Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Andy's Fashion Forum' started by StephenRG, Jul 2, 2018.
I think probably that cedar is more readily available and cheaper to harvest here than elsewhere.
I know EG uses lime wood and it works just fine. The important thing is that one is using something.
I prefer wood from endangered, old growth forests. I recommend anything from the Amazon.
1-I have not had a cedar shoe tree chip yet.
2-I buy “vintage” USA shoe trees made by Rochester for Florsheim, Nettleton, French Shriner and Urner ETC to go in my “NOS” shoes. I don’t think those are cedar. They seem to be different types of woods and have a “finish”
3- I was under the impression that the benefit of using unfinished cedar is moisture absorption.
What about those from the e-bay?
Cedar has a stong, pleasant scent, which is more pleasing to my nose than regular old foot stink. It also repels moths, which is a good bonus.
I've long known that cedar trees aren't magic, but when new, they do have a pleasant fragrance that they impart to the shoes' linings to some degree. The fact that they also are not harmed by moisture and even seem to have a resistance to growing mold, or any such thing, suggests they also may have other beneficial properties. Those aside, any unfinished wood tree should serve as well.
But while many experts insist that wood that has been sealed with varnish or anything else which is impervious to moisture is just as good, I disagree. Moisture that will be in the lining can precipitate on their surface and promote mildew, etc. (As in, I've had it happen! )
Edit: And I must add regarding Justin's accurate observation that cedar is a softwood, rather than hardwood, while true, I've never encountered a problem because of it, and am grateful to still have the use of my precious Shoekeeper brand cedar trees that I purchased new about 40 years ago and which still do their job beautifully in my footwear.
Based on a lifetime of experience, it seems to me "The Shoe Snob" is full of malarkey with his assessment of the desirability of cedar shoe trees, as compared with trees of alternative construction materials. Cedar trees have served me well and will continue to so for the remainder of my days....I suspect!
Well I own many, many pairs of cedar shoe trees and haven’t had any of them chip as he alleges.
I think a better post would be aimed at the fallacy of charging $160 for a pair of shoe trees like EG and G&G do. They don’t do anything the $18 pair of Woodlore trees on their way to me don’t do. Or perhaps a post on why he thinks his 37.50GBP trees function better than “cheap” cedar. News flash...they don’t.
I agree with this. As I posted earlier most of his assertions are not even true. The entire generational argument is false, since all the vintage American shoe trees I own are not even cedar, as far as I know.
As an owner of many pairs of cedar shoe trees, no I cannot attest to that. I have had no problems with my shoe trees chipping. (This little malapropism did make me snicker, because I did and do contest his thesis.)
His logic really seemed flawed to me.
1. North American shoe salesmen often work on commission, so
2. They try to increase purchase price, so
3. They recommend the least expensive shoe tree.
If his premise was accurate, wouldn't salesmen be pushing for more expensive woods?