# Custom grade... Quality?



## The Louche (Jan 30, 2008)

Will someone please set me straight on corrected grain leather? I was always under the impression that corrected grain was inherently of a lower quality than calf; that the reason it was "corrected" in the first place was due to it's lower quality and aesthetic shortcomings. Most of the corrected grain shoes that I see seem to bolster this appraisal as well; cheap looking, cheaply made department store specials.

How come I saw some Church's "Custom Grade" loafers at Nordstrom the other day that were clearly corrected grain, then? The shoes were a full-strap penny (I believe). I must say they looked to be well constructed and were good looking shoes. But they were definitely corrected grain. And the original MSRP was $675. For that kind of money I've seen gorgeous calf and shell cord shoes - what gives with the pricey cheap stuff?

Louche


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

This is from The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes, Shoe Chapter (you, of course, have a copy, yes?):
*Categories of Leather by Quality*

There are different grades of leather and the quality of footwear depends utmost on the quality of its leather: 

TOP or FULL GRAIN refers to the top or hair side of the skin. It has a smooth grain, is soft, and easily absorbs dyes. Look for small pores.

CORRECTED Leather is top grain, but damaged and thus lower quality. 

SPLIT Leather is the part under the top grain (everything but the top half of the leather). These are used for suede, embossed or coated footwear finishes to disguise the lack of grain. 

BONDED Leather is the particleboard of leather. It is made from chopped leather bonded with glue. ​*jcusey's* Tutorial on Shoes is very informative:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/Tutorials/JCuseyOnShoes.htm


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

The Louche said:


> Will someone please set me straight on corrected grain leather? I was always under the impression that corrected grain was inherently of a lower quality than calf; that the reason it was "corrected" in the first place was due to it's lower quality and aesthetic shortcomings. Most of the corrected grain shoes that I see seem to bolster this appraisal as well; cheap looking, cheaply made department store specials.
> 
> How come I saw some Church's "Custom Grade" loafers at Nordstrom the other day that were clearly corrected grain, then? The shoes were a full-strap penny (I believe). I must say they looked to be well constructed and were good looking shoes. But they were definitely corrected grain. And the original MSRP was $675. For that kind of money I've seen gorgeous calf and shell cord shoes - what gives with the pricey cheap stuff?
> 
> Louche


I have looked into this extensively and posted in former posts on this subject.

In short - you are right about corrected grain leather being a means to utilise lower grade leather which will have growth marks on it - therefore the top grain is taken off - usually by friction methods and then a polymer coating of some description is adhered to the leather. On cheaper shoes - like Loake and Barker ( normal range) it looks terrible after one or two wearings.

Church's corrected grain leather - called "Polished Binder" is produced for a very different reason. The leather is calf leather but is from older animals than their full grain calf - therefore, yes not as costly to Church's. However the reason for them producing Polished leather is for the look not to hide anything. Their corrected grain leather does not crease horribly like cheaper ones and lasts much longer.

I have spoken to Church's leather buyer about this as well as three retailers who also sell several other makes includling C&J - so they are not just defending Church's.

I am told that the reason Church' shoes using Polished Binder cost as much as their full grain calf offerings is that the leather is not that much cheaper and much of the cost of manufacture is labour.

My own experience with Polished Binder is that it does not last as long as their full grain leather - the lighter colours especially scuff in a way that cannot be polished out and the coating can rub off if knocked on an abrasive surface. If you do buy it , go for black or burgundy - my two penn'orth anyway!


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

^^ +1 on what Leather Man has said.

I've had two pairs of Polished binder shoes from Church's. A pair of Shannon's which I wore to death, literally battered they were, factory repaired three times before they started to look shabby, that's some serious wear for that shoe.

And a pair of Legate, which are still going strong after 16 years. When I get chance I'll take some pics.


----------



## smr (Apr 24, 2005)

I have gotten a minimum of 3 resolings from all the Church's Polished Binder (once called Book Binder) leather shoes I have had and as many as 4 (and I'm still wearing these shoes after 18 years or so, so they may take additional resolings). While I understand all the benefits of full grain leather over corrected grain leather (thanks in large part to posts by JCusey and Bengal Stripe), in the case of Church's corrected grain leather, I like the look, and the quality seems high. 

