The London Lounge

uppercase wrote:I've got to admit that I'm crazy about the patination on Berlutis even as they come straight out of the box.

I think that the nicest patination or antiquing that I've seen is on Lattanzi, Kiton and Berluti.

The English makers like EG and CJ say that their shoes are 'antiqued' but only very minimally to my eye and certainly not to the beautiful level of other makers which, are works of art.

This makes me wonder, Is there a difference between patination and 'antiquing'.

Do the English makers use 'crust' leather which they later dye and color the same as these other makers like Lattanzi which achieve altogether outstanding results?

This was posted in a different thread, but I figured it would be a good topic. I generally am not a big fan of shoes that come pre-antiqued for just the reason that Uppercase suggests. However, I do have one pair that I find to have a truly stunning patina. They are a pair of Lattanzis that probably are not up everybody's alley, but I love them. Here they are:



Perhaps a thread about pre-antiquing versus natural patina would be interesting. Other than this one pair, I am firmly in the camp of natural patina.

to be fair i like both styles of patina and antiquing both are unique and can add a different feel and style to a wordrobe. my personal preference would be a more natural antiquing process such a EG's or Lobb's but i do like the style of the berluti et al. but i do think as iammat suggest it would be a great topic

I am not for too much antiquing that comes out of the box. EG is fine, but I saw some Mantelassi that overdone. As a concept, it is weird to see an otherwise brand new pair of shoes with patina.

I like natural patina, particularly on cordovan, best.

I am confused: what is antiquing and what is patination?

Antiquing, I I assume is a deliberate attempts to make the shoe appear aged. Through use of polishes and chemicals, even burying the shoes for a period.

Patination on the other hand is I think sort of mixing up different, contrasting colors in a shoe to give the appearence of depth or streaking.

Matt's great looking Lattanzis for example appear to me to be treated to look aged , but are not patinated, as I think of patination.....

Not sure about this.

uppercase wrote:I am confused: what is antiquing and what is patination?

My understanding is that patination is color depth and variation that occurs over time through natural use. Whereas, antiquing is a deliberate and contrived method of achieving the same effect. One requires time and the other technique.

So which of these examples are antiqued and which are patinated?

Not to play the fool, but I'll take a run:

sq. toe norwegian: Antiqued

cap toe : Patinated, lovely

wholecut: hand dyed on the last with beautiful "mottle" plus a couple years honest wear

new norwegians (looks like EG Eckton) : potential, sheer potential (needs to be ridden hard and put up wet once or twice and then rubbed with the balm of forbidden trees )

DDM

No, I don't know myself.

I was just wondering myself if one look is called patination and another look is called antiquing....I don't know.

On the first shoe, I think of that as patination. It is painted/polished on, using different colors and treatments, I would guess. I love it. The shoe comes looking like that straight from the shoemaker.

On the second shoe, the look is, as I think of it, more aged with just slight mottling variation in colors. Is this called antiquing?

On the third shoe, I think of it as patination because the look is different blendings of colors. Similar to the first shoe above.

On the fourth shoe, well, that is my shoe and you are right, it is pretty much new out of the box but it was ordered with 'heavy antiquing'; but I don't see any antiquing on it. I don't know what EG means by 'antiquing' in this case.

Anyway, I was just wondering what we mean by these terms.....?