# "Rubber-soled Dress Shoes" or "Declining Shoe Standards in America"



## tripreed

I know that this thread title might seem oxymoronic, but as I look around at the shoes of people in my office and out on the street, I must say that leather-soled dress shoes are easily outnumbered by the rubber-soled variety. I realize that Birmingham, AL is not exactly sartorial capital of America, but I assume that this trend is occuring in many other cities in the US. I find it somewhat disconcerting and indicative of the downward-spiraling fashion standards of modern society. I suppose that "comfort" is the main reason that people buy these shoes, but I guess that I find this to be a poor excuse because none of my leather-soled shoes are uncomfortable. I also wonder how many modern men, especially the younger ones, actually know how to polish their shoes anymore. I guess that this post is more of a rant than an actual topic of discussion, as I know that not many people in my life would relate to these feelings of sadness and disgust. Here on Ask Andy, though, I am glad to know that support abounds.


----------



## JLibourel

I think there are rubber soles and rubber soles. For instance, I am wearing my Allen-Edmonds Bentons in chili today. This was one of the more dressy of the shoes in A-E's Dress Casual line. It has thin, discreet rubber soles that are very hard for an observer to differentiate from leather. I would consider wearing these with a suit to be a sartorial transgression only a few degrees more heinous than wearing similar leather-soled bluchers with a suit. I don't consider wearing them with a jacket and tie to be any kind of transgression at all (pace Manton in "The Suit").

Shoes with thick, conspicuous rubber soles are another matter altogether, and I would certainly concur that they should be relegated to very casual wear.

It is interesting to me how very frequently I see men who aren't otherwise poorly attired in a suit or coat and tie ruin the whole thing by either wearing inappropriate shoes like the aforemented thick-rubber-soled jobs or badly scuffed, poorly maintained shoes. Putting a good shine on your shoes does indeed seem to be becoming a lost art among the younger set. I suspect the fact that relatively few of them see military service these days doesn't help matters here.


----------



## gng8

It is so simple to shine shoes and so cheap to have them shined, I have difficulty in believing how many men (and women too) don't shine their shoes. 

Seems to me good shine is a prerequisite for a well dressed male.


----------



## constantmystery

Your points are well taken and Libourel may be quite right too...myself, I have never found my leather soled shoes to be less than comfortable and I save the rubber soled concotions for after hours.

I think many younger people today have never tried on a wel made dress shoe and only IMAGINE that they couldn't possibly be comfortable after a life in sneakers.

I too am amazed that so many people never bother to polish their shoes. I suspect they just toss them when they crack or are worn out (due to lack of care). I was also stunned while visiting Japan ( a place that usually pays much attention to detail to see how many salarymen in the ages of 21-40ish haven't learned to take care of their shoes. Perhaps it's "cultural baggage" from a society that has for centuries looked down at those who work in leather.ie; eta or burakamin


----------



## rkipperman

gng8 said:


> It is so simple to shine shoes and so cheap to have them shined, I have difficulty in believing how many men (and women too) don't shine their shoes.
> 
> Seems to me good shine is a prerequisite for a well dressed male.


Amen.


----------



## DocHolliday

I'd just be happy to see more guys in non-square-toed dress shoes, regardless of whether they have leather or rubber soles.


----------



## Buffalo

It could just be a question of economics as a good pair of leather soled shoes are generally more expensive than the rubber soled kinds. 

Also, from discussions with many people who wear rubber soled shoes, they are mistakenly convinced that rubber soled shoes are more comfortable. I wonder how this myth began, maybe with the advent of lots of folks wearing sneakers and/or atheletic shoes all the time.


----------



## kitonbrioni

While I have a number of rubber sole shoes, I mostly wear them on rainy days. Most do not look the now standard "brown goods" leather sneakers.


----------



## retronotmetro

Buffalo said:


> It could just be a question of economics as a good pair of leather soled shoes are generally more expensive than the rubber soled kinds.
> 
> Also, from discussions with many people who wear rubber soled shoes, they are mistakenly convinced that rubber soled shoes are more comfortable. I wonder how this myth began, maybe with the advent of lots of folks wearing sneakers and/or atheletic shoes all the time.


What makes you think this is a myth? I wear leather soled dress shoes almost every day, but on days when I know I will be walking a lot, I wear rubber-soled shoes. I find that my feet are far less fatigued.


----------



## cdavant

Not only do I like my rubber soled AEs, should my leather soled ones ever need rebuilding I'll go with rubber there as well. It's a bit of a safety issue and a peace and quiet issue as well. I find leather soles slip on the damp hospital floors (somebody is always mopping) and slopes I have to walk up and down. And rubber is quiet. I can make it down my stairs at 5AM without waking the wife in rubber, but leather makes a noise. I figure the blinding shine keeps folks from noticing the rubber, anyway.


----------



## retronotmetro

constantmystery said:


> I was also stunned while visiting Japan ( a place that usually pays much attention to detail to see how many salarymen in the ages of 21-40ish haven't learned to take care of their shoes. Perhaps it's "cultural baggage" from a society that has for centuries looked down at those who work in leather.ie; eta or burakamin


I doubt it has anything to do with transferred anti-_buraku_ sentiment. My guess would be a combination of resignation towards the tremendous abuse that a pair of shoes takes in day-to-day life in Japan, and more importantly a general apathy towards one's appearance. Ever see a salaryman who combined those stereotypical cheap, thrashed black shoes with a well-maintained and properly fitted suit and shirt?


----------



## silverporsche

*rubber-soled dress shoes*

I agree with your post but wouldn't you also add that dress in general has declined ? It is proper today to wear suit's without ties and baseball caps 
with suits. Leather-soled quality shoes is much more expensive than in the past. A quality men's suit can cost more than a $1000 dollars and what about 
shoes what does a good pair of Italian shoes cost today ?, A quality sport coat or slacks cost ? Men quality clothing cost has increase at an unbelievable pace over the last 20 years. Ebay has helped a little but in the area where I live Metro St.Louis most of the men clothier's has closed. There really is only two quality men shops. At one time there was more than 30 !
The well dressed man in metro St.Louis is rare. This once was the shoe and clothing capital of the mid-west. No more. Kansas City is no different.
How can younger men dress in quality clothing when there are few examples.
Where do we go from here ???


----------



## Laxplayer

silverporsche said:


> I agree with your post but wouldn't you also add that dress in general has declined ? It is proper today to wear suit's without ties and baseball caps
> with suits. Leather-soled quality shoes is much more expensive than in the past. A quality men's suit can cost more than a $1000 dollars and what about
> shoes what does a good pair of Italian shoes cost today ?, A quality sport coat or slacks cost ? Men quality clothing cost has increase at an unbelievable pace over the last 20 years. Ebay has helped a little but in the area where I live Metro St.Louis most of the men clothier's has closed. There really is only two quality men shops. At one time there was more than 30 !
> The well dressed man in metro St.Louis is rare. This once was the shoe and clothing capital of the mid-west. No more. Kansas City is no different.
> How can younger men dress in quality clothing when there are few examples.
> Where do we go from here ???


Silverporsche,

Where do you shop in St. Louis? Ever go to Woody's? I buy most of my suits from Brooks, or order from J Press, but Woody's is a nice shop. Kim Kuehner and TC Clothiers both carry Bill's, so I often shop there. I agree with you on the lack of well dressed individuals in the metro area. You see most of them in the nicer suburbs: Ladue, Clayton etc. Also some in the inner ring around Kirkwood and Webster Groves.


----------



## JLibourel

silverporsche said:


> I agree with your post but wouldn't you also add that dress in general has declined ? It is proper today to wear suit's without ties and baseball caps
> with suits. Leather-soled quality shoes is much more expensive than in the past. A quality men's suit can cost more than a $1000 dollars and what about
> shoes what does a good pair of Italian shoes cost today ?, A quality sport coat or slacks cost ? Men quality clothing cost has increase at an unbelievable pace over the last 20 years. Ebay has helped a little but in the area where I live Metro St.Louis most of the men clothier's has closed. There really is only two quality men shops. At one time there was more than 30 !
> The well dressed man in metro St.Louis is rare. This once was the shoe and clothing capital of the mid-west. No more. Kansas City is no different.
> How can younger men dress in quality clothing when there are few examples.
> Where do we go from here ???


I obviously am in no position to comment about the situation in St. Louis, but I would have to question the fact that fewer men dress decently these days because of a dearth of good menswear. In fact, the reverse has often struck me: I see large numbers of high-grade suits and other quality menswear for sale--and even larger numbers of less expensive suits and sport coats at places like Macy's--yet I very rarely see decently dressed men anywhere. More often than not in a shopping mall by day (including weekdays when one might expect to find more men in business attire) or in the markets on the way home in the evening (when one might expect other men to drop by after work), more often than not I am the only man in sight wearing a coat and tie.
I often wonder how retail clothiers, especially those whose stock largely consists of $1,000 and up RTW suits, manage to stay in business.

Nor do I think that price is all that much of a factor. Many of these young fellows will think nothing of dropping $100 for a pair of sneakers or paying more for a T-shirt than I do for most of my lower-level dress shirts. One young co-worker was marvelling that I had paid less for a nice-looking pair of woolen slacks that I was wearing than he had for his blue jeans. A young man who can drop $100 on a pair of sneakers can sure spring for a pair of leather-soled A-Es for $190 or so at a Nordstrom's sale. (I'll omit my usual game of getting seconds on deep closeout prices because that involves a certain amount of "insider" knowledge, but anyone can walk into a Nordstrom's sale.)


----------



## Buffalo

retronotmetro said:


> What makes you think this is a myth? I wear leather soled dress shoes almost every day, but on days when I know I will be walking a lot, I wear rubber-soled shoes. I find that my feet are far less fatigued.


I have the opposite experience, I find leather soled shoes more comfortable for long walks and periods on my feet. I also find that rubber soled shoes make my feet sweat more, feeling hot and therefore uncomfortable, just my view. Hence, my personal conclusion that rubber soled shoes = more comfort is a myth.


----------



## silverporsche

*declining shoe standards in America*

laxplayer, T.C. Clothiers , J.Press , and Kim Koehner including Woody's does not carry the types of clothing discussed on Ask Andy. Savile Row ,and Sam
Cavato are the only men stores that carry quality men's clothing discussed on this forum. There is a small Brooks Bros. store in the mall and we do have Neimans Marcus , Nordstrom and Sak's but all are rather small with even smaller men selections.Gucci , Burberry , Ralph Lauren and Bruno Magli all left the area as did many others.
Most of the clothing discussed on this forum can only be had by visiting Chicago are on the internet.
Except for Chicago the midwest clothing choices are very limited. What does a new Hickey Freeman suite cost today ? , An Oxxford , Zegna , Brioni etc.
How about a pair of Santoni , Berluti , Moreschi , Edward Green , or even Ferragamo or Bruno Magli shoes cost outside of New York or Chicago cost ?
Remember here in the midwest we don't have your sales. Snickers are all over the place but if you wish to buy a pair of Testoni's or any of the shoes listed above with few exceptions one must visit Chicago or buy them sight unsee on the internet. Only very commited buyers generally dress well in the metro St.Louis area . This was not always the case. Sadly it is now.


----------



## crs

JLibourel said:



> I think there are rubber soles and rubber soles. For instance, I am wearing my Allen-Edmonds Bentons in chili today. This was one of the more dressy of the shoes in A-E's Dress Casual line. It has thin, discreet rubber soles that are very hard for an observer to differentiate from leather. I would consider wearing these with a suit to be a sartorial transgression only a few degrees more heinous than wearing similar leather-soled bluchers with a suit. I don't consider wearing them with a jacket and tie to be any kind of transgression at all (pace Manton in "The Suit").


The A-E Norse in merlot, too, is a very sharp shoe with rubber soles. I wear to work once a week, sometimes twice.


----------



## JLibourel

Don't feel entirely left out. For example, in Southern California, there is only one store that to my knowledge has Edward Greens--the Beverly Hills Polo Shop, and they usually have no more than about three styles. Not infrequently, they don't have any on display.


----------



## acidicboy

silverporsche said:


> laxplayer, T.C. Clothiers , J.Press , and Kim Koehner including Woody's does not carry the types of clothing discussed on Ask Andy. Savile Row ,and Sam
> Cavato are the only men stores that carry quality men's clothing discussed on this forum. There is a small Brooks Bros. store in the mall and we do have Neimans Marcus , Nordstrom and Sak's but all are rather small with even smaller men selections.Gucci , Burberry , Ralph Lauren and Bruno Magli all left the area as did many others.
> Most of the clothing discussed on this forum can only be had by visiting Chicago are on the internet.
> Except for Chicago the midwest clothing choices are very limited. What does a new Hickey Freeman suite cost today ? , An Oxxford , Zegna , Brioni etc.
> How about a pair of Santoni , Berluti , Moreschi , Edward Green , or even Ferragamo or Bruno Magli shoes cost outside of New York or Chicago cost ?
> Remember here in the midwest we don't have your sales. Snickers are all over the place but if you wish to buy a pair of Testoni's or any of the shoes listed above with few exceptions one must visit Chicago or buy them sight unsee on the internet. Only very commited buyers generally dress well in the metro St.Louis area . This was not always the case. Sadly it is now.


more than anything, i believe big business has taken over america's dressing habit. the economics of gap, br, old navy, express, etc... has led to the slow decimation of the local tailor and the more upscale clothing chains.


----------



## Tomasso

Buffalo said:


> I have the opposite experience, I find leather soled shoes more comfortable for long walks and periods on my feet. I also find that rubber soled shoes make my feet sweat more, feeling hot and therefore uncomfortable, just my view. Hence, my personal conclusion that rubber soled shoes = more comfort is a myth.


It's hardly a myth that a rubber sole lessens the impact of a shoe striking the pavement. Do you believe that a leather soled shoe is cooler because a leather sole "breathes"?


----------



## ziggy

I prefer leather for work and most casual days, but rubber is much more comfortable for lenghtly walking such as sightseeing trips. They also make sense in bad weather - I bought a pair of Bruno Magli dress boots with thin (hardly noticeable) rubber soles for next winter - one of the few times I've planned ahead!:icon_smile:


----------



## shoefetish

In an office environment with non-carpeted flooring leather soles can be disruptive with their clicking. Rubber soles are, imo, more flexible especially when compared to double-soled leather - easily noticable when I have to get down on one knee to tie undone laces.
Also I find rubber soles more sure footed. The number of times I have slipped on polished marble or granite flooring because of my leather soled shoes:-(

But what absolutely gets my goat is scruffy shoes AND duckbilled toes. I learnt proper shoe polishing from my grandfather some 40 years ago. Remember polishing his Swan shoes (think they were made by C&J). Though Asian he was a true English gentleman. White starched ducks, starched white cotton shirts and a hat. Knife edge crease on trousers and shoes that shone like the dickens. Before heading to church he would always inspect my attire, especially my shoes. His reasoning was if you paid attention to your shoes you will pay attention to the rest. This habit also rubbed on to my father - the first man I can remember wearing spectators.
Unfortunately not many youngsters today have such role models. More's the pity.


----------



## JLibourel

crs said:


> The A-E Norse in merlot, too, is a very sharp shoe with rubber soles. I wear to work once a week, sometimes twice.


Agreed! I bought the Norse in merlot on closeout a couple of years ago, just around the time I joined this forum. It is indeed a handsome, versatile shoe.