$675 at retail, though?! Ouch! Wish Church's still had their outlet store here in the USA; those were the good ole days!


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Leather man said:


> My own experience with Polished Binder is that it does not last as long as their full grain leather - the lighter colours especially scuff in a way that cannot be polished out and the coating can rub off if knocked on an abrasive surface. If you do buy it , go for black or burgundy - my two penn'orth anyway!


LM, very informative post - thank you! It's a subject in which I am really interested.

As an owner of two pairs of Church's polished binder, I can testify to Leather man's view of the quality of it. It's a good leather and not like other corrected grains.

I can also sympathise with the scuffing theory - I've got two deep scuffs on them that no other shoe of mine does. That could, of course, be my fault, and the shoes are faultless otherwise after many years of wear. As a result, I couldn't say that "it does not last as long"... in fact, one of the benefits of corrected grain is its weather-resistance, like cordovan, and so, in a way, they are more durable and longer lasting than other shoes.

Groover, I also have the Shannon - a great shoe IMO.


----------



## The Saint (Apr 28, 2007)

Scotch grain leather is also corrected grain, but it lasts as long, if not longer than most other leathers. Corrected grain shoes or boots are not necessarily bad, but if they have a high gloss finish they are almost certainly of inferior quality.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rossini said:


> LM, very informative post - thank you! It's a subject in which I am really interested.
> 
> As an owner of two pairs of Church's polished binder, I can testify to Leather man's view of the quality of it. It's a good leather and not like other corrected grains.
> 
> ...


Thank you Rossini for your input too!

My reason for raising the longevity question is simply that I had a pair of brown Shannons that recently died - they were not far off 10 years old and had had massive wear but I was still disappointed. I scuffed them on a hard surface and some of the coating ( Church's say its wax not polymer) came off. I could not add any colour to the leather underneath, it wouldn't take it and the shoes looked done for. However I also have Shannons in black, burgundy and sandlewood - the latter being new. The black are nearly as old as the brown and nearly as well worn and they show no signs at all of wear to the uppers - I can easily believe these will go on for 20 years at least - so lets hoping the others will too.

Like you, I am a great fan of the Shannon shoe.


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

*Corrected Binder etc*

I saw a pair of those beautiful de Tomasso shoes in Sydney the other day on sale then got a big surprise - corrected grain. We have to be careful because if binder is not discouraged it will become an epidemic IMHO... I bought a pair of old Nettletons on eBay and I am sure they are even binder...


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Groover said:


> ^^ +1 on what Leather Man has said.
> 
> I've had two pairs of Polished binder shoes from Church's. A pair of Shannon's which I wore to death, literally battered they were, factory repaired three times before they started to look shabby, that's some serious wear for that shoe.
> 
> And a pair of Legate, which are still going strong after 16 years. When I get chance I'll take some pics.


Pics would be good! It would be rather nice to see more pics of well worn shoes to see the effects of age and wear on various makes. So, I'm looking forward to them:icon_smile:


----------



## Modernist (Oct 17, 2006)

How is top/full grain discernible from corrected grain/polished binder with respect to Custom Grade Church's?


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Polished Binder is much shinier and smoother. It is obvious when you see it.

I was speaking to a friend who has three pairs of Church's Polished Binder shoes. He says he's had them for many years and never had a problem with them - one pair is 20 years old and has been through three rebuilds. His care tips for these shoes is that they need to have shoe trees left in them permenantly even more than full grain calf shoes. This, he says stops the top surface gaining surface cracks over the years . He also swears by using shoe cream rather than wax paste with them. I cannot see this last tip makes any difference, but he is adamant, so I am going to take his advice.

Anyway I thought I would pass on his advice to others like me who don't mind a bit of Polished Binder in our shoe collections!:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

It's hard to see how cream would penetrate the surface. I have always thought the layers of wax applied at the factory to create the polished finish were pretty much impermeable.

