# Shoe trees -- one for every pair?



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

After wearing a pair of shoes, I leave my cedar shoe trees in over night. Not being able to afford a pair of trees for every pair of shoes, I just leave them in over night and remove them the next day. 

How many people actually have a pair of trees for every pair of shoes? I realize that plastic trees are looked down upon, but are they acceptable for maintaining the shape of shoes after the wood trees are removed the next day?

Thanks in advance,
AD


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I think that's exactly how to use them. I used to have a set for every pair, I found that over a long period of time it would eventually stretch the shoe. I say put the trees in until it dries out, then take them out.


----------



## LeatherSOUL (May 8, 2005)

If you're buying nice shoes what's another $20 for cedar shoe trees?


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*Shoe trees: cedar or plastic*

I would not use plastic shoe trees. Use cedar, one for every pair. I get them at JAB for $20 per pair, although I am tempted, probably strictly by their looks, to bouy them from C&J.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

If they are stretching the shoes they are too big. You do need to keep decent shoes in trees when not in use (obviously). Many chaps have more trees than shoes because they also have light-weight ones for travelling.
Having said this, however, you can probably just use rolled up newspaper to the same effect.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Presently I have cedar shoe trees for each pair of shoes in my inventory, except for a couple of pair of work boots and several pair of athletic shoes. That amounts to 51 pair of cedar shoe trees. Some day our kids are going to have one h*ll of a garage sale!


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

Personally, I do have a pair of trees for each pair of shoes. I make do with plastic trees for some pairs, but only as a stopgap until I get a full complement of wooden (pref. solid cedar) trees. I think you will find that if you leave your shoes without trees (or other measures to retain their shape) for an long time it will exacerbate any creases in them and reduce their life overall..


----------



## Omega (Jul 10, 2005)

A got a few questions: why cedar is the most preferred wood for shoe tree? And what is wrong with plastic?
Thank you,


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Omega said:


> A got a few questions: why cedar is the most preferred wood for shoe tree? And what is wrong with plastic?
> Thank you,


Cedar absorbs odor and moisture well, plastic does not. Cedar also has a pleasant odor. P.S.-It is a crime not to put trees in all your shoes after you remove them.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Shoe trees one for every pair?*

I use shoe trees for every pair of shoes. I think shoe trees are a good investment. Some of my shoes are 40 years old , because I use shoe trees polish and wax them , the shoes look new. For example I have a pair of Gucci shoes I purchased in 1972 for $150.00 , that same shoe today retails for over $450.00. Because I use shoe trees those Gucci shoes look as if I just purchased them. In addition a pair of Allen Edmonds I purchased for $75.00 in 1969 ! , using shoe trees they also look as if I just bought them. Both shoes was new when I purchased them.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> I use shoe trees for every pair of shoes. I think shoe trees are a good investment. Some of my shoes are 40 years old , because I use shoe trees polish and wax them , the shoes look new. For example I have a pair of Gucci shoes I purchased in 1972 for $150.00 , that same shoe today retails for over $450.00. Because I use shoe trees those Gucci shoes look as if I just purchased them. In addition a pair of Allen Edmonds I purchased for $75.00 in 1969 ! , using shoe trees they also look as if I just bought them. Both shoes was new when I purchased them.


...Word. The case for using shoe trees (and regular conditioning) cannot be any more eloquenty or strongly made!


----------



## Eustace Tilley (Sep 23, 2007)

Trees are not for simply absorbing moisture but also for maintaining the shape of the shoes. Thus, you should have a pair of trees for each pair of shoes.


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Eustace Tilley said:


> Trees are not for simply absorbing moisture but also for maintaining the shape of the shoes. Thus, you should have a pair of trees for each pair of shoes.


Exactly. My old shoes that I did not use shoe trees in have curled up whereas all the shoes I have used trees in have the same shape as they did when I took them out of the box. A $20 investment to maintain expensive (and even inexpenise) shoes makes sense to me.

Brian


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Trimmer said:


> If they are stretching the shoes they are too big. You do need to keep decent shoes in trees when not in use (obviously). Many chaps have more trees than shoes because they also have light-weight ones for travelling.
> Having said this, however, you can probably just use rolled up newspaper to the same effect.


They're not too big (they have to get close to the longest length they are capable of being to fill the shoe). Maybe it's just my wearing them that did it, but the stretching is not the kind that I would expect that to cause (stretched the back of the shoe out over the heel, and my other shoes that I bought since stopping the practice of leaving them in all the time haven't had this happen).


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> They're not too big (they have to get close to the longest length they are capable of being to fill the shoe). Maybe it's just my wearing them that did it, but the stretching is not the kind that I would expect that to cause (stretched the back of the shoe out over the heel).


An interesting point. They are trees and not stretchers, so if they have "stretched the back of the shoe" in this way I would still suggest they might be too big. Actually - and I would be interested to hear what others say - I do not think trees need to "fill the shoe" so much as be large enough just to maintain its shape.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Trimmer said:


> An interesting point. They are trees and not stretchers, so if they have "stretched the back of the shoe" in this way I would still suggest they might be too big. Actually - and I would be interested to hear what others say - I do not think trees need to "fill the shoe" so much as be large enough just to maintain its shape.


Well, I'l put it this way: one size smaller and I can just drop the tree in there and the heel of the tree won't even touch the heel of the shoe.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Well, I'l put it this way: one size smaller and I can just drop the tree in there and the heel of the tree won't even touch the heel of the shoe.


