# Rubber Soles vs. Leather



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I note, as evidenced in the Ecco thread, that there is a vigorous claque led by our resident Aussie shooman that is vehemently opposed to rubber-soled shoes--at least anything except sneakers and (presumably) work boots and such.

I would be interested in hearing a rational discussion of the pros and cons of rubber vs. leather soled shoes for "dress casual" or "urban casual" wear. I will fully agree that leather soled shoes are inherently more elegant than rubber soled. They are cooler and they do "breathe" better.

Having said that, how do leather soles stack up against rubber soles in wet weather? We have just been experiencing something akin to Noah's Flood in my part of the world, and I'd be curious to know how well leather soles stand up to prolonged walking in wet weather? Does the quality of the leather sole make a big difference here.

Traction: I can recall landing flat on my back having slipped on ice while wearing leather-soled cowboy boots back in my Texas days over 30 years ago. Do rubber soles give you substantially better traction on ice or other slippery surfaces? (I should rather think so.)

I realize that comfort is very subjective and depends much more on the fit of the shoe than the material of the sole, but I get the sense that men who have to stand for long periods tend to prefer rubber soles. Also, for walking long distances, do rubber-soled shoes have an inherent edge for comfort over leather soles (at least if rugged terrain is not being traversed)? Is it significant that just about all shoes meant for outdoor use or walking considerable distances do have rubber soles?

I note that most, if not all, of the major players in the high-end shoe market do offer a reasonable selection of rubber-soled shoes. Is this merely catering to ignorance, bad taste and poor judgement...or do such shoes really have a place?

Anyway, I'd be interested in a balanced discussion from knowledgeable individuals on the pros and cons of leather vs. rubber soles. It will probably influence my future shoe purchases (not that I really need many more!).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I have never owned pair of rubber soled shoes but Barker have recently offered to retro-fit rubber to a pair of leather soled shoes for me when I next submit them for refurbishment. I look forward to trying them out.

.
.
.
.


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

Rubber works better as a shoe sole: Less risk of slipping and better water resistance. The only downside is that manufacturers often use a really thick slab of rubber that adds a clunky effect to the shoe. Yes, we can apply a slice of rubber after purchasing our leather-soled shoes, but that never seems as impervious to water as a full original rubber sole...and it adds to the cost of the shoes.

In winter, I don't wear leather soled shoes outside (salt, ice, and snow kill them and make them much less safe). I have rubber-soled shoes for that function and leave my lower profile leather-soled shoes in my office for pairing with my suits.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

JLibourel must be the most patient man ever.


----------



## WmC (Apr 6, 2012)

*I like both*

For dress, I always wear leather, which means about 5 times a week. For casual wear, I frequently wear rubber soles. In the winter time, if there is snow and ice on walkways, I only wear rubber. It's a safety issue.


----------



## CLTesquire (Jul 23, 2010)

I feel like someone needs to unearth the "Ecco thread" referenced by the OP many years ago so we can all get some context.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I was scratching my head wondering at how the question of whether synthetic-soled shoes and boots "really have a place" could possily still be a thing. Then I noticed that the thread was from 2005. Thank heavens for progress. ;-) And yes, they are equally acceptable for dress and casual footwear.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

RogerP said:


> I was scratching my head wondering at how the question of whether synthetic-soled shoes and boots "really have a place" could possily still be a thing. Then I noticed that the thread was from 2005. Thank heavens for progress. ;-) And yes, they are equally acceptable for dress and casual footwear.


+1.

Though in my mind even a Dainite sole will still be slightly less formal/dressy than one which is leather soled, but the degree of difference is minute.

What is gained is generally double the longevity, better traction and being waterproof. As a boy in the early '50's I routinely had the newer of my two pair of shoes resoled upon wearing out. On one occasion I opted for a rubber sole. The two most notable changes were a doubling of their life, and relief from the city's scorching slate sidewalks.

And the variety and quality of rubber soles have mushroomed so that you can select among footwear with differing types the one that best suits your intended purpose for them.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Charles Dana said:


> JLibourel must be the most patient man ever.


Indeed! To be admired!


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

I respect shaver for having a good think before posting his answer.


