or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Porn Thread (Bespoke only)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Porn Thread (Bespoke only) - Page 155

post #2311 of 2460
Awesome shoes Chogal

Had to look carefully to figure out that pattern smile.gif
post #2312 of 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutcracker View Post

Awesome shoes Chogal

Had to look carefully to figure out that pattern smile.gif

Yeah,did my head in for a minute, very intricate pattern pieces.
post #2313 of 2460
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrybrowne View Post

Heh. Yeah I get alot of grumbles from the crup. They are getting used to it, and the quality is going up alot. This pair had no tool marks. Cap toe derbies are going to be in brown antiqued.

I've been wanting a pair of suede loafers. Scared that I won't get alot of life out of them though. What is china buck? You still using GG?

i dont think it will be an issue, china buck is a kind of sueded deer skin
post #2314 of 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by wurger View Post


Yeah,did my head in for a minute, very intricate pattern piece.

 

FIFY.

 

Well, technically its two piece, with one piece pattern and one piece tongue.  But then if thats the case, there's no such thing as one piece construction besides possibly on chelsea boots.

post #2315 of 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

FIFY.

Well, technically its two piece, with one piece pattern and one piece tongue.  But then if thats the case, there's no such thing as one piece construction besides possibly on chelsea boots.

some single monk also can do as one piece without tongue. revolve.gif
post #2316 of 2460
It's a variation on the "apple peel" pattern John Lobb (ready-to-wear) has used for the "St Crepin 2009"



An absolute bravura piece of pattern design/cutting.
(And incredibly wasteful as far as leather consumption is concerned.)
post #2317 of 2460
^ wowwowoowow, very nice austerity brouge chogall
post #2318 of 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post

It's a variation on the "apple peel" pattern John Lobb (ready-to-wear) has used for the "St Crepin 2009"



An absolute bravura piece of pattern design/cutting.
(And incredibly wasteful as far as leather consumption is concerned.)

Yes! For the trial shoes they didn't even make my pattern as instructed and just took JL2009 pattern. :$
post #2319 of 2460
Thanks for the information about Steven Lowe - you say his price are attractive. Can you say what they are here or PM me.
post #2320 of 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

[










Very very good. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
Good heel.
post #2321 of 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by culverwood View Post

Thanks for the information about Steven Lowe - you say his price are attractive. Can you say what they are here or PM me.

PM sent.
post #2322 of 2460
Albert Slippers in navy kid-suede with "French binding" in grosgrain ribbon:





[/URL


Constructed in the traditional method of "Pump stitching":

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)






During the stitching process, corresponding holes are made through the upper material, and everything is pulled tight as you go along.
post #2323 of 2460
I'd like to see a cite or a source for that technique being a Traditional pump stitch.

The closest I can come is a description in Garsault's 1767 Art du Cordonnier where he describes something similar being used for turn-shoe pumps. But for pumps that are not turn-shoes the Traditional pump stitch is very much like a hand sewn Blake stitch. Such pumps (and the Traditional technique) are called "channel pumps."

So perhaps it has to do with the definition of Traditional or with what "Tradition" we're talking about...but even though Garsault is French, the channel pump stitch is widely used and recognized (see the Foster thread) even in the British and American trades. And considering the 1767 date of Art du Cordonnier, certainly well qualified to be considered "Traditional." I don't know of an earlier work much less reference to such techniques.

So again, I would like to see some evidence that supports the turn-shoe stitch as being "the traditional method."
post #2324 of 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


So again, I would like to see some evidence that supports the turn-shoe stitch as being "the traditional method."

This is the traditional “pump-stitch” in English (bespoke) shoemaking. How old that tradition is, I cannot tell you. It might be as young as early-mid Victorian. At least in my book, Victorian is “tradition”.

The soft turn-shoes which had dominated Georgian shoemaking, went out of fashion and were replaced in early Victorian times with more solid constructed footwear, English bespoke “casuals” (loafers) and pumps are very solidly constructed. The heel stiffener covers all the way to the end of the waist on either side: about 2/3 of the shoe’s length. Those shoes cannot be turned. Maybe it was at that point that some bright spark discovered the familiar stitch used for turn-shoes could be adopted and adapted for the modern style of stiffer shoes.

It is definitely not that hand-stitched Blake seam, where you pull the stitches through to the inside of the shoe and out again, ending up (like in machine-stitched Blake) with a row of stitching going over the insole of the shoe. The pump stitch leaves no visible stitching, neither on the underside of the sole, nor inside the shoe.

I made once the mistake a few years ago (based on erroneous information I had been given by a German shoemaker) that "blind welt" and "pump-stitch" were interchangeable terms for one and the same thing. They are not!

Here is James Ducker’s take on “the pump-stitch”

http://carreducker.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/velvet-slippers.html
http://carreducker.blogspot.co.uk/2011_05_22_archive.html

To demonstrate that the “pump-stitch” has become a rare beast (even in bespoke work), here is a pair of bespoke velvet slippers made by John Lobb (Paris). I picked them up at a thrift shop a number of years ago. Eventually I couldn't resist the temptation to pull them apart. To my utter amazement, on these shoes (which must have cost a bomb) the outer-sole is solely cemented:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)





Lasting allowance of upper braced to underside of insole.


Very thin (1 mm) layer of cork do eliminate a step between allowance and insole.



Leather shank and no stitching between shoe and outer sole.
post #2325 of 2460
Not entirely certain off the top of my head what constitutes Georgian and what Victorian although I'm thinking Georgian probably runs to last quarter 18th century and Victorian must be mid (?) to late19th century?

But I'm thinking that the pumps worn by officers of the British Navy were not turn-shoe pumps and must have been channel pumps. Although we compare channel pump stitching to Blake, it was a far older technique and much much harder to do. And no stitching was visible on the outsole. If Garsault knew it well enough to describe it in 1767 it is a reasonable assumption that it was in use a quarter of a century later.

Never mind...my point was that the technique you illustrate is not the Traditional method of pump stitching...at least not the only one and not the one I know.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Ultimate "HARDCORE" Shoe Porn Thread (Bespoke only)