# Advantages of leather sole



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

When I walk outside with my all leather shoes on I don't really enjoy the process of walking since the leather sole is quite hard so there is no shock absorption. It is another thing altogether if I wear the leather shoes with the soft rubber sole. In this case my feet don't ache. Besides, rubber sole is way more durable. Not to mention of course it is waterproof as opposed to leather. So, I wonder why bother producing leather soles? What kind of advantages do they have except for they let your feet breathe?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Just a gut reaction, but aesthetically they are more appealing to many of us. They just look more refined, representative of better quality craftsmanship. Rubber soles seem to me to be both more comfortable, in many cases, and provide more secure footing in almost every case.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

It is great to wear leather sole shoes in the office. The real problem is outdoors. Asphalt pavements and leather soles are not compatible.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Leather soles don't squeak on certain floor surfaces. I find leather soles more comfortable than the 'commando' tread on some of my more casual shoes, so dispute the comfort issue.

Beyond that, I'm afraid there will be those who regard leather soles as more appropriate option for elegant dress. I would never wear rubber soled shoes to the office, for instance, other than in extreme weather conditions.


----------



## Claus (Apr 8, 2010)

I think the very fact that leather soles have no technical, or objective, advantage is their only advantage. You signal that you can afford to wear stuff made out of inferior material.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Claus said:


> I think the very fact that leather soles have no technical, or objective, advantage is their only advantage. You signal that you can afford to wear stuff made out of inferior material.


If we are judging only on how rugged the sole material is, leather will never win. Jeans by nature are more rugged than dress trousers, but I would doubt in most cases that many here would say the trouser material is "inferior".

Rubber soles are usually visually evident. If you don't mind this, fine. Many find the leather to be sleeker and more appropriate with suits and less casual men's wear.

Comfort: I can't say that I personally find much difference in comfort. My leather soles have never given me a noticeable problem or undue foot fatigue. On the flipside, the rubber soled shoes in my collection are much heavier than the leather soled and this IS noticeable (especially by the end of a 12 hour day).

Traction: Leather is horrible in this category and the main reason I have rubber soles in my collection. Of course I'm not wearing leather soles to play in the park with my children or when out hiking.

Durability: I bough t a leather sole and rubber sole on the same day. They were both ready for resoling within a month of each other after almost equal amounts of use. In the past I exclusively had rubber soled shoes and none of these remain today. They all wore out.

Without a doubt my most comfortable & durable shoes are my Lowa low hikers but I'd be willing to bet that I'd get a few odd looks wearing them with anything more formal than jeans. Overall, pick the shoe that pleases you the best and one that you believe will serve your purpose.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Many decisions about clothing (especially from people on a board like this - full of discriminating gentlemen), are based on both aesthetics and function. I reject that idea that well made shoes with leather soles are less comfortable than their rubber counterparts - but again, if comfort is your main criteria for selecting footwear - then you have your answer.

For me, a well made pair of shoes with leather soles - last longer, look better, and make me feel like I have completed my outfit properly. And on a rainy day, i add an overshoe.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

take_five said:


> When I walk outside with my all leather shoes on I don't really enjoy the process of walking since the leather sole is quite hard so there is no shock absorption. It is another thing altogether if I wear the leather shoes with the soft rubber sole. In this case my feet don't ache. Besides, rubber sole is way more durable. Not to mention of course it is waterproof as opposed to leather. So, I wonder why bother producing leather soles? What kind of advantages do they have except for they let your feet breathe?


IMO, all valid observations. In fact, I'll add that my arthritic old body now seeks not only rubber soled shoes, but rubber soled shoes of softer rubber!

But a proper dress shoe has a leather sole. It just looks better, more formal. If I'm wearing a dressy suit, my footwear will have a leather sole.


----------



## StylinLa (Feb 15, 2009)

I find as I age, many of my contemporaries are drawn to comfort over style. One guy converted his entire shoe lineup to ECCO shoes. 