----------



## Laxplayer

silverporsche said:


> laxplayer, T.C. Clothiers , J.Press , and Kim Koehner including Woody's does not carry the types of clothing discussed on Ask Andy. Savile Row ,and Sam
> Cavato are the only men stores that carry quality men's clothing discussed on this forum. There is a small Brooks Bros. store in the mall and we do have Neimans Marcus , Nordstrom and Sak's but all are rather small with even smaller men selections.Gucci , Burberry , Ralph Lauren and Bruno Magli all left the area as did many others.
> Most of the clothing discussed on this forum can only be had by visiting Chicago are on the internet.
> Except for Chicago the midwest clothing choices are very limited. What does a new Hickey Freeman suite cost today ? , An Oxxford , Zegna , Brioni etc.
> How about a pair of Santoni , Berluti , Moreschi , Edward Green , or even Ferragamo or Bruno Magli shoes cost outside of New York or Chicago cost ?
> Remember here in the midwest we don't have your sales. Snickers are all over the place but if you wish to buy a pair of Testoni's or any of the shoes listed above with few exceptions one must visit Chicago or buy them sight unsee on the internet. Only very commited buyers generally dress well in the metro St.Louis area . This was not always the case. Sadly it is now.


I guess you didn't look at my location. I live in Webster Groves. As for not being able to find clothing, Cavato carries both Oxxford and Hickey-Freeman. TC and Woody's carry Samuelsohn. I wear Bill's Khakis so I shop at Kim Kuehner's. JCrew provides madras pants and good deals on ties, especially bows. We actually have two Brooks Brothers stores, one at West County and the other at the Galleria. I prefer West County, as I know their salesmen better. I bought a seersucker suit from them this year, and almost all of my OCBDs are from BB. I order the majority of my suits and blazers from J. Press because I prefer sacks. As far as the shoes, lack of selection in the brands mentioned doesn't bother me since I am more interested in Aldens, BB, and Allen-Edmonds. Well, I just wandered over here from the Trad forum and noticed that St. Louis was mentioned...I will now go back where I belong.


----------



## xcubbies

Laxplayer,
I lived in University City until 1969, when I graduated high school. There was great clothing store in Clayton, up from the Famous Barr, called Boyds. I think about it often when scanning AAAF. It is probably where I first became conciious of good men's clothing. I've looked on the Internet for any references to it, but it seems to have disappeared without a trace. And it was such an institution at that time.


----------



## StevenRocks

I think the proliferation of rubber-soled shoes has a lot ot do with lack of availability and lack of knowledge.

Firstly, most leather-soled shoes available at retail to the masses are poorly constructed and uncomfortable. AE and Ferragamo (among others) are rare to find below a Nordstrom-level store at the mall, EG, Berlutti, _et al_ are nearly impossible to get in most of America.

When you can find better brands, the costs tend to be double what a cheap leather-soled shoe sells for, and likely quadruple what a typical rubber-soled shoe sells for. Imagine John Q. Public at the mall, contemplating his next shoe purchase, counting his cash or available credit and factoring his car payment and dinner at Outback Steakouse into his buying decision, and you can imagine the result.

Which brings me to my second point on education. Most of us outside the fora are more interested in meeting the letter of dress codes than the spirit. If we must wear "dress" shoes, we find the cheapest, most seemingly confortable pair we can get that doesn't get us yelled at by the boss or authourity figure. Cheap, awful shoes get bought out of ignorance and necessity. It's not as much a money issue, because, like Jan mentioned, people spend ungodly amounts on casual wear, led there by marketing and per pressure.

That's why what we do here on boards like AAAC and SF is so important. We have opened up a lot of knowledge for people who are basically clueless on the subject. I like to think we do good work. But we have plenty more to do because judging by the feet of the people I see around town, the message is still in its early stages of adaptation.


----------



## ksinc

After W visited AE's factory I made it a point to try to see his shoes. I noticed he had rubber soles on with his suit. I think it looks bad. If you're not wearing a suit, I have no problem with them.


----------



## jcusey

ksinc said:


> After W visited AE's factory I made it a point to try to see his shoes. I noticed he had rubber soles on with his suit. I think it looks bad. If you're not wearing a suit, I have no problem with them.


One of the members of this forum wears through leather soles around the balls of his feet very quickly. When he mentioned this fact to Tony Gaziano, Tony suggested that he have his shoes made with rubber inserts in the middle part of the sole. He did. I have seen him wear these shoes with a suit, and I would challenge anybody to call them ugly or inappropriate with a straight face. I doubt that anybody would even notice them -- I wouldn't if I hadn't known that they were constructed in this way, and some would say that I am obsessive about shoes.

As others have written, there are different kinds of rubber soles. We all can agree that thick, attention-gathering lug soles are inappropriate on shoes worn with suits; but there are other kinds of rubber soles that are much lower-profile. The rubber inserts on this member's Tony Gaziano shoes are an example of this, as are the Beverly and Centro Gommo (sp?) soles that you sometimes find on shoes made by Gravati and other Italian makers, as are the Thames rubber soles that Edward Green offers (I think -- I have only seen pictures).


----------



## JMatt

To what extend do people think the whole phenomenon is yet another part of the "throw-away" society? Rubber-soled shoes are worn through, then thrown away. You don't need to care for the leather uppers because they only have to last as long as the sole. Although leather-soled shoes seem more expensive, perhaps that's really only because people fail to care for them correctly (like me prior to AAAC) and they get thrown away just like rubber-soled shoes.

I wonder: When properly cared-for, is a pair of A-E really any more expensive than ecco of Rockport? I'm guessing most of us in America have simply lost the art of caring for leather-soled shoes, thus the alternative of rubber-soled shoes seems comfortable and economical.


----------



## jcusey

JMatt said:


> To what extend do people think the whole phenomenon is yet another part of the "throw-away" society? Rubber-soled shoes are worn through, then thrown away. You don't need to care for the leather uppers because they only have to last as long as the sole. Although leather-soled shoes seem more expensive, perhaps that's really only because people fail to care for them correctly (like me prior to AAAC) and they get thrown away just like rubber-soled shoes.


To an extent, this is true, but remember that it is certainly possible to resole well-made rubber-soled shoes. I can tell you that I won't be throwing any of mine away after the rubber wears through.



> I wonder: When properly cared-for, is a pair of A-E really any more expensive than ecco of Rockport? I'm guessing most of us in America have simply lost the art of caring for leather-soled shoes, thus the alternative of rubber-soled shoes seems comfortable and economical.


Many makers of luxury clothing (and yes, Allen-Edmonds is a maker of luxury shoes; I'm sure that the vast majority of the US population would regard the idea of buying a $300 pair of shoes as patently absurd) like to make the amortization argument. With Allen-Edmonds, it's probably plausible. With Edward Green, it's not.


----------



## JLibourel

jcusey said:


> and some would say that I am obsessive about shoes.


No-o-o-oh! Who'd ever think THAT?


----------



## JLibourel

ksinc said:


> After W visited AE's factory I made it a point to try to see his shoes. I noticed he had rubber soles on with his suit. I think it looks bad. If you're not wearing a suit, I have no problem with them.


If you're touring a manufacturing facility, where there is the possibilty of stepping in or slipping on oil, grease, solvents and other spillage, rubber soles are probably not a bad idea. I speak from experience--touring factories in business attire is something I've had to do occasionally in the course of my work.

No intent to "diss" the A-E factory here, BTW. I know it's supposed to be very clean and modern. I will say that modern CNC machinery has take most of the mess out of factory tours.


----------



## ice

*remember winter?*

Leather soles plus ice equals broken bones.

Every man living in a northern climate should have at least one rubber soled dress shoe.


----------



## Liberty Ship

DocHolliday said:


> I'd just be happy to see more guys in non-square-toed dress shoes, regardless of whether they have leather or rubber soles.


Lol! Exactly.

I wear top of the line J&M dress shoes particularly because they have (discrete) "rubber soles." We are at war. I need the traction. If you are running, it's hard to stop, turn, draw, and engage a target with leather soles.

I think I remember a Cary Grant movie in which he was running across a roof. I thought, "How the heck did he do that with leather soles?????"


----------



## Liberty Ship

JLibourel said:


> If you're touring a manufacturing facility, where there is the possibilty of stepping in or slipping on oil, grease, solvents and other spillage, rubber soles are probably not a bad idea. I speak from experience--touring factories in business attire is something I've had to do occasionally in the course of my work.
> 
> No intent to "diss" the A-E factory here, BTW. I know it's supposed to be very clean and modern. I will say that modern CNC machinery has take most of the mess out of factory tours.


Thank You, J. As a person who "came up" dressed in a suit in the machine tool industry, when taking plant tours I used to hope that I would pick up enough chips in my leather soles that I could relax and let the chips act as cleats. I can remember trying to embed chips into the soles of my McNeals just to get traction....I can still smell the coolant....


----------



## ksinc

jcusey said:


> One of the members of this forum wears through leather soles around the balls of his feet very quickly. When he mentioned this fact to Tony Gaziano, Tony suggested that he have his shoes made with rubber inserts in the middle part of the sole. He did. I have seen him wear these shoes with a suit, and I would challenge anybody to call them ugly or inappropriate with a straight face. I doubt that anybody would even notice them -- I wouldn't if I hadn't known that they were constructed in this way, and some would say that I am obsessive about shoes.
> 
> As others have written, there are different kinds of rubber soles. We all can agree that thick, attention-gathering lug soles are inappropriate on shoes worn with suits; but there are other kinds of rubber soles that are much lower-profile. The rubber inserts on this member's Tony Gaziano shoes are an example of this, as are the Beverly and Centro Gommo (sp?) soles that you sometimes find on shoes made by Gravati and other Italian makers, as are the Thames rubber soles that Edward Green offers (I think -- I have only seen pictures).


See "irritated." How was that a response to me?


----------



## ksinc

JLibourel said:


> If you're touring a manufacturing facility, where there is the possibilty of stepping in or slipping on oil, grease, solvents and other spillage, rubber soles are probably not a bad idea. I speak from experience--touring factories in business attire is something I've had to do occasionally in the course of my work.
> 
> No intent to "diss" the A-E factory here, BTW. I know it's supposed to be very clean and modern. I will say that modern CNC machinery has take most of the mess out of factory tours.


That makes sense, but what I meant was not that I saw him at the AE factory, but that after I heard he visited I made it a point to try to catch a glimpse of his shoes the next time I saw him on TV and see if I noticed AEs. I saw a picture of him leaving the WH to get on Marine One and the bottom of his shoes were clearly rubber with his navy suit. The First Lady was with him wearing a light pink or purple pants suit if you see the pictures. I think he was leaving for the G8.

Regardless of the reason, I think it looks bad. If you are saying that sometimes function trumps look, I agree with that. I think if I was touring a factory I would not wear a suit either - which W does quite often. He often has his non-beltway look going instead of the "uniform".

Whenever I have to tour a manufacturing floor I'm always advised to remove my coat and tie so as not to disturb anyone for no real reason, but they know I am a "suit" anyway. They actually shout it as a warning. "Suit across the yellow line". It's cute in it's way. I pretend they are looking out for me


----------



## tbabes

I have the AE Ashton and AE Benton, which have rubber soles, and I frequently wear them during foul weather. I don't walk much in them, but I do find my AE's with leather soles to be more comfortable -- my feet do indeed feel "hotter" with the rubber sole shoes.


----------



## jcusey

ksinc said:


> See "irritated." How was that a response to me?


In your initial post, you said that wearing rubber-soled shoes with a suit looks bad. I was providing a counterexample. Why that should irritate you, I have no idea.


----------



## ksinc

jcusey said:


> In your initial post, you said that wearing rubber-soled shoes with a suit looks bad. I was providing a counterexample. Why that should irritate you, I have no idea.


I said "I think it looks bad" and you respond with "I challenge you to say it's ugly or inappropriate with a straight face". Why do I need to say it's ugly, was there something incomplete in me saying "I think it looks bad"?

And, why do you have to challenge my opinion? Your reaction is a little over the top. I think it looks bad. You don't. Big whoopie. Your opinion weighs the same as everyone else's - an issue brought up in the "irritated" thread. Which, although poorly stated, was an excellent point and to which I referred.


----------



## Buffalo

ksinc said:


> I said "I think it looks bad" and you respond with "I challenge you to say it's ugly or inappropriate with a straight face". Why do I need to say it's ugly, was there something incomplete in me saying "I think it looks bad"?
> 
> And, why do you have to challenge my opinion? Your reaction is a little over the top. I think it looks bad. You don't. Big whoopie. Your opinion weighs the same as everyone else's - an issue brought up in the "irritated" thread. Which, although poorly stated, was an excellent point and to which I referred.


here, here, exactly the point that some in "irritated" were concerned about.


----------



## jcusey

ksinc said:


> I said "I think it looks bad" and you respond with "I challenge you to say it's ugly or inappropriate with a straight face". Why do I need to say it's ugly, was there something incomplete in me saying "I think it looks bad"?


I pointed out that there was more than one kind of rubber sole, and I gave a specific instance where I thought that most reasonable observers would not conclude that a rubber sole was ugly or inappropriate. I thought that your initial response was overly broad and likely didn't take into account the diversity of rubber soles that were available.



> And, why do you have to challenge my opinion? Your reaction is a little over the top. I think it looks bad. You don't. Big whoopie. Your opinion weighs the same as everyone else's - an issue brought up in the "irritated" thread. Which, although poorly stated, was an excellent point and to which I referred.


This is a discussion forum. Discussion of opinions is the entire point, and I think that my post was written in that spirit.


----------



## malinda

*Let us cool it down please:*

The "Irritated" thread which has been quoted in this thread by Ksinc and Buffalo was locked for good reason. Trying to revive it is unacceptable. A few facts for your consideration:



Ksinc said:


> And, why do you have to challenge my opinion? Your reaction is a little over the top. I think it looks bad. You don't. Big whoopie. Your opinion weighs the same as everyone else's - an issue brought up in the "irritated" thread. Which, although poorly stated, was an excellent point and to which I referred.



I see no "over the top" reaction from JCusey which would merit your citing of the "Irritated" thread in which I do not recall Cusey even being mentioned.
JCusey did not challenge your opinion. He offered an illustration of various differences in shoe soles of rubber.



Buffalo said:


> here, here, exactly the point that some in "irritated" were concerned about.


 The "Irritated" thread was locked because of ongoing flaming by you, Charley, and JRH. Now, with nothing at all to contribute, you chime in with another flame. If you do it again you will spend a bit of time in suspension considering the difference between "here, here" and "hear, hear".

I do hope that I have made myself clear.


----------



## ksinc

malinda said:


> The "Irritated" thread which has been quoted in this thread by Ksinc and Buffalo was locked for good reason. Trying to revive it is unacceptable. A few facts for your consideration:
> 
> 
> I see no "over the top" reaction from JCusey which would merit your citing of the "Irritated" thread in which I do not recall Cusey even being mentioned.
> JCusey did not challenge your opinion. He offered an illustration of various differences in shoe soles of rubber.
> The "Irritated" thread was locked because of ongoing flaming by you, Charley, and JRH. Now, with nothing at all to contribute, you chime in with another flame. If you do it again you will spend a bit of time in suspension considering the difference between "here, here" and "hear, hear".
> 
> I do hope that I have made myself clear.


First, I had NOTHING to do with the "irritated" thread. Besides which, part of your list is wrong. In the 2nd paragraph he offered in an illustration, in the 1st he made the commment and quoted me to which I asked "How is that a response to me?" I said "I think they look bad." . No, it was not a challenge of my opinion, which would be fine. Opinions are meant to be challenged. It was "a challenge" because I had a differing opinion. How does I challenge you to say to my friend to his face they are ugly? What is that even about? Is that a threat of somekind? It's rude - over the top - and uncalled for. It's not "discussion". He says anybody yet he quotes and responds to me. That is exactly the attitude of some complained about in the "irritated" thread - as I said that thread was poorly stated. But, there is a backhandedness among some posters and that is to what I was referring.

Second, I've never flammed anybody outside of GMAC in the Interchange and it was well deserved, provoked, and even then I was EXTREMELY polite and reserved - simply stating facts in rebuttal as I have done here.

I find JC's posts and contributions amazing most of the time and I refer to them often, part of the reason for my dismay at his response to me and my questioning it. I gave him every benefit of the doubt, opportunity to apologize. All I said was, "I think they look bad." I DID NOT DECLARE they are UGLY or INAPPROPRIATE.

