Working Shoe for Young Exec - Part 2

[thundermarch]

I mean what I say.
So I will say it again.
Shell is NOT leather.
Leather is made from HIDE.
The hide comes from the SKIN of an animal.
Which means the EPIDERMIS AND DERMIS.
Doesn't matter what animal it is. If it's a hide, it's leather.
Shell DOES NOT come from the hide.
Shell comes from a layer deep to the epidermis and above the muscle layer. I am not sure what the veterinary term is. But in humans, the closest equivalent is called fascia.
There is NO grain. Since there is NO epidermis.

I say again....
Shell is NOT leather.

 

[likehotbutter]

I mean what I say.
So I will say it again.
Shell is NOT leather.
Leather is made from HIDE.
The hide comes from the SKIN of an animal. Doesn't matter what animal it is. If it's a hide, it's leather.
Which means the epidermis and dermis.
Shell DOES NOT come from the hide.
Shell comes from a layer deep to the skin and above the muscle layer. I am not sure what the veterinary term is. But in humans, it's called fascia.
There is NO grain. Since there is no epidermis.

I say again....
Shell is NOT leather.

Ok ignoring Etymology (in which cordovan is a leather still). And just for the sake of discussion

From a medical perspective, skin is Epidermis, Dermis & Subcutis ?

In Veterinary science, the cordovan tissue layer is part of the Dermis: Papillary layer, Reticular layer and Cordovan layer. The Subcutis then follows.

In fact the cordovan layer's superficial layer extends all throughout the animal. It is only in the dorso/lateral areas where an additional deep layer extends, which is the Cordovan which we name and use for shoes.

So anatomically it is still part of the hide

 

[darthsid11111]

Ok ignoring Etymology (in which cordovan is a leather still). And just for the sake of discussion

From a medical perspective, skin is Epidermis, Dermis & Subcutis ?

In Veterinary science, the cordovan tissue layer is part of the Dermis: Papillary layer, Reticular layer and Cordovan layer. The Subcutis then follows.

In fact the cordovan layer's superficial layer extends all throughout the animal. It is only in the dorso/lateral areas where an additional deep layer extends, which is the Cordovan which we name and use for shoes.

So anatomically it is still part of the hide

SHELL IS NOT LEATHER!!1!11!! WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!11! 11!

Sent from Samsung GT-I9506 using GAGT

 

[BallGag]

Love how the two posters with the least shoes are the most active here.

 

[ecwy]

I don't post here much because it's generally not worth my time.

Being able to use google and steal pics off SF doesn't make you an expert.

Calling shell roughout just means you don't even own a pair of shell. Why not you go Google reverse shell cordovan and tell me what that is if you claim shell is roughout?

A reverse idiot does not make a genius.

 

[likehotbutter]

I don't post here much because it's generally not worth my time.

Being able to use google and steal pics off SF doesn't make you an expert.

Calling shell roughout just means you don't even own a pair of shell. Why not you go Google reverse shell cordovan and tell me what that is if you claim shell is roughout?

A reverse idiot does not make a genius.

Wow Harsh ! And I thought it was a rather informative & interesting discussion we were going into.

Those are my own pics btw, nothing "stolen"

Spoiler

but since we are on the topic of Googling/using the the Search function. If you had bothered then you'd know that I have shell pairs as well.

and since we are on the topic of reverse searching. Here's something I'd remembered from my correspondence with Nick Horween, again reiterated below. From the Horse's own mouth

in reference to Viberg's reverse shell release.

Spoiler

Shell is in effect a form of roughout/suede. Grain side down, dermis later exposed

 

[darthsid11111]

Wow Harsh ! And I thought it was a rather informative & interesting discussion we were going into.

Those are my own pics btw, nothing "stolen"

Spoiler

but since we are on the topic of Googling/using the the Search function. If you had bothered then you'd know that I have shell pairs as well.

and since we are on the topic of reverse searching. Here's something I'd remembered from my correspondence with Nick Horween, again reiterated below. From the Horse's own mouth

in reference to Viberg's reverse shell release.

