what's wrong with corrected grain

[plotter]

My boxcalf Vass have a surreal shine and plasticy shine to it. Should I be concerned? However, they barely barely crease. Maybe this is a hallmark of Vass' workman's talents?

 

[Orgetorix]

High shine isn't a sign of CG, per se. The better the quality of full-grain leather, the better it will shine and the longer it'll keep a shine. I've seen some great full-grain shoes so highly shined they looked like they'd been varnished.

 

[Eagle]

Is there a way to effectively moisturize corrected grain leather? If not, wouldn't the normal aging and drying out of the leather lead to the premature deterioration of shoes constructed of corrected grain leather? Although I do have a pair of, several year old, Weejuns (corrected grain) that have been worn almost exclusively when the weather is crappy and, while sporting a few scuffs, they shoe no signs of premature or excessive deterioration!

 

[Get Smart]

the only CG shoes I wear regularly are my Dr Martens. The english made ones have a pretty decent CG leather, takes a good shine and ages fairly well. Otherwise proper shoes made from CG look horrible

 

[paper clip]

I had AE Sheltons because I love the black/burg. saddle style. These are $300 CG shoes and nicely made, but I couldn't get past how they wrinkle and crease - the wrinkles are tinier and pointier as has been mentioned, plus the phony sameness of the leather, even after a year of weekly wears. I liked the style and fit of them, but in the end, the CG-ness just got to me and I sold them. I won't buy CG, good or bad, again.

 

[KJT]

Originally Posted by paper clip

I had AE Sheltons because I love the black/burg. saddle style. These are $300 CG shoes and nicely made, but I couldn't get past how they wrinkle and crease - the wrinkles are tinier and pointier as has been mentioned, plus the phony sameness of the leather, even after a year of weekly wears. I liked the style and fit of them, but in the end, the CG-ness just got to me and I sold them. I won't buy CG, good or bad, again.

Are many AE's corrected grain? These threads make me paranoid.

 

[LesterSnodgrass]

I have a pair of Prada loafers that are made of a higher quality corrected grain. I have worn them occasionally for eight years and they still look great. They are my air travel shoe of choice. In fact, I wore them today en route to Pensacola. Incidentally, this town sucks.

 

[Falstaff]

Originally Posted by KJT

Are many AE's corrected grain? These threads make me paranoid.


No. Most are full grain. AE calls its corrected grain polished cobbler, and, as you can see by visiting their website, only a few of their shoes are available in this leather.

 

[KJT]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

No. Most are full grain. AE calls its corrected grain polished cobbler, and, as you can see by visiting their website, only a few of their shoes are available in this leather.

OK, thanks.

 

[Gutman]

Does this corrected grain business miss the point?

I presume most of the "hi--shine" finishes are some form of corrected grain (otherwise they wouldn't be that smooth). I have great quality older hi-shine shoes from C&J, Barker and Loake (ie, over 20 years old). My complaint is the soft, thin, porous leather used on much welted footwear today, even at the higher-end. I have some Church's Custom Grades, Oliver Sweeney and other shoes like this. Grensens and current 1880s look the same. They don't really take a polish, and any attempt at building a shine or patina quickly "overpowers" the leather. I can't imagine these shoes lasting well at all.

Is this just a trend towards softer leathers (for "comfort"), or is it just cheap crap leather?

It seems to me that the real issue is the quality of the leather itself, not whether the surface grain has had some "correction". Obvisouly I excluded bi-cast "leather" from this, which is suede covered in vinyl, and used on almost all cheap shoes. It's plastic and doesn't take a polish, and it eventually flakes. Total rubbish and not really leather at all.

 

[Ich_Dien]

Originally Posted by Gutman

Does this corrected grain business miss the point?

I presume most of the "hi--shine" finishes are some form of corrected grain (otherwise they wouldn't be that smooth). I have great quality older hi-shine shoes from C&J, Barker and Loake (ie, over 20 years old). My complaint is the soft, thin, porous leather used on much welted footwear today, even at the higher-end. I have some Church's Custom Grades, Oliver Sweeney and other shoes like this. Grensens and current 1880s look the same. They don't really take a polish, and any attempt at building a shine or patina quickly "overpowers" the leather. I can't imagine these shoes lasting well at all.

Is this just a trend towards softer leathers (for "comfort"), or is it just cheap crap leather?

It seems to me that the real issue is the quality of the leather itself, not whether the surface grain has had some "correction". Obvisouly I excluded bi-cast "leather" from this, which is suede covered in vinyl, and used on almost all cheap shoes. It's plastic and doesn't take a polish, and it eventually flakes. Total rubbish and not really leather at all.

Poor quality leather.

 

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Sanguis Mortuum

That doesn't actually look too bad.

? they look awful to me

 

[sho'nuff]

Originally Posted by Bird's One View

Fewer than a dozen wears.

that is disgusting. i lost my appetite.

are you for reals? only dozen wears? wow.

 

[Xiaogou]

Which manufacturers use CG?

 

[sho'nuff]

Originally Posted by Xiaogou

Which manufacturers use CG?

prada
cole haan
kenneth cole
bostonian
florsheim
johnston murphy
some AE models
list goes on