I agree about the shoe trees. I had a pair of polished binder that lasted 3 re-soles before they were too tatty to warrant further repairs. The polished binder currently in my rotation appears to be holding up just as well on a diet of occasional wax polish only & shoe trees.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

jjl5000 said:


> It's hard to see how cream would penetrate the surface. I have always thought the layers of wax applied at the factory to create the polished finish were pretty much impermeable.
> 
> I agree about the shoe trees. I had a pair of polished binder that lasted 3 re-soles before they were too tatty to warrant further repairs. The polished binder currently in my rotation appears to be holding up just as well on a diet of occasional wax polish only & shoe trees.


I agree with you about the cream - I cannot see how any polish can penetrate the surface. I did talk to the factory shop about the merits of polishing Polished Binder at all - why not wipe clean only? The manager said that we should use polish because Polished Binder shoes that come in having never been polished are cracked up and in a bad way compared to PB shoes that have been carefully polished. Even she didn't know why but assumed it must keep the wax surface supple.

The trees I can understand because any hard finish like that is prone to cracking over time - the trees left in all the time will of course stretch out the vamps and prevent that happening.

What I am encouraged by is that the general experience of Church's PB is that it is long lasting. You even see pics on ebay of shoes that are clearly very old models - from the names and the box they come with that are still in good nick.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

One point of Polished Binder is the the shoes are waterproof, like cordovan - and, also like cordovan, they don't need polishing - just a wipe over now and again.


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

These are my oldest PBs in rotation. They have seen several years of service and are close to needing their first resole:


























It would be interesting if others could post pics of older shoes to compare any evidential deterioration.

Whilst this particular discussion is interesting, the Church's PB bashing (which has thankfully died down) is frankly tiresome. I have it because I wanted the hi-shine finish in my rotation. If you don't like it, chose the full grain version which I also have.

If one wants a hi-shine finish but is not prepared to compromise on all other aspects of construction & finishing, I find Church's PB to be a sound choice. It is not a comparable product to the plethora of Loake / Barker corrected grain offerings with which I have had some experience over the years.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rich said:


> One point of Polished Binder is the the shoes are waterproof, like cordovan - and, also like cordovan, they don't need polishing - just a wipe over now and again.


And yet Church's factory shop say they do notice a big difference between PB shoes that have not been polished and those that have.

jjl - as I've said before, those shoes look lovely - and wearing well. I think y our point about the world of difference between Church's PB and polished leathers from lesser makers is often not understood. I think your Legates? make the point - thank you.

I would add that some shoes like Shannon would look boring in full grain calf, especially black Shannons - I imagine they would look like policeman's shoes in a dull leather but the PB really brings them to life - due to the Shannon being a large plain fronted derby.


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Leather man said:


> ...I think your point about the world of difference between Church's PB and polished leathers from lesser makers is often not understood...


Thanks LM; you have put it far more succinctly than I. I was trying hard not to rant.

I have to add that in recent months, I have been drawn towards a number of new Church's styles & lasts. I feel something of a renaissance for the brand (or am I on my own? :icon_smile_big


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

jjl5000 said:


> Thanks LM; you have put it far more succinctly than I. I was trying hard not to rant.
> 
> I have to add that in recent months, I have been drawn towards a number of new Church's styles & lasts. I feel something of a renaissance for the brand (or am I on my own? :icon_smile_big


Probably :icon_smile_big:

I think I'll join you in that lonely place :icon_smile_big: They do seem to be producing some very nice stuff these days :icon_smile: I would just really like confirmation that the new 116 last shoes at £335 a pair are closed channel soles and not glued on soles - Edwards couldn't tell me. I think I might ring Church's :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Leather man said:


> Probably :icon_smile_big:
> 
> I think I'll join you in that lonely place :icon_smile_big: They do seem to be producing some very nice stuff these days :icon_smile: I would just really like confirmation that the new 116 last shoes at £335 a pair are closed channel soles and not glued on soles - Edwards couldn't tell me. I think I might ring Church's :icon_smile_wink:


 Glued?

I'm surprised Edwards can't confirm by way of visible stitching on top of the welt. Assuming there are no visible stitches and no evidence of a fine cut where blind stitching may be seated, we could be in trouble 

Confirmation is certainly required and I retain the right to retract all previous positive comments pending the outcome :icon_pale::icon_smile_big:


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

*My Legates*

As promised here are my Church's Legate.

