# The Shoe Tree Myth



## Aussie

Are shoe trees really that important? 

I understand that damp sweaty leather ideally needs to dry with a form to keep it's shape, but after it has dried, what good does the shoe tree confer?

A few observations:

Shoe makers without exception DO NOT store new shoes on trees! If this practise is harmful why on earth does the shoe industry subject it's own products to abuse?

Local cobblers here in Australia DO NOT user trees fro their clients shoes.. In fact, my cobbler hands back my tees when I drop off my shoes for repair! All shoes in his shop are un-treed!

Here in Australia, RM Williams does not sell or rcommend shoe trees.. In fact I think RM himself would roll over in his grave at the thought of his fine leather work boots being treated like dress shoes!

For the record I own several pairs of shoe trees, and I use them while my dress shoes are drying out after use.. I NEVER use trees on my work boots, I just keep them reasonably clean and conditioned..

I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject, but please support what you say with facts.. and no ad hominems!


----------



## Flanderian

Aussie said:


> Are shoe trees really that important?


Why, yes, yes they are.

Perhaps shoemakers don't store new shoes on trees because they've not yet been worn.

The need of trees to aid drying has been argued to death without resolve, but is really irrelevant. The purpose of trees is to help shoes (or boots) regain and retain their shape after wear. Having spent 20 years not doing so, and 30 years using them, I can only say there is a world of difference in the appearance and longevity of shoes that have benefited from the proper use of good wood trees.


----------



## Matt S

Aussie said:


> Local cobblers here in Australia DO NOT user trees fro their clients shoes.. In fact, my cobbler hands back my tees when I drop off my shoes for repair! All shoes in his shop are un-treed!


The most logical explanation for this is that he doesn't want to deal with shoe trees. They could easily be misplaced and it takes extra time for him to remove and re-insert them. Do you give your suits to the cleaners with your good hangers? I should think not.

I think it's true that after the shoes dry the trees don't do much. It's probably okay to remove them after a few days. But I'm not sure, and I do have a pair of trees for every pair of shoes. The only other time when trees are necessary is for travelling.


----------



## Regillus

I got shoe trees for my BB Bluchers after members on AAAC said to use them. I almost immediately noticed the beneficial effect. The shoes do crease noticeably less when shoe trees are used. So they go in every night. Based on my past experience with shoes; the shoe trees clearly help improve the appearance of the shoes. I never used shoe trees before coming to AAAC, and I recall how creased and crinkly my shoes looked after a few years. I only use shoe trees on my dress shoes. My army boots don't have trees since appearance is not a priority for boots intended for walking in terrible weather and for doing light construction work.


----------



## Bjorn

It aids the shoe in getting back to shape. Also, most shoe trees of quality use wood (cedar etc) that have antibacterial properties. Cedar wood oil kills germs, and smells good. This makes sure that your feet don't smell and stay healthy. 

Sprays and other products are not as good.


----------



## eagle2250

The OP does present a valid point. A shoe tree does it's primary work, aiding in the drying and maintaining the shap of our shoes, in the first hours/days after insertion in the shoes we have just worn. Removing shoe trees at that point and storing them without trees will not result in harm to your shoes...other than that caused by an errant grandchild playing dress-up in Papa's shoes and perhaps scuffing them. Oddly the little critters never mess with the currently Treed shoes! :crazy:


----------



## Pliny

Happy to do anything I can to preserve $1kplus kicks, but apart from mitigating the creasing, which is particularly important for cordovan, shoes look 1000 per cent better sitting in trees. Maybe u don't have that kind of relationship with yo shoes :devil: but if u don't like em it's not the end of the world.


----------



## CAG

If someone were brave enough, I think a telling experiment would be to always tree the right shoe, and never the left, of a decent pair of shoes. Wear them twice a week for 6 months, and then photo the results.


----------



## Andy

I'm not sure why Australians haven't learned the benefits of shoe trees! Laziness, ignorance or maybe just odd third world cultural practices! :icon_smile:

Cedar shoetrees should be used to maintain shape, absorb moisture and leave a clean scent in all your shoes. Put the shoetrees in your shoes the minute you take them off while they are warm and moist.

Not sure why you're letting the shoes dry out before using the trees (this might be the problem).

Leaving the shoetrees in the shoes is helpful when you clean and polish them.

*Benefits of Shoe Trees

*Longevity - protect the leather, fabric, stitching and soles from moisture damage. Cedar wicking action absorbs moisture, acid and salts thus reducing cracking and deterioration (rot).

Comfort -- shoetrees smooth out lining and insoles making them more comfortable longer

Appearance - trees can smooth out creases and wrinkles that appear
​


----------



## PTB in San Diego

Responding mostly out of instinct rather than hard data:

-- Shoes that have been worn have been bent by the bending motion of the foot. Trees help them to return to their original shape.

-- Trees are more important for hard and highly-polished leather than for soft or oil-tanned (is that the right term?) leather. Hard, highly-polished leather which is used in dressy shoes will slowly start to crack at the folds which form above the fore-foot, as a result of the bending motion of the foot, but if the leather is stored on trees, so that the folds relax flat, the leather not crack, or will crack much more slowly. I regret that I know this from experience. It can take years for this to happen, but good shoes can last for many years. 

-- Some shoes start to bend completely, so that the toes lift off the ground when stored. Trees return the shoes to their original shape. This might apply more to lower-quality shoes than to higher-quality shoes. 

-- As you acknolwedged, trees are helpful in maintaining the shape of shoes which have become sweaty or wet.


----------



## mrp

PTB in San Diego said:


> Responding mostly out of instinct rather than hard data:
> 
> -- Shoes that have been worn have been bent by the bending motion of the foot. Trees help them to return to their original shape.
> 
> -- Trees are more important for hard and highly-polished leather than for soft or oil-tanned (is that the right term?) leather. Hard, highly-polished leather which is used in dressy shoes will slowly start to crack at the folds which form above the fore-foot, as a result of the bending motion of the foot, but if the leather is stored on trees, so that the folds relax flat, the leather not crack, or will crack much more slowly. I regret that I know this from experience. It can take years for this to happen, but good shoes can last for many years.
> 
> -- Some shoes start to bend completely, so that the toes lift off the ground when stored. Trees return the shoes to their original shape. This might apply more to lower-quality shoes than to higher-quality shoes.
> 
> -- As you acknolwedged, trees are helpful in maintaining the shape of shoes which have become sweaty or wet.


Well stated as were the other posts.
The shoes also make it easier to clean and maintain the leather of the shoe by returning it a flat smooth state.


----------



## Flanderian

eagle2250 said:


> A shoe tree does it's primary work, aiding in the drying and maintaining the shap of our shoes, in the first hours/days after insertion in the shoes we have just worn.


Trial and error (Otherwise known as carelessness.) has shown that significant diminishing returns begins after about 2 days.


----------



## Angeland

*Some hard if anecdotal data*

I relegated an old pair of Dr Martens shoes to the garden shed, and I have worn them for work outside for about a year.

Without shoe trees, they have gone from a UK size 12 to a UK 11 in that time.

These are not great shoes to begin with, and I ride them hard, but they are now approaching unwearable. The shoe has shrunk and reshaped itself to that extent.

I am not going to put shoe trees in the garden shed, for that would be absurd.

I will, however, continue to store all the shoes I care about with trees.


----------



## Salvatore123

*Although I have EVERY shoe I own (either John Lobbs or Alden Cordovans) fitted with shoe trees . . .*

I have always wondered about the following:

1. Shoe trees have usually been "pushed" primarily for their "drying power" that comes with one wearing a shoe all day long and the leather absorbing the perspiration from one's feet.

2. The second most "advanced" benefit of shoe trees is their ability to keep a shoe "straight" or "stretched" so that any creases put into the shoe with a day's use will be reduced than if left alone.

Given these two primary purposes, why, then, do the most reputable shoe makers in the world (such as Lobb):

A. Sell trees that are of a "standard" make for a particular size, but do NOT conform to the effect one's foot has on being in a leather shoe all day long (that is, "molding" the shoe to the contours of one's foot)?

B. Use wood that is more often than not, NOT a type of wood that readily absorbs moisture (such as cedar)?

The trees I buy for my Lobbs come directly from Lobb (and I pay extra for them), yet they are made of a smooth wood that is shined, and they do NOT absorb much, if any moisture (the "varnish" or other coating prevents absorbtion). And this is NOT just a "Lobb thing" - I see a great many other well known shoe makers who do not use cedar.

If one is fitted properly for a shoe (that is, fitted as best one can be without buying bespoke shoes), doesn't a shoe tree that stretches out the shoe after a day's wear "remove" any semblence of molding to the contours of one's foot that begins with the very first wearing?

It seems to me, the ideal (although definitely not the most practical or least expensive), is a shoe tree made of a wood that absorbs moisture and is fitted to the shoe rather than just a general, production line tree that is made for every shoe in that particular size.

I apologize if I mistated the primary purposes or if my observations are inaccurate (and I will nonetheless still tree my shoes with trees from Kirby Allison).


----------



## DG123

To your "A" question, shoe trees are not as broad as a human foot. Consequently, any shaping done by the foot will not be disrupted by the more slender shoe tree.

To your "B" question, where cedar trees are prevalent, such as the USA, cedar is used for the production of shoe trees.



Salvatore123 said:


> I have always wondered about the following:
> 
> 1. Shoe trees have usually been "pushed" primarily for their "drying power" that comes with one wearing a shoe all day long and the leather absorbing the perspiration from one's feet.
> 
> 2. The second most "advanced" benefit of shoe trees is their ability to keep a shoe "straight" or "stretched" so that any creases put into the shoe with a day's use will be reduced than if left alone.
> 
> Given these two primary purposes, why, then, do the most reputable shoe makers in the world (such as Lobb):
> 
> A. Sell trees that are of a "standard" make for a particular size, but do NOT conform to the effect one's foot has on being in a leather shoe all day long (that is, "molding" the shoe to the contours of one's foot)?
> 
> B. Use wood that is more often than not, NOT a type of wood that readily absorbs moisture (such as cedar)?
> 
> The trees I buy for my Lobbs come directly from Lobb (and I pay extra for them), yet they are made of a smooth wood that is shined, and they do NOT absorb much, if any moisture (the "varnish" or other coating prevents absorbtion). And this is NOT just a "Lobb thing" - I see a great many other well known shoe makers who do not use cedar.
> 
> If one is fitted properly for a shoe (that is, fitted as best one can be without buying bespoke shoes), doesn't a shoe tree that stretches out the shoe after a day's wear "remove" any semblence of molding to the contours of one's foot that begins with the very first wearing?
> 
> It seems to me, the ideal (although definitely not the most practical or least expensive), is a shoe tree made of a wood that absorbs moisture and is fitted to the shoe rather than just a general, production line tree that is made for every shoe in that particular size.
> 
> I apologize if I mistated the primary purposes or if my observations are inaccurate (and I will nonetheless still tree my shoes with trees from Kirby Allison).


----------



## Mute

In both of the cases you listed the shoe has either never been worn or won't be worn for the duration it is with the cobbler, so why would he need the shoe tree. Try some trees and see if you don't see any difference over time between the shoes you put trees on and those that don't.


----------



## Aussie

Flanderian said:


> Why, yes, yes they are.
> 
> Perhaps shoemakers don't store new shoes on trees because they've not yet been worn.
> 
> The need of trees to aid drying has been argued to death without resolve, but is really irrelevant. The purpose of trees is to help shoes (or boots) regain and retain their shape after wear. Having spent 20 years not doing so, and 30 years using them, I can only say there is a world of difference in the appearance and longevity of shoes that have benefited from the proper use of good wood trees.


-I acknowledge trees are of obvious benefit for a day or two while the shoes dry. After that, I'm NOT convinced there is ANY benefit to the continued use of shoe trees for dry, properly stored shoes..



Regillus said:


> I got shoe trees for my BB Bluchers after members on AAAC said to use them. I almost immediately noticed the beneficial effect. The shoes do crease noticeably less when shoe trees are used. So they go in every night. Based on my past experience with shoes; the shoe trees clearly help improve the appearance of the shoes. I never used shoe trees before coming to AAAC, and I recall how creased and crinkly my shoes looked after a few years. I only use shoe trees on my dress shoes. My army boots don't have trees since appearance is not a priority for boots intended for walking in terrible weather and for doing light construction work.


You are missing my point entirely. I am not suggesting one should NEVER use trees; I am questioning the need to store every single pair of shoes on trees at all times! I suspect you would get the same results had you tree'd your shoes for 2 days or so, then removed the trees!

So far no case has been made to support the CONSTANT use of trees on dry, properly stored shoes! The only notable excerption would be for travel and/or shipping; to protect the shoes in transit..



