shoe construction...behind the veil



bdavro23 said:

I feel like this has been explained to you repeatedly and in clear understandable terms. It is also clear that in spite of the facts presented, you choose to not understand or believe them.

Click to expand...

It bears repeating....

patrickBOOTH said:

DW commented on a Saint Crispins video that his insoles he uses are thicker. "Too thin" to me would be you wouldn't be able to hand welt at all.

Click to expand...

Not my words, just a comment from a shoemaker who said SC uses insole with too small irons (thickness) thus the edge of sock liners wont curl up.

DWFII said:

No, you are wrong. Here's the Google translate of a shoemaker's comment on Saint Crispins.

Curiously, I also think the mark of a too-small sole iron?​

​

It could be the impression of too little pressure plate, which has bent the edge of the insole / sock unnätürlich.​

​

​

A smaller pressure plate iron would press the bottom nice and round and press the sole vorallen things around in the joint. (Pseudo-bevelled waist)​

​

​

But why stick the sock purely not later?​

​

​

(If the Pf ... more obscure, at least before the customer).​

​

​

The outer edge of the Brand-/Decksohle is still high even though the customer has worn the shoe for some time?​

​

​

So it could also be that the insole was ranked too low and the edge of the Einstechdamms by pressing:.

Confused:????​

​

​

​

It does not look good!​

​

​

@ Le.​

​

​

The gentleman massive creases of the shaft are an indication, for a good hand-Tweaked shoe widens not afterwards so serious.​

​

​

​

A shoe with such a small frame can not "be making" doubled with a double machine, therefore being the sole glued before the Ausleisten and already milled, however, must be guaranteed then to push away the stem leaves the machine doubling and the gripper of the double machine detect the frame at all.​

​

​

Of course, why should the shoe again later "neat"

SOS​

​

are pressed.​

​

​

The talks back to the small pressure plate??​

​

​

-​

Unfortunately,​

the double machine, so that the double seam as "beautiful" close to the stem is (rather @ corium;: pat, doubled almost continually through the Einstechnaht.​

​

​

Click to expand...

This is why 3-D scanned feet will never make good lasts...if the algorithm that translates from German to English (and how long has such translation software been around) can't end up with something that is at least minimally comprehensible how is anyone going to write code to translate a scanned foot into instructions for a last that actually fits that foot?

Are you just latching on to stuff--ideas and concepts...that spring mostly from speculation and wishful thinking...regardless of whether it makes sense or not? just to advance your contrariness?

German or English or some distorted conflation of both a lot of what you are saying in this discussion is completely oblivious to the points others are making much less simple logic.

Of course it could not, because in your world of shoemaking everything deteriorates and things in the past are better than things in the present. In my world everything gets better. Thus its understandable that you are discrediting translation algorithms of today based on an old translation from 2008 and extrapolate to claim that future of computerized translation is hopeless.

emptym said:

Again, DW did say the AE shoe had a footbed and the Church was forming one.

Click to expand...

DWFII said:

IIRC, from a photo/deconstruction of another shoe (GYW?) that had no discernible footbed at all when finally cut apart. In fact, I seem to remember a number of similar examples in deconstructions posted on SF.

Click to expand...

MoneyWellSpent said:

I think you have it. A GY-welted insole will compress some, but to a meaningless amount.
It wouldn't be anywhere near the shape that you see if it weren't for the void underneath that it is collapsing into. A photo of a Blake/Rapid shoe that has been worn shows this meaningful difference. It is decidedly less conformed to the foot, despite being similar qualities and thickness of leather:




You can see some slight depression in the leather right against the upper edge of the cross section, but most of what you see is simply darkening of the leather due to the foot's moisture and time.

Contrast that to the AE insoles above, and you see what we are trying to say. The difference is significant.

