# Cordovan vs Calf



## StickPig (Feb 8, 2008)

I didn't see a hall of fame thread esposing the virtues of cordovan over calf. Anyone care to enlighten me? Is it the look, feel, comfort, fit, durability, and/or status? 

Respectfully,

StickPig


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

My reasons for embracing the supremacy of shell cordovan leather over calf, are three: 1) the natural luster and characteristic patina of shell cord is undeniably seductive; 2) shell cord shoes/boots are much easier to care for, requiring nothing more than a quick buff before and after each wearing and the occassional, yet restrained, polishing; and 3) shell cord shoes are far more durable than calf leather, seeming to never wear out, given minimal care.


----------



## naylor (May 31, 2007)

What he said. The luster of cordovan, especially the brown cordovans like whisky and cigar, IMO, is unmatchable. And they wear like iron.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

1. Shell looks different from the outset.

2. Shell ages differently.

3. Shell has greater water repelling properties than untreated calf.

4. Shell is more durable.

5. Shell creases differently (smooth creases that are lighter in color as opposed to wrinkled creases).

Now, that doesn't make it necessarily _better_ (well, 3 and 4 kind of do), but these reasons make it something that is actually quite different from calf. Whether it is worth the premium is, naturally, up to the buyer. For some, it isn't.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Teacher said:


> 3. Shell has greater water repelling properties than untreated calf.


This one I'm still confused on. I was thinking of having Alden of Carmel do a special run of one of their Barrie lasted boots in 14D, and they said that if the boot is going to be used exclusively for rain/snow duty, I'd be better served by getting calf.


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> This one I'm still confused on. I was thinking of having Alden of Carmel do a special run of one of their Barrie lasted boots in 14D, and they said that if the boot is going to be used exclusively for rain/snow duty, I'd be better served by getting calf.


Not sure why he recommended calf but he should know. I do know that when shell gets wet, the leather has "spots" on it when it first dries out. Maybe he was thinking about a leather that you could apply waterproofing to.


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

How can you even compare calf to this?



Durability
Minimal hassle and upkeep
Superb shine
Rarity, especially the none-black or non-burgundy colors


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

lee_44106 said:


> How can you even compare calf to this?


you can easily compare if you like your calf with a well aged patina.


----------



## Maveric (Dec 14, 2007)

Those are really beautiful colors, Lee. Are they all the same maker?


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

Left two are Aldens, Right two are Polo Ralph Lauren (made by Crockett &Jones)


----------



## JayJay (Oct 8, 2007)

lee_44106 said:


> Left two are Aldens, Right two are Polo Ralph Lauren (made by Crockett &Jones)


I'm seduced by the characteristic "ripples" of the shell shoes.


----------



## StickPig (Feb 8, 2008)

I really appreciate all of the responses. Those are great looking shoes.


----------



## Mike147 (Jan 15, 2006)

lee_44106 said:


> How can you even compare calf to this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are all of these shoes new? Very nice..


----------



## Mike147 (Jan 15, 2006)

StickPig said:


> I didn't see a hall of fame thread esposing the virtues of cordovan over calf. Anyone care to enlighten me? Is it the look, feel, comfort, fit, durability, and/or status?
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> StickPig


I believe that Calf Shoes are easier to break in if you have a hard to fit foot. Due to orthotics, etc - I get very pronounced creasing on the vamp of my shoes. I have found that Shell takes longer to work out the glitches than calf during the break in period.


----------



## Simon Myerson (Nov 8, 2007)

Shell is hotter.

Shell is heavier and, in my view, it looks heavier as well. Those smooth creases convey a message that shell is hard rather than buttery as good calf can be (hence wrinkled creases). Because of that, shell is also harder to break in.

I have both and I like both. But the real advantage of shell is that you can be lazy about polishing it. Price your time and you'll work out if it's worth it to you


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

joeyzaza said:


> Not sure why he recommended calf but he should know. I do know that when shell gets wet, the leather has "spots" on it when it first dries out. Maybe he was thinking about a leather that you could apply waterproofing to.


Well, here's what he said (seems like a nice guy, I don't think he'd mind my posting this).

"Both leathers will hold up physically. That is, the leather won't give way or anything like that. But water can affect the finish of shell cordovan shoes, making the finish rough, or causing welts, which can be difficult to entirely remove.

For that reason, the Alden Shoe Company is usually hesitant, and so is our shop, to recommend shell cordovan shoes for use in wet weather, or as rainy day shoes.

For harsh weather conditions, we will normally recommend a shoe other than shell cordovan, since the customer would probably prefer to keep the finish of his shell cordovan shoes nice and smooth and not risk damaging the finish by purposely wearing the shoes as rainy day shoes.