Bjorn said:


> It aids the shoe in getting back to shape. Also, most shoe trees of quality use wood (cedar etc) that have antibacterial properties. Cedar wood oil kills germs, and smells good. This makes sure that your feet don't smell and stay healthy.
> 
> Sprays and other products are not as good.


I agree when the shoe is WET, but after the shoe has dried?? Really? I have serious doubts! After the shoe has dried the tree is doing very little..



eagle2250 said:


> The OP does present a valid point. A shoe tree does it's primary work, aiding in the drying and maintaining the shap of our shoes, in the first hours/days after insertion in the shoes we have just worn. Removing shoe trees at that point and storing them without trees will not result in harm to your shoes...other than that caused by an errant grandchild playing dress-up in Papa's shoes and perhaps scuffing them. Oddly the little critters never mess with the currently Treed shoes! :crazy:


YES -- You get what I am trying to say here!

This is my point! So far nobody has made a convincing case against having a few pairs of trees and just roatating them through your shoes as you wear them..



CAG said:


> If someone were brave enough, I think a telling experiment would be to always tree the right shoe, and never the left, of a decent pair of shoes. Wear them twice a week for 6 months, and then photo the results.


Almost -- one shoe tree'd for 2-3 days; the other constantly tree'd.. I bet there would be no real difference..



Andy said:


> I'm not sure why Australians haven't learned the benefits of shoe trees! Laziness, ignorance or maybe just odd third world cultural practices! :icon_smile:
> 
> Cedar shoetrees should be used to maintain shape, absorb moisture and leave a clean scent in all your shoes. Put the shoetrees in your shoes the minute you take them off while they are warm and moist.
> 
> Not sure why you're letting the shoes dry out before using the trees (this might be the problem).
> 
> Leaving the shoetrees in the shoes is helpful when you clean and polish them.
> 
> *Benefits of Shoe Trees
> 
> *Longevity - protect the leather, fabric, stitching and soles from moisture damage. Cedar wicking action absorbs moisture, acid and salts thus reducing cracking and deterioration (rot).
> 
> Comfort -- shoetrees smooth out lining and insoles making them more comfortable longer
> 
> Appearance - trees can smooth out creases and wrinkles that appear
> ​


Andy,

Please re-read the OP. You (of all people) are missing the point entirely!

I own several pairs of good quality shoe trees, and they are put to good use! I thought I made that clear in the OP!?

I question what, if any, benefit is derived AFTER the shoe has dried (after use) on said tree! If there are benefits after the initial drying out of the shoe (2-3 days) - please elaborate; support what you say with facts!

Australia is hardly the Third World (so much for no ad hominems I guess!), you really do need to get out more Andy! 

As a dual US / Australian citizen, I spend much time in both countries. The average Australian would appear better travelled than the average American, and certainly no more or less ignorant!


----------



## mrp

Aussie,
I"m with you the point that once the shoe has dried out with the shoe tree in them that there is no positive or negative to leaving them in the shoe.
In my case I don't want to have to micro manage shoe trees, it's much easier for me to take out the shoes I wear for the day, remove the trees prior to putting the shoes on and reverse the process when I'm done at the end of the day.
My guess the confusion with your post was brought about with the reference to your work boots.


----------



## Pliny

Aussie said:


> -I acknowledge trees are of obvious benefit for a day or two while the shoes dry. After that, I'm NOT convinced there is ANY benefit to the continued use of shoe trees for dry, properly stored shoes..
> You are missing my point entirely. I am not suggesting one should NEVER use trees; I am questioning the need to store every single pair of shoes on trees at all times! I suspect you would get the same results had you tree'd your shoes for 2 days or so, then removed the trees!So far no case has been made to support the CONSTANT use of trees on dry, properly stored shoes! The only notable excerption would be for travel and/or shipping; to protect the shoes in transit..
> I agree when the shoe is WET, but after the shoe has dried?? Really? I have serious doubts! After the shoe has dried the tree is doing very little..YES -- You get what I am trying to say here! This is my point! So far nobody has made a convincing case against having a few pairs of trees and just roatating them through your shoes as you wear them..
> Almost -- one shoe tree'd for 2-3 days; the other constantly tree'd.. I bet there would be no real difference..Andy,
> Please re-read the OP. You (of all people) are missing the point entirely!
> I own several pairs of good quality shoe trees, and they are put to good use! I thought I made that clear in the OP!?
> I question what, if any, benefit is derived AFTER the shoe has dried (after use) on said tree! If there are benefits after the initial drying out of the shoe (2-3 days) - please elaborate; support what you say with facts!
> 
> Australia is hardly the Third World (so much for no ad hominems I guess!), you really do need to get out more Andy! As a dual US / Australian citizen, I spend much time in both countries. The average Australian would appear better travelled than the average American, and certainly no more or less ignorant!


Okay whoa guy! - first, Andy was having a bit of fun, nothing more; and second, I'm sorry, but if you're really looking for rigorously conducted trials into the efficacy of placing shoe trees for 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 days etc u just won't find it here- 
I mean sweet Jesus! Clothes enthusiasts on AAAC? - Yes, for sure. 
Clothes pedants who measure sweat absorption, leather expansion and contraction - and don't forget to account for variables like temp, humidity, type of leather, construction, brand? ... I don't think so!

So okay re: your practice of rotating trees where u have fewer tress than shoes to put them in- sure, there's probably diminishing returns once shoes have been in trees a few days, but then are you seriously suggesting that you want to have to remember which shoes you treed 3 days ago vs which shoes u treed yesterday?

C'mon, it just isn't practical to play musical chairs with trees ... to have to keep mental notes of which shoes u wore on what day... like, 'Hmm... did I wear the Dovers on Tuesday or Wednesday? No, it was the Sargents - no, it was the Aldens, but I only wore them to get the groceries .. . Aw s&** - I know, wouldn't it be awsm to have more trees?"

For pity's sake just buy a pair of trees for every pair of shoes already!

They're only a few bucks- peanuts compared to the cost of a decent pair of shoes. And they look pretty. End of rant. thank you.


----------



## Aussie

mrp said:


> Aussie,
> I"m with you the point that once the shoe has dried out with the shoe tree in them that there is no positive or negative to leaving them in the shoe.
> In my case I don't want to have to micro manage shoe trees, it's much easier for me to take out the shoes I wear for the day, remove the trees prior to putting the shoes on and reverse the process when I'm done at the end of the day.
> My guess the confusion with your post was brought about with the reference to your work boots.


Yes, that's my point; I keep all of my dress shoes on trees. They are NOT cheap in Australia - they are expensive and hard to find. I buy them when I am in the US - where they are cheap and plentiful..

I am questioning the need to buy a pair for every pair of dress shoes I own.. So far it looks like there is no real reason to have more than a dozen or so pairs of trees..



Pliny said:


> Okay whoa guy! - first, Andy was having a bit of fun, nothing more


Well good god man, I'm TOTALLY being serious here; get a grip! This is VERY serious business; there are soles hanging in the balance!!

Global financial crisis?
World hunger?
Terrorism?

Never mind all that icky stuff! We all know what everyone is *really* concerned about; SHOE TREES!!



Pliny said:


> and second, I'm sorry, but if you're really looking for rigorously conducted trials into the efficacy of placing shoe trees for 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 days etc u just won't find it here


Are you sure about that? You never know your luck! Remember there are no stupid questions; just stupid people! 



Pliny said:


> End of rant. thank you.


You are quite welcome!


----------



## mrp

Aussie said:


> Yes, that's my point; I keep all of my dress shoes on trees. They are NOT cheap in Australia - they are expensive and hard to find. I buy them when I am in the US - where they are cheap and plentiful..
> 
> I am questioning the need to buy a pair for every pair of dress shoes I own.. So far it looks like there is no real reason to have more than a dozen or so pairs of trees..


Understood, in my case they are fairly cheap. Just bought 2 more sets with AE sale and received an extra discount on top of the $19 price as I bought more than 1 set.
You may want to consider shoe trees for down under as a business opportunity.


----------



## DG123

Consider the effect of gravity.



Aussie said:


> -I acknowledge trees are of obvious benefit for a day or two while the shoes dry. After that, I'm NOT convinced there is ANY benefit to the continued use of shoe trees for dry, properly stored shoes..
> 
> !


----------



## Jovan

I have to agree that it seems more efficient and easy to have trees for every pair of shoes. Nonetheless, if you don't mind managing the distribution of treeing (I made that sound more complicated than it is) I'm sure you can make do with just a few pairs.


----------



## ryans

Personally, I use a shoe tree so I could keep the form of the shoe in proper form.

Though I would understand if people would say that it does not add that much importance into keeping the right form as it would not harden the part which has already gone flab if repeatedly stepped on to.

Though I still prefer to use them so that I would gain something should any of them hold true.


----------



## Gromson

In the interest of science and world peace I will volunteer to conduct a rigorous test. 

First, I will need two new pairs of Aldens--shell PTB and shell longwing, color 8, size 11.5. I will generously suppy the shoe trees.

I will wear pair 1 on Mondays and Thursdays, the right shoe will go tree-less and the left shoe will be treed at all times when not on my feet.

I will wear pair 2 on Tuesdays and Fridays, the right shoe will go tree-less and the left shoe will be treed for 24 hours after wearing, then de-treed.

Just send me the shoes and I'll get to work. For science!


----------



## Mute

If you store your shoes well then it won't harm them to take the trees out once they've had some time to dry out. However, at my house, crap happens and things get thrown on top of my shoes sometimes. In these instances, the trees keep my shoes from getting deformed.


----------



## Flanderian

Aussie said:


> -I acknowledge trees are of obvious benefit for a day or two while the shoes dry. After that, I'm NOT convinced there is ANY benefit to the continued use of shoe trees for dry, properly stored shoes...


I find trees of questionable benefit to aid in drying shoes, but then, my feet don't tend to perspire very much and I try not to saturate shoes from rain, etc. The advice I've always read regarding the care of very wet shoes is to stuff them with newspaper until dry rather than use trees. However, Laszlo Vass recommends using trees even for completely wet shoes.

I find two days a minimum to aid shape retention, with 3 days more desirable. After that I notice little difference. I know that's a quibble about a day, but there is a discernable, if not dramatic, difference.


----------



## Hanzo

Speaking of business opportunities, has anyone ever looked at incorporating the trees into some sort of hanging device? Maybe it was when I first heard of them as a child and played with my father's shoe trees and the odd handles that are built into them, but I always imagined some kind of "tree" looking something like a free standing coat hanger that would be covered in shoes. I still feel that it would be a good idea to free up floor space.


----------



## Angeland

To complicate matters, Alden recommends that shoes be allowed to "cool off" before the shoe trees are inserted. 

While I am convinced that shoe trees are absolutely necessary for retaining the shape of shoes (especially shoes that have gotten wet) and for preventing the toe box from getting crushed and deformed in a suitcase or the back of a closet, I concede that after reading this thread there is a lot of conflicting information out there about what shoe trees do and how best to make them do it.

Enough conflicting information, indeed, to justify the OP's concerns.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Perhaps, but if a person is sufficiently interested in properly caring for their shoes to rightiously insert trees each time the shoes come off their feet, would they then just throw them in a dark corner of their closet, subject to the occassional crushing? Or would they carefully place the shoes on one of the 10 tiers of shoe racks incorporated into the design of their closet? LOL. That's how I roll!


----------



## Angeland

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Perhaps, but if a person is sufficiently interested in properly caring for their shoes to rightiously insert trees each time the shoes come off their feet, would they then just throw them in a dark corner of their closet, subject to the occassional crushing?


Ah, eagle2250, you would muddy the waters by introducing a materialist objection to an essentialist argument. And if you weren't correct in doing so it would be easier to say, "Look, sometimes a [shoe] tree is just a tree."

In this case, yes, the man who is willing to take the time to insert shoe trees is less likely to pile stuff on his shoes, so the protective quality of the shoe tree may be an effect of an attitude toward the object that results in its preservation and not a direct cause of its preservation. A ritual, indeed, and nothing more.

[Stares glumly at all the shoe trees in his closet and wonders if anything is real.]