Is comfort the entire reason, or is some of this a part of Flusser's "prole drift." I hate ECCOs.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

I too find rubber soles significantly more comfortable than their leather counterparts. There is simply no contest in terms of shock absorption. The same is the case in terms of durability.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

Good rubber soles are more comfortable than leather soles due to the shock absorbing ability - at least on hard surfaces; there's not much difference on carpet IMO. But the difference is not so great that it would make me switch to rubber.

However, my building has marble floor and marble steps (acres and acres of marble, actually), and I've come close to "wiping out" on more than one occasion on my leather-soled shoes. So I'm looking into getting something like AE's combination tap soles on my next pair of shoes, and maybe having my cobbler add rubber half soles on my existing shoes.

Does anyone know of other alternatives? I'm more interested in grip than comfort.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

The main advantage of leather soles is this - all the best looking shoes are attached to them.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

That's true, or almost true, so I buy leather soled shoes and have promptly have my cobbler put on rubber half-soles.


----------



## thrombox (Sep 10, 2008)

Doesn't squeek (although I have some good rubber stick ons that don't either) and you can slide (not slip) around casually on polished stone surfaces, which is quite nice actually. Major disadvantage for me is they don't like classic motorcycles or kickstarters.

I put stick-ons or have rubbers soles on most shoes that see a lot of outside use. Usually just wear the leather down and then put a stick on, when the stick on wears down I have the whole leather sole replaced and start again.

Disclaimer: Not one oxford or brogue of mine has a rubber on it! Its usually reserved for chelsea boots and such.


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

Allen Edmunds will make to order pretty much any of their shoes in leather, rubber or combination sole. To me, the best compromise is a leather/rubber combination sole and rubber heel.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I choose both. I have my cobbler put a thin rubber outsole over the leather soles of most of my shoes. A bit better shock absorbtion, a lot better grip in the wet, and the soles last much, much longer.


----------



## take_five (Apr 8, 2012)

Thank you everyone for you answers. It was helpful. Now it seems I found a proper solution. When I buy my new leather shoes I'll have a cobbler to put on rubber half-soles. The only problem is rubber differs a lot. Some rubber is extremely hard and some is soft. Does anyone know what kind of rubber is used in ECCO shoes in their Chelsea boots? It is very soft and durable at the same time. I want to get this rubber.


Balfour said:


> Leather soles don't squeak on certain floor surfaces.


Many producers add rubber protectors. My Barker leather shoes (with leather sole) have some thin and sleek rubber protectors on its sole. So, they can squeak too on certain surface floors.


justonemore said:


> Comfort: I can't say that I personally find much difference in comfort. My leather soles have never given me a noticeable problem or undue foot fatigue.


That begs a question how many miles one walks a day outside. I do around six miles a day. When you walk that much you do feel the difference. If one drives a car all day long then he definitely doesn't see much difference between leather and rubber soles. 


justonemore said:


> On the flipside, the rubber soled shoes in my collection are much heavier than the leather soled and this IS noticeable (especially by the end of a 12 hour day).


I agree that some rubber soles are heavy and yet my ECCO shoes have very light rubber soles. I guess the lightest shoes have rubber soles (just take a look at the shoes the sportsmen wear).



StylinLa said:


> I find as I age, many of my contemporaries are drawn to comfort over style. One guy converted his entire shoe lineup to ECCO shoes.
> Is comfort the entire reason, or is some of this a part of Flusser's "prole drift." I hate ECCOs.


Lol ECCO dress shoes are sad when it comes to design in so many cases (that it why I'm trying to find some alternative brands, which is hard). I don't really get why they can't produce more stylish shoes. Isn't it that difficult to borrow design from other brands? However, ECCO 's durability is legendary. Besides, they are very comfortable.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I think leather soles make for a more cool shoe in warmer weather. Rubber soles insulate a lot more. 

There's a wide difference in quality in leather soles. My Church's hardly wore through the leather at all in years, while my Bexleys wore off half a millimeter in a day.

I've had cheaper rubber soled shoes and rubber (plastic?) heels grind down swiftly as well.

Leather soles with topys are the best for me...


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Bjorn said:


> There's a wide difference in quality in leather soles. My Church's hardly wore through the leather at all in years, while my Bexleys wore off half a millimeter in a day.


