or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › shoe construction...behind the veil
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

shoe construction...behind the veil - Page 88

post #1306 of 1519
So how much can be achieved by oiling the upper leather or impregnating it with wax/fat, in terms of proofing the upper leather?

From what I read, there are three entry gates for water:
1. The sole-> can be protected with rubber
2. The welt -> storm welting or veldtshoen
3. The upper -> oiling/impregnating

The question is how much can be achieved by those classical techniques in comparison to applying artificial material/techniques such as goretex.
post #1307 of 1519
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by diadem View Post

I keep hearing about Veldtschoen construction for waterproofing. I know that it is a form of GYW, but what exactly makes it better for adverse weather conditions? And is it truly better?

Theoretically it's more water resistant. As long as it's leather it is not waterproof.

Every form of refuge has a price. If the upper is turned out, it resists the immediate wicking of moisture but the upper becomes vulnerable to sloppy or over-aggressive resoling techniques.
post #1308 of 1519
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by globobock View Post

So how much can be achieved by oiling the upper leather or impregnating it with wax/fat, in terms of proofing the upper leather?

From what I read, there are three entry gates for water:
1. The sole-> can be protected with rubber
2. The welt -> storm welting or veldtshoen
3. The upper -> oiling/impregnating

The question is how much can be achieved by those classical techniques in comparison to applying artificial material/techniques such as goretex.

Waxing / greasing confers temporary benefits but more importantly often shortens the life of the shoe by picking up and holding abrasive grit in the creases and by smothering the leather.

1. But esp. as it relates to contemporary, advances materials science methods, it is already sealed, theoretically--the liberal application of neoprene cements does that. There is no doubt however that rubber wears more slowly and absorbs less moisture than leather does. Environmental effects be damned.

2. Won't change the basic permeability of leather and if not done with exceeding care and mindfulness --tight and close--storm welt, by itself has very little advantage over regular welt.

3. Smothers the leather, accelerates cracking.

Think about it--everything you're doing can be accomplished by dipping your shoes in a bucket of liquid rubber. (or by wearing overshoes) . Every solution you've proposed is to emulate a plastic shoe. Why not just get a plastic or rubber shoe to begin with?
post #1309 of 1519

haha. plastic shoe...

Here you are: These are perfect for water!

post #1310 of 1519
Well, as in all things in the world, we try to achieve the best compromise.

If I focus on practical reason only, there are tons of "modern" hiking boots on the market, some of I already own and wore in some outdoor activities.

It is just, aesthetically, those boots don't satisfy me.

May I conclude that you are basically saying, if we are to stay put with the more traditional boots, our feet will get wet sooner than by using advanced material?
post #1311 of 1519
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by globobock View Post

Well, as in all things in the world, we try to achieve the best compromise.

If I focus on practical reason only, there are tons of "modern" hiking boots on the market, some of I already own and wore in some outdoor activities.

It is just, aesthetically, those boots don't satisfy me.

May I conclude that you are basically saying, if we are to stay put with the more traditional boots, our feet will get wet sooner than by using advanced material?


Depends on the advanced materials. There is a case to be made that a good percentage of the moisture in the shoe is generated by the foot. Because plastics are occlusive--they don't allow the leather to breathe and wick water away from the foot.

But of course plastic shoes will keep your feet drier than leather in wet weather.

But again, think about it...you say you're not best pleased with the aesthetics of footwear that addresses these issues. Well, why not buy...or just as importantly, why not wear...shoes appropriately. Plastic shoes for the monsoon season and beautiful, breathable shoes for the office?

As far as compromise is concerned...I would be suspicious of the whole concept--it's really just another way of saying "mediocre."
post #1312 of 1519
1. Good. So you are acknoledeging that GYW needs additional 1-2 steps compare to BR. In manufacturing, that is called complications.

2. That is called throughput. Not complication. You can either increase throughout by adding bandwidth, I.e., have 200 shoemakers hand welting 5 pairs of shoes per day to achieve the same 1000 pairs per day through put as 2 station operators running the gemming and welt stitching machines. And that is assuming all 200 makers are making the same quality output, which is unreasonable. Case in point: Vass.

HW is naturally disadvantaged in its throughout and cannot be easily scaled.

3. Anytime you have leather outsole you will have water seeping into insole regardless of the construction method. Only remedy is to increase outsole thickness, i.e. double/triple sole/cleats, or using rubber sole.

Also, to improve watertight sides, storm welts and stitched down performs better.

Also, remember couple years ago I've asked you how to get rid of water stains in a pair of very light colored soles? That pair happened to be HW, and got soaking wet from upper vamp area all the way to the outsole. Tropical storms. My Vass isn't water tight either.

Never had the same problem with my rubber soles or double leather sole boots/shoes.

My experience/empirical evidence proves your opinion/theories invalid.
post #1313 of 1519
Mediocre sounds so harsh. I would rather call it "testing the limits". smile.gif

So what were the outdoorer wearing before the rise of plastic? Or the soldiers in WW1/WW2?

They just don't bother with the little water?

I remember reading that the original purpose of brogues was to be an outlet for water to leave the shoe...
post #1314 of 1519
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Depends on the advanced materials. There is a case to be made that a good percentage of the moisture in the shoe is generated by the foot. Because plastics are occlusive--they don't allow the leather to breathe and wick water away from the foot.