----------



## Tribal (Jul 1, 2016)

So which one are you deciding to go with? Have your other shoes held up long enough to get you to 2016?


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Kudos to Shaver, for rising to the challenge. Well done.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Living in damp Portland, I can foresee that any resoling of my (to me, not to Roger P) extensive shoe collection will definitely be in Danite. Anyone attempting to haughtily declaim upon the superiority of leather soles is welcome to fall on his ass in our rainy clime.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Oldsarge said:


> Living in damp Portland, I can foresee that any resoling of my (to me, not to Roger P) extensive shoe collection will definitely be in Danite. Anyone attempting to haughtily declaim upon the superiority of leather soles is welcome to fall on his ass in our rainy clime.


There it is. And for the few days of freezing you might have, he can slip on the ice and then fall on his ass.


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

In Vancouver it's rubber for me. Allen Edmonds Bentons, Wilbert, Nashuas, Eagle Ranches, and Yumas.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

Rubber all the way. This applies to both city boots and casual boots (I rarely wear shoes, always boots or above-ankle sneakers).

With the amount of walking I do. leather soles wear away and require replacement in 2 days.

Pavement and concrete wear away leather like there's no tomorrow, while dirt and mud aren't exactly friendly to leather soles either.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

mike83 said:


> Rubber all the way. This applies to both city boots and casual boots (I rarely wear shoes, always boots or above-ankle sneakers).
> 
> With the amount of walking I do. leather soles wear away and require replacement in 2 days.
> 
> Pavement and concrete wear away leather like there's no tomorrow, while dirt and mud aren't exactly friendly to leather soles either.


Yes, indeed, accelerated wear is another reason to prefer rubber to leather, especially for those of us who walk a great deal. My natural stride (or the one that became natural after the Army insisted I adopt it) produces a heel strike that causes wear quickly, and rubber resists much better than leather. I keep a few pairs of AE and Alden shoes to match with suits on those increasingly infrequent occasions when I wear a suit. Otherwise, in the business casual style of a retiree, rubber soles predominate.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

There's no reason a rubber sole can't be made as thin and refined as a leather sole. Just use a thinner piece of rubber - even at the same thickness, it will last several times as long as a leather sole. And you can make the sole as stiff or as flexible as you like by using a steel, fibreglass or nylon shank (like outdoor and technical boots).

Really, the only reason leather was ever used as a shoe sole is because neither vulcanisation nor synthetic rubber existed at the time, while unvulcanised latex makes a poor sole (and was only available from select areas of the tropics). And, like many other things, it's hung around as a matter of tradition. If vulcanised rubber or synthetics had existed two centuries ago, no-one would ever have used leather.

Although it depends what you define as the 'sole'. Is it the part that's stitched to the Goodyear welt, or the part that actually touches the ground? I'm taking it as the latter (in the many shoes where they are two separate components). Leather makes a fine 'sole' to stitch to the welt. But the part that's attached to that (usually cemented on) and receives all the wear is much better off made from rubber.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

We seem to experience frequent mid-day rains in these parts, to the extent that I've begun to notice that wet leather soles wear much more quickly than do dry leather soles or rubber soles, be they wet or dry. Then indeed, there is the footing thing to consider. Hence I see myself demonstrating a tendency to transition to Danite and other rubber soles for my daily wear!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

godan said:


> Yes, indeed, accelerated wear is another reason to prefer rubber to leather, especially for those of us who walk a great deal. My natural stride (or the one that became natural after the Army insisted I adopt it) produces a heel strike that causes wear quickly, and rubber resists much better than leather. I keep a few pairs of AE and Alden shoes to match with suits on those increasingly infrequent occasions when I wear a suit. Otherwise, in the business casual style of a retiree, rubber soles predominate.


This is indeed exactly my own reason for exploring the rubber option - I walk a great deal and my gait causes my soles to prematurely fail at the ball of the right foot. Should I find that rubber wears better I may be obliged to transfer my allegiance to this material.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ have you considered orthotics? Or are they anathema to your inner Punk?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> This is indeed exactly my own reason for exploring the rubber option - I walk a great deal and my gait causes my soles to prematurely fail at the ball of the right foot. Should I find that rubber wears better I may be obliged to transfer my allegiance to this material.