----------



## cdavant

The study is underway--and has been since early 2008. On 1/5/2008 I posted:

"OK, I will attempt to come up with a definitive answer. Sacrifice should be my middle name. It is likely I will find four pairs of AEs 
in 8.5 3E from Grapevine Hill within the next twelve months (a favorite search on my eBay). I will photograph them new, just out of the box. Pair A will have an AE wooden tree in the right shoe, pair B will have the wooden tree in the left tree. Pair C will get the cheapest plastic tree I can find on the right, pair D plastic on the left. I will wear them in strict rotation and polish all four pairs at the same time. Every year or so I will photograph the shoes and let members vote on which shoe of each pair looks like it has which if any tree.
After a couple of years (this will be a long term project and I have other shoes to wear) if there is a visible difference we have our answer. I have a feeling this may take 10-15 years to answer and I only hope I'll be around to finish the task.
Wonder if my lovely wife (16 wonderful years of marriage--out of 38) will accept a shoe buying binge as my contribution to scientific research?" 

Since then, I have wound up with 3 pairs of AE PAs for my test. Black, Brown, Merlot--each worn 2-3 times a month. One pair has a left tree, one pair a right tree, the third untreed. The trees stay in full time. 

They are polished about every 3 months with AE shoe cream--that about every 6-8 wearings since I have a couple of dozen pairs in rotation.

It's been less than four years, but to date I see no difference. Like the fellow said about the difference between fornication and adultry, they seem about the same to me. 

I'll have a final report around 2018. Until then, most of my shoes go untreed unless they get soaked, in which case I stuff them with newspaper until nearly dry then insert a pair of plastic trees until I'm due to wear them again.

Always First Class, Never full price


----------



## Jovan

So wait... now we're questioning shoe trees altogether. No offence, but what kind of forum is this again?



Hanzo said:


> Speaking of business opportunities, has anyone ever looked at incorporating the trees into some sort of hanging device? Maybe it was when I first heard of them as a child and played with my father's shoe trees and the odd handles that are built into them, but I always imagined some kind of "tree" looking something like a free standing coat hanger that would be covered in shoes. I still feel that it would be a good idea to free up floor space.


Develop it. Market it. $$$.


----------



## triklops55

I just have one pair of shoe trees. I put them in the shoes I've been wearing. I rarely wear the same pair of shoes two days in a row, except workshoes, which I don't care about anyway.
So, the next day, I take the trees out of the pair I wore yesterday and place them in the shoes I wore today. One pair of trees that goes only in the shoes I'v been wearing. The trees stay in the shoes for about one day. After I remove the trees from the shoes, I place the shoes in the original shoe box or on a shelf. If I still have the tissue that came with the shoes, I put that in the shoes. I've had good results from this. I don't see the need to purchase 30-plus pairs of shoe trees, one for each pair of shoes I own.


----------



## DougNZ

Aussie said:


> The average Australian would appear better travelled than the average American, and certainly no more or less ignorant!


Of course they are better travelled; the average Australian travelled from Ireland or the UK ... for a seven year stretch.

In putting your case for ignorance, or lack thereof, you are not making a great comparison.

Go the ABs!


----------



## P Hudson

I own two pair of shoe trees that are in constant use. When I wear a pair of shoes for which they are appropriate, in they go. It isn't hard, with just the two sets, to maintain all my shoes, since (as noted above) the real benefits seem to be in the first 24-48 hours. And I think the benefits become obvious as soon as one begins using them.

On a more controversial note, I have despaired of ever having my deformed feet fixed. I was born with mis-shapen feet which were quickly inserted into casts and then shoes with a bar connecting them, all in the name of "fixing" my feet. Every few years I spend a bundle at the podiatrist and get a new pair of orthotics. The result is toes that virtually overlap as they have all my life conformed to my shoes. A while back I decided to skip the podiatrist and begin, for the first time in my life, to go barefoot or wear non-constricting things on my feet. I wear slippers to work, then kick them off and lecture barefoot. In a matter of weeks my toes have spread about two inches. So I'm moving toward retiring my good shoes and with them the trees that hold their shape.


----------



## Starch

PTB in San Diego said:


> Responding mostly out of instinct rather than hard data:


FWIW, this post describes pretty nearly exactly my own impression (some of which was also gained from unfortunate experience).


----------



## chrstc

Jovan said:


> So wait... now we're questioning shoe trees altogether. No offence, but what kind of forum is this again?
> QUOTE]
> 
> No offence but you might be extremely surprised at the big names in the shoe industry, at least on this side of the pond, who do not favour shoe trees unless, and I stress this, they are bespoke and made precisely for the shoes in which they reside. David from Trickers is particularly adamant that using RTW trees will actually do more damage than good.
> Personally I'm unsure on this issue as trees have been very beneficial for some of my shoes and yet seem to be stretching others somewhat artificially. There is certainly no consensus on this issue amongst experts, though, so we shouldn't kid ourselves that there is.
> 
> Chris.


----------



## eagle2250

P Hudson said:


> I own two pair of shoe trees that are in constant use. When I wear a pair of shoes for which they are appropriate, in they go. It isn't hard, with just the two sets, to maintain all my shoes, since (as noted above) the real benefits seem to be in the first 24-48 hours. And I think the benefits become obvious as soon as one begins using them.
> 
> On a more controversial note, I have despaired of ever having my deformed feet fixed. I was born with mis-shapen feet which were quickly inserted into casts and then shoes with a bar connecting them, all in the name of "fixing" my feet. Every few years I spend a bundle at the podiatrist and get a new pair of orthotics. The result is toes that virtually overlap as they have all my life conformed to my shoes. A while back I decided to skip the podiatrist and begin, for the first time in my life, to go barefoot or wear non-constricting things on my feet. I wear slippers to work, then kick them off and lecture barefoot. In a matter of weeks my toes have spread about two inches. So I'm moving toward retiring my good shoes and with them the trees that hold their shape.


Over the years I have had occassion to lecture at Central Missouri State University, Mississippi State University, The Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Indiana State University and at several additional junior colleges along the way. LOL. Can't say it ever occurred to me to do so without the benefit of shoes on my feet...or that I would even be allowed to do so! You must be tenured or perhaps I'm just a natural conformist?


----------



## Aussie

triklops55 said:


> I just have one pair of shoe trees. I put them in the shoes I've been wearing. I rarely wear the same pair of shoes two days in a row, except workshoes, which I don't care about anyway.
> 
> So, the next day, I take the trees out of the pair I wore yesterday and place them in the shoes I wore today. One pair of trees that goes only in the shoes I'v been wearing. The trees stay in the shoes for about one day. After I remove the trees from the shoes, I place the shoes in the original shoe box or on a shelf. If I still have the tissue that came with the shoes, I put that in the shoes. I've had good results from this. I don't see the need to purchase 30-plus pairs of shoe trees, one for each pair of shoes I own.


That's what I suspected!



cdavant said:


> The study is underway--and has been since early 2008. On 1/5/2008 I posted:
> 
> "OK, I will attempt to come up with a definitive answer. Sacrifice should be my middle name. It is likely I will find four pairs of AEs
> in 8.5 3E from Grapevine Hill within the next twelve months (a favorite search on my eBay). I will photograph them new, just out of the box. Pair A will have an AE wooden tree in the right shoe, pair B will have the wooden tree in the left tree. Pair C will get the cheapest plastic tree I can find on the right, pair D plastic on the left. I will wear them in strict rotation and polish all four pairs at the same time. Every year or so I will photograph the shoes and let members vote on which shoe of each pair looks like it has which if any tree.
> After a couple of years (this will be a long term project and I have other shoes to wear) if there is a visible difference we have our answer. I have a feeling this may take 10-15 years to answer and I only hope I'll be around to finish the task.
> Wonder if my lovely wife (16 wonderful years of marriage--out of 38) will accept a shoe buying binge as my contribution to scientific research?"
> 
> Since then, I have wound up with 3 pairs of AE PAs for my test. Black, Brown, Merlot--each worn 2-3 times a month. One pair has a left tree, one pair a right tree, the third untreed. The trees stay in full time.
> 
> They are polished about every 3 months with AE shoe cream--that about every 6-8 wearings since I have a couple of dozen pairs in rotation.
> 
> It's been less than four years, but to date I see no difference. Like the fellow said about the difference between fornication and adultry, they seem about the same to me.
> 
> I'll have a final report around 2018. Until then, most of my shoes go untreed unless they get soaked, in which case I stuff them with newspaper until nearly dry then insert a pair of plastic trees until I'm due to wear them again.
> 
> Always First Class, Never full price


Well that sounds pretty darn conclusive to me!



P Hudson said:


> I own two pair of shoe trees that are in constant use. When I wear a pair of shoes for which they are appropriate, in they go. It isn't hard, with just the two sets, to maintain all my shoes, since (as noted above) the real benefits seem to be in the first 24-48 hours. And I think the benefits become obvious as soon as one begins using them.


I'm not so sure there is any benefit at all after 1 - 2 days..



chrstc said:


> Jovan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So wait... now we're questioning shoe trees altogether. No offence, but what kind of forum is this again?
> QUOTE]
> 
> No offence but you might be extremely surprised at the big names in the shoe industry, at least on this side of the pond, who do not favour shoe trees unless, and I stress this, they are bespoke and made precisely for the shoes in which they reside. David from Trickers is particularly adamant that using RTW trees will actually do more damage than good.
> Personally I'm unsure on this issue as trees have been very beneficial for some of my shoes and yet seem to be stretching others somewhat artificially. There is certainly no consensus on this issue amongst experts, though, so we shouldn't kid ourselves that there is.
> 
> Chris.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this echoes the advise from RM Williams in Australia! They recommend against shoe trees full stop. They do recommend cleaning, conditioning and polishing. But shoe trees are not on the shoe / boot care menu in Australia; perhaps its more of an American tradition?
Click to expand...


----------



## Flanderian

Aussie said:


> perhaps its more of an American tradition?


Hardly. The aforementioned Laszlo Vass is Hungarian. Makes some rather nice shoes. (And boots!)

and again:

https://www.budapester-schuhe.de/handmade_budapester_shoes_laszlo_vass/index.php

See: *Handmade Shoes for Men *by Laszlo Vass


----------



## mrkleen

Shoe trees are cheap. Quality shoes are not. I have one pair of trees per pair of shoes. Dont have to rotate, dont have to think about it. Remove trees - wear shoes - come home and insert trees again. Next day, select a different pair - remove trees and repeat.


----------



## shepdawg

I don't like the idea of less trees than shoes solely to prevent transferring bacteria from one pair of shoes to another.


----------



## Jovan

mrkleen said:


> Shoe trees are cheap. Quality shoes are not. I have one pair of trees per pair of shoes. Dont have to rotate, dont have to think about it. Remove trees - wear shoes - come home and insert trees again. Next day, select a different pair - remove trees and repeat.


Precisely.


----------



## eagle2250

shepdawg said:


> I don't like the idea of less trees than shoes solely to prevent transferring bacteria from one pair of shoes to another.


LOL. That's OK, as long as you keep it in the family or wear anti-microbial socks!


----------



## Flanderian

shepdawg said:


> I don't like the idea of less trees than shoes solely to prevent transferring bacteria from one pair of shoes to another.


But isn't that bacterial apartheid? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Flanderian said:


> Hardly. The aforementioned Laszlo Vass is Hungarian. Makes some rather nice shoes. (And boots!)
> 
> and again:
> 
> https://www.budapester-schuhe.de/handmade_budapester_shoes_laszlo_vass/index.php
> 
> See: *Handmade Shoes for Men *by Laszlo Vass


Laszlo is the man! A Hungarian Physician I've worked with for the past couple of years just completed his fellowship and went back to Budapest. I have an open invite and may end up making the trip just to get another pair of Laszlo's works of art.

What an addiction.


----------



## Acct2000

Conformist, maybe but far more supernatural than natural to those who know you.


----------



## Flanderian

127.72 MHz said:


> Laszlo is the man! A Hungarian Physician I've worked with for the past couple of years just completed his fellowship and went back to Budapest. I have an open invite and may end up making the trip just to get another pair of Laszlo's works of art.
> 
> What an addiction.


How nice! If you can do it, why not?

Do you do bespoke, or RTW? I notice on their site there appear to have been more models added that are based on the U and F lasts. Though I don't see Vass in my future, I think I might tend toward the New Peter last were I in the market.


----------



## Aussie

Flanderian said:


> But isn't that bacterial apartheid? :icon_smile_big:


LMAO!


----------



## eagle2250

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Conformist, maybe but far more supernatural than natural to those who know you.


I'll take that as a compliment and thank you, Sir! Have a great day.


----------



## Flanderian

Jovan said:


> I have to agree that it seems more efficient and easy to have trees for every pair of shoes. Nonetheless, if you don't mind managing the distribution of treeing (I made that sound more complicated than it is) I'm sure you can make do with just a few pairs.


I have two reasons of equal importance to me for rotating trees; I'm cheap, and I can no longer purchase Shoe Keeper brand cedar trees, that were made in Petersboro, NH. These were once about the only trees available, and i find they do a job more to my liking than any I've been able to find since.