See below:



jcusey said:


> ksinc said:
> 
> 
> 
> After W visited AE's factory I made it a point to try to see his shoes. I noticed he had rubber soles on with his suit. I think it looks bad. If you're not wearing a suit, I have no problem with them.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the members of this forum wears through leather soles around the balls of his feet very quickly. When he mentioned this fact to Tony Gaziano, Tony suggested that he have his shoes made with rubber inserts in the middle part of the sole. He did. I have seen him wear these shoes with a suit, and *I would challenge anybody to call them ugly or inappropriate with a straight face.* I doubt that anybody would even notice them -- I wouldn't if I hadn't known that they were constructed in this way, and some would say that I am obsessive about shoes.
> 
> As others have written, there are different kinds of rubber soles. We all can agree that thick, attention-gathering lug soles are inappropriate on shoes worn with suits; but there are other kinds of rubber soles that are much lower-profile. The rubber inserts on this member's Tony Gaziano shoes are an example of this, as are the Beverly and Centro Gommo (sp?) soles that you sometimes find on shoes made by Gravati and other Italian makers, as are the Thames rubber soles that Edward Green offers (I think -- I have only seen pictures).
Click to expand...


----------



## Morris

DocHolliday said:


> I'd just be happy to see more guys in non-square-toed dress shoes, regardless of whether they have leather or rubber soles.


Amen.


----------



## malinda

Ksinc: I am ignoring your rule breaking this one time and solely to correct you. Rule: DO NOT argue with me on the Forum. If you have an objection to my moderation contact me by PM.

Correction to your mistatement. This is the illustration. It is in the first paragraph:


 jcusey said:


> One of the members of this forum wears through leather soles around the balls of his feet very quickly. When he mentioned this fact to Tony Gaziano, Tony suggested that he have his shoes made with rubber inserts in the middle part of the sole.


This was addressed to Buffalo, not you. Read it again and realize your error:



Malinda said:


> The "Irritated" thread was locked because of ongoing flaming by you, Charley, and JRH. Now, with nothing at all to contribute, you chime in with another flame. If you do it again you will spend a bit of time in suspension considering the difference between "here, here" and "hear, hear".


If you have anything else to say, do so in a Private Message.


----------



## jcusey

ksinc said:


> No, it was not a challenge of my opinion, which would be fine. Opinions are meant to be challenged. It was "a challenge" because I had a differing opinion. How does I challenge you to say to my friend to his face they are ugly? What is that even about? Is that a threat of somekind? It's rude - over the top - and uncalled for. It's not "discussion". He says anybody yet he quotes and responds to me. That is exactly the attitude of some complained about in the "irritated" thread - as I said that thread was poorly stated. But, there is a backhandedness among some posters and that is to what I was referring.


I will repeat: I thought your condemnation of all rubber soles as ugly was overbroad and might not have taken into consideration the diversity of rubber soles out there and the way in which they could be used. I offered a counterexample that I thought would illustrate my point. I don't understand how you could interpret this as rude, over the top, uncalled for, or backhanded. It wasn't inteded as such.


----------



## ksinc

jcusey said:


> I will repeat: I thought your condemnation of all rubber soles as ugly was overbroad and might not have taken into consideration the diversity of rubber soles out there and the way in which they could be used. I offered a counterexample that I thought would illustrate my point. I don't understand how you could interpret this as rude, over the top, uncalled for, or backhanded. It wasn't inteded as such.


I never said they were "ugly". I said, "I noticed he had rubber soles on with his suit. I think it looks bad."

As I have stated repeatedly, the part I felt was rude and backhanded was the part where you said, "I challenge anybody to say they are ugly" when you were quoting and responding to me - the first paragraph.

I agree your 2nd was a great illustration. You are conveniently forgetting the 1st.


----------



## Albert

I am 25 and I cannot remember a time when it was ever different (i.e. must have been like this since mid-eighties). Probably because rubber-soled shoes are cheaper. And, by the way, there is no NEED to polish these shoes with something else than a sponge as the upper leather is treated with synthetic stuff as well.

Quite sad and quite disgusting - I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## guitone

Where to start and what to add....back on track..

I found when visiting London that it was not much different than here, most men were wearing ugly cheap shoes. Sorry for the judgmental nature of my words above. Not all were rubber souled, some were. As far as what I see here, as a salesprofessional I look at my competition that come in with old, out of shape, unshined shoes and wonder if they even realize just how bad it looks...must not as they still do it years after my first notice of this. I will wear rubber souled AE's for business, with a suit at conventions (standing for 10 hours is not always pleasant in a leather souled shoe for me, a rubber souled AE makes it much easier).

I think most mem are just cluelss about style, and shoes, one of the most basic parts of our wardrobe suffer the most...black shoes with brown pants, or brown shoes with black pants, sorry, does not work....I see many wearing what I will refer to as joggers as a dress shoe, this is the downfall of the shoes, or at least part of it, a man not knowing what to wear and when. Blame it on most folks being clueless or just not not caring. I spend as much time selecting my shoes in the morning as I do my shirt and tie, so some thought goes into this. For many men they wear the one pair of shoes they have, end of conversation for them.

Who is nuts, them or me with my 16 or 20 pair of fine shoes?


----------



## shrum

JLibourel said:


> I think there are rubber soles and rubber soles. For instance, I am wearing my Allen-Edmonds Bentons in chili today. This was one of the more dressy of the shoes in A-E's Dress Casual line. It has thin, discreet rubber soles that are very hard for an observer to differentiate from leather. I would consider wearing these with a suit to be a sartorial transgression only a few degrees more heinous than wearing similar leather-soled bluchers with a suit. I don't consider wearing them with a jacket and tie to be any kind of transgression at all (pace Manton in "The Suit")./
> QUOTE]
> 
> I too have a pair of dress shoes (To Boot NY) that have a thin layer of rubber on the soles and heels. I was initially skeptical, but the salesperson assured me it was fine (big surprise). They are for the most part not perceptible while walking. Plus, the saftey aspect is not trivial. The pair of Crockett & Jones chukka boots I recently purchased have a *very* hard heel and I still occasionally slip when my heel strikes very hard, slick surfaces such as marble (and this after about 10 wearings).


----------



## JLibourel

I think what you are describing on your To Boot New York shoes is what is called a "Topy," which is somewhat different from a true rubber sole.


----------



## shrum

JLibourel said:


> I think what you are describing on your To Boot New York shoes is what is called a "Topy," which is somewhat different from a true rubber sole.


Yes, you're right. I misread your message. I thought you were describing the same thing (rubber layer on top of leather sole), but in fact you appear to be referring to a true rubber sole that is difficult to identify as such. Sorry about that.


----------



## Bob Loblaw

Rubber shoes are the new black.


----------



## Arced

Not that this is about rubber soled shoes, but I was really surprised the other day when I went to a mall to look for a replacement pair of laces. Granted it was more of a working class mall, but I was surprised by the lack of shoe accessories. Even after 4 stores, I couldn't find the laces that I was looking for (brown ribbons, not too obscure, I thought), but I was struck by the fact that so few places had shoe polish. Even if they did, it was those cheap bottle applicators with the sponges. I would be surprised if even 1 in 20 men under 35 have ever polished their shoes. Shoes are now like t-shirts, worn and thrown away when they're too old or out of fashion.


----------



## Taxler

As an engineer that frequently tours production facilities, research centers, and factories, all leather soles are usually out of the question for me. Over the last 10 years, I've progressed from all-rubber-soles to a thin layer of rubber on leather, and most recently to leather with rubber inserts and heel. All rubber soles would probably not be the most preferred choice for the office environment, but the latter two I would consider more than acceptable for business.

Additionally, I think we need to dispell the notion that rubber soled shoes are inferior in quality and disposable. Even the best shoe makers produce rubber soled shoes, and, in many cases, they produce the same shoe with either a leather or rubber sole. The rubber soles are just as repairable as leather, and in my experience, they last just as long.


----------



## JLibourel

Arced said:


> Not that this is about rubber soled shoes, but I was really surprised the other day when I went to a mall to look for a replacement pair of laces. Granted it was more of a working class mall, but I was surprised by the lack of shoe accessories. Even after 4 stores, I couldn't find the laces that I was looking for (brown ribbons, not too obscure, I thought), but I was struck by the fact that so few places had shoe polish. Even if they did, it was those cheap bottle applicators with the sponges. I would be surprised if even 1 in 20 men under 35 have ever polished their shoes. Shoes are now like t-shirts, worn and thrown away when they're too old or out of fashion.


Maybe you are looking the wrong places. The Long's drug store nearest me has quite a selection of shoe care products, laces, etc. The polishes are mostly Kiwi, but they have a half-dozen or so colors. My local grocery stores also carry a fairy quantity of polishes and other shoe care products.

Agree, however, that polishing shoes seems to be becoming a lost art among the younger set. Too much reliance on those vile sneakers, I fear.


----------



## Dripp

While i don't post here often, I feel I must weigh in on the rubber sole debate. I currently own several pairs of Alden shoes. In my opinion they are an excellent value and have held up very well. One of the pairs is rubber soled. I generally wear this when it is raining or during some other inclement weather in the midwest. However, just because the weather is nice does not mean I won't wear them...with a suit. While I would generally prefer leather soled shoes, sometimes rubber soles are better. For example, during an event at a theater where the stage is wooden, it is rather difficult to walk quietly in leather, whereas rubber is silent. I certainly wouldn't want to upstage the speaker with my shoes. I do find that the rubber wears out rather quickly and isn't more comfortable than leather and ultimately I prefer leather.

I have considered having them resoled in leather but I have not determined if this is possible.

As for the chunky rubber soled shoes, I must admit I own a pair - and I wear them with my suit...only to and from the car. I park nearly a mile from the office and by wearing these clunkers, i save dramatic amounts of wear on my dress shoes and I don't really care what I step in. Do I get strange looks when wearing these shoes with a suit? Unfortunately, I don't think I do. And as many have pointed out, that is more of a societal acceptance than the proper way to wear them. That being said, I take pride in my appearance however I consider myself somewhat frugal and would like my nicer things to last as long as possible.


----------



## Arced

JLibourel said:


> Maybe you are looking the wrong places. The Long's drug store nearest me has quite a selection of shoe care products, laces, etc. The polishes are mostly Kiwi, but they have a half-dozen or so colors. My local grocery stores also carry a fairy quantity of polishes and other shoe care products.


Thanks for the tip. I'll check out my local Long's. For the record, I went to a Kmart, Sears, Payless and one other large discount shoe store. I was pretty surprised how little floor space was devoted to shoe care. Still, it's taken a decent amount of time on this and the other forum to be convinced how important polishing is. Once I tried it (and I've been buying better and better shoes), I'm amazed at how much it improves the look of my shoes. It's night and day. I had been of the mistaken impression that polishing just makes the shoes look glossy or shiny, I didn't understand what a beautiful deep shine can do.


----------



## GettingCleanedUp

I'm probably committing satorial suicide here, but I keep a pair of rubber soles and a pair of AE leather soles (that I had sole protectors put on) in
my ususal rotation. While I work in an office, I can pound a lot of concrete in a day and so the wear on leather can be quite profound (hence the sole
protectors which look fine. I have a good local cobbler). Depending on what I am wearing, I can either dress up or down since wearing dress shoes all the time with khakis doesn't quite work in my environment.


----------



## Patrick06790

JLibourel said:


> I think what you are describing on your To Boot New York shoes is what is called a "Topy," which is somewhat different from a true rubber sole.


Is this arrangement a Topy? I can't say I like it much. It seems to combine the worst of both worlds - ugly to look at (if you worry about the underside of your shoes) and still slippery.


----------



## GettingCleanedUp

Patrick06790 said:


> Is this arrangement a Topy? I can't say I like it much. It seems to combine the worst of both worlds - ugly to look at (if you worry about the underside of your shoes) and still slippery.


Topy is a particular brand of this half sole protector. My shoe guy put
one on my Hillcrests called Dolce-Vida. I have to admit, that it looks
ugly from the bottom. However, (at least on mine), you can hardly see
it from the side and I doubt that anyone notices it at all when you are standing.


----------



## markdc

tripreed said:


> I know that this thread title might seem oxymoronic, but as I look around at the shoes of people in my office and out on the street, I must say that leather-soled dress shoes are easily outnumbered by the rubber-soled variety. I realize that Birmingham, AL is not exactly sartorial capital of America, but I assume that this trend is occuring in many other cities in the US. I find it somewhat disconcerting and indicative of the downward-spiraling fashion standards of modern society. I suppose that "comfort" is the main reason that people buy these shoes, but I guess that I find this to be a poor excuse because none of my leather-soled shoes are uncomfortable. I also wonder how many modern men, especially the younger ones, actually know how to polish their shoes anymore. I guess that this post is more of a rant than an actual topic of discussion, as I know that not many people in my life would relate to these feelings of sadness and disgust. Here on Ask Andy, though, I am glad to know that support abounds.


I can say that the lawyers in Birmingham still dress well, though, such as those from Bradley Arant, Haskell Slaughter, Maynard Cooper & Gale, etc.


----------



## wedgehead98

*Fred Flinstone feet and Square Toe Shoes*



DocHolliday said:


> I'd just be happy to see more guys in non-square-toed dress shoes, regardless of whether they have leather or rubber soles.


I hear what you are saying, but I have size US11.5, EEEE, feet...if I wear a rounded or even slightly pointed toe, it looks like I am wearing skis. I've actually tripped on my own toes when I did try to wear some AE's. I've tried ordering extra wides in a rounded toe (so it's not quite so long) but they look like duck feet!

So, I settle for a squared off toe...but not a ridiculous looking box toe.

Now, with respect to leather vs. rubber soles...I love my ECCO's...they are the most comfortable shoe I've ever put on and they are airport friendly (I travel on business at least every other week). This is my favorite pair:

I get them shined frequently - Nordstrom in Fashion Valley charges $2.50 for a really good shine and the seats overlook the women's shoe area...I get a great shine and a show! But that's a separate topic altogther, isn't it?

I especially like flat front pant suits (no cuffs) and think the slightly squared toe looks better than a rounded/pointed toe.

All of that being said, I am going to visit the AE store in Fashion Valley Mall (San Diego) this weekend and try on a vew other style options. I like the way the ECCO's look and feel, but they are trashed within a year and I end up buying 4-5 pairs of shoes every 9-12 months. I'm sure that is more money than I would end up spending on some AE's.:idea:


----------



## rip

Buffalo said:


> I have the opposite experience, I find leather soled shoes more comfortable for long walks and periods on my feet. I also find that rubber soled shoes make my feet sweat more, feeling hot and therefore uncomfortable, just my view. Hence, my personal conclusion that rubber soled shoes = more comfort is a myth.


I think a more apt equation is "well-fitting shoe=more comfort" irrespective of the sole material.


----------



## agoldf

Is "Timberland dress shoe" an oxymoron?
https://www.timberland.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=1761134&cp=1779791.1761081


----------



## Trimmer

I have these in brown and black for rainy days (at present nearly every day in London). Are my standards declining?


----------



## JLibourel

agoldf said:


> Is "Timberland dress shoe" an oxymoron?
> https://www.timberland.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=1761134&cp=1779791.1761081


If what is linked is their complete collection of "dress" shoes, obviously. I have a pair of brown plain-toe rubber-soled bluchers from Timberland that I bought about 10 or 11 years ago. They are dressier than any of the current offerings. However, I reserve them for things like walking the dog or trips to the outdoor shooting range.


----------



## Damen Jackson

*Your generalizations do seem a bit sweeping...*

I happen to have flat feet, and walk two miles thru downtown Chicago to work each day. I have numerous pairs of Testoni Black Label, Allen Edmonds, and Church's in rubber, and no one has ever accused me of a lack of style, let alone because of my rubber soles. Trust me, there are times when you just have to let the leather go. And it's okay.


