Chicago’s Last Tannery(thedistance.com)
thedistance.com
Chicago’s Last Tannery
https://thedistance.com/horween
38 comments
I have a friend who quit his day job working as a developer for a design agency. He now makes handcrafted leather products for men because he likes the satisfaction of working with his hands on physical products. Incidentally, Horween supplies all his materials. As you would expect from reading the article, it's quality stuff. If you're in the market for some cool products that will last a lifetime, check out starkmade.com.
Horween's Chromexcel is also used by Gustin for some of their wallets [1][2] and belts [3].
I have one of these wallet, the leather is really impressive. It's nice to get more details on it with this article.
[1] https://www.weargustin.com/store/495
[2] https://www.weargustin.com/store/622
[3] https://www.weargustin.com/store/654
I have one of these wallet, the leather is really impressive. It's nice to get more details on it with this article.
[1] https://www.weargustin.com/store/495
[2] https://www.weargustin.com/store/622
[3] https://www.weargustin.com/store/654
That's some impressive work; I've preferred a trifold wallet for almost twenty years, but now I'm thinking about whether it might be worth going back to a bifold again.
Thanks, how did he start or how did he get his first clients?
Hey there! I'm Erik, the guy behind J. Stark. I started by failing. I know that sounds funny, but I just started making things and learning 1 little piece to make better in the next iteration.
I worked nights and weekends. I'm still not able to support myself 100% with this venture, but I have my heart in it and I'm willing to hustle and grind until I can.
The first clients were free. Mostly friends and people I met that I asked what product they needed most. Then I went off and tried to make it. The reaction when someone holds something made by your hand is like a drug.
If you want to talk more about it, feel free to email me. info [at] starkmade [dot] com
I worked nights and weekends. I'm still not able to support myself 100% with this venture, but I have my heart in it and I'm willing to hustle and grind until I can.
The first clients were free. Mostly friends and people I met that I asked what product they needed most. Then I went off and tried to make it. The reaction when someone holds something made by your hand is like a drug.
If you want to talk more about it, feel free to email me. info [at] starkmade [dot] com
great stuff man, sending email tomorrow
I got Alden shell cordovans, which are made with Horween leather, and I can already tell that they will last years longer than my other shoes. Don't spend $100 on shoes every year, spend $600 on shoes that will last for 10 years.
> Don't spend $100 on shoes every year, spend $600 on shoes that will last for 10 years.
Honestly, if you take care of them, they'll last a lot longer than that. As mentioned below, I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old Florsheim shell cordovan shoes for $100. They've seen lots of wear but I wouldn't be surprised if they're in use for decades more.
Honestly, if you take care of them, they'll last a lot longer than that. As mentioned below, I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old Florsheim shell cordovan shoes for $100. They've seen lots of wear but I wouldn't be surprised if they're in use for decades more.
That's not always the best advice, though. What happens if my shoes get ruined after two years? I would have been better off with the cheaper shoes. What happens if my taste changes and I don't like boat shoes (or now I only like boat shoes)? I would have been better off with cheaper shoes. What happens if I lose a foot in an industrial accident? I would have been better off with cheaper shoes.
You can say the same thing about any large purchase.
Ultimately, you've lived long enough at this point to know your shoe wearing habits to some degree. If you're the type to wear a particular sneaker day in and day out and are disappointed with the way it falls apart, it might be worthwhile to invest in a better shoe. If you wear a pair of leather shoes once a year, it might make more sense not to splurge, but if you wear a cheap pair often they're going to wrinkle and dull very quickly.
Do what makes sense for you, but there's no point in trivializing high-quality goods because you don't "get" them.
Ultimately, you've lived long enough at this point to know your shoe wearing habits to some degree. If you're the type to wear a particular sneaker day in and day out and are disappointed with the way it falls apart, it might be worthwhile to invest in a better shoe. If you wear a pair of leather shoes once a year, it might make more sense not to splurge, but if you wear a cheap pair often they're going to wrinkle and dull very quickly.
Do what makes sense for you, but there's no point in trivializing high-quality goods because you don't "get" them.
Oh I'm not trying to trivialize it, and I do get it. I have some things in my life that I splurge on because I enjoy the higher quality. But I don't try to justify it as saving money, I justify it as buying something I want and can afford. I don't say I bought a $2000 MacBook because it will save money over a $500 laptop after I've used it for four years, I bought the MacBook because I like using it more than I like using a different laptop.
Buy $600 shoes if you want. But it's not always going to make economic sense to do so. I have a pair of $60 dress shoes that I've owned and worn for eight years now and they still look fantastic. I just don't wear dress shoes that much.
Buy $600 shoes if you want. But it's not always going to make economic sense to do so. I have a pair of $60 dress shoes that I've owned and worn for eight years now and they still look fantastic. I just don't wear dress shoes that much.
One can argue "what-ifs" ad infinitum with no real efficacy or usefulness. Comments of this ilk are completely unhelpful. The parent comment is merely saying that, if one plans on wearing a type of shoe for an extended period of time (dress shoes like an Allen Edmonds Park Avenue, for example, have hardly changed in decades), one might as well buy the best, and have it last for a long time. One actually saves money by doing so.