I see the problem. Try scuffling your left foot a little with each step, so the soles fail at the same time.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ have you considered orthotics? Or are they anathema to your inner Punk?


Umm ..... are orthotics not for those with an impediment or ailment of some sort? I merely have a tendency to push off strongly with my right.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> I see the problem. Try scuffling your left foot a little with each step, so the soles fail at the same time.


:beer:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ not necessarily. They could help with the redistribution of forces. One's gait is typically symmetical. If you're pushing off more powerfully with your right foot there may be a reason for it.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Well one thing I would question is do rubber soles really outlast oak bark soles? I am not so certain that at equal thickness the rubber really lasts longer. Leather is more elegant. But everyone should consider owning some dainite soles for inclement weather.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Dainite can take quite a beating and it's the one synthetic sole that can actually pass on more formal shoes due to their profile.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

SG_67 said:


> Dainite can take quite a beating and it's the one synthetic sole that can actually pass on more formal shoes due to their profile.


I'd say that you can make any synthetic sole work on dress shoes. Just make it thinner, with the profile of a leather sole, rather than the typical thick rubber sole of a work boot. Any custom boot maker will be able to make a shoe with such a sole. Or you can stick a Topy outsole onto a leather-soled shoe, to give it a synthetic outsole that lasts almost forever.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

JBierly said:


> Well one thing I would question is do rubber soles really outlast oak bark soles? I am not so certain that at equal thickness the rubber really lasts longer. Leather is more elegant. But everyone should consider owning some dainite soles for inclement weather.


Walking on wet concrete and pavement, they certainly seem to. They last months, to over a year, as opposed to days to weeks.

Also, leather tops out at around 6mm per layer, while rubber can be as thick as you want it. Not to mention you can apply treads to it, if you find yourself regularly walking on slippery or unsteady ground.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

JBierly said:


> Well one thing I would question is do rubber soles really outlast oak bark soles? I am not so certain that at equal thickness the rubber really lasts longer. Leather is more elegant. But everyone should consider owning some dainite soles for inclement weather.


A question I also would ask. Shoe rotation must come into the equation, but I have some 15-year-old Alfred Sargent country shoes (heavy leather soles) that have needed only one resoling. Dainite and even Commando-soled shoes of similar ages have also required resoling, so there may not be as much in it as some people seem to think. I think a lot depends on the quality of the leather, although I think it is a given that leather wears faster than rubber when wet.

Durability, of course, is not the only consideration. I feel leather will always look better than rubber. In terms of comfort, some rubber soles may be superior to leather, although it's rather subjective. I prefer Gumlite soles to Dainite, as they are lighter and also more cushioning, but on the other hand I think they may be a bit thicker. Red Dainite seems softer than black Dainite.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JBierly said:


> Well one thing I would question is do rubber soles really outlast oak bark soles? I am not so certain that at equal thickness the rubber really lasts longer. Leather is more elegant. But everyone should consider owning some dainite soles for inclement weather.


Yes, they are.

But there are exceptions. EVA soles (Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate.) which is a soft spongy material sometimes colored red/pink for things like dirty bucks can wear quite quickly, though even among this substance there can be substantial differences in durability. And I suspect there may be other "rubber" materials with which I am not familiar that also wear quickly. But rule of thumb, typical "rubber" soles will double the life of a decent leather sole.

Though there can be substantial variances among leather soles also. Premium leather soles such Rendenbach promise longer wear. Oil tanned leather soles such as Alden's "Water Lock" soles also wear significantly longer. (I suspect their oily nature reduces abrasion.)

But I've gotten superb longevity from most Vibram products, and English Dainite and Commando soles are made of fairly hard compounds that do not wear easilly.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

JBierly said:


> Well one thing I would question is do rubber soles really outlast oak bark soles? .


Not all "rubber" soles are created equal, but Dainite will outlast leather by a huge margin. Not even close.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Langham said:


> Durability, of course, is not the only consideration. I feel leather will always look better than rubber.