Originally bought in 1993, still on the original soles and still going strong.

https://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00471ot2.jpg

https://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00477ke0.jpg

https://img391.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00472zc3.jpg

https://img161.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00475ad3.jpg

https://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00473gu7.jpg

https://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00474sq9.jpg


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Leather man said:


> I am told that the reason Church' shoes using Polished Binder cost as much as their full grain calf offerings is that the leather is not that much cheaper and much of the cost of manufacture is labour.


I'll buy that Church's offers the leather for its aesthetic qualities -- lots of people like the super-shiny effect of corrected grain, after all, so I don't doubt there's a market for it. (Show many folks CG and better-quality leather, and I imagine many will point to the shiny CG as the superior shoe.) And I'd accept that Church's CG is better quality than most. But I find it hard to buy the "cost of labor" explanation. That, to me, rings of marketing hype. For every other company, correcting leather is a way to cut costs, and cut costs dramatically. Yet Church's, alone in the world, has developed an expensive method that drives up the production cost to equal that of first-quality leather? Until they offer up some specifics, I'll remain a skeptic. I don't doubt they're buying better leather for correction, but still, there has to be a significant cost savings there.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with liking Church's, or liking the PB. As jjl said, it's just an option, and everyone has to decide for themselves whether such shoes are worth the pricetag.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Groover said:


> As promised here are my Church's Legate.
> 
> Originally bought in 1993, still on the original soles and still going strong.
> 
> ...


Really interesting pictures Groover. Sometimes I think pics of old shoes are better than of new ones because they show how shoes wear and age. Although they cannot have had heavy wear if they are on their original soles the PB leather has held up very well and no signs of cracking. I also notice the linen linings - which backs up what others have said in the past that pre Prada Church's had linen linings as much if not more than Prada owned Church's shoes. In fact my dad's Church's shoes which are now 40 plus years old all have linen linings bar two pairs.

I do agree with the Doc that at the end of the day whether we buy Church's PB leather is down to personal decision - some go for it and some believe it is not worth the money. In my collection the number of PB shoes are very much in the minority but I like it on the ones I have - mainly heavy weight shoes - Shannon, Burwood, and two pairs of Grafton ( my 10 or so other pairs of Graftons are full grain calf or Crup and one pair in Appaloosa calf).

Maybe we should start a " worn shoe thread" like someone has started on Style Forum? What do you think?


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Hi LM

They've not had consistent wear over the years hence them still being on the original soles. In fact they were only worn once in 10 years between 95-05 due to not having a suitable occasion to wear them to: I purchased them for evening dress wear (suited and booted events) and didn't go to many. 

I wore them for the first time in that 10 year period for my wedding, all day from 9 until 3am the following morning, not a single moment of being of uncomfortable (apart from speeches etc but that's another story :icon_smile_big: ). So much so that my wife couldn't believe my feet didn't hurt.

I guess the moral of the story is that once a last fits you, it's with you always. The last in question is of course Church's 73 last.

With regard to pics of worn shoes, let's go for it. Most of my tiny collection (compared to yours) is relatively new, C&J Handgrades, Cheaneys etc but still interesting to see how they hold up to the daily rigours.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

jjl5000 said:


> Glued?
> 
> I'm surprised Edwards can't confirm by way of visible stitching on top of the welt. Assuming there are no visible stitches and no evidence of a fine cut where blind stitching may be seated, we could be in trouble
> 
> Confirmation is certainly required and I retain the right to retract all previous positive comments pending the outcome :icon_pale::icon_smile_big:


I have contacted Church's and asked the question jjl - I am now awaiting the answer! When I get it I will post.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Groover said:


> Hi LM
> 
> They've not had consistent wear over the years hence them still being on the original soles. In fact they were only worn once in 10 years between 95-05 due to not having a suitable occasion to wear them to: I purchased them for evening dress wear (suited and booted events) and didn't go to any.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the interesting info :icon_smile:

I think any collection however small of good shoes is worthy of note , from what I've seen you've got much to be proud of.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

Leather man said:


> I would just really like confirmation that the new 116 last shoes at £335 a pair are closed channel soles and not glued on soles - Edwards couldn't tell me. I think I might ring Church's :icon_smile_wink:


116 last? Is that new LM? If so I'd like to see what it looks like....if only Church's website was running....channel soles also...hmmm

(Note to oneself: get the the 1001 reasons for buying shoes book ready for the wife :icon_smile_big


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Leather man said:


> I have contacted Church's and asked the question jjl - I am now awaiting the answer! When I get it I will post.


