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 89

post #1321 of 1514
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...

Leather sole with cleats but it depends a lot on the theater. Leggings with shoes, not boots.

And mid WW2 most field boots changed into rubber or synthetic outsoles. Life saving.
post #1322 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

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?
Only marginally.

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.
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

Marginally. Coming from a guy whom doesn't understand manufacturing, throughout, yield, QC points. Marginally this, marginally that, and marginally your imaginary manufacturer will go out of business from lack of margins.

HW isn't the problem but tropical storm? So being water tight excludes tropical storms, wading, etc? What now, HW is water resistant onlyin environments with little water?

Makes great sense! Let divert the attention away and classify normal conditions as fringe cases!
post #1323 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Marginally. Coming from a guy whom doesn't understand manufacturing, throughout, yield, QC points. Marginally this, marginally that, and marginally your imaginary manufacturer will go out of business from lack of margins.

HW isn't the problem but tropical storm? So being water tight excludes tropical storms, wading, etc? What now, HW is water resistant onlyin environments with little water?

Makes great sense! Let divert the attention away and classify normal conditions as fringe cases!

a handwelted or goodyear welted or any sort of welted or stitched leather shoe can be water resistant, but if you want it to be waterproof you're gonna need a genie to grant that wish. any stitched construction marketed as "waterproof" is wrong.

if you want waterproof, you're gonna need one continous piece of rubber wrapped around your foot. like Hunter Boots. you want leather shoes to perform like that and I want my Honda to be a Ferrari but that ain't happening.

square peg, round hole.
post #1324 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post


Marginally. Coming from a guy whom doesn't understand manufacturing, throughout, yield, QC points. Marginally this, marginally that, and marginally your imaginary manufacturer will go out of business from lack of margins.

HW isn't the problem but tropical storm? So being water tight excludes tropical storms, wading, etc? What now, HW is water resistant onlyin environments with little water?

Makes great sense! Let divert the attention away and classify normal conditions as fringe cases!


Chogall, no offence meant at all by this question, but are you using a web translator, like Google translate or some such, to translate from another language?

post #1325 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonius View Post
 


Chogall, no offence meant at all by this question, but are you using a web translator, like Google translate or some such, to translate from another language?

 

Do we all have to be so gosh-darned catty around here?

 

Chogall's English is plenty good enough.  The topic of correct terminology is rather distinct and is a more interesting one.

 

I am certain there are people with tremendous expertise on footwear who speak little or no English.

 

Seriously, people seem to prefer fighting to footwear.  Could we not all follow the Golden Rule and treat one another as we would wish to be treated?

post #1326 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirling View Post
 

 

Do we all have to be so gosh-darned catty around here?

 

Chogall's English is plenty good enough.  The topic of correct terminology is rather distinct and is a more interesting one.

 

I am certain there are people with tremendous expertise on footwear who speak little or no English.

 

Seriously, people seem to prefer fighting to footwear.  Could we not all follow the Golden Rule and treat one another as we would wish to be treated?

I believe my question was to Chogall, not you. However, as I am not the first to remark on Chogall's use of English, indeed remarks have been made in some most virulent ways in this thread by those who know much about shoemaking and should know better, I'm rather taken aback that you should have responded to me in such a way and yet not dared to do so to others. A certain lack of courage no doubt! Actually, I was merely going to give Chogall, in the case that his/her response was in the affirmative, some professional advice on available translation tools so that we could benefit from her/his contributions more, many very pertinant in an increasing desert of opinions, in which any dissenting view is slagged off mercilessly.

post #1327 of 1514
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Marginally. Coming from a guy whom doesn't understand manufacturing, throughout, yield, QC points. Marginally this, marginally that, and marginally your imaginary manufacturer will go out of business from lack of margins.

HW isn't the problem but tropical storm? So being water tight excludes tropical storms, wading, etc? What now, HW is water resistant onlyin environments with little water?

Makes great sense! Let divert the attention away and classify normal conditions as fringe cases!

