The wood used in shoe trees

[Salvatore123]

Shoe trees appear to serve two primary purposes: (1) keeping the shoe's shape as close to new as possible after wearing them, and (2) helping draw moisture out of the inside leather that one's feet perspire while wearing.

If what I say is correct, why do the upper end level of shoes (I own Lobb and Alden) appear to use hardwoods for their shoe trees such as maple?

Cedar, apart from its nice smell, appears to be cut, sanded a bit, and then nothing else. This makes sense regarding the moisture elimination, as cedar has very large holes (when viewed through a microscope, of course) throughout the wood, making it more porous and thus seemingly ideal for absorbing moisture wherever it touches a slightly wet surface.

I even tried a side by side comparison. I bought a piece of maple and a piece of cedar. I put both sticks (I cut them down to manageable sizes, but left them the same as the shoe trees in every other respect) into a container of water (one container for each type of wood). After one night, the cedar container had less water than the maple container. As I sealed the containers, evaporation was eliminated as a possible cause (even if I had not done this, it seems evaporation would have been equal if they were placed side by side in the same environment).

My father is a carpenter and he assures me that maple, cherry, oak (or any of the other hardwoods) are NOT going to absorb much of anything.

Yet, I see these hardwoods in Lobb, Edward Green, etc. I have seen some Edward Green shoe trees that appear to be varnished - this would make absorbtion even more difficult if not impossible.

Can someone explain to me what may be painfully obvious but that I am overlooking?

Thanks,

Sam

[Taxler]

You're not overlooking anything.

[Cary Grant]

Because (as has been pointed out here many times before) item #2 "draw the moisture" is a myth. Shoe trees serve one purpose: keep your shoes shape. Any manufacturer that says otherwise is just marketing and old misunderstanding/wive's tale.

[Orgetorix]

Because (as has been pointed out here many times before) item #2 "draw the moisture" is a myth. Shoe trees serve one purpose: keep your shoes shape. Any manufacturer that says otherwise is just marketing and old misunderstanding/wive's tale.

So cedar loses its moisture-absorbing properties when it's cut into the shape of a shoe tree?

[culverwood]

This moisture absorbing conundrum has confused me.

So if you put your cedar trees in and they absorb moisture the moisture stays in the trees? If so after a few uses the wood has absorbed all it can and will absorb no more, if not the moisture is expelled where? Back into the shoes.

I am with Cary Grant and was told by Cleverly not to use shoe trees initially if ones shoes are wet but to stuff them with paper and lay them on their side (so that the soles can dry more quickly) until they have dried and then to put the trees in.

[Salvatore123]

When I started the post, I was thinking of the amount of moisture a foot gives off during a normal day of wear (one column claimed 8 oz. per day - that is quite a bit of moisture).

Now, if the upper of the shoe gets immersed just shy of the opening in a pool of water while walking, or, heaven forbid, the you step in a whole so deep that the shoe is entire immersed and water is sloshing in your shoe, I, too, have heard that the recommended drying out process is to leave them in a well ventilated room with good air circulation and stuffed with either newpaper or old cloths.

I am still looking for someone who advocates the use of a shoe tree as a moisture remover (NOT water as described above) in addition to a shape restorer, but using trees made of wood that clearly do not absorb anything.

Edit - P.S. - I am NOT knocking the cedar shoe tree store that has a member of this forum and from whom I bought my trees to use in my Aldens (my Lobbs come with trees - the non-absorbing, hardwood kind). I think their shoe trees are excellent in quality and are reasonably priced.

[flatline]

Perhaps the cedar doesn't absorb the moisture into itself. Perhaps the porous nature of the wood simply aids natural evaporation and acts as a breathable wicking material, like a good thermal undershirt. If this were the case however, I'd still be confused by varnished or hardwood shoe trees.

[Salvatore123]

Even more perplexing is that, at least in my estimation, the better the shoe brand (Lobb, Green, Weston), the fancier the tree with varnish, high quality chrome/brass o-rings for removal, hinges that allow the trees to "double-up" somewhat, and hard wood - none of which seems to be playing a role in moisture removal.

If not for the obvious and plausible goal of keeping the shoes in as close to original SHAPE as possible, I think that a cool breeze from a fan blowing room temperature air at an angle so that it is not directly blown into the shoe will probably dry them out faster than using newspaper or cloths.

During a rainy day, I make it a point to wear my Aldens. When I get home from work, I wipe the uppers with the towel I used to dry off that morning after showering (it is just wet enough to remove any dust or rain/mud smears, without any soap or other possible harmful ingredient), put in my cedar trees, and then lay them on their sides for a couple of days so that the leather soles dry quicker.