I've never seen the beauty in a worn leather sole with the unknown ground-in detritus of a thousand walks.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

RogerP said:


> I've never seen the beauty in a worn leather sole with the unknown ground-in detritus of a thousand walks.


Fair point. Ground-in detritus can also afflict rubber soles, of course. I particularly dislike the capacity of commando-soled shoes to trap mud and then deposit it once indoors.

Perhaps I should say, when clean and polished, leather will always look better than rubber?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Langham said:


> Fair point. Ground-in detritus can also afflict rubber soles, of course. I particularly dislike the capacity of commando-soled shoes to trap mud and then deposit it once indoors.
> 
> Perhaps I should say, when clean and polished, leather will always look better than rubber?


Very true of the English Commando soles. (I note English only because quite different soles with the same name have been used in the American market.) But they're superb for outdoor, off-pavement use, which I think is their proper milieu. Frankly don't care for them that well primarily on-pavement except in snow, etc.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

Langham said:


> Fair point. Ground-in detritus can also afflict rubber soles, of course. I particularly dislike the capacity of commando-soled shoes to trap mud and then deposit it once indoors.


Function beats form any day. Depending on how you configure them, rubber can give you great grip in the wet, in the mud or on slippery rocks. They're also unfailingly durable. Straight leather soles don't do much other than look good when they're new.



> Perhaps I should say, when clean and polished, leather will always look better than rubber?


In other words, for about 15 minutes of walking outside, before the entire underside of the shoe is scuffed raw. Then it looks awful - doubly so when wet.

Plain rubber may not look as nice as brand-new leather, but also doesn't change much through use. A well-worn rubber sole doesn't look any worse than a new one.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Very true of the English Commando soles. (I note English only because quite different soles with the same name have been used in the American market.) But they're superb for outdoor, off-pavement use, which I think is their proper milieu. Frankly don't care for them that well primarily on-pavement except in snow, etc.


Agreed. On that topic, I find Dainite has very poor grip in snow, ice and slush, particularly once it's a little worn - but no worse than smooth leather.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

mike83 said:


> Function beats form any day. Depending on how you configure them, rubber can give you great grip in the wet, in the mud or on slippery rocks. They're also unfailingly durable. Straight leather soles don't do much other than look good when they're new.
> 
> In other words, for about 15 minutes of walking outside, before the entire underside of the shoe is scuffed raw. Then it looks awful - doubly so when wet.
> 
> Plain rubber may not look as nice as brand-new leather, but also doesn't change much through use. A well-worn rubber sole doesn't look any worse than a new one.


I will freely admit that my preference for leather is mainly for slightly esoteric reasons, although I think some of the criticism in this thread is rather overdone - from some accounts, including your own, one might think the life of a leather sole is measured in hours; days at the most - but that has not been my experience.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

Langham said:


> I will freely admit that my preference for leather is mainly for slightly esoteric reasons, although I think some of the criticism in this thread is rather overdone - from some accounts, including your own, one might think the life of a leather sole is measured in hours; days at the most - but that has not been my experience.


Depends how much abuse you're subjecting them to.

At work, I'm standing on hard floors and walking all day. Sometimes there is blood or other fluids involved. Outside of work, I've been known to destroy hiking boots, and often find myself scraping boots on concrete, jamming them in stirrups, crashing them against rocks or tramping through mud. Leather just won't stand up to that sort of thing.

Then again, my usage is probably well outside the norm for this forum - I don't own a suit, didn't wear one to my wedding, my work clothes are surgical scrubs and/or outdoor gear (depending on what I'm doing), my 'power suit' for meetings and presentations is a leather motorcycle jacket (the perks of running your own company) and my leisure clothes are mostly outdoor and technical gear.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

mike83 said:


> Depends how much abuse you're subjecting them to.
> 
> At work, I'm standing on hard floors and walking all day. Sometimes there is blood or other fluids involved. Outside of work, I've been known to destroy hiking boots, and often find myself scraping boots on concrete, jamming them in stirrups, crashing them against rocks or tramping through mud. Leather just won't stand up to that sort of thing.