Unless the tree is actually made for the shoe there is likely to be some divergence. If it fits reasonably snuggly at the heel without strain it's the right size, but it might not actually 'fill' the shoe. I take a 9.5 shoe, but find, depending on the shape of the last, trees of 9/9.5/10 work best.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Where do you get such specifically sized shoe trees? Here's they're just S, M, L, XL, XXL.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

alphadelta:

*"Shoe trees -- one for every pair"!! *

When I first saw this, I thought it was a campaign promise and I was going to vote for you!! :icon_smile_big:

In *The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes*, Shoe Care Chapter is a section on Shoe Trees. Here's an excerpt:

Shoetrees are the wooden devices that fit into your shoes when you're not wearing them to keep your shoes in shape, protect them from moisture, and give them a break from foot odor.​
Keep shoetrees in your shoes, when you're not wearing them (it's a little difficult to wear them with the shoe trees in there). Put the shoetrees in immediately when you take your feet out. The trees will do more good when the leather is warm and moist.​
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​​
*Features to look for: *​
*Cedar wood *Cedar wood is best, it not only keeps your shoes in shape, protect them from moisture, which leather absorbs from your feet and the elements, but the cedar wood gives the shoe a natural clean smell which helps to keep moths out of your closet. Plastic shoetrees may help keep the shape of your shoe, but offer none of the other advantages.​
*Easy grasp heel device *You'll want to be able to easily remove the shoetree from your shoes. Many shoetree makers skimp on the heel grip device. Some styles have just the heel wood piece to grasp or a leather loop, which you pull up on. The better shoetrees have a metal knob or a built-in grasp. ​
*Full toe and heel *Some styles of shoetrees skimp on the heel portion. They may be cedar at the toe, but the heel is plastic or just a continuation of the rounded end of the metal centerpiece.​
*User tips**Solid toe* shoetrees work best on heavier shoes, while *split toe* shoetrees work well on soft shoes, like hand-sewn, boat, and athletic shoes.​​


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Where do you get such specifically sized shoe trees? Here's they're just S, M, L, XL, XXL.


https://www.shoe-trees.co.uk/

https://www.bexley.fr

https://www.tmlewin.co.uk


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Andy said:


> Shoetrees are the wooden devices that fit into your shoes when you're not wearing them to keep your shoes in shape, protect them from moisture, and give them a break from foot odor.


But do they do any of this after having been in the shoe for two days?


----------



## SirSuturesALot (Sep 2, 2007)

Trimmer said:


> An interesting point. They are trees and not stretchers, so if they have "stretched the back of the shoe" in this way I would still suggest they might be too big. Actually - and I would be interested to hear what others say - I do not think trees need to "fill the shoe" so much as be large enough just to maintain its shape.


Unfortunately, most shoe trees available are spring loaded and push back with some degree of force on the toe-end and heel-end of the shoe. From a purely physical standpoint, stretching should not come as a surprise.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Allow me to sound a contrarian note here: I do use cedar shoe trees with many of my leather shoes, but I have real doubts about their ability to "absorb moisture." Trees won't absort moisture taken in by the leather of the uppers, since it is separated from the tree by the lining. And any moisture that gets through your socks into the lining will just evaporate long before it ever gets "absorbed" by the trees. The lasted shoe trees provided by Vass, Lobb, and EG, for example, are varnished wood--often hardwood--and this would suggest that their function is not to absorb moisture, but rather to maintain the shoe's shape. As for imparting a nice smell to the shoes, I doubt that this happens to any great extent either with cedar; at least I've never noticed it.

The function of all shoe trees, in my opinion, is to maintain the shape of the shoes and let them dry out, if wet, in that proper shape, rather than curling up. For this reason, plastic trees are probably not that bad, and are certainly much better than nothing. As for stretching the heels, I don't that that this will happen with good spring-loaded wooden trees that have a fairly meaty heel piece. Where some elongation/stretching of the heels might occur is with the plastic trees that have a wire connection attached to the vamp that is adjusted into holes of a receptacle attached to the heel piece, and a very thin plastic heel piece. If the wire connection to the vamp piece is put into holes that make the fit too tight in the shoes, I can see some stretching of the leather occurring at the heels. Therefore, it's important to adjust the plastic ones so that the tension against the heel is minimal. Granted there has to be some to let the tree perform its function, but as little as possible should protect against stretching.

_Edit:_ I just thought of something else. When I bought my first pair of Alden shell cordovans, there was a little printed insert that described proper care for this kind of leather. One of the things that Alden noted was that shell cordovan is prone to stretching, and, for that reason, shoe trees that exerted tension should be avoided. Since that time, I've used the plastic kind, with _no_ tension in the heel piece--just the vamp piece nestled tightly into that part of the shoes.


----------



## SirSuturesALot (Sep 2, 2007)

Roger said:


> _Edit:_ I just thought of something else. When I bought my first pair of Alden shell cordovans, there was a little printed insert that described proper care for this kind of leather. One of the things that Alden noted was that shell cordovan is prone to stretching, and, for that reason, shoe trees that exerted tension should be avoided. Since that time, I've used the plastic kind, with _no_ tension in the heel piece--just the vamp piece nestled tightly into that part of the shoes.


:crazy: Thanks for the heads up! Just took my shoe trees out of my Alden shells.


