Thanks, DWF. What's your opinion about Blake with no Rapid stitching and no midsole? How does it stack up against GY in terms of durability? Some fear that it's more prone than GY to letting water and other rot- and crack- inducing materials into the footbed, because those can penetrate through the stiches in the outsole and insole into the footbed, as can't happen with GY. Does that make it less durable than GY?
Depends on how it is done. Yes, Blake...machine Blake...has its drawbacks--such as you mention.
But a channel stitch can be inset into a closed channel. And while not as secure as HandWelted or Blake-Rapid will still be a step up from GY.
Another instance of "advances in materials science" resulting in an inferior result.
To follow a tangent for a minute...there are lots of things that modern science cannot do as well as the ancients did. Granulation on gold or silver comes immediately to mind. The best examples are hundreds and thousands of years old, done with crude "primitive" tools and techniques and we still don't know how it was done.
Shoemaking is another example. 50 stitches to the inch+ ...done by hand. Mounting women's high heels without nails or screws. Handwelting.
No modern machinery, no "advances in material science" can ever duplicate that work. If only because even asking the question of "how do we make this faster and easier" betrays a fatal flaw in understanding....of understanding the purpose and rationale for doing it that way.
All we can do...all the "futurists" and pipe dreamers can do...is dismiss and diminish the standards of quality that evolved over 10,000 years. And to do that they have to dumb down the idea of quality.
And I suspect the real reason for doing that is because they can't do it themselves.
edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 2/3/16 at 10:29am