[unmodern]

If moisture wicking is a myth, why make them out of wood at all?

[Flanderian]

Perhaps the cedar doesn't absorb the moisture into itself. Perhaps the porous nature of the wood simply aids natural evaporation and acts as a breathable wicking material, like a good thermal undershirt. If this were the case however, I'd still be confused by varnished or hardwood shoe trees.

Sounds like the fullest and most likely explanation of the issue. And the most likely reason for the hardwood and sealed trees is appearance and custom.

[Orgetorix]

It'd be interesting to do a test on whether the moisture absorption, if it happens, makes any difference. Buy two pairs of identical shoes, wear them with equal frequency, keep one on unfinished cedar trees all the time and the other on varnished trees all the time. After a year or two, see if there's any difference in condition.

[Tbone]

This moisture absorbing conundrum has confused me.

So if you put your cedar trees in and they absorb moisture the moisture stays in the trees? If so after a few uses the wood has absorbed all it can and will absorb no more, if not the moisture is expelled where? Back into the shoes.

I believe the wood would dry out when the shoes are in use, thus "refreshing" them for the next time they are placed inside a pair of shoes. This, of course, would depend on the relative humidity of the day.

[Groover]

I even tried a side by side comparison. I bought a piece of maple and a piece of cedar. I put both sticks (I cut them down to manageable sizes, but left them the same as the shoe trees in every other respect) into a container of water (one container for each type of wood). After one night, the cedar container had less water than the maple container. As I sealed the containers, evaporation was eliminated as a possible cause (even if I had not done this, it seems evaporation would have been equal if they were placed side by side in the same environment).


Can someone explain to me what may be painfully obvious but that I am overlooking?

Thanks,

Sam

Sure, you're not getting out enough.

[yid]

so it does not matter what shoe tree i buy? if so go for the cheapest one on the market.

[Nerev]

so it does not matter what shoe tree i buy? if so go for the cheapest one on the market.

The primary purpose of the shoe tree is to keep the shape of the shoes. If the cheapest in the market keeps the shape of the shoe, than yes the cheapest one will do.

As far as the OP said, Lobbs, EG, Cloverly using hard wood or varnashed, I don't see how it would be a problem. Rotating shoes is what is important because I highly doubt even the best shoe tree, reguardless of wood, will get the moisture out of uppers as much as simple resting time. 2 days rest with hardwood, varnished shoe trees > 1 day rest with cedar shoe tree. And most people that buy high end shoes, hell even lower spectrum of the high end (AE, Alden, C&J) have multiple pairs of shoes. I don't even wear the same pair a week because I've got so many in my rotation.

[chrstc]

Hello,

I'm puzzled by all the conflicting advice on this issue too. For example here's a statement from the shoe trees page on the Jason Amesbury bespoke website:

"Trees can be of a two or three parts construction and are polished to prevent the inside of the uppers and sole sticking to it as the footwear dries".

On the other hand I was told by Springline (who make most of the shoe trees used by the London bespoke makers and most of the Northants factories) that varnished trees were a very bad idea (including the ones they make for RLPL/EG) and they found that they were very difficult to get in and out of shoes when used.

The lack of a coherent message on this issue is annoying.

Chris.

[sowilson]

As someone who works with wood on a frequent basis (and some leather) building furniture, turning, steaming, and bending let me make a few comments.

1) Wood moves generally due to changes in moisture (relative humidity). Given enough time wood moisture content will reflect the environment it's in.

2) Leather reacts to moisture and will absorb moisture or dry much quicker than wood.

Although wood will absorb moisture and move it's not going to do so in a way that will help dry your shoes so a shoe tree is only acting as a form for maintaining shape as the leather dries.

So why Cedar and why do some shoes trees not made of Cedar have a finish?

Cedar has a few properties that make it a good choice to construct a shoe tree out of;

1) It's dimensionally stable (doesn't change dimensions much with changes in moisture).
2) It's strong, 80% of the strength of Oak
3) It's easy to work and machine - just what you need when shaping a complex shape like a foot.
4) It's naturaly resistant to rot and decay when placed in high humidity environments or exposed to water. It's this property that makes it great for lawn furniture and is why you would want to use it for shoe trees.
5) It's generally free of sap and tanins which will stain other materials (not all cedar's but many, much better than oak).