That being said, I'm sure lots of men in New York for example, probably wear their shell cordovan shoes in winter, and don't have many problems. "


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

...it would seem to me that the greatest threat to any leather shoe worn in the winter is salt and not water. Once your shoes have been saturated by salt water on a snowy day, is there any way to get rid of those white, chalky areas?

I am also moved to ask why one leather need be _better_ than another? Is any leather better than all of the rest for shoes? Alligator or its other lizard cousins? Ostrich? Armadillo? Isn't it enough to celebrate their differences?

Buzz


----------



## NU81 (Jan 29, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> Once your shoes have been saturated by salt water on a snowy day, is there any way to get rid of those white, chalky areas?


Allen Edmonds conditioner/cleaner for calfskin footwear includes directions to "deep clean" and "neutralize salt stains". I tried it recently on a pair of shoes that had just a small amount of white on them and it worked well.


----------



## haruki (Dec 28, 2007)

*Love the durability, love the patina of Alden #8*

I love that my shells are always ready to go. They are my no fuss shoes.

I also love the way my Alden #8s are aging.


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

lee_44106 said:


> Left two are Aldens, Right two are Polo Ralph Lauren (made by Crockett &Jones)


Are the first pair to the left the Delray's?


----------



## MarkusH (Dec 10, 2004)

StickPig said:


> I didn't see a hall of fame thread esposing the virtues of cordovan over calf.


The virtues of cordovan over calf are a matter of taste. Some like the look. Others are reminded of plastic and grain corrected leather.

In addition, a gentleman should not wear horse leather.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

Simon Myerson said:


> Shell is heavier and, in my view, it looks heavier as well.





MarkusH said:


> The virtues of cordovan over calf are a matter of taste. Some like the look. Others are reminded of plastic and grain corrected leather.





NoVaguy said:


> you can easily compare if you like your calf with a well aged patina.


The above sum up my own feelings to some extent. The virtues of cordovan remind me of Church's polished binder (as opposed to general plastic or grain corrected leather). Which makes for a very shiny, water-repellent, work-horse shoe. But it lacks the elegance and subtlety of good calf. There is a place for both - indeed, for all three - but I much prefer quality calf.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

MarkusH said:


> The virtues of cordovan over calf are a matter of taste *and durability*. Some like the look. Others *who don't know any better *are reminded of plastic and grain corrected leather.
> 
> In addition, a gentleman should not wear horse leather*,which shell is not.*


Fixed.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

capitalart said:


> Are the first pair to the left the Delray's?


The Delray is an Allen-Edmonds offering. It is not offered in shell cordovan unless specially made. My pair is a special order Alden, a v-tip.


----------



## mdellison (Sep 24, 2005)

Shell is hotter on the feet so beware the lace-ups if you tend toward hot feet. There also was a thread a couple years ago by a member who voted strongly for calf--calf may win in some circles.


----------



## Mookie (Dec 10, 2007)

I wanted to get in on the shell bandwagon several times, but just can't.

I've seen a number of shell shoes in person, even tried a few on, and I just don't see myself paying several hundred dollars more for the things than comparable calfskin shoes.

While shell might age well, I just don't like the necessities of construction with it- all the shell shoes I've seen from AE, Alden, and CJ have had far more readily apparent stitching, etc., probably due to the hide's toughness.

Similarly, I just don't like the traditional styles of shell shoes- overbrouged wingtips? Bluchers? Ick. I have considered the Alden monkstraps and LHS, however, but see above re: more prominent stitching.

So I'll probably be sticking with calf for the foreseeable future. I just don't get shell cordovan shoes, I guess.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Simon Myerson said:


> *Shell is hotter.*


How true this is. There are some days between late July and late September when you just can't wear shell cordovan shoes comfortably around here. On those days, calf really is cooler. And those Rainbow sandals some of us love to hate (including me, sometimes) become enticingly functional.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

yachtie said:


> Fixed.:icon_smile_wink:


Indeed.


----------



## Max Inseam (Oct 9, 2006)

I rather like cordovan for all the reasons mentioned (and, gulp, even use a pair as rain shoes), but I have yet to see a pair of cordovan shoes that I think looks right with most business suits. I don't foresee the end of calf shoes anytime soon.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Max Inseam said:


> I rather like cordovan for all the reasons mentioned (and, gulp, even use a pair as rain shoes), but I have yet to see a pair of cordovan shoes that I think looks right with most business suits. I don't foresee the end of calf shoes anytime soon.


Does your prohibition (inhibition?) apply to black cordovan? I wear my black shells with business suits all the time and I don't believe that I have never attracted any notice for it.

Buzz


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Granted, I just now have my first pair of shells and have only worn them a few times, but to me the benefit of shells is for shoes with heavy broguing. On wingtips and the like, the rolling creases of cordovan look much better than the sharper creases of calf when there is broguing being creased.