----------



## Jovan

Target or Bed Bath and Beyond sell real cedar shoe trees for $10. Of course they're nothing compared to nice Allen Edmonds shoe trees and they're not right/left shaped, but you get what you pay for. Still better than nothing at all of course.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Hmm... on Vass's site he includes use of trees as part of "properly cared for". And he doesn't sell trees.

So far I can see only one advantage of cedar over plastic-it smells nice. But since plastic leaves almost the entire lining exposed to air, I cannot believe the inside will dry faster if pressed against a block of wood. So shoes get plastic when they come off, and cedar after no less than a day in plastic, if at all.

Now wondering whether even plastic is necessary, but I figure that using something rather than nothing is playing it safe in case there really is a benefit.


----------



## JMC...

For $15-20 per pair of "nice" shoes, the trees are cheap insurance even if there's some doubt about their effectiveness... Just my opinion.


----------



## Fashion Frank

I dont know about the myth thing , but I figure if they keep the original shape of the shoe and prevent them from turning into "elf" shoes they are worth it .

I just bought six pairs from J.A.B. one at regular price ,two for free so I bought a total of six and it worked out fine for me . 

As far as the moisture factor against wood or plastic ,everyone's feet sweat ,but not buckets ,so wood to me is not really an issue.


All the Best ,Fashion Frank


----------



## Flanderian

dbhdbhdbh said:


> Hmm... on Vass's site he includes use of trees as part of "properly cared for". And he doesn't sell trees.
> 
> So far I can see only one advantage of cedar over plastic-it smells nice. But since plastic leaves almost the entire lining exposed to air, I cannot believe the inside will dry faster if pressed against a block of wood. So shoes get plastic when they come off, and cedar after no less than a day in plastic, if at all.
> 
> Now wondering whether even plastic is necessary, but I figure that using something rather than nothing is playing it safe in case there really is a benefit.


About 50 years ago I used plastic trees because good cedar trees were not yet ubiquitous, and because I didn't know any better. What happened is that the moisture that is in the lining of the shoes after wear condensed on the plastic surface and didn't evaporate resulting in the growth of mildew in the lining of my shoes.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Interesting. Of course YMMV. I have used plastic for years with no mildew. Perhaps differences in shoes, sweat, temperature and humidity of my closets...

Did you find damp plastic and dry cedar under the same conditions? As others have noted, many high end English shoemakers provide varnished wood trees and make no claims about drying properties. I might think this may reflect a cooler climate with nothing similar to US mid West or southern summers. But apparently cedar trees are rare in Australia as well. 

The question is not whether the "better" cedar trees are worth the extra money to preserve fine shoes. The question is whether they are any better at all. Of course to those of us who are eBay/thrift store buyers the cost of cedar is not trivial compared to the cost of shoes. I have shoes that were less than a pair of sole guards and most were less than twice the cost of split toe shoe trees. I have hesitated on eBay used trees since the spring integrity is impossible to assess online.


----------



## Flanderian

dbhdbhdbh said:


> Interesting. Of course YMMV. I have used plastic for years with no mildew. Perhaps differences in shoes, sweat, temperature and humidity of my closets...
> 
> Did you find damp plastic and dry cedar under the same conditions? As others have noted, many high end English shoemakers provide varnished wood trees and make no claims about drying properties.


It was after having not worn the shoes again for several days, and having left the trees in all that time. When I removed them, moisture could still be observed on the surface of the trees. I don't recall anything about the design of these particular trees, which no doubt is part of the cause, and believe I promptly pitched them. Exactly what the cause, or combination of causes, I can not say.

High end English trees certainly are varnished. And no, I've never found any residual moisture or dampness on cedar trees that I've used.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Fascinating. Never had that experience. Even when removing the plastic trees after a few hours they have never been even slightly moist. I will keep an eye out for this.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## juffman

If you are spending lots of money on a pair of shoes, get some dang shoe trees. They are like $15 at JAB. If it was all about moisture, then we would just go buy a pack of tissue paper and stuff it in the shoe, but I think equally important is preventing creases in the leather. I hate those damn creases. Shoe trees help prevent them.


----------



## Thomas Martin

I use high quality shoe trees for all my welted shoes, mostly because they look better on the shelf. The positive effect is probably overrated. There's no way shoe trees prevent creases and moisture will evaporate best without trees I remember that some time ago a fellow AAAC member started a "controlled trial" (tree in one shoe, no tree in the other). I would be very interested to see the results.


----------



## Trimmer

I have never thought it was about moisture and all about shape. I inherited a number of ancient _metal_ shoe trees (branded Church or Baber) and still use these alongside my cedar ones without any obvious difference in outcome. I leave trees permanently in stored shoes.


----------



## diplomatusa

Thomas Martin said:


> I remember that some time ago a fellow AAAC member started a "controlled trial" (tree in one shoe, no tree in the other). I would be very interested to see the results.


In my own experience, I feel like my shoe trees have helped preserve my shoes, as compared to when I lived in ignorance and did not use them. That said, without a more rigorous empirical study, it's all just anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Fashion Frank

Trimmer said:


> I have never thought it was about moisture and all about shape. I inherited a number of ancient _metal_ shoe trees (branded Church or Baber) and still use these alongside my cedar ones without any obvious difference in outcome. I leave trees permanently in stored shoes.


I whole heartly agree with above statement and I got mine when J.A.B. had a buy one get two free and that made it very affordable for me .

I would also think that just as an aside benefit, that the cedar wood , would to some degree wick away any moisture.

All the Best ,Fashion Frank


----------



## cdavant

The study continues. 3 AE PAs, black, brown, merlot worn equally and polished with the same type cream. One goes to bed treeless, another right treed, the third left treed. I have to look inside the shoe for the mark to tell where the tree goes. I'll admit to not wearing them much in the cold and damp, but they all have around 100 days wearing, mostly on carpet. To date I see no difference, but I hope to have years to go.

Like the wag said, "It ain't what you know, it's what you know that just ain't so..." Thirty bucks might be cheap if they made a real difference, fifty cents might be too much if they are just for show.


----------



## Orsini

cdavant said:


> The study continues. 3 AE PAs, black, brown, merlot worn equally and polished with the same type cream. One goes to bed treeless, another right treed, the third left treed. I have to look inside the shoe for the mark to tell where the tree goes. I'll admit to not wearing them much in the cold and damp, but they all have around 100 days wearing, mostly on carpet. To date I see no difference, but I hope to have years to go.
> 
> Like the wag said, "It ain't what you know, it's what you know that just ain't so..." Thirty bucks might be cheap if they made a real difference, fifty cents might be too much if they are just for show.


 I am curious -- how is the wear?


----------



## cdavant

Only slight wear on the heels--but I'm mostly on carpet and the PAs go mostly places like church and parties outside of my rotation. I seldom have to walk more than 50' on pavement. I'll go with the rubber soles if it's slick or icy. I'm a heel striker, used to go through 4 pairs of New Balance a year in my marathoning days, and the only time I've ever had to replace a sole was one piece Vibrams. 
That's why I think it will be several more years before any difference becomes obvious.


----------



## pusso

I have Woodlore for my Crockett and Jones, mahogany made to measure for my Gaziano and Girlings, but I couldn't afford to order Lobb shoe trees for the boots I'm having made - although I'll probably wear them every day that it's not raining, when I'll wear my well worn Crocketts.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Cdavant,Thanks for doing the experiment and reporting the results. Could save us a fortune on fancy trees.By chance could you post photos of the shoes, unlabelled, and let the critical eyes of the AAAC shoe experts try to distinguish treed from untreed? If immediate treeing is critical to shoe health, 100 wearings should be more than enough to see the effect


What kind of trees? Wood or plastic? Varnished or not? Solid toe, split toe, or lasted?

Thanks


----------



## AlexS

The study is interesting but is unlikely to be conclusive because the sample size is so small (just 6 shoes).


----------



## Belfaborac

pusso said:


> mahogany made to measure for my Gaziano and Girlings


It's difficult to fathom why one would have shoe trees especially made from Mahogany, considering it's quite a dense wood. Twice the density of Western Red Cedar, with a correspondingly lower absorbency. And little or no smell, once dried. The only wood which should offer unequivocally better performance than Cedar, assuming that absorbency actually matters, is Balsa, at half the density and a surface full of large, open pores.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Sample size is small, but it is the only data we have. All else is anecdote.I still cannot fathom how pressing wood, porous or not, against the lining of shoes would cause them to dry faster than exposing them to air. This is not how I dry my clothes when they come out of the washer....One can build a ship out of cedar. Wood, including cedar, has been been used to make rafts, boats and ships for thousands of years. When you put a ship of wood in the water it floats because water does not permeate the wood. If you try to climb aboard a "ship" made of air you immediately get wet. Drying aside, wood trees, particularly lasted ones, might have an argument of holding the overall shape of the shoe, beyond preventing them from curling when left to dry. But that would also require some evidence.


----------



## firedancer

The fact that this thread is still alive is laughable. 

Someone like CDavant who walks on carpet, barely on cement and rotates his shoes should probably get along just fine with out trees if he so chooses. 

On the other hand, someone who walks or works on their feet could benefit from trees. Someone working retail for instance, bending down and reaching up can do wonders for the vamp. 

Someone who can't rotate in more than a couple pairs could also benefit. 

Think about it, leather is worked and shaped when it's warm and wet ( just like my shoes are when I get home, well not that wet). When you allow a shoe to dry around a form it maintains its shape of that form. Plain and simple. I don't need some silly " experiment" to tell me that. 

I know from first hand experience that I have made creased out of shape shoes better when they got some tree time.


----------



## justonemore

ok. Let's leave aside all your doubts and state that every maker of shoes above mass factory brands state that they should be used. These people have a vested interest in shoes and decades/centuries of using leather and developing further techniques in its use. Are we to believe that all these companies are conspiring against the consumer in order to sell a $20 shoe tree?

For some reason you wish to debate proven scientific information concerning absorption rates in woods of different density and porous counts per square inch. Think of the difference between paper towels & a sheet of paper. They're both paper based. Try wiping a pool of liquid with each one. 

You assume that air drying works better/quicker. Why? Think of your shoes as a house with a chimney versus a shirt hanging out on the line. If you spill in your house you wipe up the spill with a porous object such as paper towel, you don't open all the windows and even if you did it wouldn't do much. How evenly does air dry the toe box in your shoes? Air itself (in most parts of the world) contains water vapor which is called humidity. Have you ever tried to air dry something on an extremely humid day?

Unless you're paying $10 for your shoes, it is somewhat difficult to think that $20 for a pair of trees is much of a vast fortune. I understand that after 5-50 pairs of shoes they may be considered pricey for some budgets but hardly out of range for someone wishing to help maintain their initial investment be it $100 or $10,0000. You use the term "fancy" and indeed fancy ones can run you $1'000 or more. This is a completely different topic from functionality.

I think Firedancer covered their use as to keeping form rather well and I'll just second his post versus going over it again.


----------



## eagle2250

firedancer said:


> The fact that this thread is still alive is laughable.
> 
> ......


LOL. Never, ever underestimate the tenacity of our membership, once they've sunk their sartorial teeth into an issue under review!


----------



## firedancer

^thats so true. Notch lapel tuxedo anyone?!?


----------



## Bjorn

Belfaborac said:


> It's difficult to fathom why one would have shoe trees especially made from Mahogany, considering it's quite a dense wood. Twice the density of Western Red Cedar, with a correspondingly lower absorbency. And little or no smell, once dried. The only wood which should offer unequivocally better performance than Cedar, assuming that absorbency actually matters, is Balsa, at half the density and a surface full of large, open pores.


How about larch? Heartwood larch.

Could you recognize it? From a long way away?


----------



## Belfaborac

Recognise Larch from a long way away? Not if my life depended on it. I doubt I would recognise a Larch if I walked right into it, nose first. I could maybe recognise Ebony from a distance, it being black (ish) and all, but that's about as far as my identifying-wood-from-afar ability goes I think.


----------



## dstarz

No no no NO! No notched lapels on ANY tux. And midnight blue, if you can find it...


----------



## Orsini

Notch lapels are of the devil. Do not turn to the dark side.


----------



## Bjorn

Belfaborac said:


> Recognise Larch from a long way away? Not if my life depended on it. I doubt I would recognise a Larch if I walked right into it, nose first. I could maybe recognise Ebony from a distance, it being black (ish) and all, but that's about as far as my identifying-wood-from-afar ability goes I think.