----------



## KenCPollock

JLibourel said:


> Don't feel entirely left out. For example, in Southern California, there is only one store that to my knowledge has Edward Greens--the Beverly Hills Polo Shop, and they usually have no more than about three styles. Not infrequently, they don't have any on display.


Do not feel left out. Metro Atlanta now has 4.5 million people, but Edward Green is not sold here (you have to go 480 miles; all the way to New Orleans to find them). Neither is C&J, except for 2-3 models of Brooks' Peal. No Church's or Trickers here either. Bennie's is largely sold out of Grensons, so if you want English shoes you are pretty much limited to a large number of Alfred Sargent made Brooks' Peal or (thank God) a nice selection of John Lobb-Paris and Barker Blacks at Nieman Marcus.
We do have several purveyors of Alden and AE.


----------



## Trenditional

DocHolliday said:


> I'd just be happy to see more guys in non-square-toed dress shoes, regardless of whether they have leather or rubber soles.


I was at court today and saw a lawyer wearing the ultra trendy, elongated toe with the small squared tip with his ill fitting suit. No one knows how to dress anymore and it amazing to look at what people find acceptable to wear.

Regarding the original post, you can blame Skechers for the thick soled dress shoes so prolific today.


----------



## rip

guitone said:


> Where to start and what to add....back on track..
> 
> I found when visiting London that it was not much different than here, most men were wearing ugly cheap shoes. Sorry for the judgmental nature of my words above. Not all were rubber souled, some were. As far as what I see here, as a salesprofessional I look at my competition that come in with old, out of shape, unshined shoes and wonder if they even realize just how bad it looks...must not as they still do it years after my first notice of this. I will wear rubber souled AE's for business, with a suit at conventions (standing for 10 hours is not always pleasant in a leather souled shoe for me, a rubber souled AE makes it much easier).
> 
> I think most mem are just cluelss about style, and shoes, one of the most basic parts of our wardrobe suffer the most...black shoes with brown pants, or brown shoes with black pants, sorry, does not work....I see many wearing what I will refer to as joggers as a dress shoe, this is the downfall of the shoes, or at least part of it, a man not knowing what to wear and when. Blame it on most folks being clueless or just not not caring. I spend as much time selecting my shoes in the morning as I do my shirt and tie, so some thought goes into this. For many men they wear the one pair of shoes they have, end of conversation for them.
> 
> Who is nuts, them or me with my 16 or 20 pair of fine shoes?


Just a random observation: what you have on the bottom of your shoe is a *sole*; your *soul* hopefully resides elsewhere.


----------



## Nick V

From my experience, Rockport was noticeably the first company to successfully come out with a Men's shoe that had a rubber sole. At first the styles were very bland. Hard for anybody to wear to the office. I noticed that they were becoming more and more popular. Then they started introducing cap toes and wing tips. Well, the concept took off. They were comfortable, light, flexible and, wore well. Far from a Bespoke, but their was a huge undiscovered market for there product. Shortly after, Easy Spirit launched a huge television commercial campaign advertising Women playing basketball in their mid-heel rubber soled office shoes. In order to compete, eventually, most companies introduced a line of rubber soled shoes. To date, they continue to wrestle over the market introducing more intricate styles. From a business standpoint, it's a lot less expensive to produce a shoe with a rubber (or synthetic) sole. Their are a lot of variables involved in the cost savings. One of which is the cost of leather vs rubber. However with the price of oil these days that gap is closing.

With that, a true high-grade shoe is made of animal (leather, suede, etc.). That......will never change.


----------



## rnoldh

JLibourel said:


> I am wearing my Allen-Edmonds Bentons in chili today. This was one of the more dressy of the shoes in A-E's Dress Casual line. It has thin, discreet rubber soles that are very hard for an observer to differentiate from leather.


The above quote is perhaps the key to the discussion. As Jan says, there are rubber soles and there are rubber soles!

A thin discreet rubber sole is almost always appropriate (meaning it can be used for anything), save for formal wear, or the proverbial interview or important business meeting.

Thicker rubber soles, IMO, should be saved for casual wear, and most but not all business casual environments. Thicker rubber soles would be fine with any casual outfit, and with many if not all sport coats.

It certainly seems that the trend in RTW is for more rubber soles, not less. I wish that more were like the discreet thin rubber soles like the AE Burtons that Jan cites.


----------



## LondonFogey

Albert said:


> I am 25 and I cannot remember a time when it was ever different (i.e. must have been like this since mid-eighties). Probably because rubber-soled shoes are cheaper. And, by the way, there is no NEED to polish these shoes with something else than a sponge as the upper leather is treated with synthetic stuff as well.
> 
> Quite sad and quite disgusting - I wholeheartedly agree.


As with most things - it was the sixties when it all went wrong. Looking back at my company's photo archives of board meetings etc, all the men wear what look like leather soled dress shoes up until the late sixties. From '68 onwards the more casual, crepe soled hush puppy type shoes begin to appear. These kinds of shoes had been worn for casual wear since the early fifties I believe, but it was really only the late sixties/early seventies when they caught on for formal wear.

The two main reasons men don't wear leather soled shoes anymore is cost and comfort. Cost, because it's cheaper to produce rubber soles and they don't wear out so quickly, and comfort, because to most men, the more a shoe resembles a trainer, the more comfortable it is perceived to be (trainers being the default shoe for the modern man).

As for polishing and ratty shoes - the reason for this is 1. showing any kind of effort in one's appearance is frowned upon - hence, untucked shirts, ruffled hair, stubble, open shirts etc. To actually make the effort to polish a pair of shoes would be a clear demonstration that you had taken care with your appearance, which is infra dig.

2. Most men just buy one pair of 'smart' shoes and wear them every day for work until they fall to bits or the next fashion comes along. It would never occur to them to have different types of shoe (except trainers) so this, combined with the lack of care, is why you see such heavy wear and scuffing. It's also why you see things like brown shoes worn with navy suits etc.


----------



## fritzl

Trimmer said:


> I have these in brown and black for rainy days (at present nearly every day in London). Are my standards declining?


May I ask, which brand?


----------



## Trimmer

fritzl said:


> May I ask, which brand?


Finsbury of Paris

www.finsbury-shoes.com


----------



## ilikeyourstyle

As a young man, I feel the need to offer some excuses:

1. City streets and subways (not to mention the sidewalks by construction spots in Toronto) are filthy. After ten minutes of walking outside, my shoes have lost most of their shine anyway. I would have to polish my shoes almost every day to keep them looking their best, and I just cannot justify that time commitment.

2. I have been told not to wear a tie to work. As much as I would love to wear a tie everyday, I cannot really go against the grain (and my boss) and wear them. Such is the curse of business casual.

3. Leather-soled shoes are much less safe to wear in the winter here. I slip at least twice a week on my way to work on icy or wet pavement/floors. That said, I still prefer leather-soled shoes and will never wear rubber-soled shoes to work. Besides, the leather-soled shoes are great for dance floors where you can look like Michael Jackson (pre-crazy years) with ease.


----------



## BillinStL

I grew up in Clayton (St Louis suburb) in the fifties and sixties. This was before Brooks came to St Louis. There were two great men's stores: Boyd's and Harvey, Ltd. Boyd's went downhill after being purchased by Cluett Peabody (dropped all the Gant shirts in favor of Arrow! aargh!). Harvey, Ltd closed in the early eighties. 

I worked my way through college selling suits at Harvey, Ltd.

I haven't found a destination store in St Louis to replace either of these two establishments.

Brook's stores in St Louis are small relative to Chicago or Boston, which, may explain the relatively small number of well dressed men in the city.

Fortunately, I'll be in Boston later this summer.

Newbury Street, here I come!


----------



## DocHolliday

ilikeyourstyle said:


> 1. City streets and subways (not to mention the sidewalks by construction spots in Toronto) are filthy. After ten minutes of walking outside, my shoes have lost most of their shine anyway. I would have to polish my shoes almost every day to keep them looking their best, and *I just cannot justify that time commitment.*


----------



## Albert

agoldf said:


> Is "Timberland dress shoe" an oxymoron?
> https://www.timberland.com/family/index.jsp?categoryId=1761134&cp=1779791.1761081


Oh, dear. I'm turning blind right now...


----------



## LondonFogey

ilikeyourstyle said:


> As a young man, I feel the need to offer some excuses:
> 
> 1. City streets and subways (not to mention the sidewalks by construction spots in Toronto) are filthy. After ten minutes of walking outside, my shoes have lost most of their shine anyway. I would have to polish my shoes almost every day to keep them looking their best, and I just cannot justify that time commitment.
> 
> 2. I have been told not to wear a tie to work. As much as I would love to wear a tie everyday, I cannot really go against the grain (and my boss) and wear them. Such is the curse of business casual.
> 
> 3. Leather-soled shoes are much less safe to wear in the winter here. I slip at least twice a week on my way to work on icy or wet pavement/floors. That said, I still prefer leather-soled shoes and will never wear rubber-soled shoes to work. Besides, the leather-soled shoes are great for dance floors where you can look like Michael Jackson (pre-crazy years) with ease.


1. There are lots of intermediate measures you can take. I usually polish my shoes 'properly' once a week but give them a daily wipe with a duster, which gets most dirt off and gives a bit of shine. You can also get quick fix silicone sponges etc.

2. You poor man. I have heard of these bosses, but fortunately have never worked for one. Is there a specific dress code which states that ties may not be worn? A good compromise may be a cravat (ascot), though if slobwear is your company's policy, they will probably object to that also.

3. A good compromise is to buy leather soled shoes but then get a cobbler to cut in a rubber section to give grip. You can also get stick on rubber soles and do it yourself, and they are undetectable from above.


----------



## Albert

LondonFogey said:


> Is there a specific dress code which states that ties may not be worn? A good compromise may be a cravat (ascot)


IMHO, the ascot is an item of semi-casual party dress, isn't it? I think wearing an ascot is so extremely out of the ordinary that the objections might be much more significant than with a tie.

I'm working in investment banking and some colleagues almost declared me certifiable when I wore an ascot at an informal garden party.


----------



## Geoff Gander

I agree with many of London Fogey's sentiments, but have a few other ideas you might want to consider. 

As a resident of Ottawa, I've had my share of spills on icy pavement, too. I often wear black Yaktrax Walkers () over my dress shoes - they are hardly noticeable, and easy to put on. I can also attest that they do work rather well, and they reduce your soles' contact with the ice itself (if that is a concern).

In really slushy weather, I put on a pair of black military-grade zip-up rubber overboots over my shoes. I've seen them at Canadian Tire, army surplus shops, and hunting stores. Ugly as sin, but they are waterproof, and do the job.

Finally, you can also wear winter boots, and carry your shoes in a bag. Unglamorous, I know, but practical in light of our climate. I've been to several meetings where, once everyone files into the room, there is a flurry of activity as people remove their boots and put on their shoes.

Hope this helps,

Geoff


----------



## LondonFogey

Albert said:


> IMHO, the ascot is an item of semi-casual party dress, isn't it? I think wearing an ascot is so extremely out of the ordinary that the objections might be much more significant than with a tie.
> 
> I'm working in investment banking and some colleagues almost declared me certifiable when I wore an ascot at an informal garden party.


But the office dress code is 'business casual' so I don't see why an item of 'smart casual' clothing such as the cravat/ascot should not be worn, unless it is specifically forbidden by the dress code.

The point I am trying to make is that the inverted snobs who impose these slobwear codes should be subtly challenged. It's one thing to say you do not have to wear a suit and tie, it's another thing entirely to say you may not wear one at all. I suppose it's the anarchist libertarian in me. Although I suppose that may not be a great career move.


----------



## Patrick06790

Back to the rubber soles:

When I was at the newspaper, assignments often took me to muddy fields, or great thickets where some visionary thought he could cram a house, or football games, etc. I always kept one of these beater pairs in the car - one AE (left) and three J & M - all via thrift shops.




























This pair of J & Ms are the least offensive of this group:










Now I am back working at a substance abuse treatment facility. (They like us to say that instead of "rehab.") This is mostly indoor work, but sometimes I have to chase people or otherwise move in a hurry, and as I have observed before, leather soles are no good for this kind of thing. (Somebody should do a study on the role of the burglary industry in the development of the rubber sole.)

I have these shoes (AE Cornell; don't know what the Alden is called) and they dress up my current biz casual thing a bit, while still allowing me to leap tall buildings at a single bound.



















But the best compromise I've found are these Peals with the Dainite sole. Unlike the first batch, these look like shoes, not a dowdy upper that's had a Vibram sole grafted on.


----------



## Albert

LondonFogey said:


> But the office dress code is 'business casual' so I don't see why an item of 'smart casual' clothing such as the cravat/ascot should not be worn, unless it is specifically forbidden by the dress code.


I would love to wear this item more often. My only fear is that it is considered a bit outdated or too dandyish. People might consider it a bit excentric...



> The point I am trying to make is that the inverted snobs who impose these slobwear codes should be subtly challenged. It's one thing to say you do not have to wear a suit and tie, it's another thing entirely to say you may not wear one at all. I suppose it's the anarchist libertarian in me. Although I suppose that may not be a great career move.


Agree and point taken. Fortunately, I didn't have _that_ sort of thing before...


----------



## LondonFogey

Albert said:


> I would love to wear this item more often. My only fear is that it is considered a bit outdated or too dandyish. People might consider it a bit excentric...


It's been noted before that one way to 'play down' a cravat/ascot is to wear it fairly low on the neck, where it won't look greatly different to a coloured tee-shirt at first glance. If you wear it too high or puffed up, you'll look like someone from the Hamptons with 'III' after their name.


----------



## Benjamin NYC

Whether rubber soles are okay really depends on what you do. Doctors, for instance, can wear rubber soles all the time. It actually enhances their appearance, as it fosters a look of practicality and sanitary standards.


----------



## TheHoff

Benjamin NYC said:


> Whether rubber soles are okay really depends on what you do. Doctors, for instance, can wear rubber soles all the time. It actually enhances their appearance, as it fosters a look of practicality and sanitary standards.


How is a rubber sole more sanitary than a leather sole?


----------



## DocD

I will agree that there is a huge difference between a pair of "clunky" Rockports with a full rubber sole and a pair of AE's with a combination rubber/leather sole, with many of the AE combination soles containing small inserts of rubber that are barely noticeable.

Despite all the controversy, one important factor that has been overlooked is the medical factor. As I've stated on this site on a few occasion, I perform surgery on the foot & ankle, and unfortunately, some problems that I treat that involve the foot are directly attributed to a lack of cushioning below the area of the metatarsals. Although leather soles may be more fashionably "correct", may have better longevity, SOMETIMES leather soles are not the best choice for shock attenuation or cushioning for those patients that are exhibiting symptoms in that area of the foot.

So, prior to criticizing one of your colleagues for his lack of fashion sense, he MAY be wearing a rubber soled shoe via the advice of his doctor, even if it's on a temporary basis!!


----------



## Bog

Demanding winter weather requires not just rubber soles, but ice cleats. These can strap right on top of the best kind of shoes, and transform leather soled works of art into lumberjack equipment good for the roughest city glacier, ice, snow, and sleet.

Stabilicers Ice Cleats with Vibram soles. The metal cleats screw out and can be replaced. The logo tag on strap is easily removed. Around $50.


----------



## kaiiwa

I have both leather and rubber soled dress shoes.
I am also under 30. The leather soled shoes I have are comfortable due to silicon (rubber) in between the soles.

I use the rubber sole shoe when it is raining because they are waterproof(Cole Haan model).

Most of my friends wear only rubber soled shoes main because of the price and they are slaves to fashion more so than me.

Rubber soled shoes are the sign of the times.


----------



## Nathan Detroit

ilikeyourstyle said:


> As a young man, I feel the need to offer some excuses:
> 
> 1. City streets and subways (not to mention the sidewalks by construction spots in Toronto) are filthy. After ten minutes of walking outside, my shoes have lost most of their shine anyway. I would have to polish my shoes almost every day to keep them looking their best, and I just cannot justify that time commitment.[\QUOTE]
> 
> No need to polish. Brush them w/ a horsehair brush when you put them on.