This is true, but Gore-Tex was invented years ago (let's moisture out but not in) and has been improved upon greatly since. there are hiking sneakers and boots optimized to be used to be used in warm weather locations and none of them are hand welted smile.gif

"waterpoof" is a term tossed around a lot but short of my rubber LL Bean boots, none of my footwear is even close to waterproof. nothing with leather and stitching involved should be considered in the waterproof conversation - that term may have made sense 50 years ago when "wateproof" was a relative term, but it really should be an absolute term.

just chiming in to say if you want weather resistant hiking shoes, you should buy a pair optimized for that activity, not a hand made pair of shoes that you make (which is superior in all sorts of other ways)
post #1315 of 1519
Quote:
Originally Posted by makewayhomer View Post

This is true, but Gore-Tex was invented years ago (let's moisture out but not in) and has been improved upon greatly since. there are hiking sneakers and boots optimized to be used to be used in warm weather locations and none of them are hand welted smile.gif

"waterpoof" is a term tossed around a lot but short of my rubber LL Bean boots, none of my footwear is even close to waterproof. nothing with leather and stitching involved should be considered in the waterproof conversation - that term may have made sense 50 years ago when "wateproof" was a relative term, but it really should be an absolute term.

just chiming in to say if you want weather resistant hiking shoes, you should buy a pair optimized for that activity, not a hand made pair of shoes that you make (which is superior in all sorts of other ways)

The right tool for the job
post #1316 of 1519
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by globobock View Post

Mediocre sounds so harsh. I would rather call it "testing the limits". smile.gif

So what were the outdoorer wearing before the rise of plastic? Or the soldiers in WW1/WW2?

They just don't bother with the little water?

I remember reading that the original purpose of brogues was to be an outlet for water to leave the shoe...

I don't think we know that for sure--I suspect that it's just a bit apocryphal--more magical thinking of the kind that is rife on the 'Net and among E-Experts and those who rely on personal experiences and fantasies to create a comforting world view for themselves.

"Brogues" supposedly originated in Scotland and Scotland is wet all the time. The remedy?

Wool.
post #1317 of 1519

Wool for the shoe?

You mean, for lining?

post #1318 of 1519
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by globobock View Post

Wool for the shoe?
You mean, for lining?

No, just in general. For warmth...even when wet.
post #1319 of 1519
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

1. Good. So you are acknoledeging that GYW needs additional 1-2 steps compare to BR. In manufacturing, that is called complications.

Sure, it's "complications" --in the same sense that riding a horse becomes more complicated with a burr under the blanket; or in the sense that two men driving one railroad spike is complicated. The job is simple...it can be done with one man. You can add more men, set up a board of inquiry and an advisory committee and make it complicated as hell. But the job remains the same.

And the whole business begs the question: if adding two machines to do the job of one man makes things complicated, what does add two men to do the job for which there is no machine, do? Pulling and replacing the last on Blake / Blake Rapid? How many machines would it take to do that job if there were such?
Quote:
Also, to improve watertight sides, storm welts and stitched down performs better.

Only marginally.
Quote:
Also, remember couple years ago I've asked you how to get rid of water stains in a pair of very light colored soles? That pair happened to be HW, and got soaking wet from upper vamp area all the way to the outsole. Tropical storms.

Like most magical thinkers you confuse cause and effect. It wasn't the HW that was the problem it was the tropical storm. And the magical thinking that concluded that you didn't need to seek shelter quickly.
Quote:
My experience/empirical evidence proves your opinion/theories invalid.

Really? I test my "theories," across a broad spectrum of conditions and people and materials, every day. How about you?

Your experiences are hardly empirical. They are "personal" --as you yourself have boasted. And they are singular, isolated, and clouded by your limited knowledge (ignorance of materials, techniques and broader application) as well as your own self-congratulatory interpretations and self-comforting fantasies--what you want to believe, IOW. They reliably apply only to you and the imaginary world you live in.

That's the antithesis of "empirical."

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 2/10/16 at 9:02am
post #1320 of 1519
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonius View Post



Taking it personally again! Odd, seeing that on this occasion the subject was raised by another and contributed to largely by others. First, as far as I can tell concerning the intersting discussion on the cost and skills necessary to make BR as opposed to GY, no-one has added any objective information at all, including you. No-one taking part seems to have any real information on the subject. You have used it to once more lance shots against GYW in general, but that is off the point in this case. I read this forum to learn and ask questions. If you expect from such a forum as this to have discussions with professionals, you're clearly in the wrong place - there is a distinct dearth of such people here, and one such person who does contribute regularly recieves fairly agressive responses from you, mainly because he disagrees with you on certain points. Any way, to repeat - the question on the cost and skills necessary to manufacture BR compared to GY remains unanswered. It would be interesting to find out - from someone who knows.

Of course I take it personally...you quoted me. And you questioned the sincerity of my responses and contributions in post #1277.

I responded to the "OQ"...addressed to me...which was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

I've a question or two about the prevalence of shoe construction techniques. DWF, I seem to recall from reading your scans of Thornton's Textbook of Footwear Manufacture that Blake-Rapid was an accepted and widely used technique in England at the time of writing, as was regular Blake, moccasin, Silhouwelt, etc.. Why is it that Blake-Rapid and these other techniques died out in English shoe manufacturing and Goodyear or cemented became the hegemonic methods? And why is it that in Italy today, Blake-Rapid or Blake are more common than Goodyear?

Nothing about relative costs--you and others dragged the discussion into those weeds.

All my subsequent responses were to that original question: post #1245, #1247, etc..

I understand that these weren't the answers you wanted nor was this the topic you wanted to talk about.

But I made it clear from the beginning that I was talking about prevalence and choices made by established English firms and the possible reasons for them. And when these answers didn't satisfy the discussion you were having in your head I simply said "ask someone else." Post #1263

A little focus goes a long way towards not making spurious accusations and keeping things on track.

IMO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › shoe construction...behind the veil