The Larch.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

A member, here or the other place, reported serially weighing shoes and trees at various times after removing the shoes at the end of the day. He was unable to detect any evidence of transfer of weight (water) from the shoes to the cedar trees. His balance was capable of detecting 0.1gm differences. If the trees were absorbing water, it was less that a tenth of a gram. This is about 1/300th of an ounce. Difficult to believe that an absorption of less than that could have any effect on shoes. Unfortunately, he did not compare change in shoe weight without vs with trees. But if he saw no water transfer with trees, then it would be hard for the trees to absorb more water than air. Is there any chance that one does not want the water to evaporate too quickly? Perhaps the desirable effect of trees with respect to moisture is reducing the rate of drying? Then it would make sense that varnished trees are fine. Cedar smells nice.


----------



## firedancer

Lasted shoe trees keep a shoes shape. Plain and simple. These vamps would be trashed without them. But after at least 59 wearings they look like new. 








And really ? Weighing shoe trees? 
With what? A postage scale?

Any sweat in shoes on even the hottest of days is going to be minute.

Sweat lost during a half marathon for most people can be measures in 3 ounces or less. I don't know what you do in your shoes.......


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

He did not say what kind of balance. That precision would be typical of a triple beam balance. I have not used a postage scale, but I would be surprised if they would measure in 1/10th gram increments. No point to it since I don't believe postage is priced by weight differences less than an ounce. 


I can accept expert opinion when that is the best available information. Objectively assessing whether shoes have kept their shape could be tricky. What, exactly, would one measure? But the rate of drying of shoes could be tested with very high precision. That makes me, and apparently quite a few others, impatient with "because I said so" arguments. It is easier to believe that trees keep shape, as firedancer suggests. But proving that would also be challenging. 


cdavant reported no differences between his treed and untreed shoes after 100 wearings. That is something, but given the difficulties in the subjective interpretation of the effects, I am hoping he posts pictures.


----------



## Dovid

I would not use a pair of shoe trees that are not specifically designed for the right and left shoes anymore than I would put a shoe tree intended for the right shoe in the left shoe. Some people swear by butcher paper crumpled into the appropriate shape as superior to any shoe tree. They say it absorbs moisture better (which I can believe), and, if not overpacked, can provide the right support/rigidity for the shoes. But why not just take sawdust, and tamp it down into the shoe box, or, better yet, get a cast made of your feet, and have custom shoe trees made based on their size and shape? Sure, custom shoe trees would be expensive, but if you spend $450 for the shoes, you want to prolong the life of your investment. 

I use butcher paper for my boots (7 inches and higher), but stick with Alden's shoe trees for the Aldens. You can buy butcher paper in rolls at a school supply store.


----------



## firedancer

^ would that be cedar butcher paper? Has it been treated? Have you ever weighed it before and after using it? Do you have a particular smooshing method to get in the toebox? How about getting it out? Do you just reach your hand in there and pull it out. 
Please share your methodology and any tests performed!


----------



## justonemore

dbhdbhdbh said:


> I can accept expert opinion when that is the best available information. Objectively assessing whether shoes have kept their shape could be tricky. What, exactly, would one measure? But the rate of drying of shoes could be tested with very high precision. That makes me, and apparently quite a few others, impatient with "because I said so" arguments. It is easier to believe that trees keep shape, as firedancer suggests. But proving that would also be challenging.


If you and "the others" are getting impatient with our advice on time tested results based on physics and engineering, please feel free to enlighten us as to your research into the topic. I will accept any respected journal articles showing the opposite.

You stated the amount of water is miniscule therefore it's not important. Ok, if this is the case, would you mind if I put a miniscule amount of cyanide in your food?


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

It is exactly the research based on physics and engineering that I, for one, am seeking. The only research I have seen cited in this thread have been very small studies by other members with few methdological details. Those few have not supported the drying function or the value of trees at all. Yet there are many posts declaring trees to be vital, with no evidence whatsoever. Some simply assert the value, some snark, and some quote a rep from a shoe company. However, none that I have seen provide data. 


A large part of learning involves discovering that long-held beliefs are factually wrong. But you never find that out unless you conduct the studies. Otherwise, one ends up with "tradition-based" or "expert-based" practices, rather than those founded on scientific research. I agree that answering this question will not cure cancer, but the number of shoe tree threads, and the willingness of some to consider custom trees, indicates a high level of interest. For that matter, even the dogmatic statements unsupported by evidence show that people care.





I come here to learn, so if you or anyone else knows of science on this subject, please, please cite it.

Thanks.


Butcher paper vs custom trees: Does anyone make butcher paper out of cedar? Would anyone even want this? Might convey an odd odor to the food. Buying butcher paper for this purpose sounds environmentally hostile unless you reused it many times. Newspaper when travelling could do the job without lugging shoe trees or further deforesting the planet.


How about muslin bags packed with activated charcoal? Reusable, can be reactivated, absorption of water and odors is well characterized-not conjecture, way cheaper than custom trees.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Oh, and miniscule amounts of cyanide in my food: fine with me. Most people ingest miniscule amounts of cyanide on a regular basis with no ill effects. Provided the amount is miniscule compared to the effective dose of cyanide, no problem. My point about water that less than 1/300th of an ounce is likely to be "miniscule" for the effect of water on shoes. 

I would not want to ingest a similar amount of cyanide or plutonium. However, we are environmentally exposed to miniscule amounts of both.

Just like shoe trees, there is speculation "miniscule amounts of cyanide are dangerous" and there is fact "no, they are not." I am looking for facts on trees.


Thanks for the responses, and if you know of physics or engineering research on shoe trees, please cite it. 


Thanks


----------



## justonemore

dbhdbhdbh said:


> Oh, and miniscule amounts of cyanide in my food: fine with me. Most people ingest miniscule amounts of cyanide on a regular basis with no ill effects. Provided the amount is miniscule compared to the effective dose of cyanide, no problem. My point about water that less than 1/300th of an ounce is likely to be "miniscule" for the effect of water on shoes.
> 
> I would not want to ingest a similar amount of cyanide or plutonium. However, we are environmentally exposed to miniscule amounts of both.
> 
> Just like shoe trees, there is speculation "miniscule amounts of cyanide are dangerous" and there is fact "no, they are not." I am looking for facts on trees.
> 
> Thanks for the responses, and if you know of physics or engineering research on shoe trees, please cite it.
> 
> Thanks


To start, why not check out:Glass & Zelinka's study " Moisture Relations & Physical Properties of Woods". Chapter 4 should answer your questions on wood types and absorbancy and chapter 16 covers your question about varnish. One of these guys is an engineer, the other a physicist.

When you're done with those 200 pages, have reworked the formulas and posted them for us all to learn something, I'll give you something new and exciting dealing directly with shoes- If I'm doing all the research you can put forth some effort yourself or do you think we're here to just provide you with whatever you want?

Why not disprove the general theory if you're so hot on it? Better yet go out and buy a bunch of $1,000 shoes and post photos of your results without trees. I have three new pair, I'll tree mine and we can compare in 1 year. Deal?


----------



## Dovid

firedancer said:


> ^ would that be cedar butcher paper? Has it been treated? Have you ever weighed it before and after using it? Do you have a particular smooshing method to get in the toebox? How about getting it out? Do you just reach your hand in there and pull it out.
> Please share your methodology and any tests performed!


No, I use butcher paper from a school supply store. It is like the paper used to make a brown paper bag but a bit sturdier. I haven't weighed it before and after use. However, I would imagine that since it is not waxed, it would absorb moisture from the shoe as well as wick a good deal away to the atmosphere.

I roll the paper into a ball, and then flatten it a bit so that it is like the upper half of a hamburger bun. I am not just mashing paper together; I aiming for some consistency. The first ball I slide into the toe box. I manipulate it once it is in until I am satisfied that it is making contacting with the front, sides and top of the toe box. I then roll an oval, and insert that in the space behind the toe box (the throat). I want this second ball to back the ball in the toe box as well as make fairly consistent contact with the top and sides. I then make two balls of roughly equal size to fill the rear of the shoe. The balls are flattened slightly, and then worked in side by side. These are providing support to the rear quarter of the shoe. A total of four balls of paper are used per shoe.

I am not ramming the paper as tightly as possible into the toe box or heel. My aim is to fill most of the cavity, and help the shoe keep its form.

A far as getting it out, it is not much of an effort. I don't stuff the paper in randomly, or with great force, and so I just use my fingers to ease out the four balls of paper. If it takes me one minute per shoe, I would be surprised.

I have compared the results of the paper with a shoe tree. The shoe tree seems to have the following drawbacks:

1) It very likely does not absorb moisture to the same degree as paper does.

2) Unless it has been made for that shoe, it can overstretch the parts that it is in contact with, and offers no support for the parts it is not in contact with.

I suspect that a custom shoe tree made for the shoe and the foot that fills it would be ideal. Failing that, I believe that the rolled paper is a good alternative.


----------



## firedancer

^ Dovid, sounds like a fine method and thanks for the explanation. I was totally Joshin ya in my post.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Dovid, A methodical man after my own heart. I hope you can answer a few more questions. 

Did you experiment with other kinds of paper before settling on unwaxed butcher? Did you try newsprint, and if so, why was it inferior? Hoping to avoid generating more trash by using paper already scheduled to be discarded. 

Along the same lines, can you reuse the paper, or do you use fresh pieces each time? If you reuse, how often do you change? 

Have you ever noticed moisture on the paper when you removed it? 


I would have thought that the paper would quickly relax and lose its ability to maintain the shape of the shoes. Do you find it is as firm when it comes out as it was when it went in? 

How densely do you pack it? How many sheets, of what size, do you put into one shoe, and what size shoe? 

I also would have thought that the paper would not be nearly rigid enough to prevent curling of the soles, if that is an important function of trees. Did you have any concerns about that? Do you find any curling? If not, then the need for trees to prevent this would be called into question. 

How long have you been doing this? Long enough that you think any ill effects of the absence of trees would be apparent by now? 

I greatly appreciate the care you take, and your generosity in sharing your knowledge, but can I ask: What is the spousal acceptance factor for this? I suspect if my wife found me carefully molding specially purchased paper each night to go into my shoes, she would reclassify me from "OCD, severely impaired" to "requires institutionalization." I get points for obsessive maintenance of the cars and house, but my current level of shoe attention raises eyebrows as it is. This would take it over the top. How do you manage it?

Thanks


----------



## Shaver

dbhdbhdbh said:


> Dovid, A methodical man after my own heart. I hope you can answer a few more questions.
> 
> Did you experiment with other kinds of paper before settling on unwaxed butcher? Did you try newsprint, and if so, why was it inferior? Hoping to avoid generating more trash by using paper already scheduled to be discarded.
> 
> Along the same lines, can you reuse the paper, or do you use fresh pieces each time? If you reuse, how often do you change?
> 
> Have you ever noticed moisture on the paper when you removed it?
> 
> I would have thought that the paper would quickly relax and lose its ability to maintain the shape of the shoes. Do you find it is as firm when it comes out as it was when it went in?
> 
> How densely do you pack it? How many sheets, of what size, do you put into one shoe, and what size shoe?
> 
> I also would have thought that the paper would not be nearly rigid enough to prevent curling of the soles, if that is an important function of trees. Did you have any concerns about that? Do you find any curling? If not, then the need for trees to prevent this would be called into question.
> 
> How long have you been doing this? Long enough that you think any ill effects of the absence of trees would be apparent by now?
> 
> I greatly appreciate the care you take, and your generosity in sharing your knowledge, but can I ask: What is the spousal acceptance factor for this? I suspect if my wife found me carefully molding specially purchased paper each night to go into my shoes, she would reclassify me from "OCD, severely impaired" to "requires institutionalization." I get points for obsessive maintenance of the cars and house, but my current level of shoe attention raises eyebrows as it is. This would take it over the top. How do you manage it?
> 
> Thanks


dbhdbhdbh my advice to you is to never, ever, be overheard by your partner whilst informing your shoes that they are 'beautiful' during their polishing. I made this mistake once and have subsequently lived to regret it.


----------



## Jovan

Somewhat related to this thread: I highly recommend SportsDry inserts for one's boat shoes and sneakers. They work quite well for getting out the stink and absorbing dampness, especially if wear either sockless.


----------



## justonemore

Following the demand for scientific proof and unable to find much useful on the topic of leather absorbancy, I decided to write to various shoe manufacturers and tanners. I received a message back from Nick Horween, the head of Hoween leather in Chicago. These are the folks that provide most (if not all) of the Cordovan leather used for shoes. Although I appreciate that he took the time to write, his response seems to muddy the water even more. 