----------



## Fred Best

*brown shoes worn with navy suits?*



LondonFogey said:


> It's also why you see things like brown shoes worn with navy suits etc.


What is wrong with wearing brown shoes with a navy suit?


----------



## The Gabba Goul

I was having a conversation with one of out Unit Leaders (House supervisors) at work yesterday about this...I said that my feet have been bothering me lately, and I suspect it's the leather soles on the hard floors of the hospital...he told me that he refuses to wear leather soles any more...the way he explained it to me is that, yes, indeed, rubber is a much better material to absorb the shock of every step (and he's a scientist, so I trust his reasoning), and if a person is flat footed (which I am)...you need all the extra help you can get in absorbing impact...I have one pair of shoes with vibram soles...I think I'll be purchasing some more in the future...I'll still wear leather soles when I go out, because, yes, there is no denying that for dancing they are waaaaaaaay better...plus they do sound cool when they "click clack" on the floor, but for practical purposes, I think I'llb e switching to rubber...


...go ahead, accuse me of declining standards all you want...at least my feet wont ache...


----------



## RedondoBeach

Forgive me if I've missed this having been mentioned somewhere in the thread, but I find the most often overlooked part of well-shined shoes is edge dressing. That is, black dye that goes along the edge of the sole to cover the inevitable scuffs. I'm amazed at the number of men wearing shoes with shined uppers (that they no-doubt shined themselves) but that have awful looking soles. No excuse in my opinion. Edge dressing is available in a bottle right next to the polish in any supermarket or drug store.


----------



## mrkleen

LondonFogey said:


> 3. A good compromise is to buy leather soled shoes but then get a cobbler to cut in a rubber section to give grip. You can also get stick on rubber soles and do it yourself, and they are undetectable from above.


You can also invest in a cheap pair of Tinsley Rubbers - and wear whatever shoe you wish, no matter the weather.


----------



## Capt Ron

*Forgive me hard core sartorialists.*

Fact: Leather came first.

What would the founding fathers of shoes used if they had a choice between rubber and leather?

Bet your last dollar they would have went with rubber.

Cobbler: _"Your Royal Highness, I could make you a shoe with traction, keep your foot dry in the rain, and allow you to walk silently around the castle. I can also make this sole look just like your leather one."_

King: _"No thanks cobbler, I'd rather slip, fall on my arse, and break my friggin hip."_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: A slip and fall back in the day could easily cost you your life. Come to think of it, today as well.

Fact: Leather soles can be very dangerous, especially with today's waxed floors and other ultra smooth surfaces.

Fact: Rubber soles can be replaced just as easy if not easier than leather soles

Fact: Majority of foot doctors recommend shoes with rubber soles over leather.

Fact: Rubber soles can be designed to make the same authoritive leather smacking sounds which I happen to like.

Fact: Rubber provide greater insulation from an electrical ground to earth. Don't stand close to guys with leather soles in a lightening storm.

Opinion: Step for step, rubber soles will outlast leather, especially in humid climate.

Opinion: I prefer the slide I get in a leather sole when dancing.

Opinion: Thick rubber soles definitely look more casual. Those thicker soles provide that needed casual edge that would otherwise make the shoe look too dressy when worn with chinos or jeans. Thick soled brown boot bluchers derbies are my favorite casual shoe.

Thought: If you had to run out of a burning building down 30 flights of stairs, which would you rather be wearing?

IMHO, as long as a rubber sole is as thin as a leather sole it cannot be considered a matter of "fashion", but rather preference.
If you wear a thick soled toe-cap balmoral with your suit, youre as wrong as wearing a suit with penny loafers or maybe even sneakers.
Remember, all IMHO.
That being said, all my dress shoes are actually leather soled.


----------



## omairp

The more leather-soled pairs of shoes I own... the less I care if it's leather soled. Other than making for a thinner sole which can give the shoe a sleeker look, they're really nothing special. In winter and wet conditions, rubber is just plain better. Leather may be more durable, but like many people here, I constantly buy new pairs of shoes and I will probably stop wearing them long before they begin to fall apart.


----------



## Beau

*The younger man and his rubber sole*

Many young men whose jobs only call for business casual wear the ubiquitous rubber sole. This type does not care much for style. He buys what they sell at Macy's, or egads - Penny's, or even worse RackRoom.

The days where most men aspire to better have sadly passed. Some professions still have needs for suits, ties, and better shoes. When that is part of the uniform, often one will raise his game.

My 40 something brother-in-law works as an IT director at a healthcare company. He doesn't own a pair of leather soled shoes, nor does he have a suit or blazer that fits him anymore. He never has need to wear one. He does have a collection of $100 plus golf shirts that he proudly wears with his Dockers. He thinks I am crazy because I have shoes that cost $350.00 or that I have socks that cost $26.00, or that I wear Bill's Khakis that cost more than his golf shirt.

We do agree that it is worthwhile to spend upwards of $600 for a nice .40.

The rubber sole as the everyday choice is an assimilation to a casual culture. No one may get it when we try to explain why we make the effort to dress in an elegant manner, but they do notice when we make the effort.

Our world has changed. The rubber soled shoe as a ubiquitous choice is a direct result of the fact that greater than 90% of the shoes sold in the US are produced overseas, primarily in China, and the fact that low prices rule in the minds of most consumers.

I have stopped caring what others are wearing. I dress for myself. If someone else notices or compliments me, that is a bonus. More often than not, some oaf will step on my shoe as he boards the shuttle bus at the airport, and I think to myself "I should have worn my rubber soled shoes!'


----------



## upnorth

At least we can all agree that the one thing that has made a better transition from leather to rubber is contraceptives.


----------



## SpookyTurtle

Capt Ron, you make some very good points. I think that most of the dislike of rubber soles is due to the thickness/clunkiness of the design. The same shoe with a leather sole looks sleeker. I have the AE Lamberts and it has a new design rubber and leather sole. It lools just like a leather sole from the side, no clunkiness to it at all. However, it doesn't provide the cushioning of a true rubber soul. I find it a good compromise so far.


----------



## Capt Ron

*An expensive rubber....*



Beau said:


> We do agree that it is worthwhile to spend upwards of $600 for a nice .40.


Next purchase is a compact.40 Springfield Arms and wait to you see the holster I'm making............

Plenty of $350.00 rubber soled shoes out there too, you just don't notice them because they are thin soled. Please watch where your stepping!:crazy:


----------



## Capt Ron

*Can't have your cake and eat it too!*



SpookyTurtle said:


> Capt Ron, you make some very good points. I think that most of the dislike of rubber soles is due to the thickness/clunkiness of the design. The same shoe with a leather sole looks sleeker. I have the AE Lamberts and it has a new design rubber and leather sole. It lools just like a leather sole from the side, no clunkiness to it at all. However, it doesn't provide the cushioning of a true rubber soul. I find it a good compromise so far.


Just think, glueing a rubber protective sole pad onto rubber soles, they'll last for friggin ever if you got good leather uppers!

Thats the great thing about rubber soles, they have no effect on the overall quality of the rest of the shoe and rubber soles can probably be replaced with leather soles if you changed your mind. 
They use rubber in every heel, so they shouldn't be a hippocrates about thin soles.


----------



## jackmccullough

SpookyTurtle said:


> Capt Ron, you make some very good points. I think that most of the dislike of rubber soles is due to the thickness/clunkiness of the design.


Interesting question. I've tried to figure this out a bit, and I have never been able to be sure whether some people hate rubber soles because they're clunky, or that they hate the clunkiness because it demonstrates that the sole is rubber, not leather.


----------



## Capt Ron

*in defense of thick rubbers...*



jackmccullough said:


> Interesting question. I've tried to figure this out a bit, and I have never been able to be sure whether some people hate rubber soles because they're clunky, or that they hate the clunkiness because it demonstrates that the sole is rubber, not leather.


People who "hate" rubber soles tend to be pretentious shoe snobs. 
These people usually have high priced brand name shoes they buy on credit and the shoes wear out before they're even paid off.

Funny thing is they "hate" other people's shoes because thye believe it takes public credit away from their surpurb personal shoe choice. How funny is that?

Yes, an otherwise beautiful casual clunky rubber sole can be found making an obscene presentation on the feet of many men wearing suits. It's a great way to access someone's sartorial level.

I truly believe these affordable comfy shoes modeled from classic bluchers bestly styled by Kenneth Cole and Cole Haan are perfect for chinos, cargos, and jeans.

These shoes are a sartorial stepping stone for most younger men and a comfortable alternative for us more mature guys.

The handsome look of a classic blucher casualized simply by a thicker rubber sole. The best of both worlds for casual wear in my opinion.


----------



## brokencycle

I don't see that big of a deal with rubber soles. I bought a pair of Kenneth Cole New York's that I particularly like, and I don't think they look "clunky" or whatever. I can't find them online anymore or I'd include a picture. Do I walk around in them thinking they are the dressiest shoes ever? No. I don't understand the problem - it seems to be one of those irrational dislikes.


----------



## Capt Ron

*Don't upset the shoe gods....*



brokencycle said:


> I don't see that big of a deal with rubber soles. I bought a pair of Kenneth Cole New York's that I particularly like, and I don't think they look "clunky" or whatever. I can't find them online anymore or I'd include a picture. Do I walk around in them thinking they are the dressiest shoes ever? No. I don't understand the problem - it seems to be one of those irrational dislikes.


When anything is used improperly it will uset people on various levels.

Every shoe has its place in a wardrobe, even clown shoes as a part of the clown's costume. When appropriate every shoe is beautiful.

People need to be taught what is appropriate foot wear and we have to stand up to the self-righteous ignorants who try to tell us that we are wrong for telling other people that they are wrong for wearing sneakers and loafers with a suit.
It is liberal ideology that has destoyed America's willingness to behave and dress properly. When our children are allowed to go to school with their pants falling off we have failed as a nation on every level. The USA is the laughing stock of fashion throughout the world. I love my country, but I'm also embarrased because of our lack of sartorial discipline.

World, especially our British cousins please forgive us. We are a young and struggling nation. We face sartorial adversities due to our cultural diversity that no other country of our size has ever had to face. Remember, we can out bomb you, perhaps someday we can out dress you.


----------



## eagle2250

Nick V said:


> From my experience, Rockport was noticeably the first company to successfully come out with a Men's shoe that had a rubber sole. At first the styles were very bland. Hard for anybody to wear to the office. I noticed that they were becoming more and more popular. Then they started introducing cap toes and wing tips. Well, the concept took off. They were comfortable, light, flexible and, wore well. Far from a Bespoke, but their was a huge undiscovered market for there product...


While the shoe racks in my closet hold quite a few leather soled shoes, I have purchased and worn out two pair of Rockport's DresSports in the past...and they were very light and comfortable, provided great biomechanical support, were reasonably durable (but couldn't be rebuilt) and were not bad looking, at least to my eye. Yes, I did wear them with a suit! These days, I love my Aldens and AEs but, do miss the featherweight characteristic of those DresSports


----------



## Taxler

Capt Ron said:


> ...The USA is the laughing stock of fashion throughout the world...


IMO, that's a stretch. Some of the most laughable clothing on the planet comes from Europe, and other cultures have such dramatically different dress codes that they're hardly in a position to judge anyone.



Capt Ron said:


> ...World, especially our British cousins please forgive us...


We may need sartorial forgiveness from someone, but outside a few small circles, I wouldn't put the Brits atop that list.


----------



## SpookyTurtle

Allen Edmonds has several models with rubber soles or a combination rubber/leather sole so you don't have to give up the good quality either. Some of their rubber soles are replaceable too.


----------



## brokencycle

So you're telling me wouldn't wear these with a suit:


----------



## Capt Ron

Taxler said:


> IMO, that's a stretch. Some of the most laughable clothing on the planet comes from Europe, and other cultures have such dramatically different dress codes that they're hardly in a position to judge anyone.
> 
> We may need sartorial forgiveness from someone, but outside a few small circles, I wouldn't put the Brits atop that list.


I believe it's the Brit's adherance to tradtional style that allows the rest of men around the world to stay in fashion with clothes that are 30 years old. 
The Brits play a very valuable role in keeping fashion from going off the deep edge. Sure, crazy ridiculous and even down right mentally ill fashions come and go, but I believe it the stoic brits that make sure these fashions go go go away!

No culture on Earth defines a gentleman like the British.
The Italians and the French often go to the extremes while American fashion designers sew together the scraps while they are trying to pull up their pants. It's the job of the Brits to keep everyone in reality when fashion gets out of control. They do it my merely setting an example, perhaps raising an eyebrow at most. gentlemen are very subtle.


----------



## Daveboxster

*Rubber Sole shoes*

Those of us who travel in airports a lot (and thereby walk distances in dress shoes) or are on their feet a lot (doctors, real estate agents come to mind) probably will have less problem with their feet in the elder years because they wore rubber sole shoes while working.

Personally, my feet have ached to death wearing my Allen Edmond's or other expensive shoes that I have after a business trip (yes, they do fit properly) .

I have two pair of Cole Hahn with the Nike rubber soles that I love. They look great with business casual clothing, which I wear 95% of the time.

Personally, I don't like these rubber-soled shoes with a suit because I don't think they look right for me. I do have leather soled shoes that I wear with more dressier occasions (like with a suit).

Some people - and they may not just be sartorial challenged like some of you claim - may have other reasons for wearing rubber soled shoes.

For example, my father has poor feet and wears rubber soled shoes with his suits. I don't think he would be able to walk at age 77 had he not started doing this in the 80's.


----------



## Orsini

brokencycle said:


> So you're telling me wouldn't wear these with a suit:


I cannot see them very well but, assuming they are rubber sole, then no. Generally, you will want to avoid rubber sole shoes with any suit except seersucker. In that case, the red rubber sole bucks are OK.

Personally, I do not find this type of toe-box to be generally flatterng to the typical human foot...


----------



## Matt S

brokencycle said:


> So you're telling me wouldn't wear these with a suit:


These shoes are a casual style; they are basically a norwegian with a very large, square toe box. The traditional version of this style is not appropriate with a suit, and I would say that these would be even less so. I'd say these are most appropriate with a pair of jeans.


----------



## yachtie

brokencycle said:


> So you're telling me wouldn't wear these with a suit:


Not unless I were a duck. Could the toes be more square? I think not.

Much better.


----------



## paper clip

brokencycle said:


> So you're telling me wouldn't wear these with a suit:


No. My issue with the above pair is more with the shape of the toe - square - than the make-up of the sole. I do prefer leather soled shoes for dress, but AEs have combination leather/rubber soles that do not look bad.

Also, the quality of the leather upper is important. I spent a half hour in DSW shoes today to see what is out there, and all the "dress" shoes (some up to and exceeding $100 - at DSW!!!) had gross plasticky corrected grain leather rather than full grain. When I pushed my finger into the vamp, it would get those small wrinkles indicative of the plastic coating on the leather. Pure crap.

In sum - if a shoes was not square-toed and was made of full grain leather with a "normal" shaped toe (it's gotta be at more circle than square), I could live with a thin (not clunky) rubber sole.


----------



## brokencycle

The question was about the soles, not the rest. Those aren't actually my shoes; however those have rubber soles that I don't think are very big, and that is what I was trying to point out. If the square toes are such an issue, here:


----------



## jcriswel

*The only thing I can say is ....*

on this subject, I have a friend who swears that he has "bad feet" and he cannot wear anything other than a rubber sole shoe. Well, I asked him what kind of shoes do you usually buy? And, his response was Rockport for $99 per pair. I tried to convince him that therein laid the genesis of his problem. I told him to upgrade the quality of the shoes with leather soles and all of his problems would be resolved. As of yet, he has ignored my advice.

jcriswel


----------



## upnorth

My podiatrist tells me that there is no conclusive evidence that wearing rubber soles are better for your feet. Various grades of rubber exist for shoe making and some people are better-off with soles that have a bit more give while others are perfectly okay with a harder, firmer sole. 