----------



## Hard2Fit (May 11, 2005)

I have a pair for every shoe but firmly believe only one pair (maybe two) of shoe trees is necessary. Leave the pair of shoes trees in your last worn pair of shoes. As soon as you've finished wearing another pair switch them over. Ideally, the trees would only be in one pair of shoes for 24 hours, sufficient drying/shaping time.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Roger said:


> Allow me to sound a contrarian note here: I do use cedar shoe trees with many of my leather shoes, but I have real doubts about their ability to "absorb moisture." Trees won't absort moisture taken in by the leather of the uppers, since it is separated from the tree by the lining. And any moisture that gets through your socks into the lining will just evaporate long before it ever gets "absorbed" by the trees. The lasted shoe trees provided by Vass, Lobb, and EG, for example, are varnished wood--often hardwood--and this would suggest that their function is not to absorb moisture, but rather to maintain the shoe's shape. As for imparting a nice smell to the shoes, I doubt that this happens to any great extent either with cedar; at least I've never noticed it.
> 
> The function of all shoe trees, in my opinion, is to maintain the shape of the shoes and let them dry out, if wet, in that proper shape, rather than curling up. For this reason, plastic trees are probably not that bad, and are certainly much better than nothing. As for stretching the heels, I don't that that this will happen with good spring-loaded wooden trees that have a fairly meaty heel piece. Where some elongation/stretching of the heels might occur is with the plastic trees that have a wire connection attached to the vamp that is adjusted into holes of a receptacle attached to the heel piece, and a very thin plastic heel piece. If the wire connection to the vamp piece is put into holes that make the fit too tight in the shoes, I can see some stretching of the leather occurring at the heels. Therefore, it's important to adjust the plastic ones so that the tension against the heel is minimal. Granted there has to be some to let the tree perform its function, but as little as possible should protect against stretching.
> 
> _Edit:_ I just thought of something else. When I bought my first pair of Alden shell cordovans, there was a little printed insert that described proper care for this kind of leather. One of the things that Alden noted was that shell cordovan is prone to stretching, and, for that reason, shoe trees that exerted tension should be avoided. Since that time, I've used the plastic kind, with _no_ tension in the heel piece--just the vamp piece nestled tightly into that part of the shoes.


We had a lengthy discussion of this matter on the Style Forum that has led me to agree with Roger's conclusions. The "wicking" abilities of cedar are pretty much hype. The use of red cedar (which is not even a true cedar) in North America for shoe trees is of comparatively recent origin--post WWII, if I remember aright. Its major virtues are that it is abundant and cheap, soft and easily worked, and it smells nice. It has no particular virutes compared to the woods (beech, birch?) used in English and Continental trees. That said, 46 of my 48 pairs of shoes have Woodlore cedar shoe trees in them. I have plastic trees in my other two pairs. There is nothing really intrinsically wrong with plastic trees, except that all those I have ever seen have been cheap, flimsy, nasty affairs. However, given that you can buy them at $2.50 a pair at Bed, Bath & Beyond (in bulk packs), if you break one, it's no biggie. They are certainly incomparably preferable to no trees at all.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

alphadelta said:


> How many people actually have a pair of trees for every pair of shoes? I realize that plastic trees are looked down upon, but are they acceptable for maintaining the shape of shoes after the wood trees are removed the next day?


Ideally, a pair of trees for every pair of shoes (dress shoes.) Plastic trees are far from ideal, but better than nothing, and useful when traveling. In a pinch, rolled up newspaper also does well, or anything else you can stuff in there to push the wrinkles out.


----------



## Harrydog (Apr 2, 2005)

It is worth noting that the high end lasted trees from EG, Lobb, or G&G are not cedar, but birch or beechnut I believe.

What I do find odd is that the trees that come with the RLPL Ed Greens are lacquered...that would seem to defeat the purpose of moisture absorption.

Whatever you do....have wooden trees in all your shoes. A minor expense that pays for itself over the long run.


----------



## joshuagb (Nov 27, 2004)

I think as long as the shoe trees are made of wood and basically fill up the shoe, it doesn't matter how much they cost. You could probably get away with having only two shoe trees if you really didn't want to buy a pair for each pair of shoes.

Then again, you can get these nice cedar ones from Sierra Trading Post for $13:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

joshuagb said:


> I think as long as the shoe trees are made of wood and basically fill up the shoe, it doesn't matter how much they cost. You could probably get away with having only two shoe trees if you really didn't want to buy a pair for each pair of shoes.
> 
> Then again, you can get these nice cedar ones from Sierra Trading Post for $13:


Does the 2nds mean factory seconds?


----------



## joshuagb (Nov 27, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> Does the 2nds mean factory seconds?


I'm not sure, but probably. But can you really go wrong for $13?


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

There was a comment/discussion earlier to say that you only needed a shoe tree in the first 24 hours. This is true as you can imagine that's the period over which any residual moisture leaves the shoe. There was also a comment that shoe trees can stretch the shoe if left in over time. That's true to some extent if you have very hard "fixed screw" trees (as I do) - but I also find these are the best at removing creases (especially if the shoe is too wide a fit). 

So, yes, softer normal style shoe-trees are probably the best way to store each pair of shoes over time but - as a minumum - you must make sure to put trees in the shoes you wore at the end of the day. And, if possible, try to rotate shoes for the next day, as is often discussed on the forum. 

Rossini


----------



## kitonbrioni (Sep 30, 2004)

One really needs shoetrees in all quality shoes when not being worn. I've done this for decades it does truly extend the life and appearance.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Cedar is not a necessity, but you must use wooden shoe trees because plastic will not absorb moisture or allow your leather to breathe.

I own a pair of shoe trees for every pair of business shoes that I wear.

Shoe trees can be surprisingly affordable. I managed to negotiate a fantastic bargain with an eBay power seller, once. Have a look for yourself, and see what you can find.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

My problem is my shoe jones outstrips my available cash for shoe trees.


----------



## JayJay (Oct 8, 2007)

I have shoe trees for all of my shoes. Many years ago I started using them and noticed a tremendous difference in the appearance and longevity of the shoes. I now consider the cost of a pair of shoe trees as part of the purchase of the shoes.


----------



## Francisco D'Anconia (Apr 18, 2007)

*Yes, In Every Pair*

I keep wooden (cedar) shoe trees in every dress pair of shoes I own, around 15 so far. If I order them, I'll usually include a pair of trees for an extra $20 or so.