Dear Mr. Horween,

I am writing to inquire as to as to the absorption rate of water concerning leather (calf/cordovan). I am particularly interested in the aspects physics and engineering play in the use of a wooden shoe tree in a damp shoe. I assume the wood has a more absorbent surface but am looking to find how this process is more effective than by air drying and would like to prove it mathematically. Although I realize shoes aren't technically your business, I thought you might be able to provide information relevant to leather or perhaps know where I could find the answers. > > Thank you in advance for your efforts on this matter. 

Thanks for the message - I've never had this question before! Absorbency is a function of many different components regarding leather - density, fiber structure, wax content, oil content, and finish type. There are countless combinations. When speaking of cordovan, the extremely tight fiber structure (the shell), the dense tannage (from vegetable extracts), and high oil and wax content make the leather water resistant and durable. In many modern leathers, waterproofing oils can be used, and artificial surfaces can be applied (rolled on) to the grain side to create a sort of membrane (e.g. patent leather). Best, Nick > >


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Unfortunately, that is kind of what I expected from an expert. Leather is complicated biologic material to start. Then it gets treated in a large variety of ways in fabrication, again when making shoes, and lives in widely varying environments once it gets to the user. It would be amazing if there were one simple universal answer.

It is definitely possible to dry leather too much or too quickly. The function of shoe trees may be to control the rate and extent of drying. The need for this may depend on the temperature and humidity where the shoes are stored, as well as how they are used. The belief in shoe trees seems to have arisen well before the advent of widespread air conditioning in homes and offices, which caused lower temperatures and humidity indoors. This also would have been before energy efficiency standards lead to tight air sealing, preventing extremely dry air in the winter. If one lived in a very humid environment, indoors as well as out, and shoes were stored in the same high humidity, it may have been necessary to try to dry then more than might have happened with air alone, and perhaps unvarnished shoe trees would help (uncertain about this, but at least it would be in accord with the belief in drying properties). If one lived in a dry climate, it may have been necessary to avoid excessive speed or depth of drying. Varnished shoe trees might have helped by holding in moisture, rather than releasing it rapidly. One might expect varnished and unvarnished trees both to be appropriate, depending on what one wanted them to do.

From "Tanning Chemistry: The Science of Leather"



> Drying of leather at elevated temperatures is a diffusion controlled process. The rate of diffusion is entirely dependent on the concentration gradient: when the evaporation of water is faster than the diffusion of water from interfibrillary regions to the surface, because the temperature of drying is too high, then the outer surfaces may become irreversibly crosslinked, as the structural water of leather fibres is lost. Once fibre sticking is introduced into the collagen matrix, rehumidifying will not replace the lost structural water to the same extent as before...


They go on to note that these problems can be avoided if the humidity of the air is raised so that it is not as far below the moisture content at the surface of the leather. By regulating the ambient humidity one can dry the leather safely (progressively reducing the air humidity as the leather dries) and even do it quickly. So drying too quickly or at too low an ambient humidity can be damaging.

Unfortunately, this reference is more concerned with production than maintenance of leather, so there is no discussion of the effects of hundreds of wet-dry cycles, as shoes experience in the field. They also do not limit their discussion to conditions that might be found in the home.

One might suspect that if the evaporation ever were fast enough to cause this loss of structural water and cross linking, then doing it over and over again, even to a mild degree, might lead to cummulative damage.

We don't know how fast the inside of shoes should dry, how dry they should get, or how this varies with temperature or the content of an individual's sweat. For these reasons, simply measuring relative rates of water loss with or without trees will not tell us whether trees are better. If the rate is the same, it would imply that the beneficial effects of trees, if there are any, are not due to drying rate.

"Wood as an Engineering Material" is an interesting read, but has little that is specific to our interest here. It does confirm the observation that wicking of water into wood (when the wood is in contact with the water source) occurs faster at the end grain than the side of the wood. All the unvarnished shoe trees I have seen (but I am hardly an expert in shoe tree design) are arranged so that the end grain would be in the toe box, and side grain everywhere else except the heel. This would mean faster absorption from the toe region that the rest of the lining, if it was in contact with the leather. I don't know why that would be desirable, but perhaps it is. If it is not desirable, then one might expect shoe trees either to be patchworks covered with endgrain (if you want rapid drying) or varnished (if you don't).

And don't worry about the equations in the Wood reference. If you passed 7th grade algebra, you will be fine.


----------



## firedancer

Wow. Who took algebra in 7th grade!


----------



## Bjorn

Why not simply observe 2 pair of shoes, one without shoe trees and one with. Does the pair with the shoe trees keep their shape better? Yes they do, in my experience. I've had shoes without trees, when younger. The exact science behind it I don't know.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Cdavant did this study. It is largely his results that make me skeptical of the necessity of trees



> 3 AE PAs, black, brown, merlot worn equally and polished with the same type cream. One goes to bed treeless, another right treed, the third left treed. I have to look inside the shoe for the mark to tell where the tree goes. I'll admit to not wearing them much in the cold and damp, but they all have around 100 days wearing, mostly on carpet. To date I see no difference, but I hope to have years to go. Like the wag said, "It ain't what you know, it's what you know that just ain't so..." Thirty bucks might be cheap if they made a real difference, fifty cents might be too much if they are just for show.


See earlier in this thread.

Add to that the inability of another member to detect more than 0.1gm of water transfer from shoe to tree, and one starts to question the real role of trees.

The detour into science was at justonemore's suggestion. Very interesting, but I think the question really requires the sort of direct test that cdavant is doing. It is possible that shoe trees are valuable, at least in some circumstances, but not because they lead to more rapid drying.

Algebra in 7th grade? I though that was standard. That's what I did, and my kids did the same. Some light introduction in 6th grade, then a good course in 7th. This is in the US. It might be earlier in countries where they are more ambitious about teaching math.


----------



## Jovan

I use shoe trees because, from what I have observed, they work!


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Jovan, 

That's helpful. Have you compared shoes maintained with trees to those without? Or do you mean that you use trees, your shoes look fine, and you assume they would not look fine without the trees? 

Thanks


----------



## Jovan

My shoes don't keep their shape or smell very good without trees. I know because when I started owning nicer shoes I didn't own any shoes trees. Ever since I have, I've noticed a difference.

Next thing you know, you guys will question whether or not suit hangers are necessary!


----------



## cdavant

Could it be your nicer shoes keep their shape better because they are made of better material and to a higher standard, not because of the trees? I still want to know.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Jovan,

Could not agree more about the smell. Cedar is wonderful for that. Being cheap, I have resorted to tucking a small cedar block along side of the plastic tree in each shoe. It seems to provide the same scent at far less cost than cedar trees. The blocks, initially bought for closets and clothes bags, effectively cost about $0.50 each. Plus they are easy to take on trips, much lighter and less bulky than cedar trees. 

Cdavant,

I think members would benefit a lot from seeing your shoes, and trying to guess which ones were abused by being forced to live without trees. Would you be willing to post unlabeled photos?

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I learn something every time I come here.


----------



## Shaver

dbhdbhdbh said:


> Jovan,
> 
> Could not agree more about the smell. Cedar is wonderful for that. Being cheap, I have resorted to tucking a small cedar block along side of the plastic tree in each shoe. It seems to provide the same scent at far less cost than cedar trees. The blocks, initially bought for closets and clothes bags, effectively cost about $0.50 each. Plus they are easy to take on trips, much lighter and less bulky than cedar trees.
> 
> Cdavant,
> 
> I think members would benefit a lot from seeing your shoes, and trying to guess which ones were abused by being forced to live without trees. Would you be willing to post unlabeled photos?
> 
> Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I learn something every time I come here.


may I second dbhdbhdbh's approval of Jovan's comment. Each of these pro/anti shoe tree threads which we have seen on the fora seem to neglect this one, very important detail. Each of my shoes have their own shoe trees and they all retain an odour as if new and unworn. Whatever else shoe trees may or may not do, they definitely impart a freshness of fragrance.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Beyond merely pleasant, which it certainly is, cedar saved a pair of shoes. Purchased for a good price on eBay, they were great, but smelled like they had been used for ashtrays by generations of people who died of lung cancer. Not overpowering at a few feet, but polishing them made my eyes water. Placing them in front of a fan at an open window did nothing. But a few days in cedar trees cleaned it up. I still need the blocks for maintenance of a decent odor, but I can wear them in my smoke free life without choking.


----------



## cdavant

I'll be posting serial pictures as soon as I can see a discernible difference--at least enough to photograph. So far I really don't see any, but it's early yet. I thought I might post pictures of each shoe and let members vote on which two look treed, or even ship them off to a couple of our shoe experts for examination in a year or two.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Cdavant, I understand, but "no difference at 100 wearings" is a pretty powerful statement. Yes, one would like good shoes to last much longer, but if trees were that crucial, the difference should be obvious by now. If you wait to post your pictures you leave those of us trying to resolve what to do hanging. If it takes close examination by an expert to see the difference, then it has to be small. I ask you to please post pictures. Those who think they can distinguish the treed from un treed can offer their opinions. If you cannot see the difference, I am pretty sure I could not either. Which would answer my question. In any case, thanks for filling us in on what you have done and what you have found. VERY interesting. Can I ask- aside from the experimental pairs, what do you do with the rest of your shoes? Trees or not? Cedar, varnished, plastic? All the time, for a day or two after wearing, or some other scheme? Thanks


----------



## Jovan

cdavant said:


> Could it be your nicer shoes keep their shape better because they are made of better material and to a higher standard, not because of the trees? I still want to know.


You are very determined to disprove shoe trees.

Did someone in the cedar industry cheese you off? :biggrin2:


----------



## eagle2250

I'm not sure what it says regarding the hypothesis being examined throughout this thread, but I just gave my wife three pair of shoes to be taken to our church's resale shop...after removing the shoe trees from each, stuffing the toes with tissue paper and returning the shoes to their original boxes. Could this mean I really believe in shoe trees and absolutely refuse to give them up, that I simply 'oh-so-love' my shoes, or is it just another indication that I might be anal retentivecrazy on the subject of shoe care?


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

> is it just another indication that I might be anal retentive() on the subject of shoe care?


 To briefly enter the sane world, we can agree that this describes every one of us participating in this thread! But isn't it nice to have someone to talk to who understands?


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL
...and a big Amen to that! Thank-you for being here.


----------



## firedancer

Choose ye this day how you will care for your shoes
As for me and my footwear, they will be treed. 
Firedancer 24:15


----------



## justonemore

Amen brother firedancer.


----------



## Jovan

That quote is going in my signature. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## cdavant

I need a quick tutorial on posting pictures directly. I can download to photobucket and post a link, but there is obviously a way to add photos directly to a post I can't figure out from the sticky. Copy and paste doesn't seem to work.


----------



## Jovan

You mean "upload". 

Hover over a picture in your album. Go to where it says "IMG code" and click the white box of text next to it. This will copy the text automatically. Then paste it in your textbox here.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Unrelated to mythology, but another question. I have not inspected the work-of-art lasted shoe trees made for high end MTO and bespoke shoes (and cost more for the trees than I would spend on a pair of shoes). However, in pictures they appear to be hinged. Do they lock in the flat position? If so, how do you unlock to insert and remove them? If they do not lock, then how do they prevent shoes from curling? Just relying on gravity in the toe, or something else? 

On drying, some trees for John Lobbs are not only wax finished, hence limiting absorption, but they are hollowed out, such that much of the insole and lining see air, rather than wood. Same for some Cheaney trees, spring loaded, apparently, but hollow. This is still air drying then, just with wood in the way, limiting air exchange. Really hard to see how fast drying could be a function of trees. 

But then again, we are not sure we want fast drying. Maybe controlled drying is better?


----------



## firedancer

My word, 
I understand that someone mentioned aiding in drying earlier in this thread but they were just off. The purpose of a shoe tree is not to dry your freaking shoes. The air does that. Otherwise we would have some rosin filled plastic contraption stuffed in all of our shoes. 

Whether you use newspaper, butcher paper, shoe trees ( these help heel counters and not just the toe box), rags, 
Plastic trees, metal trees with holes in them, sprung loaded trees, lasted trees, etc, the point is to keep your shoes true shape as much as possible.


----------



## cdavant

"Hover over a picture in your album. Go to where it says "IMG code" and click the white box of text next to it. This will copy the text automatically. Then paste it in your textbox here." 

Picassa is not co-operating. Do I need a dropbox album?

I will warn in advance. This will not be for the faint of heart, since I will need to post a picture of my tortured feet and the world's worst bunion which will make clear the cause of the shoe deformities. They were all I had to work with. I will polish each pair then wear each for a day, leaving the trees out before shooting the pictures, both on and off foot. Since only one of three left and one of three right has been treed, we can judge. All were purchased via eBay from GrapeVineHill and the Hitch-N-Post in 2007 and only 1 pair is clearly a second, based on the holes in the sole.

