or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Nick V.

You are wrong in so many ways I won't bother with it. I'm not from the "show me" state. If I recall you are. So you won't answer my questions. You just want me (us here in the forum) to accept things because you said so. Then you criticize and accuse people that except things only because someone else said it. The word is contradiction. I suspect the real reason you won't answer my questions is because you can't. You can't PROVE (I emphasize the word PROVE) any of what...
Well, if you are admitting that "one is not better than the other" then what is your point?If the concept of lock-stitching has been around for centuries and shoemakers never embraced it' then how/why is it still around?You never explained how a shoemakers stitch is "the most long lasting" While you are at it, how can you prove how "it is the tightest"? Are we just supposed to take your word just because you said so? FWIW our lock-stitching shows no grinning...
Yup....I'm there everyday for over 40 years. I'm not second guessing anything. I can't remember the last time a new welt that we did with that stitch failed because of the inseam stitching. I don't know the number but, I would venture to guess that it's in the 10's of thousands of jobs that I was responsible for. And you? I would guess at most it would a couple of thousand. If something fails it costs me time and money.I have no problem with you being a traditionalist and...
I partly agree and partly disagree....If we think we can improve we will. An example of this is as I mentioned in the thread you spoke of. If a shoe comes in for a re-craft and the sole was originally only cemented on in most cases we will McKay stitch it when we do the re-craft. Following your point, no, we didn't do the job to bring the shoe as close as possible as the original. However, there is no disputing the fact that we did the job better than the shoe was built....
I completely agree with this^^^
IMO cementing and stitching is the correct way of doing it. It's less likely that the sole will separate that way. Even still from time to time it can fail. Not often though....When we get a pair where the sole was attached using cement only we Blake stitch the new sole on whenever possible.On GY welted shoes I always recommend a full sole and we replace the foot-bed as part of our process. Why shouldn't we? We already have the shoe apart and that allows us to smooth out...
Jerk needle and lock-stitch. The same for gemmed.
I must say....This is quite an accomplishment! http://tx.click.allenedmonds.com/hostedmessage/message.aspx?2424010.820608.10316703981.5468
I hate 1/2 soles. I wouldn't put them on my own shoes so I wouldn't use them on a customer's shoes.In this case the stitches should have been pulled from the top of the welt not the bottom. This way you are ensuring that no fragments are left behind unpicked. Also the cork wasn't even touched let alone removed and replaced. You can see when the original sole was removed some of the cork stuck to the underside of the sole. At the very least the cork should have been patched...
B and C are a bunt. D isn't a clear enough picture to tell. I will say this though...in all three cases if it's only the welt is damaged it would be replaced using the original holes. Of course stitched by hand. In all three (from what I can see in the pictures) there is essentially no difference than stitching a welt to a shoe that was gemmed.
New Posts  All Forums: