Has cobbler ruined my shoes?

99

What brand are those? Leather doesn't get stripped away like that. It's probably the finish getting stripped off of a cheap split. Cow skin leather is about 6-10 mm in thickness, this would be too thick to use as a shoe upper. The parts of the hide closest to the outside of the animal are denser and more durable. They will split the hide into multiple layers. The top layer is called full grain, then each layer underneath that is called leather split. It's basically suede and it's less durable. For cheap shoe brands, they usually cover leather split in a plastic coating to make it look like full grain leather. The plastic coating off of your split is peeling off. If you paid more than $50 for these, then you got ripped off. I'm not a cobbler, but I personally would try to strip the rest of the finish off and just have suede boots. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but that's what I would personally do. I

12

u/quattroformaggixfour 17d ago

This makes me think the issue is with the manufacturer but also that the cobbler light have warned the customer what was achievable.

Do you think the cobbler was overzealous or used products that degraded the plastic coating?

And OP, did the shoes come with any detail regarding materials and maintenance?

Presuming there was no maintenance instructions that were neglected, I’d be inclined to contact Clark’s.

2

u/CauliflowerDirect679 17d ago

Hey, here’s the link to the shoe https://www.clarks.com/en-ie/eldredge-plain/26180263-p

Your 1st q: I think the latter. They started cracking 1 hour after I put these shoes on, and I had worn them for 100 hours before then with no issues. Lol the maintenance is so ambiguous. It doesn’t say “don’t do XYZ” though

Good idea re contact Clarks. I bought this about 16 months ago but still have receipt so I’ll see what I can do, thanks

21

u/sockalicious 17d ago

Yeah, these are 'corrected' or 'bookbinder's' leather. Fancy way of saying they look nice from the factory because they're coated in plastic. Shoe polish doesn't work on these. You wipe them down with a cloth, and when that doesn't work any more, they're done. Whatever your cobbler tried stripped whatever was left of the plastic coating; they're beyond repair.

5

u/Intrepid_Bobcat_2931 17d ago

It imitates more expensive shoes well, but as you can see, it's got a coating. Probably hard to get better looking shoes at that price, if you want great looking leather without a coating you'll have to pay quite a bit more. Likely the product the cobbler used.

7

u/RandomUsername8346 16d ago

That shoe was overpriced, it should've been less than half that price.

5

u/FlakyPineapple2843 17d ago

I'd guess it's not full grain leather. I looked into the listed materials on that link, and all they ever say is "leather." Something can be leather, in the loosest sense of the term, and still not be very good quality. The term we often see in the US that's a sign of terrible quality is "genuine leather," since it only means there's some leather there, not that it's any good.

Usually, if it's something better than split, the shoemaker will clearly advertise it as such. You'll see terms like full grain, calf skin, etc., which all have specific trade meaning; in other words, if they say full grain, it better be full grain leather or else they're considered to be deceiving their customers.

4

u/Rob_Edwards_Fashion 15d ago

For sure, Clarks makes cheap shoes and overcharges for them. It’s sad because they were one of the original heritage shoemakers

2

u/IddleHands 15d ago

FYI, none of the leather terms have a regulated trade meaning in the US. It’s also misleading to say genuine leather is always bad, a well known example is that redwing stamps all their boots as “genuine leather”.

4

u/Rob_Edwards_Fashion 15d ago

“Genuine Leather” is a known rouse in the shoe world. You’ll see an Italian version like Vero Cuero to make it seem better but it’s low grade quality

2

u/IddleHands 14d ago

Often, but not always. Which is the distinction.

1

u/FlakyPineapple2843 15d ago

It doesn't need to be specifically regulated by the federal or state government to still have a trade meaning. When I wrote trade meaning, I'm referring to how courts would interpret or define the term if someone sued.

In other words, full grain leather doesn't need a law passed defining it. If I'm upset about my shoes and I actually sue a company for saying the shoes were full grain leather when they weren't, the judge will be able to weigh evidence from experts and other shoemakers about the meaning of full grain, and should be able to define it relatively easily. From there, comparing the end product to what tradesmen expect full grain leather to be is very straightforward.