For riding, I would always prefer a leather-soled boot. Any kind of ribbed or studded rubber sole is unsuitable, there is the risk of it jamming there. A smooth rubber sole is all right, and better suited to typical farmyard/stable conditions, but personally I prefer the feeling of smooth contact between my sole and the stirrup iron that can only be had with a leather sole.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Quite amazing how a query I made almost 12 years ago and sank unanswered has suddenly enjoyed such a a remarkable resurrection. Thank you all for your long-awaited replies, gentlemen.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I had kind of a funny experience the other day.

I happened to go pick my daughter up from school; heading straight there from my home office, I stepped into a pair of Alden bit loafers - no socks - and headed out to get her.

In front of the school, I was chatting with the father of my daughter's friend (Nora), when Nora suggests visiting the Fernbank forest (a 65 acre urban forest in Atlanta, near Emory University).

So off we go (the other father presciently wearing trail shoes) on what becomes a surprisingly rough two-mile hike (they somehow fit three miles of woodland trails in a 65 acre plot), over mossy rocks, jumping over streams, clambering over fallen trees, and so on. An actual hike.

In Alden bit loafers - leather soled, to make this story apropos to the OP.

This takes some doing, even for a pretty advanced (if I may say so) hiker and climber; when they say gear matters, they aren't kidding!

That night, I felt strangely exhausted, and down to bed I was aware of tired and aching muscles I'd never felt before. I slept ten hours.

Leather soles, wonderful as they are, meet some serious limits!

DH


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> Quite amazing how a query I made almost 12 years ago and sank unanswered has suddenly enjoyed such a a remarkable resurrection. Thank you all for your long-awaited replies, gentlemen.


I believe the original question was from a time when all of the responses were wiped out. I'm sure there were a number of answers when the question was first asked that got deleted.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

No way I'd choose leather over rubber soles in wet weather. That's just asking for trouble.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

Langham said:


> For riding, I would always prefer a leather-soled boot. Any kind of ribbed or studded rubber sole is unsuitable, there is the risk of it jamming there. A smooth rubber sole is all right, and better suited to typical farmyard/stable conditions, but personally I prefer the feeling of smooth contact between my sole and the stirrup iron that can only be had with a leather sole.


Depends on the kind of stirrup. A wider stirrup (front-to-back) is much less likely to get caught in between lugs. A lot of old cavalry boots had lugs/studs or hobnails. Which made a lot of sense, especially for dragoon units and others who could expect to be dismounted some of the time, but clearly it meant they had no trouble riding in them either.

I prefer a treaded rubber sole on riding boots. It makes it easier to stand up in the saddle, whether for shooting or for photography. It's also better for walking and climbing around when I get to the place I'm trying to go. And leather soles are certainly not water- nor wilderness-friendly.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Such dismounting as occurs when I ride is quite often involuntary I regret to say.


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

Langham said:


> Such dismounting as occurs when I ride is quite often involuntary I regret to say.


Is that something that treaded rubber soles could help with, or is it more a matter of horsemanship (or the horse)?

I had a fantastic pair of all-purpose riding boots made in Hong Kong. Black kangaroo leather uppers for abrasion, with sewn-in Kevlar interlining and flexible armour for riding motorbikes, attachment points for spurs and insole crampons and interchangeable steel and nylon shanks. Went with a shallow, less prominent tread for better grip on rocks and other smooth/hard surfaces (commando soles are great on mud or snow, but not so good on boulders and rocky surfaces; on slippery clay surfaces, I prefer jungle boot style treads). Took them on a long riding and hiking trip in Nepal, and another in South America, before the left boot was stolen from my tent by (I think) a monkey. I need to get another pair made...


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I wore my stunningly beautiful (if I do say so myself) leather-soled G&G Burnhams to work yesterday. I was rushing through the train station trying to make an early exit home. Not running, or even trotting - just walking at a brisk pace to make my train. Turned a corner and my feet just went right out from under me - I still have no idea how I didn't land on my head, but it must have been impressively comical to watch me flailing to regain my balance. Must have looked like a bad attempt at advanced Kung-fu. I hadn't stepped on anything as far as I could determine - and the floor wasn't wet. But smooth leather on smooth marble won't hold much in the way of lateral Gs.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL....
and just one more argument for Danite soles! Happy to hear that you enjoyed a less than catastrophic end to your first flight lesson RogerP. Now my friend, let's get to the really important stuff...please tell us those magnificent boots survived the encounter as completely without harm, as yourself!