But if you decide you will wear the same type of shoes for 10 years and you think you will save money by buying the $600 shoes only to find they actually fall apart after two years, you're now spending $300 per year versus $100 per year. That doesn't make economic sense. The only way to know they will last for 10 years is to actually wear them for 10 years.
I think your comment is completely unhelpful, because you're dismissing my point by simply repeating what the other person said. "You save money because you save money". No, if your shoe gets destroyed before you've worn them for six years, you're losing money. You don't seem to have addressed that point at all.
I think your comment is completely unhelpful, because you're dismissing my point by simply repeating what the other person said. "You save money because you save money". No, if your shoe gets destroyed before you've worn them for six years, you're losing money. You don't seem to have addressed that point at all.
[deleted]
> One actually saves money by doing so.
This is what the disagreement is over, though: empirically, do most people taking this route save money, or do they end up spending more money in hopes of long-term savings that do not materialize? It depends strongly on the shoe, wearer, and various failure modes (and how repairable / expensive to repair each of those failure modes is). In my own case, I've generally found that the expensive shoes fail to save money, because even though they're more repairable, the cost of repairs eats up any savings, vs. just treating shoes as a disposable good (might be different if I lived somewhere with lower labor costs; around here even a simple resoling costs $50, and anything more involved starts at $100+). That might still be worth it if you prefer the nice shoes, don't like unnecessarily sending things to landfills, or other reasons, but for me, from a strictly cost standpoint I've found it hard to come out ahead.
This is what the disagreement is over, though: empirically, do most people taking this route save money, or do they end up spending more money in hopes of long-term savings that do not materialize? It depends strongly on the shoe, wearer, and various failure modes (and how repairable / expensive to repair each of those failure modes is). In my own case, I've generally found that the expensive shoes fail to save money, because even though they're more repairable, the cost of repairs eats up any savings, vs. just treating shoes as a disposable good (might be different if I lived somewhere with lower labor costs; around here even a simple resoling costs $50, and anything more involved starts at $100+). That might still be worth it if you prefer the nice shoes, don't like unnecessarily sending things to landfills, or other reasons, but for me, from a strictly cost standpoint I've found it hard to come out ahead.
It took me a second to think through the premise that $600 dollar shoes might make economic sense. My guess is that people who wear $600 shoes don't walk to work, or really walk much of anywhere, at least not in their $600 shoes. So, they probably do last longer and fulfill the social signalling or whatever other purpose said shoes fulfill. I don't think anyone wears's shabby old 9 1/2 year old shoes that originally cost $600. I suspect people usually wear $600 shoes so that others can tell that they are not price-sensitive regarding footwear.
I doubt it. People who want flashy shoes that people will notice spend money on more exotic brands, not Alden or Allen Edmonds.
Shell cordovan is a bit unique amongst shoe leathers. It is valued by the people who wear it primarily because of the way it looks. Shell doesn't develop creases when you wear it, it develops "rolls". It also (at least in colors other than black, like Horween's famous Color 8), develops a patina that leather made from cow hide doesn't. It looks much better with age.
I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old shell cordovan shoes for $100. They have seen lots of wear over the years, but are in great shape, and look amazing because of the afore-mentioned patina. That is why people pay that much for shell cordovan.
Shell cordovan is a bit unique amongst shoe leathers. It is valued by the people who wear it primarily because of the way it looks. Shell doesn't develop creases when you wear it, it develops "rolls". It also (at least in colors other than black, like Horween's famous Color 8), develops a patina that leather made from cow hide doesn't. It looks much better with age.
I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old shell cordovan shoes for $100. They have seen lots of wear over the years, but are in great shape, and look amazing because of the afore-mentioned patina. That is why people pay that much for shell cordovan.
Obviously they don't walk in damaging environments, but you should be able to repair the sole if it gets used.
Another thing to consider aside from price and looks is that the design (how it is supposed to react on your walk) is fundamentally different from "cheap" snickers. For instance it's way more rigid and doesn't twist. For some it helps their walking, for others it's an hinderance.
Another thing to consider aside from price and looks is that the design (how it is supposed to react on your walk) is fundamentally different from "cheap" snickers. For instance it's way more rigid and doesn't twist. For some it helps their walking, for others it's an hinderance.
Cordovan is not a fussy material. It is meant to be worn hard, everyday.
Not sure what the point of downvoting this was. I personally prefer nicer and more expensive stuff a lot of the time, but the economic argument in favor of it rings hollow to me. Your dog can eat $600 shoes as easily as $40 beaters from Target. Sometimes you will come out on top buying cheap, sometimes you will come out on top buying expensive.
If I was wearing leather shoes every day for work (let's say I'm a lawyer) I would actually prefer to settle on a style and just stick with that. Same goes for a quality suit. At some point, if you have a style, you go with it and that removes one more decision to make every day. As you age that stuff gets more important than following every meandering fashion trend.
That's interesting. Apparently Alden only started using Horween leather in 2012 [1], so my shoes (several years old) are made from some other leather.