Nordstrom Rack here in the Chicagoland are sells cedar shoe trees for about $12 per pair. Every now and again they go on sale for about $9 per pair. It's hard not to buy them and and put them in each pair of shoes tha have a street purchase price of $300+. These may not be the finest of all shoe trees, but they are not remarkably different than those I have with more pretigious names affixed to them on brass plates. And most were still $9. I bought some extras when they were on sale so I'd have a shoe tree reserve for when I found some great shoes at a great price that came _sans_ shoe trees (e.g., eBay).


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

A shoe-tree for every pair, but I don't care if what kind of wood it is or if it's lacquered or not. I believe they help more in terms of shape than moisture. But I do insist on a proper heel-shape, not those ball-on-bendy-wire type trees. Those seem more prone to cause damage/stretching by applying too much pressure over too narrow an area.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

These Cedarbrooke shoe trees appear to be very similar to those that I obtain from my shoe repair shop for $15.00 a pair. Because I wear size 13 shoes I ask for "extra large" trees. I am not aware of any stretching of the shoe. Whenever the shoes are not being warn the trees are always in.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

Roger, shell cordovan and calf leather may be prone to stretching , but the tension caused by a well-fitted shoe tree (from spring action) is negligible force to cause any distention.

what stretching is really caused by is a tremendous torque force that usually occurs when one is flexing when walking in the shoes. the constant flex/creasing from walking and running slowly distends the shoe leather.
also , if one feet are snug in the shoes, the constant pressure from the volume/ girth of one's feet , that tremendous constant force from feet distends them a bit.

leather is a tough material however, and a small spring action from trees (unless you are putting in trees where the head is too large for the shoe toebox) from a right sized tree will not do anything but maintain shape.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

On a contratian note two bespoke shoemakers Cleverley and Foster have told me not to put shoe trees into your shoes if they have got really wet but to put them on their side with newspaper inside in a warm room, leave them overnight and to put the shoe trees in the next day when they are a little drier.

Of course in normal circumstances if the dampness is just sweat the shoe trees go in straight away. I tried to look for the old post but could not find it.


----------



## Geoff Gander (Apr 4, 2007)

I've always followed the advice from Charles Tyrwhitt on shoe trees - insert shoe trees as soon as you take them off, and leave them in for at least 24 hours. I've got four trees (one TM Lewin birch set, and three Ikea specials - hey, they're better than nothing) to rotate among my seven pairs of shoes. The system (plus judicious rotation) seems to work for now, but I'm going to upgrade all of my trees to wood as soon as I can.

Another thing I've found very helpful is to have two pairs of bad-weather shoes - one black, one brown - that I wear if I hear there is a slight chance of rain. That way, I've minimised the number of occasions that my "good" shoes get wet.

Geoff


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

Harrydog said:


> It is worth noting that the high end lasted trees from EG, Lobb, or G&G are not cedar, but birch or beechnut I believe.
> 
> What I do find odd is that the trees that come with the RLPL Ed Greens are lacquered...that would seem to defeat the purpose of moisture absorption.


Because there is no such purpose to shoe trees. Cedar or whatever else WILL NOT do anything for moisture and quite frankly, unless you keep them in airtight containers, leather shoes do not need a foreign object to rid themselves of any moisture resulting from wear. That's just nonsense and an Internet forum myth.

That said, good wooden shoes trees with a full heel are essential to preserving the shape of shoes (they will not stretch calf unless they are too big) and ALL your shoes should have them anytime they are not on your feet.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

This question cries out for a controlled study, but unfortunately AAAC members have way too many shoes and no inclination to provide an answer. Everyone assumes shoe trees make a huge difference, but we only assume they do. Do we know how much?

We need two identical pairs of new good shoes, one pair of really good shoe trees and someone to alternate wearing the shoes on a daily basis. One pair gets the trees, the other no trees. I guess we could try one pair with the right always being treed if we had to.

After several months of wearing the shoes could be compared by an independent evaluator and rated for wear, shape, etc.


----------



## John Blackie (Jun 30, 2005)

My shoes usualy come with their own trees. I strongly believe in them.

To illustrate;

I recieved a pair of good English reverse grain leather hunting boots for my 21st birthday (which was over 10 years ago) They came with trees to fit. First you have your boots made to measure, then you have your trees made to measure. It is a little odd having wooden versions of your own legs! The trees fit the boots perfectly. I believe that tree making is literaly a dieing art in the UK. I only know of one chap (UK) who can make you a pair of made to measure boot trees.

My boots have had 10 seasons of hard, hard use. They are drenched every week throughout the winter.

When I return from hunting the boots are rinsed down, stuffed with newspaper and left in the mud room over night (no heating) They are left up side down on 2 old broom handles. 

The next day the trees are replaced in the boots and the boots are boned and saddle soaped. They look like new!


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

cdavant said:


> This question cries out for a controlled study, but unfortunately AAAC members have way too many shoes and no inclination to provide an answer. Everyone assumes shoe trees make a huge difference, but we only assume they do. Do we know how much?
> 
> We need two identical pairs of new good shoes, one pair of really good shoe trees and someone to alternate wearing the shoes on a daily basis. One pair gets the trees, the other no trees. I guess we could try one pair with the right always being treed if we had to.
> 
> After several months of wearing the shoes could be compared by an independent evaluator and rated for wear, shape, etc.


A systematic study would indeed by valuable. However, the dependent variables you propose are, in my opinion, too subjective to serve well in such a study--particularly based, by necessity, on only a few pairs of shoes, and particularly if the differences were small.