A more important consideration is the fit of the shoe as comfort level and pressure on the feet can be tempered with a good pair of sockliner/ insoles. With regards to dress shoes, patients tend to see much better results changing/upgrading the insoles than they do changing from leather soles to rubber. A more credible reason to choose one over the other has to do with the type of flooring one is exposed to most often in the day. Those in kitchens, labs, hospitals are better off with rubber shoes as they provide good traction. Alternatively, those working in office buildings with carpet flooring can choose leather soles.


----------



## SpookyTurtle

jcriswel said:


> on this subject, I have a friend who swears that he has "bad feet" and he cannot wear anything other than a rubber sole shoe. Well, I asked him what kind of shoes do you usually buy? And, his response was Rockport for $99 per pair. I tried to convince him that therein laid the genesis of his problem. I told him to upgrade the quality of the shoes with leather soles and all of his problems would be resolved. As of yet, he has ignored my advice.
> 
> jcriswel


However, this is not necessarily true. I don't know what his foot problems are but high quality shoes with leather soles may not be the answer. It may be an issue of support or cushioning.


----------



## SpookyTurtle

upnorth said:


> A more important consideration is the fit of the shoe as comfort level and pressure on the feet can be tempered with a good pair of sockliner/ insoles. With regards to dress shoes, patients tend to see much better results changing/upgrading the insoles than they do changing from leather soles to rubber. A more credible reason to choose one over the other has to do with the type of flooring one is exposed to most often in the day. Those in kitchens, labs, hospitals are better off with rubber shoes as they provide good traction. Alternatively, those working in office buildings with carpet flooring can choose leather soles.


Very good points.


----------



## yachtie

I've found that rubber soles ( with some notable exceptions) actually make my feet hurt worse. The soft rubbber allows for too much flex when I walk and leaves me with a nice case of plantar fasciaitis. Rockports are among the worst in that regard. People are different, but I require a fairly rigid and structured shoe with a harder sole. Alden, Dinkelacker etc. *especially* for walking. My commando soled Aldens, or the Indy boot are as far as I dare go into rubber-sole-land.


----------



## Don'tPanic

*Doctors and their hospital shoes*

Surgical residents and interns with few exceptions (the internists perhaps) wear one of three types of shoes: Danskos, Birkenstocks, or running shoes. We were working 80+ hour weeks, and sometimes the days were 30+ hours long. My longest was 39 hours while on the cardiology service in internship. At that point, comfort was paramount, and there are body fluids, which when out of the body and on the floor are worse than ice. I saw Dansko clogs with shirt & tie, and sometimes worse. An OT post , but we are pages and months beyond the OP...


----------



## smlaz

I have a pair of Alden Norwegian vamp split toe shoes in a brown aniline and a "commando" sole. The shoes are substantial and the soles just right. They are comfortable and look good in most (certainly not all) circumstances. I'll pull on the leather-soled shoes for important meetings, dates, or to impress, but as I'm one of the better-dressed men (if not the only well-dressed man) in my organization nobody notices a thing. So, I have no issues with rubber soles per se, unless they're treading on me...
Cheers,


----------



## sia

Although most of my shoes are leather soled, I haven't hesitated even a moment to wear rubber soled shoes with a suit in the past few days. All this rain we're experiencing in Southern California has made the sidewalks and walkways too slick for wet leather...I'll opt for safety over style any day!


----------



## Matt S

Thin rubber soles are quite practical in bad weather. I don't go out in the rain or snow, or after the rain or snow with leather soles because I don't want to ruin them, and I don't want to fall. So I have two less expensive pairs of shoes with thin rubber/leather soles for this purpose. I still haven't decided if I actually like thin rubber soles. When I need to walk a few miles, I think I may prefer rubber, but I have been getting accustommed to walking distances on leather.


----------



## brokencycle

Its funny that people get so anal about someone wearing rubber soled shoes with suits, while there are people out there who wear sneakers with their suits.


----------



## sia

brokencycle said:


> Its funny that people get so anal about someone wearing rubber soled shoes with suits, while there are people out there who wear sneakers with their suits.


Those aren't people, those are cretins...:icon_smile_big:


----------



## brokencycle

sia said:


> Those aren't people, those are cretins...:icon_smile_big:


Perhaps so... perhaps so.


----------



## Kingstonian

Most of the better quality lace ups have leather soles anyway.

I have no problem with putting a Woolworth rubber sole on these. And metal tips as well, come to think of it.

That way you get the better-looking shoe with a hardwearing quality and rain is no longer an issue.

Above a certain price I expect a leather sole. Dainite holds no appeal.

I do not have an issue with rubber-soled deck shoes or Doc Martens, but I wear them and discard them. I never consider resoling them.

I do not have an issue with corrected grain leather either.

The forum has people with different ideas on what they are prepared or can afford to wear. The uppers are more of a consideration to me. I hate those 'leisure shoe' lace ups shaped like Cornish pasties; but if you choose to wear them that does not bother me..


----------



## damon54

I see the square toed shoe as much more of a fashion offense than a rubber sole.

I have a 3 pairs of rubbersoled offerings & prefer to wear them with more casual options than suits. Weather would change my mind.

I will say that the pair of Cole-Hann / Nike Monk strap shoes show sole wear on the rubber in an amazingly quick time frame.


----------



## LD111134

I agree. Square toed shoes are ubiquitous, especially with men who are wearing "business casual" outfits. These shoes (leather- or rubber-soled) are much less "proper" than nicer rubber-soled shoes (e.g. the AE Warren, AE Stockbridge).


----------



## KenR

Had an interesting thing happen to me last month. My black AE leather soled monkstraps (I forget the name of them) were at the factory getting refurbished and I needed a pair to fill in until the AE's came back. So I picked up a cheap pair of Sperry's rubber soled loafers. Wore them on a business trip where I normally wear a sports jacket and slacks. That was ok but the one day I wore a suit with these shoes it felt like I was half dressed and walking around with my slippers on. Just didn't feel right. I needed the substance of a well crafted shoe with a leather sole. I'm sure that the rubber soled AE are much more substantial, but it just wouldn't be the same.

Maybe I should be in a _rubber room..._


----------



## JLAnderson

*Rubber soles most any day of the week*

I've got several pairs of AE dress and dress casual shoes and all have rubber soles. That was a must-have for me for one simple reason: safety. With most offices having nice, shiny (and slick) tile floors, it's much less likely you're going to fall on your tuckus if you're wearing rubber soles. And believe me, that's happened to me over the years while wearing the traditional, leather-soled shoes. I'd challenge anyone to look at my AE rubber soles and ColeHaan leather soles (from years ago when they made a decent shoe) and tell which was which.


----------



## tnsquire

Rockport "Dressports" contributed significantly to the death of decent dress shoes. Those things are hideous. I even saw a guy wearing them black tie. Unbelievable.


----------



## AgentX

Dressports aren't that bad. (Well, for black tie they are... )

Before there were bad rubber-soled shoes, there were bad leather-soled shoes. And just because something is made of a traditional material doesn't make it superior.

We don't wear clothes as an end in and of themselves...some of us wear them in order to accomplish certain tasks.

Obviously, a really nice pair of traditionally-made shoes can be a great thing, but they're not for everyone or every situation.


----------



## yanks1184

*Quality shoes in DC*

Does anyone know where one would be able to find a nice pair of traditional business shoes in the DC area (modestly priced). I am leaning toward leather soles as I do not do much walking throughout the day...


----------



## Falconboy

Depends on what you mean by "modest"
*Sky Shoes*
1800 Wisconsin Ave. 
Washington D.C. 20007
https://www.skyvalet1.com/


----------



## adhoc

*Of course rubber soled shoes can be nice!*


----------



## Benjamin NYC

This is very true. I was on the 6 train the other day in midtown Manhattan and was taken aback at just how awful the dress of these otherwise businesslike people were - particularly with respect to the shoes. Even for the minority of men who wear suits, the standard is a grotesquely bulky, square toed, rubbed soled model, somewhat derivative of the Kenneth Cole c. 1996 collection. However, there seem to even be creatively awful interpretations of Mr. Cole's classic: I often see these clunkers with elasticized slits on the side so that one need not bother tying one's shoes in the morning. The next most popular shoe for men is a heavy, rubber soled, rather nondescript sort of shoe - always unpolished - that looks more suited to a construction site than to an office.


----------



## Peak and Pine

JLAnderson said:


> *I've got several pairs of AE dress **shoes and all have rubber soles. *


No you don't: dress shoes don't have rubber soles.​


----------



## StevenRocks

Benjamin NYC said:


> This is very true. I was on the 6 train the other day in midtown Manhattan and was taken aback at just how awful the dress of these otherwise businesslike people were - particularly with respect to the shoes. Even for the minority of men who wear suits, the standard is a grotesquely bulky, square toed, rubbed soled model, somewhat derivative of the Kenneth Cole c. 1996 collection. However, there seem to even be creatively awful interpretations of Mr. Cole's classic: I often see these clunkers with elasticized slits on the side so that one need not bother tying one's shoes in the morning. The next most popular shoe for men is a heavy, rubber soled, rather nondescript sort of shoe - always unpolished - that looks more suited to a construction site than to an office.


I've seen that situation on the train, too. Does half of Manhattan buy their shoes at Marshalls or does it seem that way?


----------



## Scoundrel

Some posters are confusing rubber soled shoes with sole savers. Sole savers on leather soled shoes/boots are supposed to be the height of technological achievement in footwear. They are very contemporary.


----------



## jackmccullough

tnsquire said:


> Rockport "Dressports" contributed significantly to the death of decent dress shoes. Those things are hideous. I even saw a guy wearing them black tie. Unbelievable.


Yeah, that was a great wedding, wasn't it? My feet felt great. I was so glad I wasn't wearing leather soles like all those guys sitting on the sidelines rubbing their aching feet.


----------



## gnatty8

I have a couple pairs of rubber soled shoes that I keep in the garage and bring with me whenever I plan on walking somewhere that puts me at risk for stepping in manure, but that's about the only time I would wear these.


----------



## Jordan

I've turned to putting rubber topy-type coverings on my dress shoes - not sure if this counts as rubber-soled or not. I used to just wear the regular leather, but they take too much a beating in New York.

Most of the rubber-soled shoes on the subway and street are offensive, but I don't have a problem with some rubber to keep good shoes in good condition.


----------



## ATG

*true shoes are made of leather*

I am the newbie here but this is my experience.

As a young child I had to have custom made orthopedic shoes, much like the Forest Gump shoes without the leg braces due to my flat feet etc.

I wore these for several years until my hips, knees and feet were corrected.

As a young adult I liked the fancy, expensive tennis shoes, cheap dress shoes but I found they were making my hips, knees and feet very painful.

I am a Professional Bassist and also work in the Aerospace Industry.

After the advice of my Dad (an old South Dakota farm boy), told me stop wasting your money on the tennis shoes etc and spend the money on your feet.
He said that you can wear cheap clothes, but always spend the money for good shoes and always keep them polished and clean and rotate them with cedar shoe trees.

I favor monk strap shoes because my feet are smaller in the am then they are in the pm, but that's just me and I think this really suits my style.

Love the double and single monks.

I have several pairs of:
Tramezza, C&J Brooks Brothers & AE Mora, all black and always polished.

Spent a lot of Money on these shoes.

They all have leather soles and my hips, knees & feet feel wonderful.

I have the rubber sole versions of these shoes but back don't care for them as much and like the leather soles better.
There are days I am on my feet for 18+ hrs a day and choose the Leather soles.
My dad said we always spent your money on real shoes made of real leather and forget the rubber.

My dad is 71 and I am 40, maybe he is right.

He also told me to use kiwi shoe polish, edge treatment and a horse hair brush.

(I typed this quick and have to go to a gig so forgive me of my grammatical errors)

I may be wrong and I am ready for the flames, but this has really worked for me.

Always learning, any advice good or bad is always welcome.

Thanks

ATG


----------



## BuffaloBert

I too never thought leather soled shoes were uncomfortable, until I got on the other side of 50. My rubber soled Santoni's, Magli's and the rubber-inserted Artioli's are noticably more comfortable and quieter in hallways. I also don't mind that they are more sure-footed. The soles don't look like sneakers or snow tires, so I don't believe there is any lessening of standards in wearing them.


----------



## Corcovado

*You won't see me complaining about rubber soles*

When I was in my 20s I could comfortably wear any shoe as long as it fit well. In my 30s I experienced my first bout of plantar fasciitis. Now past 40, I find rubber-soled shoes to be more comfortable mainly because they tend to have more arch support, and there's more cushioning and spring to them when you walk. I am sure that it is possible to have leather-soled shoes with good arch support, but the off-the-rack dress shoes with leather soles tend to be less friendly to my arches. Thankfully, I am able to wear nice dress shoes from Alden et al, but it is certainly less comfortable than wearing something like a pair of Clarks. I love my Alden LWB but if I had to walk around on a hard floor all day every day in them I would be miserable. I had to dress up for an event this weekend that had me standing on concrete for over 4 hours in my Alden NST shoes; it was definitely a case of suffering for my art.


----------



## WindsorNot

Some time ago I went to purchase a standard black cap-toe shoe to fill an essential wardrobe gap. When I instructed the sales person to only consider leather soles, he asked if I was buying them for dancing. I almost had to back hand him - what a shame .


----------



## caligula455

Tomasso said:


> Do you believe that a leather soled shoe is cooler because a leather sole "breathes"?


i think it has to do with less friction with the ground causing less heat generation. there are also probably differences in the insulation value.


----------



## EmbraBhoy

I prefer leather soled shoes, but I do keep a pair of black and brown Clarks in my rotation for rainy days (popular in Edinburgh) which have rubber heels, and fairly slim leather soles with rubber inserts. I think they look okay, and at about £40 a pair they hardly break the bank every couple of years.


----------



## cmacey

EmbraBhoy said:


> I prefer leather soled shoes, but I do keep a pair of black and brown Clarks in my rotation for rainy days (popular in Edinburgh) which have rubber heels, and fairly slim leather soles with rubber inserts. I think they look okay, and at about £40 a pair they hardly break the bank every couple of years.


You know, I have live in many different climates and never have I had a pair of shoes ruined by rain, ice, or snow. I think taking care of them when returning home is the most important thing one can do to ensure longevity. Rubber soles may have their place in the world and I have a few pair of them, but not for work,. It's a personal thing.


----------



## EmbraBhoy

cmacey said:


> You know, I have live in many different climates and never have I had a pair of shoes ruined by rain, ice, or snow. I think taking care of them when returning home is the most important thing one can do to ensure longevity. Rubber soles may have their place in the world and I have a few pair of them, but not for work,. It's a personal thing.


FWIW, I was at an open-air Mass in Quebec City in June 2008. It poured down that day (to the extent that I wondered whether God _was_ a proddy) and my leather soled shoes came apart. I've been out in similar weather in Clarks rubber/leather without a hitch.


----------



## CrackedCrab

My vote for best rubber-soled dress shoe Evar, is the John Lobb Chambord...


----------



## cmacey

EmbraBhoy said:


> FWIW, I was at an open-air Mass in Quebec City in June 2008. It poured down that day (to the extent that I wondered whether God _was_ a proddy) and my leather soled shoes came apart. I've been out in similar weather in Clarks rubber/leather without a hitch.


Piss God off did we? Seriously though, what brand of shoe were you wearing? Even my cheapest pair of shoes have made it through some of the crapiest weather Mother Nature has thrown at me. I have never had this happen ever.


----------



## Musick

Honestly, I dont care what the soles are made from as it is all but invisible to most people.

The style/condition of the remainder is what I consider the most important aspect.


