or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoe Damage Report & Shoe P0rn Central - Part II
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shoe Damage Report & Shoe P0rn Central - Part II - Page 574

post #8596 of 19460
John Lobb Socosi home shoes... thanks to SFer SimonC for the heads up!

427

640

427
post #8597 of 19460
My first pair of Saint Crispins... model 524 chukka on the chiseled last. The finishing appears to be the best out of all of my RTW shoes..



425

425

640

425

425

425
post #8598 of 19460
Nice shoes but I have to say, I am really taken by the shoetrees!
post #8599 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northampton Novice View Post

I am really taken by the shoetrees!

they are amazing. some next level shit.
post #8600 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheel07 View Post

Did he just destroy these shoes? 467

If you look close at the photo of the right shoe you can see that the repairman trimmed the outsole right up to the welt stitching on the lateral side. This contributes to the appearance of having changed the shape of the shoe....which it has, effectively, even if the interior shape is much the same as it was.

More than that, however, trimming the outsole and the welt so close, makes it far more likely that the stitching will fail and the shoe will need a major repair in the near future...one that involves re-welting.

And to add insult to injury, the repair is a simple cement job. The new half sole ignores the fact that the old outsole was originally stitched as a means of construction and the replacement relies entirely on cement to hold the outsole in place. One of the big problems with that approach is that either the old sole was not entirely removed or the new out sole is adhering only to the welt...which is narrow (less than a half inch) to begin with and has now been trimmed even narrower.

Especially if the shoe is GY, there is virtually nothing of any substance between the thin margin of the welt on either side of the shoe for a new sole to stick to...the intervening space being either cork or felt or foam. Once the original stitching is compromised, even the remnant of the original outsole (if there is a remnant) is jeopardized.

In other words, the outsole stitching is/was there for a reason...installing a half sole without re-stitching is half-assed, IMO.
post #8601 of 19460
DWF, could the shoe have changed shape due to slipping gemming when the old sole was removed?
post #8602 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

If you look close at the photo of the right shoe you can see that the repairman trimmed the outsole right up to the welt stitching on the lateral side. This contributes to the appearance of having changed the shape of the shoe....which it has, effectively, even if the interior shape is much the same as it was.
More than that, however, trimming the outsole and the welt so close, makes it far more likely that the stitching will fail and the shoe will need a major repair in the near future...one that involves re-welting.
And to add insult to injury, the repair is a simple cement job. The new half sole ignores the fact that the old outsole was originally stitched as a means of construction and the replacement relies entirely on cement to hold the outsole in place. One of the big problems with that approach is that either the old sole was not entirely removed or the new out sole is adhering only to the welt...which is narrow (less than a half inch) to begin with and has now been trimmed even narrower.
Especially if the shoe is GY, there is virtually nothing of any substance between the thin margin of the welt on either side of the shoe for a new sole to stick to...the intervening space being either cork or felt or foam. Once the original stitching is compromised, even the remnant of the original outsole (if there is a remnant) is jeopardized.
In other words, the outsole stitching is/was there for a reason...installing a half sole without re-stitching is half-assed, IMO.

So this is a really technical way of saying what I said. nod[1].gif
post #8603 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

DWF, could the shoe have changed shape due to slipping gemming when the old sole was removed?

Patrick,

Yes, of course but one wants to assume the best and avoid assuming things that aren't verifiable. I can see the too close trimmed welt, I can't see what's happened to the gemming or the inseam.

There are lots of ways for this kind of thing to happen, especially with shoes of marginal quality (and VTG doesn't necessarily equal quality).

For instance, thin insoles or insoles materials that are the darling of manufacturers and the everything-that's-modern-is-beautiful crowd can often be twisted or even "rolled" up on themselves when the new sole is being replaced. In other words, a fiberboard or paper insole can be made narrower (or the shape distorted) as the outsole is being replaced. In this case, the gemming doesn't need to be loose for the whole inseam to be pushed inward against a flimsy insole.

Or another example...simply adhering the half sole to the stub of the old outsole at an incorrect angle (an angle that will not allow the half sole to completely cover the forepart of the insole) will force the repairman to twist the half sole in order to get it in place. The tension that this twisting brings can distort the forepart of the shoe...again, especially if the insole has no real structural integrity.
post #8604 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton View Post

So this is a really technical way of saying what I said. nod[1].gif

cheers.gif Well, yes...I didn't disagree with your assessment but sometimes an explanation will actually increase understanding...for those who want it. By referencing the photo I offered evidence rather than casual speculation.
post #8605 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Well, yes...I didn't disagree with your assessment but sometimes an explanation will actually increase understanding...for those who want it. By referencing the photo I offered evidence rather than casual speculation.




DWF - was really a joke and not a shot at you or your explanation--cllearly of greater value to have the expert opine and provide the technical details.
post #8606 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton View Post

DWF - was really a joke and not a shot at you or your explanation--cllearly of greater value to have the expert opine and provide the technical details.

No worries...sorry if I came across too brusque. (I went back and edited the post to temper that a little.)
post #8607 of 19460
1znblmw.jpg
cigar cap toe
argyles otc
post #8608 of 19460
Christmas present from SO:

263
post #8609 of 19460
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLKY View Post

My first pair of Saint Crispins... model 524 chukka on the chiseled last. The finishing appears to be the best out of all of my RTW shoes..
425
/quote]

Good looking pair of boots, how much did they run you if you wouldn't mind sharing? Thanks.

-LR
post #8610 of 19460
For those interested in that sort of thing, I picked up a lot of old Nettleton shoe trees from a seller on ebay. Nettleton was at one time perhaps the highest quality American RTW maker ("The World's Slowest Made Shoes").

Note the hole drilled into them that allows for venting from the insole. The knobs also turn allowing them to extend. In the last picture is a side by side with later Nettleton shoe trees I have. Although nice, they aren't in the same league as these early ones.

263
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
467

467

263

263
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoe Damage Report & Shoe P0rn Central - Part II