Although I didn't mention this earlier, I tried to carry out a careful analysis of the issue of water absorption by cedar shoe trees. With a scale that is quite sensitive for one that will handle quite heavy weights of several pounds, I weighed a pair of shoes after wear and a pair of A-E cedar shoe trees before use. I then inserted the trees and took them out after intervals of 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes, to weigh each component again. At least to the sensitivity of the scale (1/10 gram, if I remember correctly), there was no evidence of any weight transfer--from the shoes to the trees via moisture. In fact, both weighed exactly what they had prior to placement of the trees in the shoes.

Now, there are two serious shortcomings to this little analysis: (a) I don't sweat much, so that there was very little moisture (if any) to absorb in the first place--even after a full day's wear; and (b) the sensitivity of the scale isn't sufficient to detect truly miniscule transferred weights, assuming any transfer actually takes place. Those are the reasons I didn't mention any of this earlier, instead just noting that any moisture will disappear through evaporation rather than through absorption via the shoe trees. I suppose, I could repeat the experiment this time purposely wetting the shoe insoles and linings and trying to find a more sensitive scale, but I'm pretty dubious of the absorption idea (an urban myth, in my opinion, as EL72 suggests) at this point, and probably won't "do any more science" on the issue.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

Roger said:


> A systematic study would indeed by valuable. However, the dependent variables you propose are, in my opinion, too subjective to serve well in such a study--particularly based, by necessity, on only a few pairs of shoes, and particularly if the differences were small.
> 
> Although I didn't mention this earlier, I tried to carry out a careful analysis of the issue of water absorption by cedar shoe trees. With a scale that is quite sensitive for one that will handle quite heavy weights of several pounds, I weighed a pair of shoes after wear and a pair of A-E cedar shoe trees before use. I then inserted the trees and took them out after intervals of 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes, to weigh each component again. At least to the sensitivity of the scale (1/10 gram, if I remember correctly), there was no evidence of any weight transfer--from the shoes to the trees via moisture. In fact, both weighed exactly what they had prior to placement of the trees in the shoes.
> 
> Now, there are two serious shortcomings to this little analysis: (a) I don't sweat much, so that there was very little moisture (if any) to absorb in the first place--even after a full day's wear; and (b) the sensitivity of the scale isn't sufficient to detect truly miniscule transferred weights, assuming any transfer actually takes place. Those are the reasons I didn't mention any of this earlier, instead just noting that any moisture will disappear through evaporation rather than through absorption via the shoe trees. I suppose, I could repeat the experiment this time purposely wetting the shoe insoles and linings and trying to find a more sensitive scale, but I'm pretty dubious of the absorption idea (an urban myth, in my opinion, as EL72 suggests) at this point, and probably won't "do any more science" on the issue.


It's actually an intriguing problem to study. Logically it would seem to make sense that a dry wood would absorb some moisture from a humid leather. I would concur with your suspicions that a scale would need to be very very sensitive to detect the weight of the moisture involved. If you were inclined to perform further studies, I might suggest the use of a hygrometer to measure humidity inside the shoe, making a relative comparison between one shoe with a tree vs one without (control), instead of attempting to measure weight...


----------



## pocketsquareguy (Oct 8, 2007)

I purchase shoe trees for all of my shoes. Some are cedar, but others from well known manufacturers are hardwood, usually in the shape of the last used for the shoe. I have one pair of very lightweight trees from Berluti that are made for travel. They do a great job. However, more and more I try and travel with only a carry-on so weight and space is a premium. So, I started stuffing my shoes with my socks and underwear and that works very well too! It is surprising how much you can stuff into your shoes, the clothing helps the shoe hold its shape and I know right away where to find things in my bag.


----------



## dandypauper (Jun 10, 2007)

*have shoes gotten cheaper??*



silverporsche said:


> I use shoe trees for every pair of shoes. I think shoe trees are a good investment. Some of my shoes are 40 years old , because I use shoe trees polish and wax them , the shoes look new. For example I have a pair of Gucci shoes I purchased in 1972 for $150.00 , that same shoe today retails for over $450.00. Because I use shoe trees those Gucci shoes look as if I just purchased them. In addition a pair of Allen Edmonds I purchased for $75.00 in 1969 ! , using shoe trees they also look as if I just bought them. Both shoes was new when I purchased them.


Those don't seem like very good deals, silverporsche. Based on the consumer price index inflation, $150 in 1972 had the purchasing power of $721 in 2006 (last data available,) and $75 in 1969 had the purchasing power of $420 in 2006. So it seems that, based on your anecdote, shoe prices have come way down. I suppose that is good for us youngsters, but it sad to hear that while shoe trees may be a good investment, Gucci or (worse, since I can't imagine buying Guccis) Allen-Edmonds shoes are not such a great investment.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

dandypauper said:


> Those don't seem like very good deals, silverporsche. Based on the consumer price index inflation, $150 in 1972 had the purchasing power of $721 in 2006 (last data available,) and $75 in 1969 had the purchasing power of $420 in 2006. So it seems that, based on your anecdote, shoe prices have come way down. I suppose that is good for us youngsters, but it sad to hear that while shoe trees may be a good investment, Gucci or (worse, since I can't imagine buying Guccis) Allen-Edmonds shoes are not such a great investment.


this is something to think about.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

dandypauper said:


> Those don't seem like very good deals, silverporsche. Based on the consumer price index inflation, $150 in 1972 had the purchasing power of $721 in 2006 (last data available,) and $75 in 1969 had the purchasing power of $420 in 2006. So it seems that, based on your anecdote, shoe prices have come way down. I suppose that is good for us youngsters, but it sad to hear that while shoe trees may be a good investment, Gucci or (worse, since I can't imagine buying Guccis) Allen-Edmonds shoes are not such a great investment.