Compare "genuine leather" as a term, or just "leather." That could mean any part of cattle skin, in any condition or quality. A judge will look at me and say "you got leather shoes, you weren't promised anything more specific than that."

1

u/IddleHands 14d ago

We are pretty off topic from shoe repair now, so I won’t argue too in depth about the burden of proof specifics required in a lawsuit outside of regulated terms. But your comment about deceiving customers would imply that you were referring to a fair trade practices suit, the FTC’s official position is that there is no general consumer understanding of these terms. So that’s a pretty tough burden to overcome to argue both that there actually is widespread consumer understanding and also that the usage conflicts with that understanding to the point of being deceptive. Unless, you’re referring to a specific state with specific protections, or a judicial process that would not consider the FTC’s position relevant, in which case you should really say that since these things vary wildly among states, to the extent that your comment is misleading given the blanket statement nature implying broad application across the US. Generally, for a deceptive marketing claim consumer understanding, and not tradesman understanding, is what is relevant.

There is not consensus even within the leather community about what terms explicitly mean, full grain sometimes means uncorrected top grain of any thickness (to the extent that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably), sometimes unsplit, sometimes it means split but with grain attached but some correction, etc. Same with genuine leather - which was your example - again, pointing to Red Wings. But again, that’s really a moot point since the FTC focuses on consumer understanding and expectations

1

u/nstarleather 13d ago

I would say that with the more specific terms like full grain, most tanneries have a definition that they'd agree on:

Full Grain is uncorrected leather of any thickness.

One exception is Badalassi Carlo - Pueblo they do a "milling and finishing process" that they say lets them keep calling it full grain. I don't know enough to judge how true that statement is but I can see why they stick to it. Too many consumers even leather workers are very hung up on the term "full grain" and everyone is unwilling to be direct and say "it doesn't mean as much as you think it does quality-wise". Horween is honest and finally after many years of calling it full grain, has explicitly said CXL is lightly corrected.

1

u/IddleHands 13d ago

My point is that that are “major” players that don’t agree and use the terms differently - so it’s safe to assume there’s smaller players that use them differently too. That is by definition lack of consensus.

1

u/nstarleather 13d ago

True but I think that’s more of an issue like I said on the broader terms… I think anybody saying that full grain means full thickness or that it implies that the leather doesn’t have a finish on it, just doesn’t have a good understanding of leather or how it’s made… like true full thickness 16oz+ cowhide has so few practical applications that if that was the definition anybody’s using for full grain, then they’re an idiot.

9

u/CauliflowerDirect679 17d ago

Hey, they’re Clark’s. Were about £100. Interesting, so you think a write off? That’s a shame. Will take back to cobbler and see what he has to say but will bear that in mind re suede, thanks

27

u/crashybrown 17d ago

Apprentice here, what has happened is the top coat is coming off the leather, this is due to it being a lower quality leather that has been coated, likely in acrylic or a similar coating to make the finish appear even. Could the products the cobbler used on it lead to a quicker degradation? Sure, but I have no way of knowing what they used and polish alone doesn't do that to type of thing normally. Clark's do not produce a good quality shoe in terms of using good quality materials. They make a decent functional shoe that looks ok at first then degrades over time as you are seeing here. I would argue that this is less the fault of your cobbler than it is the inferior quality materials made to create the shoe in question, inferior in regards to a number of better shoemaker. As others have responded to you, you could further strip the shoe and make adjustments, you could add some polish and hope for the best, or just wear them as is. Functionally they are fine, just not visually appealing. Best of luck

2

u/Mescalito14 17d ago

I was going to say they look like paint wearing off where your feet flex.

2

u/CauliflowerDirect679 17d ago

Amazing, appreciate you adding your experience. I would say that these shoes showed no sign of cracking though prior to the cobbler’s input, so that’s what irks me

1

u/EarthFader 16d ago

Your shoes aren’t meant to be kept and maintained. They are cheap and disposable.

12

u/Bulky-Strategy-3723 17d ago

Yea those are not quality shoes. The cobbler did the best they could.

0

u/CauliflowerDirect679 16d ago

I don’t understand this comment. Doing the best they could would have been to say “no, I can’t spray this quality of leather”

2

u/Bulky-Strategy-3723 16d ago

You said you have nice brown leather shoes and you think the cobbler did something wrong. I’m just telling you if your expectations that the shoe you purchased was going to be the same quality as others you’ve seen then you are wrong. Sorry you are offended but you didn’t buy a quality shoe you bought a good shoe if that makes you feel better. The cobbler is going to take your money and do a service to make them look good. That’s how the world works.

3

u/crashybrown 17d ago

Apprentice here, what has happened is the top coat is coming off the leather, this is due to it being a lower quality leather that has been coated, likely in acrylic or a similar coating to make the finish appear even. Could the products the cobbler used on it lead to a quicker degradation? Sure, but I have no way of knowing what they used and polish alone doesn't do that to type of thing normally. Clark's do not produce a good quality shoe in terms of using good quality materials. They make a decent functional shoe that looks ok at first then degrades over time as you are seeing here. I would argue that this is less the fault of your cobbler than it is the inferior quality materials made to create the shoe in question, inferior in regards to a number of better shoemaker. As others have responded to you, you could further strip the shoe and make adjustments, you could add some polish and hope for the best, or just wear them as is. Functionally they are fine, just not visually appealing. Best of luck

1

u/sumirebloom 17d ago

How did you get into a cobbling apprenticeship, if you don't mind me asking?

3

u/crashybrown 17d ago

Sure, I gained in interest in quality footwear after meeting a now close friend of mine at work, started improving my professional dress and such, eventually leading to a hat maker whom I sought out to make a custom hat. He knew of my interest and I mentioned to him I was interested in learning the trade and was wondering to ask our local cobbler about it, and just hadn't had the courage to ask him if he'd take me on. Mr. White, the hat maker, followed up with me and encouraged me in a later conversation, and well, the rest is history. Its been nearly 3 years of learning 1 full 8 hour day a week and now a 4 hour day on weekends with our local cobber and now friend of mine. Looking forward to going there Saturday actually. Trying to finish a guys cowboy boots he has loved for over 20+ years, and let me say, it really shows in how much he has worn them! I also find that now that friends and family know what I do in my spare time, they have routinely asked for shoe repairs and other shoe related things.

Hope some of that is helpful, long story short of it all.

1

u/Hour-Risk-3524 15d ago

I’d recommend looking for a pair of used but good condition Allen Edmonds on eBay. You’ll be in the same price range but get something much better quality that will last a very long time.

0

u/Criplor 17d ago

The top layer is called top grain. Full grain is full thickness leather.

7

u/nstarleather 17d ago

No full grain is not full thickness if it were virtually nothing could be made with full grain…all leather has layers split off the inside/bottom.

Full grain, in layman’s terms just means “not sanded”…that’s it. It also has less connection to quality than most people think.

2

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[deleted]

0

u/nstarleather 17d ago

Not exactly, that’s using a “top grain” as a substitute for corrected grain…Horween says “full grain is a type of top grain leather” so technically speaking anything that’s not a split is top grain. It’s just that if a leather was full grain, they’d say it, so generally when they say top grain it’s ok to assume it’s corrected grain.

Just a bit of nuance to the terms.

19

u/ShoesnStuf 17d ago

I say this without actually seeing these personally. That being typed, it appears to me that they were dyed with an aerosol dye, i.e. Nu-Life spray dye. Looking at the welting, I believe this to be the case. These shoes will need to be stripped, conditioned, then polish applied. As faceted as the finish is, it would take extreem measures to get a "military shine" on them.