Thanks LM.



Groover said:


> 116 last? Is that new LM? If so I'd like to see what it looks like....if only Church's website was running....channel soles also...hmmm
> 
> (Note to oneself: get the the 1001 reasons for buying shoes book ready for the wife :icon_smile_big


----------



## spectre (May 12, 2007)

What about pebble grain - how is that produced? Is it better wear-wise or not? Thanks.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

spectre said:


> What about pebble grain - how is that produced? Is it better wear-wise or not? Thanks.


Pebble grain is embossed. Usually lesser leathers are used for its manufacture.


----------



## spectre (May 12, 2007)

Thanks Doc - interesting.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

jjl5000 said:


>


Thanks jjl5000, those look very nice indeed.


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

I hasten to add they are not my shoes, just pics off ebay. I shall be surprised and disappointed if they're not Goodyear welted, especially at their price point.

Assuming they are welted, I going to get myself to a Chuch's store ASAP. I am lovin' the 116 :aportnoy:


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

jjl5000 said:


> I hasten to add they are not my shoes, just pics off ebay. I shall be surprised and disappointed if they're not Goodyear welted, especially at their price point.
> 
> Assuming they are welted, I going to get myself to a Chuch's store ASAP. I am lovin' the 116 :aportnoy:


OK here goes! Church's, God bless 'em, rang me today to answer my query. Full marks to them for that when so many companies do not fulfill their promise to get back to you.

The news is good gentlemen:aportnoy: The 116 last shoes are indeed Goodyear welted and have closed channel soles. The reason why it is hard to see the stiching on top of the welt is that they what is called " flat ridged" - never heard of it before but Church's are offering this on the 116 last.

I'd say it sounds like a lot of finishing has gone into this range and there's some lovely stuff on this last. I say a lovely plain fronted derby in it on ebay yesterday, not my size sadly.

So jjl and Groover - I'd say go for it and you will not be disappointed. The only down side is that the soles are not oak bark tanned but nevertheless slow tanned and high quality and so Church's claim should wear very well.

I know it doesn't last but the soles are beautifully painted aren't they:icon_smile:


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Many thanks LM.

I'm not surprised they came back to you. You are after all, the Andrew Portnoy of Church's :icon_smile_big:

Thank you for updating us. I can't wait to inspect a pair in person. Whilst I've always felt Church's were very well made (particularly the finishing), it has been a while since I felt positively enthused about a pair.

I think I will probably take a trip to London in the next few weeks to visit the Church's store on Jermyn St. (never been before). I am assuming they will have the largest selection and I can collect my EG sale shoes on the way!


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

I will be in London on Monday, JJL, and if you are a 9.5E perhaps I can swing by EG and collect them for you?! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## jjl5000 (May 14, 2006)

Rossini said:


> I will be in London on Monday, JJL, and if you are a 9.5E perhaps I can swing by EG and collect them for you?! :icon_smile_big:


Close Rossini, 9 / 9.5F (most of the time) :icon_smile_wink:

So good of you to think of me though :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Foiled again!


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

jjl5000 said:


> Many thanks LM.
> 
> I'm not surprised they came back to you. You are after all, the Andrew Portnoy of Church's :icon_smile_big:
> 
> ...


:icon_smile_big: Flattery will get you everywhere!

If I had the money I'd be the Andrew Portnoy of Edward Green too - and then move on the Vass and then buy a bigger house !!:icon_smile_big:

I must admit having found out what I have about the 116 last shoes they have become very tempting! There's some lovely ones on ebay at the moment - I quite like the canvass and suede ones - heck I like them all! What gave me second thoughts however when I saw them at Edwards was the pointy toe - but then I once thought the 108 last was too pointy but now having got used to it think it is one of Church's most attractive lasts.


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Rossini said:


> Foiled again!


Its your kindness - Rossini you really do go beyond the call of duty :icon_smile_big:


----------