Interesting. The assistant in the Paris shop advised me to get the soles of my Bexleys covered. I used Woolworth's stick on soles straight away.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> The main advantage of leather soles is this - all the best looking shoes are attached to them.


True. I expect to see leather soles on better quality footwear. Rubber is a bit Freeman,Hardy & Willis.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> Interesting. The assistant in the Paris shop advised me to get the soles of my Bexleys covered. I used Woolworth's stick on soles straight away.


Yes, I found that advice from them on the Internet later on, and had a cobbler attach topys. They probably tan their soles a tad hastily...

But good shoes for the money, mine are suede.


----------



## cincydavid (May 21, 2012)

My strong preference is for leather soles, and I don't have a wear issue with the soles as much as heels...I kill heels at a 2/1 ratio over soles, and have taken to having the heel toplift replaced with Vibram, no Soletech, and no more of the "Made in Italy" combination heels cobblers around here like to use. The Vibram might not be as elegant as a dovetail combination heel, but it works for me...


----------



## StylinLa (Feb 15, 2009)

take_five said:


> Lol ECCO dress shoes are sad when it comes to design in so many cases (that it why I'm trying to find some alternative brands, which is hard). I don't really get why they can't produce more stylish shoes. Isn't it that difficult to borrow design from other brands? However, ECCO 's durability is legendary. Besides, they are very comfortable.


Well, if you're walking 6 miles day, there is going to be a need for some comfort for sure, and I would forgive the style in that case. You could of course also keep a pair of leather soled shoes in the office and use the ECCOs for the walk.

The guys I am referencing are walking 100 meters from the parked car to the office door.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Suffering is good for the soul.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

There are no practical advantages whatsoever to leather soles.


----------



## Buffalo (Nov 19, 2003)

I disagree as I find them cooler than rubber soles in warmer weather.


Earl of Ormonde said:


> There are no practical advantages whatsoever to leather soles.


----------



## serene (Oct 27, 2009)

*Advantages of leather sole.*

Advantages:

1) Leather soles go very well with formal shoes like say Oxford Brogues both black and brown, as the soles are thin and visually, the leather uppers are demonstrated to full advantage.
2) Leather soles give a level of comfort while walking on carpets, marble floors and dry lawns, as one gets a sense of the earth below. Similar pleasure is experienced while sitting on a well-carpeted car.
3) Compressed leather often has good strength and is light, so it does not add to the over all weight of the shoes.
4) Leather sole also gives off a pleasant sound both from hard as well as wooden surfaces. Especially when you are a leader or boss, it announces your arrival. There are times when we do not need stealth.

Disadvantages:

1) There is always the fear that water would destroy it, even if it is stray in a toilet.
2) It is not ideal for walking long distances with leather soles, as there is no cushioning.
3) Over long use, it develops holes which can't really be plugged.
4) If different layers of leather is compressed, the layers may separate over time and spoil the look

Of late, Florsheim is coming up with brogues having leather soles, with a thin rubber grip below the fore paws, so that below the toe cap the leather sole is clearly visible.

There are many varieties of leather and some cuts with strength and thickness are ideal for sole and not for the upper. Perhaps in the production process, the craftsmen decided certain portions to go into the sole.

With rubber and PVC, some soles have been as comfortable as are tyres to say a Volvo stage coach. All the top brands now have synthetic soles for walking, running and trekking; and even sports-specific games.

This is an important question asked, and I would like to know from the experts and senior members as to how leather soles are structured, whether there are some sub-categories and new innovations. With new age heel insoles etc from firms like Scholl, perhaps the leather sole would now be more comfortable.

Serene.


----------



## Ivanov (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> If we are judging only on how rugged the sole material is, leather will never win. Jeans by nature are more rugged than dress trousers, but I would doubt in most cases that many here would say the trouser material is "inferior".


Well, objectively the material commonly used for trousers would be inferior in terms of ruggedness to denim--few would dispute that. It really is an extension of the same phenomena, practicality not being at the forefront of formal menswear.

The problem is that leather soles are inferior in durability as well as function. You cannot walk in leather soles for extended periods...And shoes are more expensive to replace than pants, and are worn harder than trousers.

