or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Hand lasted vs machine lasted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hand lasted vs machine lasted - Page 8

post #106 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJman View Post
I see furo went to the Mafoofan School of Debate.
Furo's also right. He responded to DWFII's general claim about the relative difficulty of doing a job by machine with a counter example, which DWFII discounted with respect to an altogether different claim. Shifting like that is naturally frustrating to discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJman View Post
DWFII, are you familiar with the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby?
The problem is that determining who represents Brer Rabbit and who represents the Tar Baby in a debate is necessarily a matter of perspective prone to prejudice.
post #107 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Furo's also right. He responded to DWFII's general claim about the relative difficulty of doing a job by machine with a counter example, which DWFII discounted with respect to an altogether different claim. Shifting like that is naturally frustrating to discussion. The problem is that determining who represents Brer Rabbit and who represents the Tar Baby in a debate is necessarily a matter of perspective prone to prejudice.
You are like a mini-Socrates. Pass the Hemlock.
post #108 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tar Baby View Post
The problem is that determining who represents Brer Rabbit and who represents the Tar Baby in a debate is necessarily a matter of perspective prone to prejudice.

Insofar as basic literacy itself implies an imposition of perspective and prejudice on the part of the reader.
post #109 of 294
Thread Starter 
Just read the entire thread, thanks for all the responses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tidybeard View Post
Any particular advantage to hand lasting over machine lasting?


Er, do we have any suggestions?
post #110 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tidybeard View Post
Just read the entire thread, thanks for all the responses.



Er, do we have any suggestions?

Some fellow who worked at Trickers and was quite nice had some input about this a few years ago. Too tired to hunt for it, his username (on AKAC?) was Tricker.
post #111 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
I am quite sure. Not so much...there were men's makers and women's makers. But the difference was that men work often consisted of working with leather that was heavily pigmented with lamp black. Women's work was comprised of tapestry materials and silks and fine fabrics. A man who had lamp black under his nails could not work on a bone silk shoe. Aside from patterning what do you think is missing? Why is it that Lobbs of London (and many other makers of top shelf men's shoes characterize themselves as Bootmakers or Bottiers?

I read in an archive that in London the workers were more specialized than that and that certain shops were famed for particular work. Many of the old firms were originally known as bootmakers because boots were the footwear of the day ,with shoes becoming more popular later.
Womens work was also often made from kidskin and baby calf as well as fabrics
I would be very interested to see a John Lobb attempt at a western style cowboy boot.
Have you found high end shoemaking easy, does it involve more or less time or skill, can we see some sample pics of shoes please.
post #112 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJman View Post
Insofar as basic literacy itself implies an imposition of perspective and prejudice on the part of the reader.
I disagree. Even when the Tar Baby story is properly understood, the way it analogizes to real-life interactions still hinges on personal perspective. Brer Rabbit sticks to the Tar Baby as much as the Tar Baby sticks to him and they are equally entangled with each other at the end. One is not any more tenacious than the other. The only differences are that the narrative exposes us to Brer Rabbit's feelings, not the Tar Baby's, and we are told that the Tar Baby is part of a scheme to entrap Brer Rabbit. Thus, when you analogize the story, you are necessarily identifying differences in motivation, not behavior. Perceptions of others' unspoken motivations are highly unreliable and prone to bias.
post #113 of 294
Vass are hand welted and EG machine. I think Vass are somehow "nicer" but I can't explain quite why.
post #114 of 294
It's aggravating to me because especially in the case of Furo, we've had this discussion before with the exact same results. Quibbling,. speculation, and accusations of arrogance. I am a small fish in a small pond. Not even the proverbial big fish in a small pond. But it is my natural environment. I don't pretend to know much about anything other than shoemaking. I don't challenge people who are knowledgeable in other fields very much. I don't try to impose my preconceived notions on their areas of expertise/experience. I don't speculate and I don't pose and I don't quibble. I know the limits of my knowledge and the limits of my ignorance. In some areas it is vast and in others it is not so much. Now tell me what is arrogance? The willingness to sit down and share experiences and insights that might otherwise never be seen and do it with...mostly... good grace and patience; or the disrespect that is implied when someone who doesn't have any first hand knowledge of a subject nevertheless feels compelled to challenge and discount everything someone who has that knowledge has to say? Where is arrogance? I would suggest that the very definition of arrogance is ignorance that refuses to learn. Especially when presented with the opportunity.
post #115 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I disagree. Even when the Tar Baby story is properly understood, the way it analogizes to real-life interactions still hinges on personal perspective. Brer Rabbit sticks to the Tar Baby as much as the Tar Baby sticks to him and they are equally entangled with each other at the end. One is not any more tenacious than the other. The only differences are that the narrative exposes us to Brer Rabbit's feelings, not the Tar Baby's, and we are told that the Tar Baby is part of a scheme to entrap Brer Rabbit. Thus, when you analogize the story, you are necessarily identifying differences in motivation, not behavior. Perceptions of others's unspoken motivations are highly unreliable and prone to bias.

Food for thought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Vass are hand welted and EG machine. I think Vass are somehow "nicer" but I can't explain quite why.

Good observations, Manton.


- B
post #116 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
Where is arrogance? I would suggest that the very definition of arrogance is ignorance that refuses to learn. Especially when presented with the opportunity.

Your opinions have overall been treated with a lot of good will, respect and interest. Moreover, very early on you were effective in demonstrating that what many English speaking buyers think of as the apex shoes of RTW have certain attributes invisible to the buyer that represent quality inconsistent with what is shown in the visible parts of the shoe.