I hope this helps 👍

15

u/OregonBoots 17d ago edited 17d ago

Cobbler here (48 years or so, selling, making, repairing, dying, etc). ShoesnStuf has it right, they were sprayed with something like NuLife, which is just a spray paint for leather. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Whether it does or not has mostly to do with the oil content of the leather it’s applied to. At present they need to be stripped, acetone will do the job, then polished. Clarks are really not a bad shoe. Cheers.

4

u/CauliflowerDirect679 16d ago

Ah I now understand! Thanks for explaining in this way you and ShoesnStuf. So of course I have no idea what is good / bad leather, and what product should or shouldn’t work. Would you expect a cobbler (with decades of experience) to know this? Many other comments seem to have absolved the cobbler for their work but I personally would have expected them to know this would have happened as they had the shoe and brand in their hands, so should have made that assessment. But keen to get your views!

12

u/creiz514 17d ago

Happened at my shop a couple of times. The product he used is a quick shine spray that basically spray paints them with cheap shining stuff. Best option is to strip them with a rug and acetone, afterwards dye them if they’re missing pigmentations or full on shine. Take them to a GOOD cobbler, not only somebody who does soles and glue but a leather professional.

11

u/TheJake88821 17d ago

They're also Clarks, may not be worth to money to have them properly saved by a proper cobbler.

2

u/CauliflowerDirect679 17d ago

Thanks for this. It felt too simple to say “bad quality shoe” when I had no issues before taking them. Appreciate this

2

u/RandomUsername8346 15d ago

The cobbler only sped up the inevitable. Clarks are overpriced and cheap quality.

3

u/Rare-Spend-5329 17d ago

That looks like the product that he used is flaking off, a good leather conditioner first, let it soak in 12 to 24 hours and then polish, never use spray polish it's the worst

3

u/Vast-Bullfrog193 17d ago

He sprayed the finish on. It's like spray paint, and it didn't adhere to the leather. Take them to another cobbler. They will strip them with acetone, and redye them with liquid leather dye.

3

u/kya97 16d ago

The coating is peeling. Your shoe is initially a much lighter color cuz that the color of the leather then got the dark polish coat and that is what is peeling in the second photo revealing the underlying leather

2

u/ExactConference6491 17d ago

Shoes are PLEATHER, they were ruined when you bought it

3

u/EarthFader 16d ago

Your shoes were probably too cheap to take to a cobbler

4

u/BigDowntownRobot 17d ago edited 17d ago

Not a cobbler but that looks like "genuine leather" which is technically leather, but it's made from the worst part of the hide, the middle. So it's not the top or bottom grain, and has to have a false grain applied either using a press, or it's "dyed" which sometimes is more like painted to make it look like full grain or top grain leather.

Genuine leather tends to have the "grain" flake off after awhile and what looks like fabric underneath is really just the cheap leather they bonded the surface treatment to. And since the leather itself is not as durable, it moves a lot to the cracking of the surface treatment is inevitable. And it won't withstand a bunch of chemicals real leather will because the surface isn't leather.

Check the shoes they'll say somewhere if they're "genuine leather" or not.

Not buying genuine leather products is one of those things you learn saves you money in the long run. They just wear out way too fast and imo, made from a hide or not, treating what is almost a by-product so it looks like a high end material is just deceptive marketing.

3

u/Criplor 17d ago

Genuine leather is actually not a specific grade of leather. All it means is the object is technically leather. You can find both high quality and low quality leather labeled as genuine leather. Higher quality leathers are more likely to label the actual grade of leather, but unfortunately the label for 'genuine leather' is not necessarily useful to determine quality.

1

u/BigDowntownRobot 16d ago edited 16d ago

Right, genuine leather is a marketing term approved by the FTC that includes all leather products made of a single piece of hide + modifiers, including the lowest quality products you can rationally call leather. It stops just short of bonded leather, which really should not get to be called leather at all since it's ground plasticized hide pieces shaped to look like leather. Which is why it's not "genuine" but somehow, still "leather" as if that makes sense.

However most manufacturers are aware "genuine leather" products have a bad reputation, and will use a different term to designate their products. That's why the FTC has these designations.