Plus, your comparison is off...you are comparing formal dress shoes, one with a leather sole the other with rubber--both being formal despite the varying opinions as to the degrees of formality--with the formal trouser and the always informal jean.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Ivanov said:


> Well, objectively the material commonly used for trousers would be inferior in terms of ruggedness to denim--few would dispute that. It really is an extension of the same phenomena, practicality not being at the forefront of formal menswear.
> 
> The problem is that leather soles are inferior in durability as well as function. You cannot walk in leather soles for extended periods...And shoes are more expensive to replace than pants, and are worn harder than trousers.
> 
> Plus, your comparison is off...you are comparing formal dress shoes, one with a leather sole the other with rubber--both being formal despite the varying opinions as to the degrees of formality--with the formal trouser and the always informal jean.


I know I can walk in leather soled shoes for extended periods.

Moreover, rubber soled shoes are not "formal dress shoes".

I'm not sure what you think is formal menswear in this context.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Do people really look at the bottom of the shoe and think "he's not wearing leather soles!" ?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Do people really look at the bottom of the shoe and think "he's not wearing leather soles!" ?


I do disparage people who should know better, like lawyers with pointy brown rubber soled shoes.

I also would not consider someone really well dressed in a suit and tie unless they had proper shoes. But there's no outrage as in the "!" you've added above.


----------



## misterhyde (Dec 4, 2009)

Leather soles undoubtedly look smarter, however an ultra thin rubber half sole doesn't look too bad and it also saves the wear of the original sole; I've got some thirty year old shoes that still have the original soles. Apparently the rubber sole doesn't allow your feet to breath and makes them uncomfortably hot. It is very unusual for me not to be able to change my shoes during the day so personally I haven't noticed this problem. 
I don't wish to teach the experts of this forum to suck eggs, but for those who have forgotten, regular rotation + cedar shoe trees + correct cleaning = a long, happy shoe life.


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

serene said:


> It is not ideal for walking long distances with leather soles, as there is no cushioning.





StylinLa said:


> Well, if you're walking 6 miles day, there is going to be a need for some comfort for sure, and I would forgive the style in that case.





Ivanov said:


> You cannot walk in leather soles for extended periods.





Bjorn said:


> I know I can walk in leather soled shoes for extended periods.


i have to agree with Bjorn on this one, i am on my feet 75% of my work days (12 hour days, 6 days a week) on every surface imaginable: marble, tile, carpet, wood, asphalt, concrete, etc, etc... i have no issue with comfort in my leather soled shoes... i have never worn a pedometer to estimate the distance walked in a typical day, but would be very surprised if it wasn't 6-8 miles daily... maybe the issue lies with the quality of the leather sole in the OP's question, i can only speak for my experience with allen edmonds, but with their leather & cork footbed, i'm walking on clouds all day...



Shaver said:


> The main advantage of leather soles is this - all the best looking shoes are attached to them.


:biggrin2:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

misterhyde said:


> ...Apparently the rubber sole doesn't allow your feet to breath and makes them uncomfortably hot. It is very unusual for me not to be able to change my shoes during the day so personally I haven't noticed this problem. ...


That is the issue though. I find a leather soles is objectively superior to rubber - rubber soles 'draw' the foot in hot weather (I do have quite a few pairs of rubber-soled shoes, nonetheless - in winter this is not an issue and of course rubber is better in snow and slush). Most people would find it at least an inconvenience to have to change shoes during the day.
In the end, though, this seems to be very much a matter of personal preference. For me, leather is the more 'authentic' material - anything man-made is necessarily ersatz.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Langham said:


> For me, leather is the more 'authentic' material - anything man-made is necessarily ersatz.


To me it seems this is a common theme here, but I can't for the life of me understand the reasoning except in terms of a purely subjective preference. As far as I'm concerned the best material for the job is the best material for the job, regardless of its origin. In soles I find rubber superior or equal to leather in every respect mentioned in the thread, so if not for the fact that good-looking rubber-soled shoes are few and far between I'd buy only such.

As far as looks and elegance goes, I just lined up all my shoes (well, all the left shoes) on the floor and had a good look. Basically I had no chance of telling which shoes had which soles without getting down on my knees to examine them up close. That's not something I can really see myself ever doing outside of my own apartment....