I'm just trying to gather a little hard evidence--a cost/benefit analysis--weighing the costs of treeing 30 pairs of shoes and boots against a case of zinfandel.


----------



## Jovan

firedancer: You're right. But unfinished wood (usually cedar) absorbs/destroys/does _something_ to odour-causing bacteria. That's half the appeal of shoe trees to me, which is why I use SportsDry inserts (basically foot-shaped bags of cedar shavings) on my shoes that aren't classy enough to have leather soles.


----------



## firedancer

^ well duh 

Like many things in life there are more than one benefit from the same thing. 

I just personally feel that keeping the leathers' lasted shape is paramount. 

For this reason you will not find lasted shoe trees unfinished. 

But with all this no sock wearing that's going on maybe Berluti, lobb, Vass, Green and the like should reconsider


----------



## Jovan

Well, even with socks shoes can get a bit... musty. I understand they wish to carry on the luxury feel, but if I could afford any of those guys I'd ask them to not varnish the wood.


----------



## ismailmurtadza

Andy said:


> I'm not sure why Australians haven't learned the benefits of shoe trees! Laziness, ignorance or maybe just odd third world cultural practices! :icon_smile:
> 
> Cedar shoetrees should be used to maintain shape, absorb moisture and leave a clean scent in all your shoes. Put the shoetrees in your shoes the minute you take them off while they are warm and moist.
> 
> Not sure why you're letting the shoes dry out before using the trees (this might be the problem).
> 
> Leaving the shoetrees in the shoes is helpful when you clean and polish them.
> 
> *Benefits of Shoe Trees
> 
> *Longevity - protect the leather, fabric, stitching and soles from moisture damage. Cedar wicking action absorbs moisture, acid and salts thus reducing cracking and deterioration (rot).
> 
> Comfort -- shoetrees smooth out lining and insoles making them more comfortable longer
> 
> Appearance - trees can smooth out creases and wrinkles that appear
> ​


Wise advised from Andy.Good shoes cost money

murtadza


----------



## firedancer

Jovan said:


> I understand they wish to carry on the luxury feel, but if I could afford any of those guys I'd ask them to not varnish the wood.


Ha, I wonder how that would work out for you.....


----------



## Jovan

They'd look at me weird. Then I'd remind them I'm paying $3000 for a ****ing pair of shoes. Then they'd reluctantly do it.

... or they could just turn down my business because I'm a weirdo like that.


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Hmmm. After all the appeals to authority in this thread, now we are going to tell the high end shoemakers that they are wrong in how they do their trees? 

I did not follow why lasted tries must be finished. They start life unfinished, why not just stop before the finishing step?

Any ideas how flexible hinged trees or paper combat curling, if they do this at all?


----------



## justonemore

Out of the 10 or so shoe makers I wrote, none of them bothered to respond( with the exception of Horween leather). I won't name them. but they'd all probably make most people's top 20 list. Although I didn't really expect that they'd give any technical data, I thought they'd at least defend their position on recommending shoe trees. I will still maintain that this has to be based on fact in one manner or another. If not, there's quite a lot of people who have been misled (including Andy from this site). As for me, the trees will remain until someone proves to me that they are harmful to shoes. I already have 20 pair of the things and have had no qualms with spending an additional $30 on a $600-900 purchase. Call it an unproven form of insurance if you like.


----------



## JerseyJohn

As I said in long-previous posts (and got a lot of grief for it), wood won't absorb any significant moisture from your shoes in the short term. Leather is way more absorbent than wood. To borrow a previous poster's analogy, using a wooden tree to try to absorb moisture from leather is like like trying to use wax paper to absorb moisture from a paper towel. If your shoes are wet enough to leave visible moisture on the surface of a shoe tree of any material (either from perspiration or walking in water), then they're so wet that in my opinion they should be dried first by stuffing them with newspaper and then treed.

As other posters have said, the real purpose of a tree is to hold the shoe's shape as it dries. It serves in this regard in the same capacity as a woman's hair roller: she puts it in her damp hair, and its shape gets frozen into place as it dries. But, to continue the analogy, if she goes out in the humid air without the rollers, eventually the hair reverts back to its unset condition. The same with shoes: the tree will "freeze" the shoes in their proper shape, but if you take the trees out, they may (depending on humidity) re-absorb moisture from the air and begin to assume over the course of days or weeks a different shape. This argues for leaving trees in shoes.

Given all of that, I confess, I don't bother - I have a few trees and switch them into the last pair I wore. I haven't seen any noticeable difference.


----------



## Jovan

I wasn't talking moisture though, I was talking about odours.


----------



## bjornkarger

It's important, and aids in longevity even _afte__r _initial drying-out, but OP has had enough responses here to demonstrate. I use them for all pairs including sneakers & for years have been getting the result of those expensive brand-name trees while spending almost nothing on my frugal "poor man's shoe tree": using hand-crushed packing paper in balls to fit inside shoes; often with new shoes these are already in place so yes the manufacturers do know the benefits, even before the shoes are worn. I just don't toss them like most people wastefully do. Use them as lo-cost 'trees' and only replace rarely, if they absolutely need it. (Shoe stores are generally full of them and often have extra for the taking.) One cedar-cented mothball in the shoe closet is enough for the scent.

But I still wonder why shoe-tree manufacturers are painfully stuck in a 1930s way of thinking ... why can't any of them apply any true *innovation* to the shoe-tree design?

(I've studied the making of highend shoe trees, eg
https://www.afinepairofshoes.co.uk/blogs/news/6607489-visit-to-spring-line-ltd -- and it seems to me that their next logical step in evolution is to go modular: have a connector at the heel-end snap, attachable in upward angle to a main trunk-post, which itself is modular in height, attachable; as you buy more in the system you simply attach round the post and build it up taller, like an artificial Christmas tree. A lazy-susan stand at the bottom aids in selection, so all your shoes are attractively available fitting in one small area (approx 3' diameter at base) rising upward, 360-degree turnable, neatly in place...)


----------



## dbhdbhdbh

Last making cries out for 3D printers. One would still need to use the last to make shoes, so custom fits would not become readily available to those of us in the masses, but the expense of handmade lasts should follow hand set type in printing presses of yore. With not too much effort, it should be possible to make custom lasted shoe trees for any pair of shoes. Cedar would be a bigger challenge, but there are already computer controlled milling machines that will spit out perfect pieces once the shape is known. One can appreciate the craft without believing this is the only way to do it.


----------



## imme

cdavant said:


> "Hover over a picture in your album. Go to where it says "IMG code" and click the white box of text next to it. This will copy the text automatically. Then paste it in your textbox here."
> 
> Picassa is not co-operating. Do I need a dropbox album?
> 
> I will warn in advance. This will not be for the faint of heart, since I will need to post a picture of my tortured feet and the world's worst bunion which will make clear the cause of the shoe deformities. They were all I had to work with. I will polish each pair then wear each for a day, leaving the trees out before shooting the pictures, both on and off foot. Since only one of three left and one of three right has been treed, we can judge. All were purchased via eBay from GrapeVineHill and the Hitch-N-Post in 2007 and only 1 pair is clearly a second, based on the holes in the sole.
> 
> I'm just trying to gather a little hard evidence--a cost/benefit analysis--weighing the costs of treeing 30 pairs of shoes and boots against a case of zinfandel.


So, it's been a year. How goes the uploading of the unlabeled comparison treed vs non-treed photos?


----------



## Fatman

I use ordinary cedar shoe trees in all of my shoes. 

I have noticed that my shoe trees cost more than some of the shoes co workers around me wear!


----------



## Reuben

Fatman said:


> I use ordinary cedar shoe trees in all of my shoes.
> 
> I have noticed that my shoe trees cost more than some of the shoes co workers around me wear!


You know you can pick them up at 3 for $25 through the rest of the day at Jos. A. Banks, right? That's where I get all mine. That's about the only worthwhile thing there.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## cdavant

I think I just figured out Imgur so I'll try to post photos soon with a poll. I am warning moderators in advance that there will be a very explicit photo of my very ugly feet that will explain the different widths, but will not make it any easier to figure out which two of six PAs got the trees. Never did figure out how to get photos from Picassa to post. There is no img code when I hover, click or try to copy. Any way to post direct from an iPhone?


----------



## firedancer

cdavant said:


> I think I just figured out Imgur so I'll try to post photos soon with a poll. I am warning moderators in advance that there will be a very explicit photo of my very ugly feet that will explain the different widths, but will not make it any easier to figure out which two of six PAs got the trees. Never did figure out how to get photos from Picassa to post. There is no img code when I hover, click or try to copy. Any way to post direct from an iPhone?


I post from my phone exclusively using the tapatalk app.

There is a camera icon to take pics and add or a picture icon to add pics from your library.

2 at a time is still a limiting factor I believe.

I hope I don't regret this, as this thread got on my last nerve before it died months ago.....


----------



## TradThrifter

I only own a single pair of shoe trees that I put into the last shoes that I had worn.


----------



## Tilton

TradThrifter said:


> I only own a single pair of shoe trees that I put into the last shoes that I had worn.


This is close to my deal. I have 3 trees for 20-some pairs of shoes. Some of them are worn very infrequently, though. After a few days, I assume that the trees have done their job in providing some shape while the shoe dries out and rests and I put them in another pair. Some of my shoes seem to get a bit stretched from the trees and one pair in particular (C&J for Polo, if it matters) fits MUCH better if no trees have been in the shoe for a week or so.


----------



## TheoProf

Can we re-title this the "Zombie Thread"? It keeps coming back with no resolution in sight. Let's just agree that shoe trees should be used at all times, and that those of you who think differently are wrong but will not be made fun of for your silliness.


----------



## Tilton

williamsonb2 said:


> Can we re-title this the "Zombie Thread"? It keeps coming back with no resolution in sight. Let's just agree that shoe trees should be used at all times, and that those of you who think differently are wrong but will not be made fun of for your silliness.


190 posts? By now you should know that scientific evidence from a well-respected institution is required before anyone can be "wrong" here - until then, you're only allowed to say that they are "crazy in my book."


----------



## TheoProf

Though my answer was tongue in cheek, I'm pretty sure that the scientific community likely has this on the priority list somewhere between finding a cure for cancer and eradicating BO. Therefore, in the interest of saving time between now and then, let me rephrase: "Let's agree to live in our own existential worlds of ungrounded presuppositions on the matter of the relative benefits of shoe trees." This way conflicting opinions on the matter no longer concern us as they now exist in alternate universes. In other words, you are wrong "in my book", and I will be free of the compulsion to click on this infernal thread every time it resurrects itself and moves to the top of the queue.


----------



## RogerP

williamsonb2 said:


> Can we re-title this the "Zombie Thread"? It keeps coming back with no resolution in sight. Let's just agree that shoe trees should be used at all times, and that those of you who think differently are wrong but will not be made fun of for your silliness.


Works for me. :wink2: Seriously, I can scarcely believe that this is even the subject of debate.


----------



## MaxBuck

cdavant said:


> ... there will be a very explicit photo of my very ugly feet ...


TMI

:devil:


----------



## Tilton

williamsonb2 said:


> Though my answer was tongue in cheek, I'm pretty sure that the scientific community likely has this on the priority list somewhere between finding a cure for cancer and eradicating BO. Therefore, in the interest of saving time between now and then, let me rephrase: "Let's agree to live in our own existential worlds of ungrounded presuppositions on the matter of the relative benefits of shoe trees." This way conflicting opinions on the matter no longer concern us as they now exist in alternate universes. In other words, you are wrong "in my book", and I will be free of the compulsion to click on this infernal thread every time it resurrects itself and moves to the top of the queue.


Yes, my response was also a joke. However, and I'm still reeling from riding the metro for the first time in several months yesterday, I would like to posit that the eradication of BO should rank higher than you may have indicated (unless you were implying that research of import is literally ranked 1. cancer 2. shoes 3. BO - in which case, we're on the same page).


----------



## TheoProf

Agreed! Someone should get a Nobel prize if the cure for such pungent odors is ever discovered. The question is what category? They should at least receive a pair of shoe trees as a token of our appreciation.


----------



## Tilton

I'm afraid the powerful Deodorant Manufacturers of America lobby would block any public funds from being allocated to such research.


----------



## TheoProf

I don't know. I believe the senate majority leader might be willing to lead the fight against Big Deodorant.


----------



## cdavant

The Zombie thread has returned from the dead. After around 10 years I am ready to send 3 ageing pairs of PAs at my expense to Andy (or anyone he designates) along with return postage for evaluation. Black, brown, merlot all worn in rotation and all well over 120 times. One right treed. One left treed. One never treed. All compromised by my huge bunion. A small sample size, but all we have.
No 8.5 EEEs please, I want them back.
Andy?