So, if I use Cedar to make a shoe tree then I don't need to finish it to protect it from the moist environment of a just worn shoe. If I choose another wood such as oak, maple, elder, etc that is less dimensionally stable and susceptible to rot then I would take the precaution of finishing the shoe tree to protect it from the hostile environment of a moist shoe.

[MF177]

It isnt just wearing your shoe that adds moisture to the leather. As the total moisture in the air changes and thus the relative humifdity move up and down, all the substances in your house do likewise. When the temperatire shifts to cold dry air, all your books, your shelves, your furniture, your clothes, your shoes, and possibly your sheetrock (although im not clear how paint affects that) begin to lose moisture. After a couple of days the materials are very dry. The reverse happens in humid weather. Materials absorb moisture from the air on days of high relative humidity particularly if the absolute amount of moisture in the air is also high (as measured by the dewpoint).

Standard engineering texts publish 'moduli' which give the length / dimension change of various manmade and natural fibers at different moisture contents.
For example oak tanned leather soles at 70% relative humidity and 75F
have an average mositure content of 21%. At 80% and 75 degrees it is 24%. At 30% humidity mositure content is only 11.2%. At various moisture contents the leather expands and contracts as does the wood in your shoe trees. And you can look up these moduli.

And remember after your shoes give up the mositure your feet put into them, they will only fall back to the ambient moisture content. In a place like NY its actually easier to air a shoe in the winter than in August. And when your shoes give up that moisture they contract.

Good air circulation should be enough to dry your shoes; it is probably nearly always better (for drying purposes only) than having trees in. But with the trees in, your shoes will re-contract around the tree shape, which is the whole reason you use them. Opening the tongue and having good air flow will allow the leather to respirate the water vapor more quickly than any tree i can think of- as said tree will impede air flow. But you want the shape of the tree and you want your shoes to re-form in a good way. You might as well use a wood with better absorption properties than worse, and trees that smell good and resist rot. But it's not absolutely necessary.

as sowilson said
Cedar has a few properties that make it a good choice to construct a shoe tree out of;

1) It's dimensionally stable (doesn't change dimensions much with changes in moisture).
2) It's strong, 80% of the strength of Oak
3) It's easy to work and machine - just what you need when shaping a complex shape like a foot.
4) It's naturaly resistant to rot and decay when placed in high humidity environments or exposed to water. It's this property that makes it great for lawn furniture and is why you would want to use it for shoe trees.
5) It's generally free of sap and tanins which will stain other materials (not all cedar's but many, much better than oak).

[KennethB]

Out of curiosity, what happens to shoes if you don't use trees?

[flatline]

Out of curiosity, what happens to shoes if you don't use trees?

[Musick]

I use cedar trees (exclusively) for the following (in order of importance to me):

- hold shape
- deodorize

Im sure they absorb a bit of moisture, but likely not too much. Perhaps placing them in an oven under low heat periodically may help to "rejuvenate" the trees to some extent (???) by evaporating accumulated H20 .... I dont know for sure - just throwing that out there. Based on my average use, I dont really care much about moisture absorption - my lifestyle and body chemistry dont put too much perspiration into my shoes.

[Musick]

Out of curiosity, what happens to shoes if you don't use trees?

Many moons ago, I didnt use trees. Those shoes definitely lost their shape after a year. Also, they seemed to develop cracks in the leather much quicker than my current arsenal of footwear.

Trees are cheap considering they can be used for a lifetime - why not use them? Seems like a good investment to me.

[brokencycle]

Then why not use plastic trees? The great Andy has stated using plastic is a poor idea.

[upnorth]

The best option for me would be some form of inflatable material that would fill up the spaces in the shoes perfectly.

My experience is that lacquering and using hardwood (those offered by better shoe brands) helps preserve and protect the shoe trees, from chipping, excessive moisture entering the wood and damage. The disadvantage being that the trees then tend to be a little "sticky" and difficult to remove from the shoes.

My unlacquered cedar shoe tree which I've sanded down for over 8 years seem to have lost half a size. For some strange reason, my colleague's pair has also seen the growth of some whitish fungi over the years. This may have been prevented by lacquering to prevent moisture from entering.

If your father was a carpenter, I think he would also agree that treating the wood adds years of durability to the furniture. However, in the case of shoe trees, it seems that the best of both worlds cannot be had.

[Musick]

Then why not use plastic trees? The great Andy has stated using plastic is a poor idea.

Wood is natural. Plastic is the devil. Also, plastic absorbs no odor.

Its like automatic vs. quartz watches IMO. Soul vs. soulless.

YMMV.