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

You selected the arguably subjective part of my argument but overlooked the objective part - and I think the OP was looking for some objective answers. I don't wish to labour the point, but in the end, it seems to me to be a matter of personal preference.


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> To me it seems this is a common theme here, but I can't for the life of me understand the reasoning except in terms of a purely subjective preference. As far as I'm concerned the best material for the job is the best material for the job, regardless of its origin. In soles I find rubber superior or equal to leather in every respect mentioned in the thread, so* if not for the fact that good-looking rubber-soled shoes are few and far between* I'd buy only such.


Well, that's just the thing.



Belfaborac said:


> TAs far as looks and elegance goes, I just lined up all my shoes (well, all the left shoes) on the floor and had a good look. Basically I had no chance of telling which shoes had which soles without getting down on my knees to examine them up close. That's not something I can really see myself ever doing outside of my own apartment....


I can tell from across the room for most shoes. For really well done ones, or leather soles with thin rubber bottom layers I can't tell.

I put rubber heels on most of my shoes, if they don't come with them (most do nowadays), because with leather (edit: not rubber) soles AND heels, I find myself slipping all over hard surfaces, mostly indoors (marble, synthetic floor panels).


----------



## smogfarmgirl (Sep 18, 2012)

Agreeing with most, they are more refined looking, definitely more upscale.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

srmd22 said:


> I can tell from across the room for most shoes. For really well done ones, or leather soles with then rubber bottom layers I can't tell.


In that case it behoves me to congratulate you on your superior eyesight. My own is 20/20, but I'd be guessing as to which is which.



> I put rubber heels on most of my shoes, if they don't come with them (most do nowadays), because with rubber soles AND heels, I find myself slipping all over hard surfaces, mostly indoors (marble, synthetic floor panels).


We're diametrically opposed here too then. I can't use naked leather soles for fear of breaking bones daily. In addition I dislike greatly the way leather soles lets me feel every tiny stone I step on, so I need rubber fitted both in front and astern.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> To me it seems this is a common theme here, but I can't for the life of me understand the reasoning except in terms of a purely subjective preference. As far as I'm concerned the best material for the job is the best material for the job, regardless of its origin. In soles I find rubber superior or equal to leather in every respect mentioned in the thread, so if not for the fact that good-looking rubber-soled shoes are few and far between I'd buy only such.
> 
> As far as looks and elegance goes, I just lined up all my shoes (well, all the left shoes) on the floor and had a good look. Basically I had no chance of telling which shoes had which soles without getting down on my knees to examine them up close. That's not something I can really see myself ever doing outside of my own apartment....


It sounds like you have resolved this matter to your satisfaction, then. What are you trying to achieve through this thread?

As I noted earlier, I think rubber soles are an acceptable concession to inclement weather. Most rubber soled shoes will make you look like the work experience lad though.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

My only beef with leather soles in any but the most inclement weather is that they can be so slippy, especially when new. I went careering over and almost landed on my backside in front of a large crowd during the summer, in my new chelsea boots, just on a slight paved incline. 

It was not one of my more 'Cary Grant' moments...


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Balfour said:


> It sounds like you have resolved this matter to your satisfaction, then. What are you trying to achieve through this thread?


To express my opinion. What are you trying to achieve by questioning my participation?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> To express my opinion. What are you trying to achieve by questioning my participation?


My apologies - I confused you with the OP.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Mistakes happen; I made one myself back in March 1987. No worries.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> Mistakes happen; *I made one myself back in March 1987*. No worries.


LOL:biggrin2:


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

I'm at one extreme of this debate. I wear leather-soled (and 3/4 leather heeled) shoes seven days a week except on the rare occasions when I am wearing Wellingtons or proper heavy-duty hiking boots. I walk a mile or so the tube to work each day, and spend a fair amount of time walking about in between. And I regularly wear leather soles to take my son to the park, unless we take a football to play with.

Your feet are designed to walk without added cushioning. About 15 years ago, the British army realised a rapidly increasing number of new recruits got foot injuries in basic training because they had only ever worn squishy-soled athletic shoes and were not conditioned for hard (albeit synthetic) soled boots.