Perhaps not a good investment but, certainly a great value, at today's "reduced" prices! I'm feeling the urge to go out and buy more AEs and Aldens before they realize what's happened! (winks)


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

The consumer price index doesn't really work for comparing prices over long periods of time.


----------



## jsherman02 (Oct 9, 2006)

To answer the OP's question. 

YES and YES.

Yes I own a pair for every shoe (with about 4 extra pairs just waiting for a new home) and YES I keep them in at all time. (well, not when I am wearing them) :idea:


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Shoe trees one for every pair ?*



dandypauper said:


> Those don't seem like very good deals, silverporsche. Based on the consumer price index inflation, $150 in 1972 had the purchasing power of $721 in 2006 (last data available,) and $75 in 1969 had the purchasing power of $420 in 2006. So it seems that, based on your anecdote, shoe prices have come way down. I suppose that is good for us youngsters, but it sad to hear that while shoe trees may be a good investment, Gucci or (worse, since I can't imagine buying Guccis) Allen-Edmonds shoes are not such a great investment.[/QUOTE
> 
> Thirty years ago I did not buy shoes for investment purposes. The Gucci shoes was on sale at Gucci's and the Allen Emonds were also on sale at a discount men's shoe store.
> As a mater of fact I bought two pairs of Guccis shoes. At the same time or earlier Ferragamo's and Bally were selling at Sak's for about the same price on sale.
> ...


----------



## CaliGent (Oct 24, 2007)

Do you keep the trees in the shoes at all times or just until they are dry? Don't they stretch the shoes?


----------



## printemps2001us (Dec 20, 2007)

Shoe trees are not for maintaining shape. They are for absorbing moisture. Therefore, plastic is useless. And you can buy cheap cedar ones at Marshalls, etc. for $20. Maybe it's not as perfect as a set custom fit to the last, but better than nothing, and cheap. Don't go without them. If they are the right size, they won't stretch the shoes.


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

I have cedar trees in all my shoes but it seems this thread contains a lot of conjecture and possibly an urban myth (the drying issue).

It would seem to me that the folks who make the shoes should be able to answer the questions about absorption and the length of time trees should be in shoes.

If no one gets an answer I will ask the rep from Alden the next time he is out here. Alas, that won't be for a few months.

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

printemps2001us said:


> Shoe trees are not for maintaining shape. They are for absorbing moisture. Therefore, plastic is useless. And you can buy cheap cedar ones at Marshalls, etc. for $20. Maybe it's not as perfect as a set custom fit to the last, but better than nothing, and cheap. Don't go without them. If they are the right size, they won't stretch the shoes.


Read this entire thread. They are for maintaining shape and minimizing creasing and curling. Some feel they absorb moisture, some do not. I think if your shoes were actually wet inside, the cedar would absorb some moisture. If your feet don't perspire much, then I think the moisture absorption would be negligible, most of it would evaporate in 24 hours or so.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 18, 2007)

Roger said:


> _Edit:_ I just thought of something else. When I bought my first pair of Alden shell cordovans, there was a little printed insert that described proper care for this kind of leather. One of the things that Alden noted was that shell cordovan is prone to stretching, and, for that reason, shoe trees that exerted tension should be avoided. Since that time, I've used the plastic kind, with _no_ tension in the heel piece--just the vamp piece nestled tightly into that part of the shoes.


Thanks for pointing this out. My shell cordovan from BB arrived and I placed a pair of rather large "Epic" shoe trees in it. I promptly removed them after reading your post. My shoes came without the shoe care instructions. I'm just glad that the shoe fits well from the get-go.

I believe the moisture absortion part may be slightly true. I did a wet test to break into a pair of hiking boots sometime back and placed charcoal into the left boot and that had the effect of drying the boot faster than the right boot. The presence of wood might indeed have some moisture wicking properties. In addtion, placing cedar or any wood might appear to help reduce bacteria interaction with sweat or moisture to produce odours.

That said, I think this should not be the primary motive for using shoe trees. The basic purpose is to preserve the shape of the shoe, especially for those who have the habit of storing shoes in claustrophobic boxes. You can place charcoal sheets on the shelves or a dehumidifier pack in your shoe rack or cube if you really feel your feet sweat a lot.


----------



## Omega (Jul 10, 2005)

Thanks to Trimmer post, I intend to get myself a few shoe trees from Bexley. However, I have a problem: some of my shoes are size 7, some 7.5 and some 8 UK. European sizes of my shoes are 41 and 42. What shoe tree size I should get?


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

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?


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

3 pages of this. 

If the purpose of wood trees was to wick water out of the leather, the water would be sitting at the surface of the wood right next to the leather anyway, so using wood for that express purpose and then leaving them in the shoes is a bad idea. The best way to do this is air circulation (evaporation). That would necessarily mean that you want shoe trees with lots of holes or slots in them. That means that plastic trees would serve as well as, or better than, wood trees for the purpose of drying and maintaining shape. Cedar trees do leave a nice aroma and they do look nice, but vented plastic trees are more functional and more cost effective. I split the difference and drill holes in my cedar trees.


----------



## printemps2001us (Dec 20, 2007)

SpookyTurtle said:


> Read this entire thread. They are for maintaining shape and minimizing creasing and curling. Some feel they absorb moisture, some do not. I think if your shoes were actually wet inside, the cedar would absorb some moisture. If your feet don't perspire much, then I think the moisture absorption would be negligible, most of it would evaporate in 24 hours or so.


I read the thread. Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "if it's online, it must be true ideal." First, shoe trees' primary function is to absorb moisture. Second, if you wear your shoes, they are wet inside. Just because you don't feel wet doesn't mean you aren't perspiring. But then again, as I said in a previous post, Boston is for beans (and the world's worst sports fans).