----------



## Searching_Best_Fit

Are you ready to conclude that shoe trees do not preserve the shapes? Or what is the final verdict?


----------



## Oldsarge

I am not. For years before I started using shoe trees my shoes would, over time, curl upwards. They no longer do.


----------



## cellochris

Pictures please!


----------



## drlivingston

There are more benefits to using cedar trees than just maintaining shape.


----------



## CLTesquire




----------



## Flanderian

Ahhh . . . the old great shoe tree debate!

I'm for 'em!

Example: About 20 years ago I purchased a pair of moderately priced American made dirty bucks. (Remember those!?!?) Though pure negligence and laziness I didn't bother to use trees because (My rationalization.) "they're just cheap shoes." A few months later they've grown fairly misshapen. "Wonder if trees would help?" I muse. So I started using them. Within a couple a few months, they began looking better, (And not only on the trees, but on my feet as well.) but not as good as shoes in which I'd used trees from the get go.

Conclusions: Trees help. It's best to use them from the start. But they can to a lesser degree benefit at least some shoes in which they weren't.


----------



## Wilx

Here are my Hugo Boss shoes that I'm using for ~two monthes without shoe trees. Got some questions.

1) If I would use shoe trees from the start would I be able to avoid those wrinkles?

2) How bad are these wrinkles (I mean the ones on the pic) in your opinion?

3) If I will start using shoe trees right now will I be able to get rid of them or is it too late?



And these are my Fred Perry after I got in a strong rain.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Wilx, welcome to AAAC! As to your question, put snug fitting shoe trees in the shoes and apply a damp washcloth across the vamp of your shoes. Set your steam iron to the cotton setting and with slight pressure, run the iron across the wash cloth covered vamp(s) of the shoes. It should go a long way in reducing the creasing in that area of your shoes. Good luck in your quest!


----------



## ran23

searching for shoe trees, I found Kiwi Cedar trees at Target for $9.99. any good? thanks


----------



## ItalianStyle

I don't question the benefits of shoe trees. The one pair of dress shoes I have that I don't use them in has developed 'clown shape', i.e. the toe cap has started to point upwards, so they'll help the shoes to keep their shape. I don't have sweaty feet, so I have never had a problem with moisture, but I'm sure the non-lacquered ones are useful for that too.

However, I do question the mark-up price that some of the brand name shoe trees have. We all know they cost about $5 to make (and put the name tag on), so there is a limit to how much they _should_ cost.
The only justification I can think of, is if the specific shoe trees are made for a specific last, thus being a perfect fit.

But most often the $200+ shoe trees with a brand name is sold without mentioning a last at all. Listen to this blurb from Leffot justifying $175 ($87.50 on sale) G&G shoe trees:

_"It's important to use trees that fit your shoes properly, and often this means getting shoes directly from the manufacturer"
"Sizing: Gaziano & Girling shoe trees are made to fit all Gaziano & Girling lasts."
_
Yeah, right...


----------



## Langham

ItalianStyle said:


> ...
> 
> But most often the $200+ shoe trees with a brand name is sold without mentioning a last at all. Listen to this blurb from Leffot justifying $175 ($87.50 on sale) G&G shoe trees:
> 
> _"It's important to use trees that fit your shoes properly, and often this means getting shoes directly from the manufacturer"
> "Sizing: Gaziano & Girling shoe trees are made to fit all Gaziano & Girling lasts."
> _
> Yeah, right...


Most of those answering this thread perceive some value in using trees. Personally I'm undecided. Shoes may look better resting on trees, but whether this can hasten their drying out seems to depend on solid wood being more absorbent than ambient air (maybe some types of wood are - but often trees are varnished or lacquered).

It could be the case that I am rather heavy on my shoes, but my impression is that, when de-treed and worn, shoes immediately revert to the creased foot-shape that the tree was supposed to prevent. I also have a number of old shoe-making lasts, acquired very cheaply, which do a better job than trees in terms of preventing sole-curl, but again the shoes seem to immediately revert when worn.


----------



## akwmek

From my experience, it does help keeping my shoes in shape


----------



## Kyle76

In my experience, much more important than using shoe trees is to have at least a half-dozen pairs of shoes and a good rotation. I rarely use trees in my shoes, but I rarely wear the same pair within a 5-6-day span, so they have plenty of time to dry and recover. I store them on a shelf or on a rack in my closet, and I find that they do not wrinkle a great deal after the initial wearing-in period.


----------



## ShaneCrawford

Aussie said:


> Are shoe trees really that important?
> 
> I understand that damp sweaty leather ideally needs to dry with a form to keep it's shape, but after it has dried, what good does the shoe tree confer?
> 
> A few observations:
> 
> Shoe makers without exception DO NOT store new shoes on trees! If this practise is harmful why on earth does the shoe industry subject it's own products to abuse?
> 
> Local cobblers here in Australia DO NOT user trees fro their clients shoes.. In fact, my cobbler hands back my tees when I drop off my shoes for repair! All shoes in his shop are un-treed!
> 
> Here in Australia, RM Williams does not sell or rcommend shoe trees.. In fact I think RM himself would roll over in his grave at the thought of his fine leather work boots being treated like dress shoes!
> 
> For the record I own several pairs of shoe trees, and I use them while my dress shoes are drying out after use.. I NEVER use trees on my work boots, I just keep them reasonably clean and conditioned..
> 
> I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject, but please support what you say with facts.. and no ad hominems!


I have heard that people say that Cedar shoe trees dry out the leather over extended time (_long term 3-6 month_), possible? If so, there's a simple answer, plastic shoe trees, they still keep the shape of the shoe, however, after wearing your pair of shoes, instert a pair of Cedar shoe trees for a few days to week then remove the Cedar shoe trees and then insert the plastic ones. Oh those packets of *Don't Eat Me's*, can me insterted into shoes if needed to be!


----------



## cdavant

Anyone here live in western North Carolina? Dr. Fisher moved before getting a look at my 15 year shoe tree study. I have three pairs of Allen Edmund's Park Avenues in Black, Brown and Merlot bought within a few months of each other. All worn in rotation about a dozen or so times a year. I have a couple of dozen AEs and Aldens for daily wear.
One pair of PAs has never seen a tree. One has only had a right tree, the other a left tree. All the rest have never been treed.
I don't see much benefit, but almost 50 years of running (27 marathons, 4 Bostons) have blessed me with a very big bunion that leads to some shoe deformity.
Pictures won't help a lot. Any experts out there?


----------



## Vecchio Vespa

I am a big believer that the necessity of trees for shoe care is heavily influenced by the nature of the shoes. I wore a pair of Alden LHS almost exclusively, typically Sunday through Thursday, without trees, for over thirty years. The typical Alden sole kept them straight and fine. The rarely worn nappa Santonis really needed the trees to keep the toes from curling.


----------



## Howard

Shouldn't shoes be kept on the floor?


----------



## ShaneCrawford

I have a pair of Timberland Heritage shoes, and I didn't use shoe trees at all, and the toe area looked like a heavy box has been on them. Until I inserted shoe trees, and they brought them back to their proper form! So shoe trees do work, as they say Cedar shoe trees are the best for keep the shoes's form, dry (_sweat removal_), and detering moths!
I Know some shoe sole are quick good to "reduce" toe curl," but not all shoes are made the same, like humans!


----------



## ShaneCrawford

Vecchio Vespa said:


> I am a big believer that the necessity of trees for shoe care is heavily influenced by the nature of the shoes. I wore a pair of Alden LHS almost exclusively, typically Sunday through Thursday, without trees, for over thirty years. The typical Alden sole kept them straight and fine. The rarely worn nappa Santonis really needed the trees to keep the toes from curling.


_You've got a great pair of shoes! _As we know not all shoes are made the same, some are cheap and nasty, while some are great quality, _*but be warned, the price of some shoes don't meant their good quality!*_


----------



## The Great Garbanzo

cdavant said:


> Anyone here live in western North Carolina? Dr. Fisher moved before getting a look at my 15 year shoe tree study. I have three pairs of Allen Edmund's Park Avenues in Black, Brown and Merlot bought within a few months of each other. All worn in rotation about a dozen or so times a year. I have a couple of dozen AEs and Aldens for daily wear.
> One pair of PAs has never seen a tree. One has only had a right tree, the other a left tree. All the rest have never been treed.
> I don't see much benefit, but almost 50 years of running (27 marathons, 4 Bostons) have blessed me with a very big bunion that leads to some shoe deformity.
> Pictures won't help a lot. Any experts out there?



Would you happen to have any grandchildren...or friends with same...who could post these pictures within seconds?


----------



## ShaneCrawford

Howard said:


> Shouldn't shoes be kept on the floor?


*Normally yes! *If one has a not much room to store one's shoes. personally If one has a *cotton storage containers* (_not plastic_), that would be better, also storing shoes off the floor may _keep bugs away from them! _There's plenty of options for shoe storage_ -_ the prices range from $15-$75_





















_


----------



## Howard

ShaneCrawford said:


> *Normally yes! *If one has a not much room to store one's shoes. personally If one has a *cotton storage containers* (_not plastic_), that would be better, also storing shoes off the floor may _keep bugs away from them! _There's plenty of options for shoe storage_ -_ the prices range from $15-$75
> _
> View attachment 91931
> View attachment 91930
> View attachment 91932
> _


Thanks Shane I think I'll look into storage containers, I've been living in this room for 33 years I think it's about time.


----------



## ShaneCrawford

Yo


Howard said:


> Thanks Shane I think I'll look into storage containers, I've been living in this room for 33 years I think it's about time.


Your welcome, I Googled the images. Also depending where you live, there may be a store where you could buy storage solutions, or if you are a handman, make your own?
Just a side note, 95% of us vacuum/swep our foors, as movable storage system (_with wheels_) may help!
Depending on the number of shoes we have, there was another thing I forgot to metion with shoe storage, storing of shoe care products such as Kiwi or Shapire etc.!


----------



## ShaneCrawford

Howard said:


> Thanks Shane I think I'll look into storage containers, I've been living in this room for 33 years I think it's about time.


Also I found useful "*The Chaps Guide*" *The Chaps Guide - How to store your footware*, the chap's name is Ash and he is british!


----------



## Howard

ShaneCrawford said:


> Yo
> 
> Your welcome, I Googled the images. Also depending where you live, there may be a store where you could buy storage solutions, or if you are a handman, make your own?
> Just a side note, 95% of us vacuum/swep our foors, as movable storage system (_with wheels_) may help!
> Depending on the number of shoes we have, there was another thing I forgot to metion with shoe storage, storing of shoe care products such as Kiwi or Shapire etc.!


The room where I live now used to be my Brother's room whom had passed away 27 years ago and from 1974-1989 I had the baby room which was my room and then from 1971-1989 my brother and my Father had a small argument and I wound up having his room until he passed away and so from 1989 to now this has been my room, I would like to make some changes to this room, the carpet is old and probably needs more closet space too and more storage containers.


----------



## ShaneCrawford

Sorry to hear about your brother, my feelings go out you!
Unless we have a *TARDIS *in our bedroom, there's not much we can do about closet space, however, storage containers (_not plastic ever - makes clothes sweat and mould build up_). Good idea to replace the carpet ASAP, as it may contain moth eggs and other bugs (dust mites etc) that will ruin your clothing! At least with breathable storage containers (plastic framed) can be stacked, or if needed to be either shop brought or custom! I hope this helps?


----------



## Howard

ShaneCrawford said:


> Sorry to hear about your brother, my feelings go out you!
> Unless we have a *TARDIS *in our bedroom, there's not much we can do about closet space, however, storage containers (_not plastic ever - makes clothes sweat and mould build up_). Good idea to replace the carpet ASAP, as it may contain moth eggs and other bugs (dust mites etc) that will ruin your clothing! At least with breathable storage containers (plastic framed) can be stacked, or if needed to be either shop brought or custom! I hope this helps?


Thanks maybe I'll try the dollar store, they sell storage bins.


----------



## Howard

ShaneCrawford said:


> Sorry to hear about your brother, my feelings go out you!
> Unless we have a *TARDIS *in our bedroom, there's not much we can do about closet space, however, storage containers (_not plastic ever - makes clothes sweat and mould build up_). Good idea to replace the carpet ASAP, as it may contain moth eggs and other bugs (dust mites etc) that will ruin your clothing! At least with breathable storage containers (plastic framed) can be stacked, or if needed to be either shop brought or custom! I hope this helps?


And by the way, this carpet is my brother's old carpet from 1972 so it's almost 50 years old, it's up to My Father to see what he can do with this carpet.


----------