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

RogerP said:


> I wore my stunningly beautiful (if I do say so myself) leather-soled G&G Burnhams to work yesterday. I was rushing through the train station trying to make an early exit home. Not running, or even trotting - just walking at a brisk pace to make my train. Turned a corner and my feet just went right out from under me - I still have no idea how I didn't land on my head, but it must have been impressively comical to watch me flailing to regain my balance. Must have looked like a bad attempt at advanced Kung-fu. I hadn't stepped on anything as far as I could determine - and the floor wasn't wet. But smooth leather on smooth marble won't hold much in the way of lateral Gs.


I find this happens to me a lot on the newer surfaces within the PATH underground walkways. The old textured surface in Scotia Plaza was much easier to avoid slipping upon, but they have even changed that to smooth marble. Of course, they clean and buff everything daily around the Financial District, presumably to keep the various building staffs entertained by all of the slipping leather sole wearers.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Charles Dana said:


> JLibourel must be the most patient man ever.


:chinese:


----------



## Nick V (May 8, 2007)

*Leather VS rubber soles*



JLibourel said:


> Quite amazing how a query I made almost 12 years ago and sank unanswered has suddenly enjoyed such a a remarkable resurrection. Thank you all for your long-awaited replies, gentlemen.


Yes, and I'm enjoying it's resurrection as well, thank you. IMO there are a lot of things to consider while examining and comparing the two materials. Here are some:

1. Versatility. Leather is leather. The only differences regarding the makers use is the quality leather used and, the type of finish they use in the final production of there footwear. Rubber can be designed with different patterns, different "feels", different comfort levels, different appearances for various applications. 
I have been in the shoe business for over 4 decades. The leather we use today is pretty much the same as it was when I first started. Since then rubber has been developed and continues to evolve on a consistent basis. For 
example, Crockett & Jones just developed a new sole called "The City Sole". They spent a lot of money and over a years time in R&D before just recently making it available on some of there select styles. It's made by Dainite and exclusive to them since they made the investment. As soon as I saw it I knew in due time it would be a hit. It looks like this:

2. Consistency. Since leather is made out of an animal skin there is always a possibility of defects. The high-end makers are more careful to pull any defective soles from their inventory so it's unlikely but some defects cannot be seen or felt, they still (less than before) exist today. When I first started using rubber you would "see" defects from
time to time. They would be removed from inventory and exchanged. Since then, the quality rubber makers have improved their manufacturing processes to a point where I can't recall the last time we pulled a defected unit from inventory.
3. Durability. Although I have heard comments where a customer claims that they wear rubber quicker than leather, that's very rare. For the vast majority, High-grade rubber will outlast high-grade leather by a wide margin.
4. Feel/Comfort. Some just prefer the feel of leather over rubber. The opposite can be said as well.
5. Appearance. Some just prefer the appearance of leather over rubber. No matter what, you can't change that. However, the high-end rubber makers are aware of this. They continue to attempt to develop dressier looks. I can tell you though they will not compromise performance over aesthetics.
6. Application. What environment will you mostly be using you're footwear in? Is it formal -or- business casual, just casual -or- somewhere where higher traction is needed?
7.Traction. That speaks for itself. In nearly all cases rubber offer better traction than leather.
8. Maintenance. Little (or no) maintenance is required on leather. With rubber, it depends. For instance, take an English country boot with a heavy lug sole...all sorts of debris can get wedged between the lugs making it necessary to check the soles and remove any debris before entering pristine environments. On the other hand, with the Dainite Studded sole for instance, the studs are designed to repel debris. Debris drops off of the studs rather than adhering to them.

These are some of my thoughts, from my experiences, organized in no particular order. It's really based on you're preference and priorities.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

mike83 said:


> I had a fantastic pair of all-purpose riding boots made in Hong Kong. Black kangaroo leather uppers for abrasion, with sewn-in Kevlar interlining and flexible armour for riding motorbikes, attachment points for spurs and insole crampons and interchangeable steel and nylon shanks. Went with a shallow, less prominent tread for better grip on rocks and other smooth/hard surfaces (commando soles are great on mud or snow, but not so good on boulders and rocky surfaces; on slippery clay surfaces, I prefer jungle boot style treads).