----------



## Max Inseam (Oct 9, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Does your prohibition (inhibition?) apply to black cordovan? I wear my black shells with business suits all the time and I don't believe that I have never attracted any notice for it.
> 
> Buzz


I am sure they look good. The black cordovan shoes I have seen tend to have a heavy look to them, which combined with the surface shine of cordovan makes them seem more casual to me.


----------



## cdcro (Jan 23, 2008)

mdellison said:


> Shell is hotter on the feet so beware the lace-ups if you tend toward hot feet. There also was a thread a couple years ago by a member who voted strongly for calf--calf may win in some circles.


so the fact my feet re always hot in laceups, but comfortable in loafers should stop me from acquiring shell?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Max Inseam said:


> I am sure they look good. The black cordovan shoes I have seen tend to have a heavy look to them, which combined with the surface shine of cordovan makes them seem more casual to me.


Works for me as a "suit shoe":


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

MarkusH said:


> The virtues of cordovan over calf are a matter of taste. Some like the look. Others are reminded of plastic and grain corrected leather.
> 
> In addition, a gentleman should not wear horse leather.


I have a pair of AE Belgiums in burgundy polished cobbler (corrected grain), and the leather is virtually indistinguishable from my Alden 684s in shell. Also, Alden's comment about wearing the shells in the wet seems to stand in contradiction to a statement made on another thread that shell sheds water "like a duck's back". Though this has nothing to do with shell and everything to do with overall construction, I would certainly hesitate to wear my Alden shells in the rain because of the unfinished edges of the soles; that's the most porous part of the leather and I can imagine it soaking up water like a sponge.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Does your prohibition (inhibition?) apply to black cordovan? I wear my black shells with business suits all the time and I don't believe that I have never attracted any notice for it.
> 
> Buzz


I am wearing my black Alden for BB wingtips today. :icon_smile:


----------



## JayJay (Oct 8, 2007)

yachtie said:


> Works for me as a "suit shoe":


I have the same captoe shell oxford and only wear it with suits.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

It looks like they need a polish or is that just the camera?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

cdcro said:


> so the fact my feet re always hot in laceups, but comfortable in loafers should stop me from acquiring shell?


In my opinion, while I really do like my Alden longwings, if it's not a shoe with heavy broguing, I don't see cordovan as being worth it. Sure it's low maintenance, but it also doesn't shine quite like well-polished high-quality calf, it is warmer (though, I like that) and it does seem heavier/stiffer. For me it all comes down to how much better broguing looks with the rolling creases of cordovan rather than the sharp creases of calf


----------



## GeorgePaul (Dec 15, 2007)

yachtie said:


> In addition, a gentleman should not wear horse leather*,which shell is not.*


Are you saying that shell cordovan is not an equine leather, as stated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_cordovan?


----------



## Tom Rath (May 31, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> In my opinion, while I really do like my Alden longwings, if it's not a shoe with heavy broguing, I don't see cordovan as being worth it. Sure it's low maintenance, but it also doesn't shine quite like well-polished high-quality calf, it is warmer (though, I like that) and it does seem heavier/stiffer. For me it all comes down to how much better broguing looks with the rolling creases of cordovan rather than the sharp creases of calf


Not sure where you are getting the "doesn't shine quite like well-polished high-quality calf" part, but most people who dislike shell often point to the fact that its TOO shiny when polished. Ive included 2 pics, one taken with my camera phone this am so excuse the poor quality:



















Now, concerning the original question - I prefer shell for a variety of reasons, most of which have already been stated in the thread. There is room for both shell and calf in any well dressed man's wardrobe.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Rossini said:


> It looks like they need a polish or is that just the camera?


End of day + camera flash (durabilityand recovery from scuffs is another advantage of shell)



GeorgePaul said:


> Are you saying that shell cordovan is not an equine leather, as stated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_cordovan?


It is a subcutaneous tissue from a horse, not horsehide as implied by the poster. I really can't stand it when some pious Polonius starts a comment with "Gentlemen never/always/should...

So there.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

GeorgePaul said:


> Are you saying that shell cordovan is not an equine leather, as stated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_cordovan?


Actually, that link contains the myth about shell cordovan that it is a muscle, which is completely false. It _is_ skin, but unlike good bovine leather, it is a split hide, and the lower layers of skin (not the upper layers) are used in the production of the leather. To my knowledge, muscle cannot be made into leather.


----------



## william76 (Aug 11, 2006)

In my experience, Alden cordovan does look a bit like corrected grain to me, but C&J shell does not. I know they both use Horween shell, but Alden apparently adds additional finishing/coloring to their shell.

I love the look the rustic look of my C&J shell.

I plan to try Vass cordovan next:


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Teacher said:


> To my knowledge, muscle cannot be made into leather.


Except in cheap steakhouses...


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

StephenRG said:


> Except in cheap steakhouses...


I stand corrected!