----------



## 15DollarMan (Dec 28, 2005)

alphadelta said:


> After wearing a pair of shoes, I leave my cedar shoe trees in over night. Not being able to afford a pair of trees for every pair of shoes....


Made in the USA, Cedar shoe trees are gong for $5.00 a set at TJ/Maxx - Marshal's... Even I can afford them at those prices.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I'll jump in with my own unscientific 2 cents - if shoe trees absorb moisture, it's probably not much. Wood absorbs moisture, which is why old dresser drawers sometimes stick when it's hot and humid; but it doesn't absorb very much or very quickly. Newspaper does a better job if shoes actually get wet.

I've always thought shoe trees perform the same function as a woman's hair curlers: holding the shoe's (or hair's) shape fixed as it dries and shrinks, to "set" the shape. Just as hair will eventually lose its "set" due to changes in humidity, I'd guess a shoe does the same thing. So that argues for keeping a shoe tree in a shoe if it's subject to humidity changes.


----------



## Lauriston (Dec 17, 2007)

I agree with the poster who said that bunched up newspaper is acceptable. I think that it could even be said that it is possible for newspaper to better conform to the shape of the shoe without the risk of stretching it.


----------



## Loose On The Lead (Dec 28, 2007)

I don't have much personal experience with shoe trees yet, but that means I don't have any emotional stake in whether they work or not...whatever it would mean for them to work. With that in mind, and with all due respect, I submit what I believe to be a logical theory regarding the issue of the absorptive power of the trees.

To some extent, I suspect that those who cry "Urban myth!" regarding the ability of shoe trees to wick away moisture are correct. It is easy to imagine--although that is hardly proof of anything--that having wood in the shoe would not relieve the leather of more moisture than having nothing in the shoe at all. With no tree, both sides of the leather are exposed to air and evaporation can occur normally. Pressing wood tightly against the inside of the leather would inhibit the evaporation from that side of the leather, although certainly some absorption would take place. I guess I'd say that at best, a wooden tree would be a wash vs. no tree at all. It could also be worse. (Note that I'm not addressing shape maintenance here--just the moisture issue.)

However, I am quite confident that pressing plastic against the inside of the leather would both inhibit evaporation and fail to absorb anything, unless there was something special about the plastic. If you use plastic trees, you're pretty much sealing off the inside of the leather so that moisture can escape only from the outside. It strikes me as obvious that if you want to get moisture out of your shoes as quickly as possible without heating them, plastic trees are not the way to go.

The key here is this: It's not that wooden trees have any great "wicking" ability. They very well may not. But plastic trees not only don't wick, they don't absorb at all. So by comparison, wooden trees are better if ridding your shoes of moisture is a good thing. They may not be better than no trees at all, though.

If I'm right, then if you want to maintain the shape of your shoes with trees and you believe moisture matters at all, use wooden trees. If you feel that getting rid of moisture is way more important than maintaining shape, heck, maybe you're better off with no trees. Personally, I'm going to use wood.


----------



## SpookyTurtle (Nov 4, 2007)

printemps2001us said:


> I read the thread. Sorry, I don't subscribe to the "if it's online, it must be true ideal." First, shoe trees' primary function is to absorb moisture. Second, if you wear your shoes, they are wet inside. Just because you don't feel wet doesn't mean you aren't perspiring. But then again, as I said in a previous post, Boston is for beans (and the world's worst sports fans).


In YOUR opinion, shoe trees are only to absorb moisture, not maintain shape. My personal experience and research has shown otherwise, therefore my opinion is that their function is to preserve shape and prevent creasing/curling and any moisture they remove is a plus. It has nothing to do about it being online. My feet do perspire, my shoes aren't "wet" inside but I'm sure there is some moisture in there, and it will evaporate overnight with or without shoe trees. Perhaps the trees speed up the process. My feet sweat a good bit in winter boots and they also dry out in 24 hours or so with no shoe trees, so I feel that my dress shoes do the same with much less moisture, with trees or without. The top shoemakers make lasted shoe trees to better fit their shoes, hence doing a better job to of keeping them in their original shape. I'm not arguing that they don't remove moisture, I am saying that a major reason to use them is to maintain shape and a quick check at some of the shoemakers and treemakers sites will confirm this.

Thanks for insulting me. Where I'm from has nothing to do with my opinion, and I ignorantly never realized that Connecticut was the hub of the universe and home of the worlds greatest sports fans, now I know. Kudos to you. Maybe you should think before you insult someone you don't know, otherwise you are behaving just like the "world's worst sports fans".:icon_smile_big:


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Have we considered the effects of socks? Assuming that feet don't sweat more in synthetic than natural fiber socks, I'd expect the natural fibers to retain more prespiration than a synthetic, leaving less for the leather to absorb. Even if a thick sock caused more sweating, it has a greater ability to absorb moisture. If absorbing moisture were the highest priority, a tree covered with a highly absorbant fabric would be the most effective solution to removing moisture from the shoe.
And we all know dry leather cracks--could absorbing the natural oils our skins excrete actually be of some benefit to the shoe long term. Would a member be willing to just wear one sock for a few years so we can judge?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

cdavant said:


> And we all know dry leather cracks--could absorbing the natural oils our skins excrete actually be of some benefit to the shoe long term. Would a member be willing to just wear one sock for a few years so we can judge?


Not just oils-- salts, too. I have no proof, but I'd bet that they don't do leather much good.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

It's unscientific but since "our favorite shoemakers" seem to use lasted, lacquered trees I'm willing to bow to their expertise and concede that trees are for shape and not absorption. This seems to indicate that shape not material (wood v plastic) is controlling.