Looking down from the top, DW's boot insole from a hand-welted pair looks like a similar footbed that you see in the AE photos (again looking down from the top). But, it's when you consider that you could lay DW's insole on the floor and stand on it that the difference becomes important. If you laid his insole on a hard floor and stood on it, you would feel the imprint properly underneath your foot. Just like stepping into an existing footprint in the sand on a beach. But if you stood on the AE insole, flat on the floor, it would collapse under your weight and feel hard and lifeless by comparison.

Click to expand...

You are comparing leather compression of a 15 years worn daily old hand welted insole vs. a fairly less worn GY welted or Blake/rapid insole.

Difference is definitely significant...

chogall said:

You are comparing leather compression of a 15 years worn daily old hand welted insole vs. a fairly less worn GY welted or Blake/rapid insole.

Difference is definitely significant...

Click to expand...

You can't be implying that the depth of the footbed will increase significantly on the GY-welted shoes. Short of the leather actually wearing thin due to friction against the foot, there just isn't enough substance there for substantial difference to ever take place.

Let's stay reasonable in our discussion. The fibers can only compress so far.



chogall said:

He did, but that's a 180 from his previous comment.

Click to expand...

DWFII said:

And FWIW...the whole question and request from @MoneyWellSpent arose, IIRC, from a photo/deconstruction of another shoe (GYW?) that had no discernible footbed at all when finally cut apart. In fact, I seem to remember a number of similar examples in deconstructions posted on SF.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you think you're reading there...I know full well, and have said as much a thousand times, that one example is not evidence. Ten examples isn't evidence of anything...but possibility.

That's why I stress my own experiences. As a non-shoemaker your exposure to different techniques; your acquaintance with the properties and characteristics of materials; your recognition of...even ability to recognize...the synergy between them that makes a good shoe (or doesn't) is, perforce, limited by comparison to mine. Virtually at any level of instances.

But bottom line is that any thoughtful, rational reading of that statement...esp. in context...doesn't come off as a broad observation about GY and/or footbeds, much less a linking of GY to the formation of a footbed.

In fact...in context...it was just a recollection / reiteration of how this discussion got started and why I posted the photos of my deconstructed boot...all simply to put everything in perspective.

For those who value perspective.

My auld Da used to say that "if you don't know what you're talking about the worse thing you can do is open your mouth and prove it."

edited for punctuation and clarity



chogall said:

Of course it could not, because in your world of shoemaking everything deteriorates and things in the past are better than things in the present.  In my world everything gets better. .

Click to expand...

Aye, but the real difference is that I have hard, concrete, physical evidence to support my theses, while all you have is wishful thinking, fantasy, and pipe dreams. Your world is la-la land.

MoneyWellSpent said:

You can't be implying that the depth of the footbed will increase significantly on the GY-welted shoes. Short of the leather actually wearing thin due to friction against the foot, there just isn't enough substance there for substantial difference to ever take place.

Let's stay reasonable in our discussion. The fibers can only compress so far.

Click to expand...

A fair, reasonable, and scientific comparison would be comparing the % compression of different insoles under different construction methods after the same/similar amount of wear. Not the absolute value of compression on a different time scale, which would only promote thick insoles, old shoes, instead of foot bed forming capability of different construction methods.

On a side note, since you are a podiatrist (correct me if I am wrong), what material is generally used for orthotics insoles, and why?

DWFII said:

I don't know what you think you're reading there...I know full well, and have said as much a thousand times, that one example is not evidence. Ten examples isn't evidence of anything...but possibility.

That's why I stress my own experiences. As a non-shoemaker your exposure to different techniques; your acquaintance with the properties and characteristics of materials; your recognition of...even ability to recognize...the synergy between them that makes a good shoe (or doesn't) is, perforce, limited by comparison to mine. Virtually at any level of instances.

But bottom line is that any thoughtful, rational reading of that statement...esp. in context...doesn't come off as a broad observation about GY and/or footbeds, much less a linking of GY to the formation of a footbed.

In fact...in context...it was just a recollection / reiteration of how this discussion got started and why I posted the photos of my deconstructed boot...all simply to put everything in perspective.

For those who value perspective.