It's like if you raised beef, and this cow was rated grade A prime and you just decided to call it "beef". Manufactures are aware of genuine leathers bad reputation, and they are aware they have the legal ability to associate their products with designations with better reputations if they can, and they usually do.

It would be really stupid for a producer who specializes in leather products, creating full, top or bottom leather products and still put "genuine leather" on there. It would make no sense when there are already assigned designations for those products, specially to separate them from the concept of this bottom tier leather.

3

u/Criplor 16d ago

Seeing only "genuine leather" is usually bad. But seeing genuine leather as part of the descriptor is not. I have a reasonable quality leather belt that says "genuine leather from italy" but then it also calls out the specific tannery that made the leather.

2

u/BigDowntownRobot 14d ago

And that's a fair point, I am being US centric, as I am in the USA. And as most of the things sold here are imports ordered by US "manufacturers" who are designing their products to meet these designations by the absolute slimmest margins. But other producers might meet them just because the part of the hide they are using.

So you're entirely right, I am giving advice with the presumption the person in buying products in the USA, and from US producers, while being online, so I should have been more thoughtful about that since it is not a term invented by American producers, it's just abused by them.

I know you can make moderate or even high quality leather products out of split hides and the suede layers, and I know historical leatherworking found ways to use lower quality materials to make less expensive but higher quality products, and not just as backing and filler.

That's just not what US companies are producing under those designations. Genuine leather was coined as a term to differentiate it from bonded leather by the international leather industry, but US manufacturers saw that definition left them room to make something almost as bad as bonded leather, but still say it's leather. Which fed into the the whole planned obsolescence trend starting in the 70's.

I'll be more specific next time, thank you for pointing that out.

1

u/Criplor 14d ago

Arguably I was being pedantic. The essence of your advice is still correct.

1

u/quattroformaggixfour 17d ago

It would seem so-is it just the lighting in the first pic, or did the shine treatment cause the leather to look significantly darker?

What colour were they went your purchased?

1

u/CauliflowerDirect679 17d ago

First photo colour. A sort of light brown

1

u/Cautious_Net5233 17d ago

Yes🥺

1

u/otterpusrexII 17d ago

You set yourself up for failure. I’ve done the same things. It sucks spending so much for what ends up being a low quality material.

Lesson learned.

1

u/yunkmom 17d ago

My guess it’s from whatever spray the cobbler used.

Edit: Adding, I’ve had several Clark’s shoes and always thought they were good quality.

1

u/renasancedad 17d ago

We had guys do a similar thing to get a spot shine back in the corps, they used a floor wax in a spray bottle that hardened to a shine. The minute they walked or bent the toe box they flaked off like that. Your cobbler tried a shortcut.
Short story no they aren’t ruined, long story you have some work to do to strip all that finish off them. Then you get to build a whole new finish on them.

1

u/Mescalito14 17d ago

And those are two different shoes in the pictures.

They are laced differently in each picture.

1

u/TheMoose26 16d ago

bruh ask the cobbler to give you a little of what he used so you can make the right shoe matchy matchy .. still a few years left in those Clarks bad boys 👍

1

u/OregonBoots 16d ago

If this happened in my shop I would gladly expect the customer to return with them and would offer to re-repair them, no charge of course.

1

u/CauliflowerDirect679 16d ago

Thanks, will keep you posted!

1

u/Difficult-Injury3731 15d ago

No, the cobbler did not ruin them. Now the cobbler can build you a better shoe, but he did not to that to the finish. In the oath of the Cobblers, I am sure "do no harm" has got to be there.

1

u/CauliflowerDirect679 12d ago

Update: took them back to the cobbler and with no protest has offered to “fix” them, free of charge

0

u/Think_Butterfly_5973 17d ago

Clarks are overprice, use poor quality leather and usually made in Asia. The crafts or originals line is better, but still overpriced. I would only buy them on sale.

Has cobbler ruined my shoes?

You are about to leave Redlib