Lacquered trees also seem to indicate that aromatic properties (cedar) are not highly valued by shoemakers.

After having their shape restored after the stresses walking inflicts upon them I find it hard to imagine gravity will distort their shape. Likewise, unless the trees are way to big, the pressure exerted upon a shoe by the spring in a tree is not sufficient to stretch the shoe.

Of course, I have cedar trees for all my shoes.:crazy:


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

FWIW it never occurred to me that the purpose of shoe trees was to absorb moisture until I read this discussion. My father had a collection of decent shoes (from the 50s and 60s) which he enjoyed caring for and doing simple repairs on. He kept _metal _trees (made or supplied mainly by Church's) in all his shoes. Wet shoes he stuffed with paper and left on their sides (he thought this important) to dry naturally after which the tree was inserted. These trees (I still have several) were adjustible so that they tightened firmly without stretching the shoe. He never liked to throw shoes away and had many pairs which were cracked and even holed from use, but they all still had their shape.


----------



## Woodward (Nov 23, 2007)

FWIW, I got full heeled, cedar shoe trees at Nordstrom Rack at Potomac Mills Mall in Northern Virginia for $12.90. In hindsight, I wish I had bought more.

Woodward


----------



## jar2574 (Aug 30, 2007)

3 shoe trees for 4 pairs of AE. Each shoe gets 3 days w/ tree starting immediately after it is worn. On the night before it they are to be worn, the tree is removed.

Works for now.


----------



## kolecho (Nov 15, 2004)

My shoes only share trees when I am travelling. When I am home, they all have their own trees.


----------



## ikeepmykicksfresh (Jan 25, 2008)

alphadelta said:


> After wearing a pair of shoes, I leave my cedar shoe trees in over night. Not being able to afford a pair of trees for every pair of shoes, I just leave them in over night and remove them the next day.
> 
> How many people actually have a pair of trees for every pair of shoes? I realize that plastic trees are looked down upon, but are they acceptable for maintaining the shape of shoes after the wood trees are removed the next day?
> 
> ...


:idea: I have tried just about every shoe tree on the market from the plastic to the cedar. i recently found these NEW WEARABLE SHOE TREES and have been using them for 7-8 months now. I have to say that i am VERRY PLEASED and that they are the best fitting shoe trees that i have ever used AND you can wear them as well to stop your expansive shoes or sneakers from creasing after you wear them. AND they are cheap enough that you can buy a pair for each pair of shoes. i think these are amazing and i am sure that you all will to! just google the name and im sure that you will find the site i orderd them from!


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

I have two pairs and rotate them between shoes. Seems like they make my shoes last forever......


----------



## Paulsons (Sep 11, 2007)

How do you folks feel about shoe trees for two year old shoes? 

They are still in good shape, should I bother with using shoe trees or is the damage already done on this pair?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Paulsons said:


> How do you folks feel about shoe trees for two year old shoes?
> 
> They are still in good shape, should I bother with using shoe trees or is the damage already done on this pair?


Shoe trees are a good idea, to be applied at any point in the servicable life cycle of the shoe...preferably from the start but, from the two year point forward is better than not at all!


----------



## Paulsons (Sep 11, 2007)

Fair enough, thanks for the input!


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

One of the better habits I inherited from my father was comprehensive shoe-treeing of my footwear.

He has shoes he's owned forty-five years - resoled many times, yes, and relaced, but perfectly fine - all in a tidy row and fitted with cedar shoe trees.

A shoe doesn't "cure" after a couple of years and stop needing care; you need a set of trees for each shoe you intend to keep.

DCH


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

*mixed advice*

Whoever you ask on this one gives a different answer. Shoe trees yes, absolutely, but for every pair? I have even spoken to the good folks at Edward Green about this and one member of staff said " Yes one for every pair" and another said " No, not at all necessary, after about 48 hours they have done their job."

I think therefore the only concensus we will have on this one is " use shoe trees!" - how many you own is up to your personal choice.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Shoe trees are cheap. Nice shoes are not. Considering these two factors, I dont see any reason to not have a pair of trees for every pair of shoes you own.


----------



## cdcro (Jan 23, 2008)

part of bootcamp is learning how to fold your t shirts correctly. Of course folding a t shirt has nothing to do with fighting a war, but has to do with paying attention to detail. Putting trees in your shoes after every use forces you to become familiar with your footwear and pay attention to them, alerting you if something is wrong or if other maintenece needs to be performed. I own trees for every pair of shoes i own except chuck taylors, and my two pairs of bespoke cowboy boots came with trees made out of the last's, now thats craftsmanship.


----------



## XdryMartini (Jan 5, 2008)

OK, it took me 20 min to read this entire post... 

Is there any benefit to purchasing the $$$ trees from the manufacturer (EG, Lobb, C&J) vs. the inexpensive generic cedar ones? Forget about the water absorbency argument. Do the trees made to fit the last of $$$ shoes do a significantly better job?


----------



## kitonbrioni (Sep 30, 2004)

Of course, it's nice to have John Lobb or Kiton with the shoetrees in them when they're bought. However, I've not found any problem with standard otr bargain shoetrees, even after decades of having them in the same pair of shoes. Getting the best fitting shoetree for your shoes should work fine in most cases.


XdryMartini said:


> OK, it took me 20 min to read this entire post...
> 
> Is there any benefit to purchasing the $$$ trees from the manufacturer (EG, Lobb, C&J) vs. the inexpensive generic cedar ones? Forget about the water absorbency argument. Do the trees made to fit the last of $$$ shoes do a significantly better job?


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2021)

I use a pair for every shoe I own and wouldn't do it any other way. They do keep the shoe fresh and ready!


----------