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

william76 said:


> In my experience, Alden cordovan does look a bit like corrected grain to me, but C&J shell does not. I know they both use Horween shell, but Alden apparently adds additional finishing/coloring to their shell.
> 
> I love the look the rustic look of my C&J shell.
> 
> I plan to try Vass cordovan next:


To me -- and in that photo -- the CJ shoes still look like shell, just as any other shell. (I do like them a lot, by the way.) However, I'm going to throw out a hypothesis: while they retain the extreme smoothness and nonporous surface of shell, it may be the antiquing that draws attention away from it or makes it seem less extreme.


----------



## GeorgePaul (Dec 15, 2007)

Teacher said:


> Actually, that link contains the myth about shell cordovan that it is a muscle, which is completely false.


True, but the "Production" section there says that the hide is used to make cordovan, not the muscle. At any rate, cordovan shell is made from horse hide.


----------



## bobbyball (Jul 20, 2005)

I have a number of shell cordovan shoes ranging from C&J to Alden to Lattanzi and the quality/characteristics between the three are different. The C&J is not as good in terms of wear – it seems very dry and lacks that lustre of the Alden and Lattanzi.

I had read somewhere that Alden get the best batch of Shell and the other makers get what is left. The Lattanzi is slightly better shell than the Alden IMO.

I can’t say Shell above Calf – it is just different but I do like the difference.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

GeorgePaul said:


> True, but the "Production" section there says that the hide is used to make cordovan, not the muscle. At any rate, cordovan shell is made from horse hide.


Yes, that's what I said. I was just pointing it out because some people might not even pay attention to that section.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

GeorgePaul said:


> True, but the "Production" section there says that the hide is used to make cordovan, not the muscle. At any rate, cordovan shell is made from horse hide.


If that's what the wiki article says , it's wrong. It's not from the epidermis (hide).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

yachtie said:


> If that's what the wiki article says , it's wrong. It's not from the epidermis (hide).


Isn't the "shell" the connective tissue between the hide and the muscle tissue?


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

yachtie said:


> If that's what the wiki article says , it's wrong. It's not from the epidermis (hide).


Yes, it is. It is the lower layer of the skin. That's why, according to Horween's web site, it must be "shaved" (their word). The upper layers containing the hair are taken off, and the lower layers are used in shell cordovan.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Teacher said:


> Yes, it is. It is the lower layer of the skin. That's why, according to Horween's web site, it must be "shaved" (their word). The upper layers containing the hair are taken off, and the lower layers are used in shell cordovan.


That makes it the dermis. Common horsehide is the outermost layer that is removed in making the shells.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

yachtie said:


> That makes it the dermis. Common horsehide is the outermost layer that is removed in making the shells.


Ah...I see what you're saying.


----------



## Mattdeckard (Mar 11, 2004)

MarkusH said:


> In addition, a gentleman should not wear horse leather.


Someday I'll be a gentleman. Until then I'll wear these heavy horse rearend shoes because... well I think they look really cool!

comparing shell cordovan to calf I think it really has come down to a denser leathered shoe versus a lighter one.

The density making the Cordovan react in a more rubberized way when it comes to moisture dissipation for the foot. Makes the foot a lot warmer in general. Calf definitely breathes better.

Being denser makes the cordovan last longer. Calf being less dense makes it break down faster.

The cordovan is a harder wearing shoe that takes scuffs and scratches better (good for when I dance and she keeps bumping into me).

The calf and cordovan shine and patina differently. 
After the durability issue, this to me is the more important.

Calf patina can be scraped off, and creases can detract and turn into cracking faster. The time it takes to go from amazing looking patina to junky worn out shoe is much faster than with Cordovan.

Cordovan patina seams to really come out in it's creases over the years and ads to the look. They hopefully won't hit the junky point until you are near ready to die. Otherwise you can have your son wear them or put them on eBay.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Holy resurrection, Batman!
Have you been thinking of that reply all this time?


----------



## Mattdeckard (Mar 11, 2004)

No, was just looking for patina pics on google today and this thread popped up. I was shining a pair of calf shoes today and realizing how much I like my Cordovan shoes.


----------



## InsbrokerTX (Jul 25, 2008)

As far as I'm concerned, shell is not worth the difference in price.


----------



## gman-17 (Jan 29, 2009)

Mattdeckard said:


> Someday I'll be a gentleman. Until then I'll wear these heavy horse rearend shoes because... well I think they look really cool!
> 
> comparing shell cordovan to calf I think it really has come down to a denser leathered shoe versus a lighter one.
> 
> ...


For some reason the Brits have real trouble with shell. Matt, the individual who you were responding to was from the UK. Anyway, Shell is much more humane than calf--horses are not harvested for their shells. For some reason the Brits have soft spots for their horses.


----------



## Mattdeckard (Mar 11, 2004)

But horse tastes better.


----------