Except on sheet ice, and once more than slightly worse for wear as a student, I cannot recall falling over wearing leather soles. Occasional slight loss of traction (eg on polished marble floor). If you are losing your balance and falling on the ground on a regular basis, there is something wrong with how you walk rather than with your shoes.

I have no objection per se to composite soles, and mean to pick up a pair or two in a veldschoen or country boot style to bridge the gap between wellies/hikers and leather-soled shoes when off duty in grotty weather (because leather soles that get seriously wet often wear out quickly). But leather soles are neither precious nor fragile. Nor are they inherently dangerous items to be regarded as the footwear equivalent of a hand grenade with the safety pin taken out. For most of mankind's civilised existence, they were all we had, and we did very well with them , thank you.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> My only beef with leather soles in any but the most inclement weather is that they can be so slippy, especially when new. I went careering over and almost landed on my backside in front of a large crowd during the summer, in my new chelsea boots, just on a slight paved incline.
> 
> It was not one of my more 'Cary Grant' moments...


Were you wearing a black trenchcoat at the time? 'Cos that makes for an even funnier image. :devil:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Were you wearing a black trenchcoat at the time? 'Cos that makes for an even funnier image. :devil:


:wink2: No I was dressed for (I thought) summer chic. Pity, as the billowing black Burberry might have parachuted out and cushioned the fall...or at least been used to cover my embarassment...


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Geezer said:


> leather soles are neither precious nor fragile


While I certainly agree that they're neither of those, they're nevertheless a losing proposition where I live. That being at 60 degrees latitude, in a distinctly sub-Arctic climate. While that in itself is not a problem, long and cold winters with frequent snowfall means that sand is frequently spread on all roads and pavements to provide traction for both pedestrians and cars. Once Spring comes around attempts are made to remove it, but inevitably much is left and this is primarily what kills leather soles dead in no time at all. And like I said, through a leather sole every little stone can be felt quite clearly.

I'm well aware that leather soles works just fine in London, I spent several years not far from there. I don't live there now though, so the knowledge is scant comfort.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> ...like I said, through a leather sole every little stone can be felt quite clearly.


In these?


----------



## srmd22 (Jun 30, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> In that case it behoves me to congratulate you on your superior eyesight. My own is 20/20, but I'd be guessing as to which is which.
> 
> We're diametrically opposed here too then. I can't use naked leather soles for fear of breaking bones daily. In addition I dislike greatly the way leather soles lets me feel every tiny stone I step on, so I need rubber fitted both in front and astern.


Not at all-- most "dress" shoes with rubber soles look very different due to the way the rubber soles are designed. They don't look anything like traditional leather soles. Some are more subtle, as I noted. My vision is not even 20/20 (uncorrected) and I can still tell! I bet you could too, if you were looking at shoes with the soles I am thinking about. Maybe you are talking only about those dress shoes where the rubber is formed very similarly to the traditional leather look, which are not nearly as common as the blocky or lug rubber soles.

As far as breaking ones feet in leather soles-- you must have pretty delicate feet, or live in some rough terrain. I haven't heard about anyone breaking their feet daily because of shoes with leather soles. I wouldn't want to do any serious hiking in leather soles, but for walking around during the workday, they are fine. And the rubber soles on most "dress" shoes aren't much better.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Langham said:


> In these?


No idea, I've not worn them.



srmd22 said:


> As far as breaking ones feet in leather soles-- you must have pretty delicate feet, or live in some rough terrain. I haven't heard about anyone breaking their feet daily because of shoes with leather soles.


I was referring to breakage caused by the falls resulting from wearing leather soles on slippery floors.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Belfaborac said:


> No idea, I've not worn them.
> 
> I was referring to breakage caused by the falls resulting from wearing leather soles on slippery floors.


Or even a drop too much akvavit......? :redface:


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

I'll freely admit to sampling the stuff occasionally, purely for medicinal purposes of course, but not before or while working. Which is when leather soles are a menace. Assorted bruises and a badly sprained wrist support that contention, all collected in a short period before rubber half soles were universally applied.