----------



## gardel

I used to be a bit of a leather sole purist, only keeping a few pairs of rubber-soled or Topy'd shoes around for bad weather. But I've gradually come around to having a bit of a preference for rubber soles _if_ the styling and proportions of the shoe including the sole remain traditional. The problem with most rubber-soled shoes isn't merely the fact that they have rubber soles, in my opinion, it's overall aesthetics.


----------



## Racer

I've got a pair of rubber-soled dress shoes from the Allen Edmonds "Executive" collection. I wear them with suits when I travel for business. I've received compliments on the shoes, because even with the rubber soles they still look "dressy."


----------



## NotAMUser

*Rubber vs leather*

I prefer my leather soled shoes any day, however, my nice leather soles would not stand up to the pounding I put on my dress shoes. If I have a meeting or event, I'll bring my nice shoes to the office in their shoe bags, and change shoes for the meetings or events.

I end up having to replace shoes because the soles get worn down - about every 3-6 months. Buy a pair of decent Florsheims or Bostonians, wear them out, toss them. Keep the AEs or BMs for important days.


----------



## ecox

I much prefer leather soles. They feel better, and with taps they don't wear out that very quickly.


----------



## tnuser

NotAMUser said:


> I end up having to replace shoes because the soles get worn down - about every 3-6 months. Buy a pair of decent Florsheims or Bostonians, wear them out, toss them. Keep the AEs or BMs for important days.


why not just get the soles replaced?


----------



## chamjoe

The first thing to remember is that I'm sure most of your co-workers are less concerned about quality/style and more concerned about cheap/value. I will say that I have noticed more and more cheap/moderate shoe stores selling more and more rubber soles, perhaps cheaper to make in the factories?

90% of my dress shoes are leather saving the rubber soles for bad weather and meetings where I might be walking a construction site.


----------



## Pr B

When I sit around the courtyard of tables at the fortnightly meetings of my peers and our big boss, it is a sea of rubber-soled shoes. True, one gent wears leather-soled cordovans. But it is mostly Rockports and Eccos. Some know the difference, it seems, and wear an approximation of dress shoes, such as Rockport Ellingwoods (https://www.zappos.com/rockport-ellingwood-oxblood). Others seem to lump all "lace-ups" as "oxfords," and wear more casual shoes, such as Rockport World Tour Classics (https://www.zappos.com/rockport-world-tour-classic-brown-tumbled-leather-1).

I suspect it is a matter of function (given our winters here), of cost, and of availability (I suspect most do not shop at gentleman's stores, let alone Nordstrom; the major shoe store chain here only sells "healthy, comfort" shoes, such as Ecco and Rockport). And that we generally wear business casual (e.g., blazers and sport coats), rather than suits. Only a handful wear ties.

I appreciate our lifting up of leather-soles dress shoes as what is meet, right, and proper (e.g., AE, Alden). However, without lapsing into shoe fundamentalism, what would be an acceptable Rockport, Ecco, or such for this business casual crowd?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Seriously, who really gives a stuff? Who is so stuck up that they're going to waste energy over the fact that a man is wearing rubber-soled shoes with a DJ? NO ONE. Get some perespective, please!


----------



## Pr B

I concur. Yet the idea of rubber-soled shoes is anathema to some (many?) here. And to consider Ecco or Rockport as appropriate business wear is oxymoronic to some (many?) here.

(What is "DJ," please?)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

DJ although short for "Dinner Jacket" actually refers to dinner suit (black tie), what you might call a tux.


----------



## Pr B

Earl of Ormonde said:


> DJ although short for "Dinner Jacket" actually refers to dinner suit (black tie), what you might call a tux.


That was my guess. I usually suffer through with corfams with a DJ.


----------



## Kurt N

Pr B said:


> When I sit around the courtyard of tables at the fortnightly meetings of my peers and our big boss, it is a sea of rubber-soled shoes. True, one gent wears leather-soled cordovans. But it is mostly Rockports and Eccos. Some know the difference, it seems, and wear an approximation of dress shoes, such as Rockport Ellingwoods (https://www.zappos.com/rockport-ellingwood-oxblood). Others seem to lump all "lace-ups" as "oxfords," and wear more casual shoes, such as Rockport World Tour Classics (https://www.zappos.com/rockport-world-tour-classic-brown-tumbled-leather-1).
> 
> I suspect it is a matter of function (given our winters here), of cost, and of availability (I suspect most do not shop at gentleman's stores, let alone Nordstrom; the major shoe store chain here only sells "healthy, comfort" shoes, such as Ecco and Rockport). And that we generally wear business casual (e.g., blazers and sport coats), rather than suits. Only a handful wear ties.
> 
> I appreciate our lifting up of leather-soles dress shoes as what is meet, right, and proper (e.g., AE, Alden). However, without lapsing into shoe fundamentalism, what would be an acceptable Rockport, Ecco, or such for this business casual crowd?


You identified two groups of men, one of which you note dresses somewhat more intelligently than the other. But you could be in either and not stick out. You've picked a representative shoe for each category. What else do you need to know?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Pr B said:


> That was my guess. I usually suffer through with *corfams *with a DJ.


Now it's my turn to be baffled by a term, corfams?


----------



## Pr B

Corfams are a permanently gloss-shine, plastic "leather." Highly favored by the US Armed Forces for wear with dress and service-dress uniforms. Hot in the summer and cold in the winter. But they look great!


----------



## Uncle Bill

I live in the suburbs of Toronto and I can tell you finding quality men's dress shoes in Canada's largest city is a challenge, I have a local menswear store that stocks Allen Edmonds, the Toronto Brooks Brother's store stocks their shoe line including their Cordovon line (don't know if they stock B widths) and Harry Rosen and Holt Renfrew stock super high end Italian footwear that is not my cup of tea. I would love to have a shoe or menswear store that stocks Aldens and maybe a couple of British lines. 

It's funny guys will drop a small fortune on a decent suit but cheap out on the shoes and there is still a fascination for pointy an square toes. in these parts.


----------



## TheDlABlO

I am a wierdo for wearing leather soled shoes. At work very few people wear leather soled shoes and those who do, do not consistently. about 4/5 days I'll wear leather soles and the 1/5 days I am not it is because of the weather. I am not a fan of a thick clunky rubber sole look for work "dress" shoes. However, I am 100% OK with thin/sleek "dress rubber" style soles, such as those on the AE executive models

I keep a pair of old crappy rubber soled shoes on a bottom shelf in my office to walk out in during surprise rainstorms and during the winter I either wear leather soles a lot less or use overshoes. Rubber soles are certainly more functional...


----------



## Starting Late

I like leather-soled shoes for serious work days, formal events and most evening parties. I have thin, rubber-soled shoes, too, mostly from the A/E executive model. They are all bluchers, and I wear them on rainy days where nothing special is happening in work and casually. I have one pair of thick, rubber-soled shoes (walnut PTBs) for casual outdoor events, mostly in the summer, and events on sand or near water.

All of these shoes have their uses. I don't like wearing rubbers in the rain. Nor do I want to ruin my leather shoes by wearing them in bad weather. Except for people in this forum, no one notices any difference between my my leather soles and my thin, rubber-soled shoes.

As for comfort, I notice no great difference, except that my leather-soled shoes take longer to break in and then seem slightly more comfortable.

In the final analysis, I think I wear the leather shoes to anything important because I am a traditionalist and they make me feel better about myself.


----------



## zerostyle

Does anyone else find it almost ridiculous that leather soled shoes are so impractical?

The entire idea of a shoe is to help you walk around / take wear and tear. Leather soles mean you can't wear them in any kind of rain or snow.

I own a pair of AE Strands and J&M Aldrich II's, but am quickly becoming annoyed at the number of times I can't wear them. It's just plain ridiculous. Things really came to a head when I wore them to work the other day, and the weather changed. Coworkers invite me out to lunch, and I realize that I'll have to ruin the leather soles if I walk out with them. WTF. Just stupid. Anyone that says I should keep a spare pair of shoes at the office is equally ridiculous.

I'm really thinking about investigating well made, thin-soled rubber options for my next pair. Suggestions?

I don't believe that leather soles are any more comfortable than rubber, either.


----------



## Leighton

I've come to grips with the leather by viewing them as disposable soles. I haven't killed any yet, but when they die, they shall be replaced with rubber. Problem solved.

Besides, I've worn my leather soled shoes in the rain. Nothing bad happens to the soles. I'd be more concerned for the uppers, those aren't replaceable. And unless your walking around in a pond, the water doesn't seep through.


----------



## godan

zerostyle said:


> Does anyone else find it almost ridiculous that leather soled shoes are so impractical?
> 
> The entire idea of a shoe is to help you walk around / take wear and tear. Leather soles mean you can't wear them in any kind of rain or snow.
> 
> I own a pair of AE Strands and J&M Aldrich II's, but am quickly becoming annoyed at the number of times I can't wear them. It's just plain ridiculous. Things really came to a head when I wore them to work the other day, and the weather changed. Coworkers invite me out to lunch, and I realize that I'll have to ruin the leather soles if I walk out with them. WTF. Just stupid. Anyone that says I should keep a spare pair of shoes at the office is equally ridiculous.
> 
> I'm really thinking about investigating well made, thin-soled rubber options for my next pair. Suggestions?
> 
> I don't believe that leather soles are any more comfortable than rubber, either.


Excellent post, whose common sense is welcome.


----------



## Bjorn

zerostyle said:


> Does anyone else find it almost ridiculous that leather soled shoes are so impractical?
> 
> The entire idea of a shoe is to help you walk around / take wear and tear. Leather soles mean you can't wear them in any kind of rain or snow.
> 
> I own a pair of AE Strands and J&M Aldrich II's, but am quickly becoming annoyed at the number of times I can't wear them. It's just plain ridiculous. Things really came to a head when I wore them to work the other day, and the weather changed. Coworkers invite me out to lunch, and I realize that I'll have to ruin the leather soles if I walk out with them. WTF. Just stupid. Anyone that says I should keep a spare pair of shoes at the office is equally ridiculous.
> 
> I'm really thinking about investigating well made, thin-soled rubber options for my next pair. Suggestions?
> 
> I don't believe that leather soles are any more comfortable than rubber, either.


Dainite soles are good.

I put thin rubbers soles on my leather shoes if they are not strictly indoor shoes (they never are) and it works for me.

However, overshoes work as well. Also, leather soles can take some rain but not much, and no snow/salt/gravel.

There is a huge difference in how much a sole can take due to the tanning process. Shoes with slow vegetable (bark) tanned soles or specialty bad weather soles (Rendenbach all weather for example) that you find on Crockett & Jones hand grade shoes (and up in terms of price) are very resilient against wet, however, the uppers still can't take that much and if they are not storm welted or similar that could be a problem too.

As stated on ASW: "I sent a pair of shoes back for new soles the other day, and it struck me that shoe repair is one task that is blessedly infrequent in my life. A lot of that is due to high quality soles. "

And
"...the useful life of a high quality sole like Rendenbach's is several times that of lesser soles"

https://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/2008/07/sole-food.html

Sadly enough, making soles in leather is one of those things (tanning in general is) where lower production time immediately eats away the quality. I have been told the process for quality soles has been reduced to less than a year total, and lower quality soles are of course tanned a lot faster than that, and not with vegetable bark extracts either. In his book about shoes, Vass states that's according to a 18th century writer the proper tanning time for soles in England during the 18th century was 3 years, and that anyone at that time tanning soles for less than a year and a half should be prosecuted.

IMO, if you can't get a leather sole with Rendenbach quality or similar, it needs a thin rubber sole. Or go with Dainite. I don't know which level of tanning quality AE soles have, but in view of their price they could be just good enough or just not quite good enough. Or they are really good with oak bark tanned soles in which case they have very good value. Perhaps someone else knows?


----------



## Bjorn

Oh and leather soled shoes that get wet need to dry out with shoe trees lying on their sides rather than on the sole, or so I've been told.


----------



## MikeDT

^^^^^^^^

Probably because wet leather soles will dry much quicker when exposed to air rather than resting on the floor. Keeping them wet for too long could damage them or cause rot.


----------



## Chris from DE

For a while now I've noticed that some of the nicest brands of shoes sold at Nordstrom are using rubber soles or rubber/leather soles. For instance, I've seen To Boot New York shoes with rubber/leather soles and Ferragamo and Magli shoes with pure rubber shoes. I just bought a nice pair of Magnanni shoes that had rubber/leather soles. I really don't think it's as taboo as it used to be. People are looking for fashion, quality and a value these days. Rubber soles hold up much, much better and are so much more comfortable. I have a pair of J&M shoes with leather soles just over a year old and the soles are taking a beating! I say nice shoes are nice shoes. No one is going to tell me that a pair of Ferragamos are of less quality than a pair of J&Ms just because they have rubber soles!


----------



## zzdocxx

BTW I just saw many of those brand of shoes are on sale at Nordstrom as of today.

I never heard of that To Boot NY before, are they supposed to be good shoes? They are on sale as well.


----------



## TheBarbaron

zerostyle said:


> Does anyone else find it almost ridiculous that leather soled shoes are so impractical?
> 
> The entire idea of a shoe is to help you walk around / take wear and tear. Leather soles mean you can't wear them in any kind of rain or snow.
> 
> I own a pair of AE Strands and J&M Aldrich II's, but am quickly becoming annoyed at the number of times I can't wear them. It's just plain ridiculous. Things really came to a head when I wore them to work the other day, and the weather changed. Coworkers invite me out to lunch, and I realize that I'll have to ruin the leather soles if I walk out with them. WTF. Just stupid. Anyone that says I should keep a spare pair of shoes at the office is equally ridiculous.
> 
> I'm really thinking about investigating well made, thin-soled rubber options for my next pair. Suggestions?
> 
> I don't believe that leather soles are any more comfortable than rubber, either.


I am not unsympathetic to this point of view. Shoes do need some practical value. I have a pair of rubber-soled AE's (Van Ness in merlot) that I wear when the weather outside is frightful.

That said, the "entire idea of a shoe" in this day and age is not to walk around and take wear and tear; else we would all wear either hiking boots or running shoes exclusively. While I try to avoid wearing the leather soles in particularly inclement weather, I also don't fret if I happen to get caught in a shower. Thus far, the only thing that kills my leather soles is walking eight hours a day in them at work. And while I do avoid puddles to save my shoes some damage, the main reason I wear rubber on wet or icy days is for better traction.

I don't turn my nose up at those gentlemen who prefer a rubber sole (preferably a sleeker one); I do, however, give a nod of approval and fellow-feeling to other traditionalists whose heels click elegantly on the dance floor of life.

_O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man's life is as cheap as beast's. Thou art a lady:
If only to go warm were gorgeous,
Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear'st,
Which scarcely keeps thee warm.

_


----------



## StephenRG

zzdocxx said:


> BTW I just saw many of those brand of shoes are on sale at Nordstrom as of today.
> 
> I never heard of that To Boot NY before, are they supposed to be good shoes? They are on sale as well.


My brother picked up a pair of To Boot split-toed shoes with Dainite soles from Nordstrom Rack a couple of years ago reduced from $300 to $75, and he's been very satisfied. I can't speak from first-hand experience of wearing them, but the Rack always has lots of them and they seem solid enough, not too designer-y.


----------



## eagle2250

TheBarbaron said:


> ....
> ........
> I don't turn my nose up at those gentlemen who prefer a rubber sole (preferably a sleeker one); I do, however, give a nod of approval and fellow-feeling to other traditionalists whose heels click elegantly on the dance floor of life.
> 
> ......


What a wonderfully put, almost poetic, expression of aseemingly common conundrum! Well said, good Sir. And, as an after-thought, when findin oneself confounded by wet and slushy walking conditions, while clicking across life's dance floor, wear rubbers! LOL.


----------



## pusso

I agree that Dainite soles are excellent and have double Ridgeway soles on my Gaziano and Girling Oxfords, which are very hard wearing.
Unfortunately my Crockett and Jones monk shoes I replaced the soles with rubber at an inexpensive shoe bar, and they did not do a very good job.
They have lasted well, but the look of the shoe has never been the same since.
I presume Lobb will use leather for my boots.
All of my casual shoes have rubber soles for practical reasons.