In addition, many sympathize with your feeling that the asymmetry of quality between what is visible and what is not in these shoes represents a kind of aesthetic compromise or even dishonesty that falls short of what we would hope to be ideal. Others, however, do not care, and are unable to muster that much energy of thought and feeling about shoes at this intricate level of analysis.

That being said, there are many well turned out guys who wear RTW Lobbs, EGs, Westons, Aldens, etc. who are neither crippled nor impoverished by the experience. Nor do I think it is conclusive that the Vass wearer is sitting pretty in the way that the Lobb Prestige wearer is not.


- B
post #117 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
It's aggravating to me because especially in the case of Furo, we've had this discussion before with the exact same results. Quibbling,. speculation, and accusations of arrogance.

I am a small fish in a small pond. Not even the proverbial big fish in a small pond. But it is my natural environment. I don't pretend to know much about anything other than shoemaking. I don't challenge people who are knowledgeable in other fields very much. I don't try to impose my preconceived notions on their areas of expertise/experience. I don't speculate and I don't pose and I don't quibble.

I know the limits of my knowledge and the limits of my ignorance. In some areas it is vast and in others it is not so much.

Now tell me what is arrogance? The willingness to sit down and share experiences and insights that might otherwise never be seen and do it with...mostly... good grace and patience; or the disrespect that is implied when someone who doesn't have any first hand knowledge of a subject nevertheless feels compelled to challenge and discount everything someone who has that knowledge has to say?

Where is arrogance? I would suggest that the very definition of arrogance is ignorance that refuses to learn. Especially when presented with the opportunity.

I think you're taking this discussion the wrong way.

I dont think its arrogant to want to have a discussion about something that someone is well-trained in and to argue a point, I think its just simply Furos way of understanding something, as it is many times.

I dont believe it fair for you to impose on us the idea that we should take everything you say as fact without debate. No one is discounting what your saying, IMO, they simply are trying to find out more information.
post #118 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post
I think you're taking this discussion the wrong way. I dont think its arrogant to want to have a discussion about something that someone is well-trained in and to argue a point, I think its just simply Furos way of understanding something, as it is many times. I dont believe it fair for you to impose on us the idea that we should take everything you say as fact without debate. No one is discounting what your saying, IMO, they simply are trying to find out more information.
I don't think I'm doing that. I have said many times even in this thread that my words are not written in stone. There are a few people whose opinions I value here who disagree with me. No big deal. We all are ignorant about some things. We all start out ignorant about everything. But determined, and self-satisfied, ignorance is another thing altogether. Bengal-Stripe is not a shoemaker. I doubt that he has ever even tried to execute more than one or two techniques common to shoemakers. Yet he has taken the time to learn and to educate himself about shoes. We don't always agree...sometimes we disagree vehemently. But I respect his opinions because he is informed and interested in more than just quibbling. He seems to read every post for content and not just points for controversy. I don't think it is arrogant to want to have a discussion about these issues, either. I wouldn't be here...an open book, willing to answer anyone and everyone...if I did. I just object when posts like the Harry Reid post are made. There is no understanding...no attempt at understanding...in such posts. When someone comes to a conversation, asking is the best way to gain understanding. But honestly, if you don't have a body of experience...if everything you know or think you know is second and third-hand or hearsay...then it is unlikely that we will have a language or a world view in common. Again, the only way to rectify that is to ask and to listen. Until that common language is established you're not going to understand what I'm saying and I may not understand you either. Quibbling about pottery--a non sequitur in the context of shoe factories, which I stipulated--is just that...quibbling. You can call it what you want but it doesn't make it germane.
post #119 of 294
While I thought it was incorrect to label DWFII as 'arrogant'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
I don't wear a kilt all that often...it is part of my family heritage but I would hardly call it "nativist" as I understand the word....maybe. I suspect if you saw me dressed up in my Sunday-go-to-meeting best, you would snicker, or at best, dismiss me from further consideration. I have an old hand me down Harris Tweed jacket and just this last Christmas I acquired a pair of wool slacks that cost me nearly $200.00. Before that I always wore a "reserved-for-dresst" pair of black Wranglers. Day to day it's jeans and shirts. I like, respect and admire fine clothes...unfortunately hand shoemaking is a 19th century trade and gets paid like it was still the 19th century...if only because of the widely held but sadly mistaken notion that a gemmed shoe with a fiberboard insole and celastic toe and heel stiffeners is good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
Is it possible for you to see that what you settle for in your clothes appears to differ little from your critique of what most people settle for in RTW Goodyear welted shoes? - B
... I think that this warrants a If anything, this entire thread shows that craftsmen/aficionados of craftsmanship have differing POVs and priorities on what constitutes 'good' when compared to the consumer. Unfortunately for the former group, there are a lot more of the latter group.
post #120 of 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
Is it possible for you to see that what you settle for in your clothes appears to differ little from your critique of what most people settle for in RTW Goodyear welted shoes? - B
Oh, absolutely! We all have our priorities. And I would not (have not, as far as possible) ever said otherwise. I would not gainsay anyone else's priorities. That said, I would not be so pretentious as to contend that my Harris Tweed jacket is on a par with a Saville Row suit coat or that of a bespoke West End tailor. I know and acknowledge the difference. And when I win the lottery, you can be dern sure that I will ask, and listen, and ask again...and then I will buy the very best that I can afford...or maybe the very best that I have immediate access to (which may be the same thing). And if it's not an Anderson & Sheppard (substitute your pick) well, I won't pretend it's just as good as. Buying the best you can afford is all that can be asked of anyone. Pretending...or contending...it's the best there is, is another thing altogether. That said, I don't post to these threads specifically to shatter illusions but rather to suggest that there's more to it than meets the eye.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Hand lasted vs machine lasted