If I could walk around all day, every day in a stately manner and at a leisurely pace it wouldn't be an issue, but in one of my lines of work that's sometimes not an option.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Geezer said:


> Nor are they inherently dangerous items to be regarded as the footwear equivalent of a hand grenade with the safety pin taken out.


Well said!


----------



## NH102.22 (Oct 25, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There are no practical advantages whatsoever to leather soles.


My emotional side doesn't want it to be true, but the reality is clearly in favour of Dainite over leather in all practical respects (although I haven't tested them on wet marble). The only real advantage I have found with leather soles is aesthetic. In other words, I agree with the Earl of Ormonde. Leather soles look better - beautiful, even - at least when new. I love natural materials, I love the history, traditional craftsmanship, and so on, but for me, leather starts to fall down when it comes to actually wearing them, compared to Dainite (I can't speak for other types of rubber sole found on dress shoes).



take_five said:


> When I walk outside with my all leather shoes on I don't really enjoy the process of walking since the leather sole is quite hard so there is no shock absorption. It is another thing altogether if I wear the leather shoes with the soft rubber sole. In this case my feet don't ache. Besides, rubber sole is way more durable. Not to mention of course it is waterproof as opposed to leather.





Buffalo said:


> I disagree as I find them cooler than rubber soles in warmer weather.


In my experience, leather soles are neither more comfortable, durable, grippy nor cooler than Dainite. In fact, on very hot days, I can even feel the heat of a sun-baked pavement through a thin leather sole. The number of people who wrote that they found leather more comfortable than rubber in the numerous threads covering the subject did surprise me - it goes to show how our "mileage varies".

Some leather soles seem to be more slippery than others given the same amount of wear. My worst is the Allen Edmonds Jefferson, a nice shoe and very comfortable, but for my near concussive incidents every time I wear them (which is not often anymore). At the other end of the scale are hand-welted Balmoral boots with oak bark-tanned single leather soles that act like natural extensions of my feet, slippage in these being much rarer.

Several times per week, I embark on a brisk 5.5 mile walk to and from work on undulating roads and footpaths in wet and dry weather with temperatures ranging from about 37 - 104 deg. F., with a 35 lb backpack on top of my 231 lb bodyweight. I've done it on single leather, single leather with Topy, double leather, double leather with Topy, York combination and Dainite soles on dress shoes/boots, and "good quality" running shoes. The overall standard of performance for each type of sole runs upwards more or less in correspondence with the foregoing list. After that walk with single leather soles, I can feel it in my feet, ankles, shins, knees and calves, and it takes longer because I have to tread more carefully. Topys reduce wear and help grip in the wet, but don't provide for a significant improvement in comfort. Double leather is better than single (comfort-wise); Dainite is better still (in all practical respects). Running shoes are the clear winner, but when it comes to dress shoes, Dainite has been the best for me under those conditions, and my Dainite-soled shoes still look better than those of 99% of the people around me. Also, I can't believe how long it takes for them to look even slightly worn, unlike leather, which rough asphalt happily tears to shreds.


----------



## Dovid (Feb 26, 2008)

On days that are rainy, the sidewalks are icy, or there is a buildup of road salt, I wear Bass loafers with Dainite soles. The loafers are presentable, and I change into a pair of Oxfords when I reach my office. When I have to be out during the day, I change back to the loafers. 

If conditions are more extreme (deep snow, or deep puddles from snow melt), then I wear Timberland boots for my commute. The boots are high enough that I can tuck my pants into the tops.


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

I once wrote an article on dress shoes for the fashion section of a University newspaper. It ended with my views on leather soles.

'They are slippery, wear faster, and self-destruct in the presence of water, but there is no pleasanter music than the echo of leather soles thumping on the floor an empty church.'