----------



## TheQue

I honestly have no idea what many of you are talking about when you say that leather soles cannot be worn in inclimate weather. Pretty much all of my life I have worn leather sole footwear. Before I joined the Army my father retired in Lubbock Texas; I wore leather soled cowboy boots daily. When I joined the Army (we wore green fatigues back then) I wore a pair of leather soled Corcoran Jump Boots daily (Garrison and in the Field). Since I have been out of the Army I only wear leather soled shoes. Granted, when exercising or working on the car etc... I do have a pair of New Balance tennis shoes. But dress or casual, they are all leather soled. My number one casual shoe is the walnut AE Strand.

Clearly there would be some amount of shock absorbing with rubber sole and I guess if you just stood in a puddle all day the rubber would be better. However I walk in the rain all the time, hell I trekked through the muddy forest in my jump boots, and I have never had any of my soles rot. Even under heavy wear, I only have to resole my AE's every 5-6 years. I intend to rectify this by adding more shoes into my rotation.

None the less leather soles are fine in the rain. I honestly get a kick out of people who do not walk in the rain with their dress shoes. Honestly, it is usually the same people who have never touched a can of shoe polish.

*edit* I just went to my closet to look at my old jump boots. Full disclosure they are tap soles like the Allen Edmonds V-Tread. They are leather but with a little protection.

*edit 2* Apparently this was a zombie thread. I am not sure how I got to it, but after 8 pages of reading, for some reason I decided to reply. I did not realize it was 2 years old.

-Ray


----------



## Question

tripreed said:


> I know that this thread title might seem oxymoronic, but as I look around at the shoes of people in my office and out on the street, I must say that leather-soled dress shoes are easily outnumbered by the rubber-soled variety. I realize that Birmingham, AL is not exactly sartorial capital of America, but I assume that this trend is occuring in many other cities in the US. I find it somewhat disconcerting and indicative of the downward-spiraling fashion standards of modern society. I suppose that "comfort" is the main reason that people buy these shoes, but I guess that I find this to be a poor excuse because none of my leather-soled shoes are uncomfortable. I also wonder how many modern men, especially the younger ones, actually know how to polish their shoes anymore. I guess that this post is more of a rant than an actual topic of discussion, as I know that not many people in my life would relate to these feelings of sadness and disgust. Here on Ask Andy, though, I am glad to know that support abounds.


Isnt it more likely that shoemakers started switching to rubber soles because they are longer lasting/cheaper?


----------



## TheQue

Question said:


> Isnt it more likely that shoemakers started switching to rubber soles because they are longer lasting/cheaper?


Cheaper for sure, I would question the longer lasting aspect.


----------



## FLMike

These resurrected zombie threads always make me wonder where all these formerly active members went and why they left.


----------



## RogerP

This thread isn't two years old. It is nearly a decade old. And destined to be necro-bumped in perpetuity, it seems.

Leather shoes aren't disappearing any time soon. If that's your preference, you are not lacking for choice. For those of us who live in climates where our footwear must manage more than rain - sleet, snow, ice - synthetic soles are vastly superior. As they are in the rain. Oh, and Dainite is indeed more durable than leather. Many times more durable.

The very best manufacturers currently offer a range of synthetic soles. I am confident in asserting that manufacturers such as EG, GG and St. C are not offering synthetic soles merely to save a few pennies in material cost on their thousand dollar plus shoes.

Finally, if we look beyond the realm of high end dress shoes and boots and examine the offerings from the manufacturers of dedicated winter, hunting, hiking and military boots, leather soles will be few and far between. There is a reason for this. For footwear specifically designed for diverse and extreme conditions, synthetic soles are a superior choice.

PS - I understand that rubber is a natural material, not synthetic - I merely use that term to describe non-leather soles collectively.


----------



## StylePurgatory

RogerP said:


> This thread isn't two years old. It is nearly a decade old. And destined to be necro-bumped in perpetuity, it seems.
> 
> Leather shoes aren't disappearing any time soon. If that's your preference, you are not lacking for choice. For those of us who live in climates where our footwear must manage more than rain - sleet, snow, ice - synthetic soles are vastly superior. As they are in the rain. Oh, and Dainite is indeed more durable than leather. Many times more durable.
> 
> The very best manufacturers currently offer a range of synthetic soles. I am confident in asserting that manufacturers such as EG, GG and St. C are not offering synthetic soles merely to save a few pennies in material cost on their thousand dollar plus shoes.
> 
> Finally, if we look beyond the realm of high end dress shoes and boots and examine the offerings from the manufacturers of dedicated winter, hunting, hiking and military boots, leather soles will be few and far between. There is a reason for this. For footwear specifically designed for diverse and extreme conditions, synthetic soles are a superior choice.
> 
> PS - I understand that rubber is a natural material, not synthetic - I merely use that term to describe non-leather soles collectively.


The Keeper of Her Majesty's Canadian Shoes has heretofore spoken. Be it known to all men that, by this decree, all debate of the topic is settled, Dei Gratia Regina!


----------



## Oldsarge

And he did it with such eloquence! As soon as I saw the title I expected to chime in with a much less courtly response than Roger's. Now there is no need of my potential crudity. Yes, this subject is settled. Washtay!


----------



## Question

TheQue said:


> Cheaper for sure, I would question the longer lasting aspect.


I thought rubber soles typically last much longer than leather on hard wearing surfaces like concrete?


----------



## espressocycle

I personally find leather soles to be a relic I can do without unless I want to take up dancing. I understand the attraction, but in practice they slip on some surfaces and wear out even faster in wet conditions. I actually find my leather soled shoes comfortable, but I can't ride my bicycle with them on nice days and I can't wear them on rainy days, so they spend most of their time in the closet. if expect to do a lot of walking, I have a couple shoes with soft rubber heels, but the bulk of the time I'm wearing one of my three four Dainite options.


----------



## Question

So does leather have any advantages over dainite or other types of rubber?


----------



## 123abc

Count me in with those who wear leather sole shoes in rain/snow just like thin rubber soled. I alawys worry about the uppers getting wet/salt/whatever, but the soles? Not. I've never noticed any problem from getting wet soles and yes, I do lay them on their sides if wet to dry the bottoms. On the other hand, I see noting wrong with rubber soles - look the same to me if I don't bend over and check out the bottoms of other guy's shoes, which I don't.


----------



## TheQue

RogerP said:


> This thread isn't two years old. It is nearly a decade old. And destined to be necro-bumped in perpetuity, it seems.
> 
> Leather shoes aren't disappearing any time soon. If that's your preference, you are not lacking for choice. For those of us who live in climates where our footwear must manage more than rain - sleet, snow, ice - synthetic soles are vastly superior. As they are in the rain. Oh, and Dainite is indeed more durable than leather. Many times more durable.
> 
> The very best manufacturers currently offer a range of synthetic soles. I am confident in asserting that manufacturers such as EG, GG and St. C are not offering synthetic soles merely to save a few pennies in material cost on their thousand dollar plus shoes.
> 
> Finally, if we look beyond the realm of high end dress shoes and boots and examine the offerings from the manufacturers of dedicated winter, hunting, hiking and military boots, leather soles will be few and far between. There is a reason for this. For footwear specifically designed for diverse and extreme conditions, synthetic soles are a superior choice.
> 
> PS - I understand that rubber is a natural material, not synthetic - I merely use that term to describe non-leather soles collectively.


Well written.

I will still stand by my assertion that there is no reason one cannot wear leather soles in the rain.


----------



## TheQue

Question said:


> I thought rubber soles typically last much longer than leather on hard wearing surfaces like concrete?


I was corrected on this assertion by RogerP. I was under the, incorrect, assumption that rubber was less durable. I do not know anything about Dainite and assume, again incorrectly, that the rubber used in dress shoes was of similar makeup to that of tennis shoes.


----------



## Veblen

I'd suppose that neither all rubber soles nor all leather soles are equal. I have found Dainite soles to be quite durable. While I concur that wearing leather-soled shoes in rain isn't the end of the world, I believe that in a small rotation (like mine) good rubber soles do have an edge if you're frequently out and about in wet weather.


----------



## TheQue

Veblen said:


> I'd suppose that neither all rubber soles nor all leather soles are equal. I have found Dainite soles to be quite durable. While I concur that wearing leather-soled shoes in rain isn't the end of the world, I believe that in a small rotation (like mine) good rubber soles do have an edge if you're frequently out and about in wet weather.


As I stated previously, I only own leather soled shoes save my tennis shoes and hiking shoes. With that, if I worked somewhere that had slick tile or marble floors, I would certainly consider rubber as an option. I went to visit a friend at the hospital a couple months ago and remember almost falling on my ass when I stepped on a recently mopped area of floor.

Certainly there is a benefit to rubber if you are walking a long distance on very hard surfaces like concrete. Though I would argue that just because there is a benefit to rubber in this situation does not imply there is a negative to leather. I honestly think most problems people have with their feet are more related to their weight and lack of quality shoe rather than the material the shoe is made of.


----------



## RogerP

Question said:


> So does leather have any advantages over dainite or other types of rubber?


Well leather is more breathable, but it is an open question as to how much breathing really takes place through the soles of the shoes.

I wear both leather soles and synthetic soles through midsummer heat (which I'm sure would not be hot enough to impress our Texan friend, but it's all I've got :tongue2: ) and notice no difference in comfort.


----------



## RogerP

TheQue said:


> I was corrected on this assertion by RogerP. I was under the, incorrect, assumption that rubber was less durable. I do not know anything about Dainite and assume, again incorrectly, that the rubber used in dress shoes was of similar makeup to that of tennis shoes.


There is a world of difference between rubber tennis shoes soles and Dainite, my friend. In fact, I have never encountered anything even approximating the former on a premium men's shoe.

I guess the odd crepe sole would be the closest.


----------



## TheQue

RogerP said:


> There is a world of difference between rubber tennis shoes soles and Dainite, my friend. In fact, I have never encountered anything even approximating the former on a premium men's shoe.
> 
> I guess the odd crepe sole would be the closest.


Thank you for that information Roger. I honestly learn something new every time I visit this forum.


----------



## jon44

Interesting discussion.

I'm on a holy quest to find a comfortable pair of nice shoes and have dusted off some of my old leather-soled shoes. I've got incredibly gimpy joints but to my surprise, my hip actually felt better after a day of walking around in leather soles. I think the leather provides more torsional stability (maybe) and there's some theories out there that too much rubber/padding in shoe soles messes with your proprioception, so it's possible that a leather sole'd shoe is actually closer to the dress-shoe equivalent of minimalist running footwear.


----------



## Fatman

RogerP said:


> Well leather is more breathable, but it is an open question as to how much breathing really takes place through the soles of the shoes.
> 
> I wear both leather soles and synthetic soles through midsummer heat (which I'm sure would not be hot enough to impress our Texan friend, but it's all I've got :tongue2: ) and notice no difference in comfort.


I have mostly leather soled shoes, with one pair of Church in Dainite sole, and a pair of Meindl Ascona Identity in rubber sole for weekend and casual. Although most are leather soled, the weather or work surfaces are taken into account.

By the way:

Do most treat the leather sole, _itself_, with leather conditioner? Recommendations?


----------



## JArmstrong

Add another vote of confidence for Dainite. I have a pair of Strands with Dainite soles and they look just like leather soles when standing. I personally like them much more than the tap sole on my other AEs


----------



## espressocycle

This is the thread that never dies.


----------



## Watchman

Fatman said:


> I have mostly leather soled shoes, with one pair of Church in Dainite sole, and a pair of Meindl Ascona Identity in rubber sole for weekend and casual. Although most are leather soled, the weather or work surfaces are taken into account.
> 
> By the way:
> 
> Do most treat the leather sole, _itself_, with leather conditioner? Recommendations?


Leather Honey does wonders for leather soled shoes.

Even waterproofs them believe it or not.


----------



## Watchman

A word regarding Dainite. 

I find it to be my favorite all around sole.

The manner in which it breaks in the uppers is superior IMHO.

I find myself reaching for my Dainite shoes more times than not. Due to their low profile, (that means 
they have the appearance of leather) and their versatility.

Dainite actually is the preferred all around sole for me all year round.

In my mind, leather soles represent a shoe that is to be worn 3 seasons at best, especially when absent of a Topy.


----------



## RogerP

^^^ Well said.


----------



## JArmstrong

The only weather related warning I'd give about Dainite is that it's great on wet pavement but precarious during those first few steps indoors. The first week I had my Strands I walked into a tile floored store from a rainy parking lot and nearly ended up on my backside.


----------



## meanoldmanning

RogerP said:


> Well leather is more breathable, but *it is an open question as to how much breathing really takes place through the soles of the shoes.*


I think it is actually a questionable how much breathing goes on through leather uppers as well. I attended a 3 day training seminar several years ago at W.L. Gore and they very pointedly remarked that the breathability of the Gore-Tex liner for shoes and boots is basically only a selling point and functionally offers nothing since in their testing they found leather footwear really doesn't breath much at all. Any breathability is the function of walking pumping the air out the top collar of the shoe or boot. The use of a Gore-Tex liner was mostly to make the footwear more waterproof than the leather already is since water can leak in through the stitching and seams.


----------



## RogerP

^^^ Interesting.


----------



## meanoldmanning

Watchman said:


> A word regarding Dainite.
> 
> I find it to be my favorite all around sole.
> 
> The manner in which it breaks in the uppers is superior IMHO.
> 
> I find myself reaching for my Dainite shoes more times than not. Due to their low profile, (that means
> they have the appearance of leather) and their versatility.
> 
> Dainite actually is the preferred all around sole for me all year round.
> 
> In my mind, leather soles represent a shoe that is to be worn 3 seasons at best, especially when absent of a Topy.


I love Dainite soles. I had an old pair of (made in usa) J&Ms resoled a while back and NickV talked me into using them. They are impossible to detect as rubber from the side and inspire more confidence when walking on wet or otherwise slick surface than my leather soled shoes. I still love my leather soled shoes though, don't get me wrong.

Regarding conditioning the soles of your leather shoes, the leather honey doesn't make them slick at all? I don't know what the seller put on the pair of shoes I am wearing right now, but they were like walking on ice when I first got them. It's bad enough they have V-cleats, now I have to contend with lubricant?


----------



## meanoldmanning

RogerP said:


> ^^^ Interesting.


Another interesting comment they made was that hiking shoes and boots with combination of leather and Cordura don't breath any better right out of the box since the in-facing side of the fabric has a plastic coating to keep the fabric from blowing apart as it is cut and sew into the component parts of the shoe. The coating does break down where it creases over time, but doesn't gain much better breathability. The liner is quite useful though since there is generally far more stitching to allow water to penetrate.


----------



## Watchman

meanoldmanning said:


> Regarding conditioning the soles of your leather shoes, the leather honey doesn't make them slick at all? I don't know what the seller put on the pair of shoes I am wearing right now, but they were like walking on ice when I first got them. It's bad enough they have V-cleats, now I have to contend with lubricant?


Leather Honey is absorbed into the leather immediately. I apply LH in the evening and let them dry overnight, wipe with a clean rag next day.

TBH, LH actually allows a certain tack to the soles, thus making them quite a bit more traction-able than before.

I would treat the soles with LH 4 times a year, (before the start of every season) depending on how many times you wear them.


----------



## meanoldmanning

Watchman said:


> Leather Honey is absorbed into the leather immediately. I apply LH in the evening and let them dry overnight, wipe with a clean rag next day.
> 
> TBH, LH actually allows a certain tack to the soles, thus making them quite a bit more traction-able than before.
> 
> I would treat the soles with LH 4 times a year, (before the start of every season) depending on how many times you wear them.


Hmm, I'll give that a whirl. Thanks.

*EDIT* - oh, duh, I just looked down at my shoes and released that basically how the flex welt sole on my unlined chukkas works.


----------