Could you share with us who in Hong Kong made those for you? Did you invent the design yourself?

Thanks.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

RogerP said:


> I wore my stunningly beautiful (if I do say so myself) leather-soled G&G Burnhams to work yesterday. I was rushing through the train station trying to make an early exit home. Not running, or even trotting - just walking at a brisk pace to make my train. Turned a corner and my feet just went right out from under me - I still have no idea how I didn't land on my head, but it must have been impressively comical to watch me flailing to regain my balance. Must have looked like a bad attempt at advanced Kung-fu. I hadn't stepped on anything as far as I could determine - and the floor wasn't wet. But smooth leather on smooth marble won't hold much in the way of lateral Gs.





ilikeyourstyle said:


> I find this happens to me a lot on the newer surfaces within the PATH underground walkways. The old textured surface in Scotia Plaza was much easier to avoid slipping upon, but they have even changed that to smooth marble. Of course, they clean and buff everything daily around the Financial District, presumably to keep the various building staffs entertained by all of the slipping leather sole wearers.


I used to suffer similar occasional mishaps during my business years. I noticed it didn't occur on concrete or asphalt, but only on very smooth hard surfaces such as marble. And I did enjoy some skating lessons as a consequence! I deduced that the difficulty wasn't actually being caused by the leather soles, but rather the lovely ornamental brass tacks which studded the heel. While perfectly fine on irregular hard surfaces, in contact with marble they virtually function as ball bearings.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Good points across the board, Nick.
And Eagle - thanks for the concern my friend - the G&G's survived the mishap unscathed. :beer:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I used to suffer similar occasional mishaps during my business years. I noticed it didn't occur on concrete or asphalt, but only on very smooth hard surfaces such as marble. And I did enjoy some skating lessons as a consequence! I deduced that the difficulty wasn't actually being caused by the leather soles, but rather the lovely ornamental brass tacks which studded the heel. While perfectly fine on irregular hard surfaces, in contact with marble they virtually function as ball bearings.


Very good point about the nails. Though in this case, the Burnhams have a synthetic 1/4 heel plate which should mitigate.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

mike83 said:


> Is that something that treaded rubber soles could help with, or is it more a matter of horsemanship (or the horse)?
> 
> I had a fantastic pair of all-purpose riding boots made in Hong Kong.


Treaded rubber soles would not have helped at all. I came off today as a matter of fact; neither the horse nor, I think, my horsemanship to blame, but just something that sometimes happens when pushing things a bit, as I was. My great fear is having a foot stuck in a stirrup and being dragged, and my feeling is that any form of treaded rubber sole would heighten this risk. But nor would such boots look right, at least in the English hunting field.

The attached article describes where I had my own riding boots made, in England - a glimpse, perhaps, into the hunting/riding scene here that I know.

https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/riding-boots-leather-horace-batten/


----------



## LIer (Jul 15, 2016)

Charles Dana said:


> JLibourel must be the most patient man ever.


I just caught your reference. I still cannot stop laughing.


----------



## Nick V (May 8, 2007)

Flanderian said:


> I used to suffer similar occasional mishaps during my business years. I noticed it didn't occur on concrete or asphalt, but only on very smooth hard surfaces such as marble. And I did enjoy some skating lessons as a consequence! I deduced that the difficulty wasn't actually being caused by the leather soles, but rather the lovely ornamental brass tacks which studded the heel. While perfectly fine on irregular hard surfaces, in contact with marble they virtually function as ball bearings.


Actually the brass tacks are not intended to be ornamental at all. There is a purpose for using them and that is, brass is a softer metal, the intent is that brass will (hopefully) wear at the same rate than that the leather on the heel will. Brass is more expensive for the makers to use than steel. If you slipped on the brass brads you'll slip even more with steel ones.
.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Nick V said:


> Yes, and I'm enjoying it's resurrection as well, thank you. IMO there are a lot of things to consider while examining and comparing the two materials. Here are some:
> 
> 1. Versatility. Leather is leather. The only differences regarding the makers use is the quality leather used and, the type of finish they use in the final production of there footwear. Rubber can be designed with different patterns, different "feels", different comfort levels, different appearances for various applications.
> I have been in the shoe business for over 4 decades. The leather we use today is pretty much the same as it was when I first started. Since then rubber has been developed and continues to evolve on a consistent basis. For
> ...


