Countdown of Leather Quality

I think there is one difference between material and spiritual things, that is, spiritual things may need aesthetic cultivation, while material things can basically be completed by senses.

For example, some people think Beethoven sounds good, while others think Justin Bieber’s songs sound better. I am for the former. I respect everyone’s choice, but from an objective and even historical point of view, Beethoven is good. But to appreciate this kind of goodness needs to be cultivated.

Place some material matter, such as an Aston Martin Valkyrie, in front of you. Whether you love cars or not, men and women will say that this is a good thing.

What about dress shoes? I think it’s material substance. Of course, if you look at the dress shoes of the men around you, you will doubt that dress shoes seem to be spiritual too.

In the eyes of people who love this thing, it is very easy to distinguish between good and bad, and besides the last, many places can’t be grasped and revealed easily to laymen, while leather is a thing that can make everyone judge whether it is good or bad.

Here I demonstrate it with my own shoes.

This sort is the top to down ladder of leather quality in my eyes.

It stands to reason that John Lobb under Hermes Group can naturally get the best leather in the world, and then the Prestige line will use the top leather in the top, so this level is the highest level in Ready to Wear shoes.

John Lobb Classic line, this is the museum calf from Ilcea. Maybe the photo makes people think that this is not as good as Chapel from Prestige, but when I actually wear it, I feel that there is no difference and it is the same level.

Paolo Scafora’s leather is also top-grade, and the fineness of creases after wearing may exceed the feeling given by John Lobb, while John Lobb’s leather feels softer and oily. There are still a lot of my subjective judgments here.

No one could tell that Edward Green’s leather is not good, because this is the most robust shoemaker in the dress shoes industry. I think the photo is the most deceptive, because it is the thinnest one here, even thinner than the Prestige line of John Lobb, but when it is really worn on the feet, the creases generated after walking will make the skin feel drier than Paolo Scafora’s.

By the way, the mirror shine of EG toe cap is the easiest to come out.

The existence of Saint Crispin’s tells me that perhaps delicacy is not the only criterion. The creases are obviously larger than those above, but the fullness of the skin oil, I think, is comparable to John Lobb.

Fratelli Rossetti, this leather gives me the feeling that it is mid-range, where the leather should be. Although this family is small, I think this leather can be said to be a benchmark in the mid-range.

The price of Vass is high in the middle end, at least in China, which is much higher than Crockett & Jones. But in Europe and America, the price may not be like this. In addition, Hungarian shoes are mainly sold by its hand working, which is particularly recognized by Europeans and Americans, so the price is very high.

Personally, I really don’t care so much about whether it’s handmade or not, but I especially care about leather. I think the level of this leather is not as good as Fratelli Rossetti. The fineness is not very good, but the degree of grease is very good. This may need to be studied.

Carmina, it may be inappropriate to put it after this, because the fineness and grease of this pair of shoes are not bad, and I think it is at least the same level as Fratelli Rossetti.

If you don’t think it’s so easy to distinguish the leather quality from the top to the middle, then the low-end Barker can definitely tell you what the so-called low quality leathers are like.

Summary

The two major costs of dress shoes are leather and labor, among which the cost of leather may not be lower than that of labor. Whether the shoes are worth it, leather can be used as the first judgment point.