Spoiler

Shell is in effect a form of roughout/suede. Grain side down, dermis later exposed

Your argument is invalid. Your post cow is too high. You are not uppity enough.

Sent from Samsung GT-I9506 using GAGT

 

[thundermarch]

Christ, man.
First of all, in humans, at least, the subcutaneous layer is not part of the skin. That's why it's called SUB - CUTANEOUS.
A standard search on Latin interpretation will give you a good answer.
I'm really not interested in arguing. I've already told you what leather is. At least, what the PROPER definition of PROPER leather is.
Give it a think yes.
I say again. For your benefit.
Shell comes from a layer DEEP to the epidermis.
Once again,
This means, there is NO EPIDERMIS.
NO. EPIDERMIS.
NO. GRAIN.
Now, why is the epidermis IMPORTANT?
And what is the FUNCTION of skin.
It's strong. It has high tensile strength for its weight. It is a barrier that protects its owner from it's environment. Same for humans and almost ALL land animals.
And these are properties that are RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT in the FUNCTION of leather, if not absolutely essential. ESPECIALLY in leather for shoes.
The dermis is important for the SECONDARY functions of skin. The presence of glands, thermoregulation to some extent. All NOT IMPORTANT to the FUNCTION of leather. It does add some strength to what the epidermis offers, but not a whole lot.
Take away the most important part of something, what do you call what's left behind?
Offal? Crap?
Bottom line is.... you can call it what you want, nobody's stopping you. You can call it fairy dust if you want. I don't care.
Whatever abomination it is, it's not leather, at least not to me.
Have a chat with DW on what he thinks of shell, and what are the strict definitions of leather is.....
And think about this, why are split suedes regarded as inferior to reverse calf? Why is corrected grain "leather" (with most of the epidermis removed or buffed off from imperfections) regarded as inferior.
What's missing there?

 

[JoePilot]

Wah...all these discussion abt horse pigu...

 

[darthsid11111]

Wah...all these discussion abt horse pigu...

Sometimes people take themselves too seriously.. Especially over a horse's ass. =D

Sent from Samsung GT-I9506 using GAGT

 

[BraveCloudy]

Shell is leather. But its roughout leather

the Grain is actually on the underside

Wow whats this?

 

[likehotbutter]

I think there is a technical misunderstanding on how the shell layer is revealed.

Shell isnt sanded down from the Grain side. Shell is sanded down from the roughout side.

and since I'm still in office waiting on a trade, here's a lovely pic. Blue: Epidermis. Green: Dermis. Yellow: Sub-Cutis

The cordovan superficial layer covers the entire horse hide. The Cordovan accessory layer only occurs on the butt & shoulders.

So what we see as shell is the exposed Cordovan Accessory layer, with the Epidermis intact opposite. Essentially a form or suede/roughout.

Nick Horween said so himself as well. The grain is actually on the reversed.

 

[likehotbutter]

Wow whats this?

The backside of shell. aka the Top Grain

 

[thundermarch]

I'm tired of this "debate". I promise this will be my last post on this matter.
I'd much rather talk about shoes than some crap material.
I'll just reiterate. There is no epidermis in shell. No "technical misunderstanding" here.
In his little mind, Nick probably has his own definition of "grain".
Moreover, every tannery, every product owner for that matter, will always advertise their product as "best".
I'm wary of marketing speak.
Think about this, why the fxxk are there so many lasting issues with shell? And why are some makers hesitant to use shell for models that are otherwise no problems with regular calf?
Because shell is a crap material. And does not have the tensile strength properties and capabilities of calf. Properties of PROPER leather.

 

[patryn33]

I'm tired of this "debate". I promise this will be my last post on this matter.
I'd much rather talk about shoes than some crap material.
I'll just reiterate. There is no epidermis in shell. No "technical misunderstanding" here.
In his little mind, Nick probably has his own definition of "grain".
Moreover, every tannery, every product owner for that matter, will always advertise their product as "best".
I'm wary of marketing speak.
Think about this, why the fxxk are there so many lasting issues with shell? And why are some makers hesitant to use shell for models that are otherwise no problems with regular calf?
Because shell is a crap material. And does not have the tensile strength properties and capabilities of calf. Properties of PROPER leather.