----------



## Kreiger (Nov 6, 2011)

Just to throw more confusion into the discussion: for three years I worked in/around a commercial kitchen. I was not a chef, but did spend a lot of time walking the (great) length of the kitchen, in and out of freezers, coolers, storerooms, and loading docks. Needless to say this was a slippery environment. I had regular contact with our clients, so could not simply wear a pair of allegedly 'slip resistant' shoes that were popular with the cooks et al. I came to wear only leather soled shoes because, in my experience, they offered better grip when walking over, say, an oily tile floor. In three years of working in that environment, I did take a few bad spills, but was always wearing rubber soles when it happened. In fact, if I switched to a pair of rubber soles for the day, I had to be very careful and would find myself slipping frequently.


----------



## TsAr (Mar 21, 2013)

Anthony Charton said:


> but there is no pleasanter music than the echo of leather soles thumping on the floor an empty church.'


Sums it up for me.... you cannot beat that thumping noise, the grace of a leather sole...


----------



## NH102.22 (Oct 25, 2012)

Kreiger said:


> Just to throw more confusion into the discussion: for three years I worked in/around a commercial kitchen. I was not a chef, but did spend a lot of time walking the (great) length of the kitchen, in and out of freezers, coolers, storerooms, and loading docks. Needless to say this was a slippery environment. I had regular contact with our clients, so could not simply wear a pair of allegedly 'slip resistant' shoes that were popular with the cooks et al. I came to wear only leather soled shoes because, in my experience, they offered better grip when walking over, say, an oily tile floor. In three years of working in that environment, I did take a few bad spills, but was always wearing rubber soles when it happened. In fact, if I switched to a pair of rubber soles for the day, I had to be very careful and would find myself slipping frequently.


Fair enough. Even better if your employer paid for those leather-soled shoes!

Do you ever use rubber overshoes in wet weather? 
Mine (Tingley Rubber's "Weather Fashions" model 1000 "Commuter") are good, but rarely on hand when required, meaning if I get caught in the rain, my leather soles get wet, although I don't have a huge slipping problem when that happens - more often than not, I have slipped in (seemingly) dry conditions.

The potential for scuffed leather to absorb liquid spills - liquid that would simply wash off a rubber sole - is another area of concern for me. Water is not the best friend of a leather sole, but some other fluids and chemicals that find their way to the floor in certain places are probably far worse. That's pure speculation, though.

Rainwater is one thing, but taking a good quality leather sole into urine puddle-filled public toilets is not something I particularly enjoy, even if the effect of urine on leather is not much different to pure water. Perhaps it's best not to think about such things...:tongue2:


----------



## Dagbog (May 8, 2013)

For me rubber soles are akin to - say gloves. They protect better but at the same time deprive of sensory input and restrict ventilation.

Under natural conditions one own bare feet are enough cushioning - providing they can sense the ground. Swapping into thick rubber after long time in leather is tiresome for me as the "blind" feet muscles tend to try too hard.

Unfortunately conditions are often not natural. Walking indoors on hard polished tiles is one of unnatural conditions - it is way too hard even compared to cobbler stones (as stones are uneven so the impact is different every step) and uniform (so there hardly is any sensory input anyway).

What one needs most from soles is they do not bend in the longer direction and distribute the load and leather ones even thin ones do not (thinner rubber on some "comfort shoes" sometimes does). As for grip - leather worn often is full of ingrained sand and dirt of various grain sizes so it grips surprisingly well - much better than clean leather; mine grip even on polished stone tiles, but it must be ones worn outside too.

I think the biggest issue is with people used to rubber donning leather soles. The feet muscles and surface and even the nervous system are not well developed and used to cushion impact, the soles are clean and slippery. The obstacles are bigger than the immediate gain but - how does one say it in English - hard training makes the real thing easy.


----------



## NH102.22 (Oct 25, 2012)

Dagbog said:


> What one needs most from soles is they do not bend in the longer direction and distribute the load and leather ones even thin ones do not (thinner rubber on some "comfort shoes" sometimes does).


I think i know what you mean, I have had soft rubber soled Nike running shoes that flexed all over the place, including longitudinally, if that is the correct term, and the muscles in my feet ached until they got used to them. Even after that, they never felt fantastic. Needless to say I didn't buy another pair.

However, I think Dainite performs well in this department compared to other thin rubber soles.

Five hours ago I walked 3 miles in my Alden 974s (double leather soles, Topy) and I'm still wearing them. My feet and legs feel pretty good.


----------