Great information as always, Nick! The Alpha and Omega of the issue. Thanks for the insight. :thumbs-up:



Nick V said:


> Actually the brass tacks are not intended to be ornamental at all. There is a purpose for using them and that is, brass is a softer metal, the intent is that brass will (hopefully) wear at the same rate than that the leather on the heel will. Brass is more expensive for the makers to use than steel. If you slipped on the brass brads you'll slip even more with steel ones.
> .


More interesting information, I thought the tacks might also have a function, but didn't realize the significance of brass. The first time I experienced this phenomenon, I tested it by deliberately trying to skid with just my heel on marble and replicated the problem.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Brass is amazing stuff. If you join furniture with brass rod you can plane it smooth just like the wood it bonds. I don't know that I ever shall. I'm somewhat up in the air about further adventures in joinery but if I do return to the craft, tight fitting brass rod will definitely be part of it. However, I have no interest in learning shoemaking!


----------



## mike83 (Oct 8, 2016)

zzdocxx said:


> Could you share with us who in Hong Kong made those for you? Did you invent the design yourself?
> 
> Thanks.


It was made by Zee's Leather Co. in Tsim Sha Tsui. I supplied the kangaroo skins, Kevlar, shanks, custom insole, Dyneema thread and other hardware (they had their own shanks, but I needed rigid steel and flexible nylon ones which would both fit into the same slot) and came up with the design, while they did the rest.

Fantastic result. Goodyear-welted, with lots of underfoot cushioning due to the custom insole, and a thick, hard-wearing, easily-replaceable synthetic sole (cemented to the piece of leather that was sewn to the welt, so it's very easily replaced without having to mess with the welt).

Probably not the most elegant footwear maker out there, but you can't fault their rock-solid construction. Which suits me just fine - I don't go for the refined style anyway. Function over fashion all the way, except where fashion is part of function.



Langham said:


> Treaded rubber soles would not have helped at all. I came off today as a matter of fact; neither the horse nor, I think, my horsemanship to blame, but just something that sometimes happens when pushing things a bit, as I was. My great fear is having a foot stuck in a stirrup and being dragged, and my feeling is that any form of treaded rubber sole would heighten this risk. But nor would such boots look right, at least in the English hunting field.
> 
> The attached article describes where I had my own riding boots made, in England - a glimpse, perhaps, into the hunting/riding scene here that I know.
> 
> https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/riding-boots-leather-horace-batten/


Yeah, that's definitely not the riding scene I follow. My style is more along the lines of riding horses around Argentina or Mongolia, combining it with stretches on a motorbike, or riding camels across the Sahara. And my dress sense is far more dark urban/futuristic than classic/traditional.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

mike83 said:


> Yeah, that's definitely not the riding scene I follow. My style is more along the lines of riding horses around Argentina or Mongolia, combining it with stretches on a motorbike, or riding camels across the Sahara. And my dress sense is far more dark urban/futuristic than classic/traditional.


For day-to-day and 'off-piste' riding (I sometimes go to Burgundy or elsewhere - I went to the border area between Hungary and Serbia last summer - I had some Hungarian riding boots made by Istvan Toth in Budapest. Ox hide uppers and leather soles pegged with wood. At his insistence, however, the soles have (smooth) rubber top pieces.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> Great information as always, Nick! The Alpha and Omega of the issue. Thanks for the insight. :thumbs-up:
> 
> More interesting information, I thought the tacks might also have a function, but didn't realize the significance of brass. The first time I experienced this phenomenon, I tested it by deliberately trying to skid with just my heel on marble and replicated the problem.


Brass was always used for naval uniform shoes and boots; I was told that it was it doesn't make a spark, which would be useful when bunkering, or loading ammunition....


----------