[1] http://horween.com/?timeline-date=alden-becomes-a-customer
[1] http://horween.com/?timeline-date=alden-becomes-a-customer
That post is mistaken. Must be a timeline app that is showing when the timeline entry was created, rather than the content.
Alden has used Horween for years. In fact, they might be the biggest customers for shell.
Alden has used Horween for years. In fact, they might be the biggest customers for shell.
It's interesting the migration of trends from the hand-crafter (but expensive) to the mass-produced, but cheap, and then starting to come back to the hand-crafted, where it can be afforded.
I'm not sure if that is a natural cycle of fashions - or a choice that has become repopular by increasing affluence.
I see a lot of low-volume, handcrafted things growing in size, whether it is low-volume hand-crafted vehicle manufacturers (like Morgan), low-volume handcrafted products (like craft beer) and even low-volume, hands-on farming.
At this point I take the re-emergence of these things as a sign of growing affluence, where there is so much disposable income it can be spent on things which are off the cost/benefit ratio in comparison to competitors. Perhaps it is a swing away from owning large properties as a form of wealth consumption and more towards individual items, betraying a gradual lowering in the average age of people who are able to afford such things.
At any rate, it's an interesting phenomena to watch.
I'm not sure if that is a natural cycle of fashions - or a choice that has become repopular by increasing affluence.
I see a lot of low-volume, handcrafted things growing in size, whether it is low-volume hand-crafted vehicle manufacturers (like Morgan), low-volume handcrafted products (like craft beer) and even low-volume, hands-on farming.
At this point I take the re-emergence of these things as a sign of growing affluence, where there is so much disposable income it can be spent on things which are off the cost/benefit ratio in comparison to competitors. Perhaps it is a swing away from owning large properties as a form of wealth consumption and more towards individual items, betraying a gradual lowering in the average age of people who are able to afford such things.
At any rate, it's an interesting phenomena to watch.
I think the internet is enabling this trend. It allows you to bypass the middle man. The consumer is also able to educate themself on products more easily (because of the internet). So high-quality products are more affordable, but not necessarily cheap. It's awesome. You see this happening with everything from Warby parker to Tonx coffee to clothing startups like Frank & Oak.
My company, Original Fuzz, just launched a guitar strap that uses Horween leather (http://www.originalfuzz.com/products/skinny-leather-guitar-s...), and we could have never made it with Horween 10 years ago. We're able to sell it for $48 because we can find customers from around the world through the web. You don't have to do the traditional keystone pricing and leave room for retailers and distributors if you don't want to.
My company, Original Fuzz, just launched a guitar strap that uses Horween leather (http://www.originalfuzz.com/products/skinny-leather-guitar-s...), and we could have never made it with Horween 10 years ago. We're able to sell it for $48 because we can find customers from around the world through the web. You don't have to do the traditional keystone pricing and leave room for retailers and distributors if you don't want to.
A very good point. In order to match up the limited supply of handmade goods with the limited market of buyers, you need to have a long-tail searching tool, and the ability to tap into small but geographically dispersed consumers. The internet is indeed the glue that brings this together, probably moreso than rising incomes (which have been rising for a long time, anyway).
Go past the place quite a lot. Definitely know it's there, the stench!
I drive by all the time on Ashland. I just assumed it was another rotting piece of "Old Chicago" and would soon be turned into condos. Good to hear its a successful business.
I've never understood the need for putting the source of the article in the title of the submission. It's usually not important (I have no idea what The Distance is), it can be confusing (is The Distance the name of the tannery?) and it's printed literally right after the title of the submission (thedistance.com). I see it all the time, though, mostly on other sites like Reddit (Major Political Scandal Breaking - Forbes (forbes.com)).
Why?
Why?
Outside the context of HN, many sites put their name after the name of the article in the article's TITLE element (usually with a separator like a pipe or chevron) so that if the user bookmarks the article the site name is included in the text of the bookmark. That has value, though less than it used to now that browsers display the site's favicon with the bookmark.
In the context of submitting to HN, though, you're right, it makes no sense. My guess is that people just grab the content of the TITLE element and don't bother doing the extra work to strip the site name out.
In the context of submitting to HN, though, you're right, it makes no sense. My guess is that people just grab the content of the TITLE element and don't bother doing the extra work to strip the site name out.
The HN guidelines specifically ask submitters to take the title out:
If the original title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link anyway.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If the original title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link anyway.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Quite. We've edited the title accordingly.
just so you have more information about where you're going to be sent and the source of said article. It's that simple.
Doesn't the little gray "(thedistance.com)" after the title accomplish that pretty effectively, though?
If I had to guess, they just pulled the title from the title field of the page. Nothing to get knotted up about, though.
I'm a big fan of horween and alden. If you care about quality and craftsmanship, then I think the products are worth the price (even if it has gone up a lot in the past few years). It is possible to wear out cordovan, but you really have to work at it. Horween shell is an awesome material.
Anyone who is interested in some really fantastic Horween products (belts, wallets, bags, etc.) check out Mitchell Leather goods, another family owned multi-generational business:
http://www.mitchell-leather.com/
http://www.mitchell-leather.com/
Some day I will get one these bags made from Horween leather:
http://www.kaehler1920.com/shop/briefcases/leather-briefcase...