I hope you've noticed by now the sarcasm directed by the regular posters at Aisyoz's reply.
My simple opinion is that a rubber sole is cheap to replace, whereas leather resoling, especially by Church's, is expensive. More importantly, I'd never wanna risk slipping on a wet floor in rainy Singapore. Leather soles are really slippery on carpet too.
+1. I personally feel more 'secure' with rubber soles, regardless wet or dry weather.
Despite all the (subjectively) obvious reasons why rubber-ed soles are more practical, high-end shoes continue to use mainly leather soles. Rubber soles from such brands are mainly associated with country shoes or boots. Apart from helping to keep a sleek silhouette (which I believe would not be sacrificed with the use of rubber-ed soles, given technology advancement in this day and age), I personally don't see other good reasons for shoe-makers sticking with leather soles.
I suspect it's the romanticism of traditional shoe-making e.g. closed channel soles etc at work (and not forgetting the higher prices one can consequently charge too). Technology is a like a dirty word threatening to kill off traditional craft... so cry the purists.. (IMHO)
Quite an irony when consumers end up doing a topy by themselves. Or perhaps it's just a Singapore-specific (or F&G thread specific) habit? really curious...