My auld Da used to say that "if you don't know what you're talking about the worse thing you can do is open your mouth and prove it."

edited for punctuation and clarity

Click to expand...

You made your [generalized or not] statement. I posted photos against your statement.

That is all.

DWFII said:

Aye, but the real difference is that I have hard, concrete, physical evidence to support my theses, while all you have is wishful thinking, fantasy, and pipe dreams. Your world is la-la land.

Click to expand...

My younger age and the ability to learn and adopt might play some part to my wishful thinking. Being able to learn without preconception helps as well.



chogall said:

A fair, reasonable, and scientific comparison would be comparing the % compression of different insoles under different construction methods after the same/similar amount of wear.  Not the absolute value of compression on a different time scale, which would only promote thick insoles, old shoes, instead of foot bed forming capability of different construction methods.

On a side note, since you are a podiatrist (correct me if I am wrong), what material is generally used for orthotics insoles, and why? 

Click to expand...

I am not a podiatrist, but I do work in medical research, so I understand that we aren't dealing with scientifically tested comparisons in this discussion. But, don't keep getting caught up in the construction method. The insole's footbed forming capacity isn't concerning the construction method of the shoe. It is concerning the thickness, grain structure, location of origin on the animal hide, tannage, etc. The reason people are throwing out construction methods in the discussion is due to the general types of insoles used in those methods, not because the method itself is directly related to the footbed per se. You could take an insole like the one DW is using in his boots and make a Blake/Rapid shoe with it and expect the same footbed to form.

What we are trying to say is simply that non-hand-welted shoes don't generally use leather that is thick enough to form a meaningful footbed by itself. This is simply due to the lack of need for the thickness because they don't have to be channeled for inseaming. It's a cost cutting measure. The leather can be of great quality, but simply be from a portion of the hide that doesn't lend itself to the preferred character traits that are most ideal for an insole.

I don't know that there is one particular material used for orthotic insoles. I've seen plastic ones, foam ones, cork ones, you name it. I've seen custom moulded space-age plasics to gel filled store bought ones.

Chogall, I am curious, how old are you?

MoneyWellSpent said:

I am not a podiatrist, but I do work in medical research, so I understand that we aren't dealing with scientifically tested comparisons in this discussion. But, don't keep getting caught up in the construction method. The insole's footbed forming capacity isn't concerning the construction method of the shoe. It is concerning the thickness, grain structure, location of origin on the animal hide, tannage, etc. The reason people are throwing out construction methods in the discussion is due to the general types of insoles used in those methods, not because the method itself is directly related to the footbed per se. You could take an insole like the one DW is using in his boots and make a Blake/Rapid shoe with it and expect the same footbed to form.

What we are trying to say is simply that non-hand-welted shoes don't generally use leather that is thick enough to form a meaningful footbed by itself. This is simply due to the lack of need for the thickness because they don't have to be channeled for inseaming. It's a cost cutting measure. The leather can be of great quality, but simply be from a portion of the hide that doesn't lend itself to the preferred character traits that are most ideal for an insole.

Click to expand...

I am not the one getting caught up in construction methods.

My point is, leather insoles, thin or thick, will get foot beds from fiber compression. Thicker ones will compress more (not as a %, but absolute value) than thiner ones, but it doesn't exclude thin leather insoles having foot beds. Meaningful or not is determined by the shoes as a whole not the insole or sock lining alone.

Even my 10 years old el cheapo all leather slipper from Zara has pretty deep food bed, but it doesn't have good support at all.

Cases could be made for different insole thickness for different construction/shoe styles instead of cost cutting alone, i.e., blake shoes, pumps, slippers, etc...

patrickBOOTH said:

Chogall, I am curious, how old are you?

Click to expand...

Gen X/Y



chogall said:

My younger age and the ability to learn and adopt might play some part to my wishful thinking.  Being able to learn without preconception helps as well.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could show us the .wonderful things you have created with this great gift of youth as DFW has done in spades