of the thin soled Bally shoes I used to wear).


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Hector Freemantle said:


> But, Flanderian, were we not arguing in 2008 that high-end shoes lasted longer?


I think so, but it's often forgotten.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I haven't forgotten.

Fifteen years ago I retired from a job that called for adult clothing. Where I now live, anything beyond Levi's and a work shirt is dressy. Nonetheless, weather permitting, I routinely wear leather dress shoes with Levi's and a chambray or flannel work shirt.

My first pair of Edward Green captoe oxfords in a light brown calf, after being resoled twice, is still part of the rotation. They look good and fit exceptionally well. They are at least 25 years old. I like them a lot, so I wear them more often than my other 15 or so pairs of adult shoes. They will probably outlast me.

Durability and value aside, wearing properly fitting, good looking leather shoes gives one much pleasure, and while a minor luxury, it is not ostentatious. It might be thought of as a perk that goes with having an office job.

Regards,
Gurdon



Flanderian said:


> I think so, but it's often forgotten.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> I haven't forgotten.
> 
> Fifteen years ago I retired from a job that called for adult clothing. Where I now live, anything beyond Levi's and a work shirt is dressy. Nonetheless, weather permitting, I routinely wear leather dress shoes with Levi's and a chambray or flannel work shirt.
> 
> ...


Minor luxury. Spot on!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I have 45+ year old Allen Edmonds and 25+ year old Aldens still in rotation and on my shoe racks. Clearly the shoes are going to outlast me, so my response to the question asked at the beginning of this thread is...apparently forever!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> I have 45+ year old Allen Edmonds and 25+ year old Aldens still in rotation and on my shoe racks. Clearly the shoes are going to outlast me, so my response to the question asked at the beginning of this thread is...apparently forever!


My oldest pair is a pair of 35 year-old Church's.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

It's kinda hard to argue how long my 20+ year old Aldens have really lasted as, by the '90s, when I was buying the better shoes, etc., I was fortunate enough to be able to own several pairs of shoes, so none got worn everyday or every other day. 

To be sure, the Aldens have held up really well, but again, saying a number years - in my case - doesn't reflect how hard or easy those years were on the shoes. 

To that point, I bought a pair of Florsheim Imperials in 1986 - my first quality dress shoe - for the insanely expensive amount of ~$120 (same as Alden at the time, wish I had bought an Alden). 

I wore those shoes every day for five or more years (no rotating, as I had nothing to rotate them with) and then, every other day for probably about five more. After that, they were worn a few times a week and, in later years, they became the "bad weather" shoe, so they took an even further beating. 

All that, and with pretty good care - shoe trees, regular shines, sole/heals replaced when needed - they hung in for about 25 years, but were shot by then. The stitching was coming undone everywhere, the leather was wearing away and the inside was literally disintegrating (I did have the inside fixed up a bit a few times) and I finally had to say goodbye. 

But kudos to Florsheim, I got way more than my $125 worth out of those shoes.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

The more pairs of high end shoes you own, the more "rotation" you'll have, and the longer they'll last.

So the spirit of thrift is best served by owning many, many pairs of high-end shoes.

Feel free to use this logic to explain purchases to spouses, etc.

In service,
DH


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> The more pairs of high end shoes you own, the more "rotation" you'll have, and the longer they'll last.
> 
> So the spirit of thrift is best served by owning many, many pairs of high-end shoes.
> 
> ...


Ahh . . . I've got it! :idea:
The more you spend, the more you save! :happy:
That's my kind of reasoning! :beer:


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

There are "Higher end" and "High End" shoes,.....They can all be made to last for years with proper care.

But, I have several pairs that are 25-30 years old. A pair of Florsheim Imperial, model 97625, from about 1993 that *Nick Valenti from B. Nelson *has resoled two times. If you are familiar with these soles you can appreciate what that means.

They look far better than new.

This is a great site for learning about higher end American made Florsheim shoes.

https://vcleat.com/
here's some examples. (Not mine but very close to the same look)







(Image: VCleat)


----------



## damon54 (Dec 12, 2007)

Most important thing for extending the lifespan of a shoe is regimented use of shoe trees.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

damon54 said:


> Most important thing for extending the lifespan of a shoe is regimented use of shoe trees.


To the disciplined, regular use of shoe trees I would add not making a practice of wearing the shoes on consecutive days. Allow your shoes to rest at least a day and preferably two days between wearings!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> To the disciplined, regular use of shoe trees I would add not making a practice of wearing the shoes on consecutive days. Allow your shoes to rest at least a day and preferably two days between wearings!


Very important! 👍

And while I'm sure a couple days is adequate, I personally have settled on the number 3.


----------