Christ, man.
First of all, in humans, at least, the subcutaneous layer is not part of the skin. That's why it's called SUB - CUTANEOUS.
A standard search on Latin interpretation will give you a good answer.
I'm really not interested in arguing. I've already told you what leather is. At least, what the PROPER definition of PROPER leather is.
Give it a think yes.
I say again. For your benefit.
Shell comes from a layer DEEP to the epidermis.
Once again,
This means, there is NO EPIDERMIS.
NO. EPIDERMIS.
NO. GRAIN.
Now, why is the epidermis IMPORTANT?
And what is the FUNCTION of skin.
It's strong. It has high tensile strength for its weight. It is a barrier that protects its owner from it's environment. Same for humans and almost ALL land animals.
And these are properties that are RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT in the FUNCTION of leather, if not absolutely essential. ESPECIALLY in leather for shoes.
The dermis is important for the SECONDARY functions of skin. The presence of glands, thermoregulation to some extent. All NOT IMPORTANT to the FUNCTION of leather. It does add some strength to what the epidermis offers, but not a whole lot.
Take away the most important part of something, what do you call what's left behind?
Offal? Crap?
Bottom line is.... you can call it what you want, nobody's stopping you. You can call it fairy dust if you want. I don't care.
Whatever abomination it is, it's not leather, at least not to me.
Have a chat with DW on what he thinks of shell, and what are the strict definitions of leather is.....
And think about this, why are split suedes regarded as inferior to reverse calf? Why is corrected grain "leather" (with most of the epidermis removed or buffed off from imperfections) regarded as inferior.
What's missing there?

You care way too much

 

[patryn33]

This is just me, but if I'm shelling out > $1000 on a pair, I'd either go with Enzo calf and keep the change, or top up some more and go with Meccariello.
After wearing them, my navy shell wholecuts are probably one of my biggest regrets.

1) Shell has an annoying plasticky tacky sheen.
2) Feels stiff and wears stiffer than good regular calf.
3) Shell is not even leather in the first place. And thus has no grain, no surface texture to speak of.
4) The "rolls" look like crap.
5) Has a ridiculous up charge (Wtf for, really). Just because it's "rare"? Gold painted s**t is rare too. Will I pay money for it? F**k no.
6) Shell looks like s**t after some rain.
7) Shell's original use wasn't even intended for shoes in the first place. But rather as strops for barbers. Imo, it should have stayed that way. (This is a minor point).
8) Gimmicky, gimmicky, gimmicky.

Sell your shell away, such big regret and hate. Divorce your shoes! Get yourself a real thing

 

[ecwy]

I disagree. There is a difference between flesh out and rough out. Inside out =/= rough out. Rough out usually implies suede of some form that is normally not shaved/split down i.e. reverse calf.

At best you can call shell some form of "reverse-split". Calling it roughout or suede when the whole inside layer has been sanded off is incorrect imo.

Anyway, all shell colours fade/darken to a similar shade over time. It is one of the greatest waste of money to purchase "rare" shell colours imo.

Personally, I get more pleasure out of polishing my calf shoes than wasting time dealing with wet marks and the rough "pimples" of shell. Well unless one likes the Alden shell which is basically covered with some acrylic glaze. Shell is pretty good for **** kickers though.

 

[ivanswk]

so much luv for shell, sharing mine

 

[likehotbutter]

Damm whats with all the angst today

DWF is travelling for a couple of days, I'll share his ideas when he's back in town

At best you can call shell some form of "reverse-split". Calling it roughout or suede when the whole inside layer has been sanded off is incorrect imo.

You're right

Thats a more succint way to describe it

 

[darthsid11111]

so much luv for shell, sharing mine

Nice shoes! Just what this thread needs.

Sent from Samsung GT-I9506 using GAGT