Well, be that as it may, I do understand that "out put , throughout, yield, QC points" are the buzz words--canon and gospel--of the factory mentality. And that "quality" and "excellence" are not among them...nor really even a consideration except as bait.

As far as the tropical storm and HW is concerned, no one here has said...and no one with any connection to reality expects...that any leather shoe will be waterproof or water tight. I guess you missed that point.

I have walked through puddles,crossed small streams and waded in the ocean in HW shoes and boots and never did my feet get wet. Did I stand there watching the sun go down, allowing the leather to get saturated? No, I didn't. I have a sense of proportion and a solid grasp of reality.

But the point is that while the leather got somewhat wet, it didn't get inside the boot. Suggesting that the construction was as water resistant as can be realistically expected.

I suspect you could substitute Blake, Blake-Rapid, GY, turned out construction, storm welt, double soles, rubber soles or even double rubber soles...what have you...for the HW shoes in your fiasco with the tropical storm and the results would have been the same.

--
Edited by DWFII - 2/10/16 at 3:06pm
post #1328 of 1514
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonius View Post

I believe my question was to Chogall, not you. However, as I am not the first to remark on Chogall's use of English, indeed remarks have been made in some most virulent ways in this thread by those who know much about shoemaking and should know better, I'm rather taken aback that you should have responded to me in such a way and yet not dared to do so to others. A certain lack of courage no doubt! Actually, I was merely going to give Chogall, in the case that his/her response was in the affirmative, some professional advice on available translation tools so that we could benefit from her/his contributions more, many very pertinant in an increasing desert of opinions, in which any dissenting view is slagged off mercilessly.

I suspect that you are, at least obliquely, referring to me. Why didn't you just say it to me?..."a certain lack of courage, no doubt?" As is the penchant to take issue with the way people say things rather than what they have said. Style vs substance, again.

I do my best to wade through the incoherence I encounter here on occasion--to tolerate it and try to decipher the meaning and intent...and answer with patience, respect and good will. People just have to tolerate my personality and my occasional impatience as I tolerate them. It's little enough to ask--mutual respect.

There is a long history between chogall and I...and I tire of it.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 2/10/16 at 1:23pm
post #1329 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelonius View Post
 

I believe my question was to Chogall, not you. However, as I am not the first to remark on Chogall's use of English, indeed remarks have been made in some most virulent ways in this thread by those who know much about shoemaking and should know better, I'm rather taken aback that you should have responded to me in such a way and yet not dared to do so to others. A certain lack of courage no doubt! Actually, I was merely going to give Chogall, in the case that his/her response was in the affirmative, some professional advice on available translation tools so that we could benefit from her/his contributions more, many very pertinant in an increasing desert of opinions, in which any dissenting view is slagged off mercilessly.

 

I was, of course, aware that your question was directed toward Chogall, but you made it in a public forum, so it is open to comment by all.  

 

I have commented on other people's hostility, as well.  As you are apparently referring to DW, you can read prior posts and see that I have made critical comments regarding his style of debate too.  I show DW some more deference than other members of this forum because he has so much experience, mainly professional experience, and has chosen to share it with us all for free.

 

Not counting issues related to terminology, I have never had difficulty understanding Chogall.  I don't get too worked up over typos and such because this is a not a place that requires formal language, in my opinion.  I really doubt that he is using any type of translation tool, but if he is, perhaps he would value your suggestions.  If that had been your primary intent, why not just names the tools?  Or, better yet, send him the information in a private message?  If you were worried about offending him, the odds would be much lower had you not commented on his language in public.

 

Why are you commenting on my courage?  You don't know me at all.  This is the type of personal attack that has no place here.  You will not find my post attacking you in such a manner.  You will only find it commenting on what you said here.

post #1330 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

There is a long history between chogall and I...and I tire of it.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

DW,

 

I read this thread to hear what you have to say based on your first-hand, direct experience.  It is tremendously interesting to me.

 

If Chogall is a troll, which I don't think is the case, expressing anger with him is only making him happy.  If he is not a troll, but rather someone sharing what he truly believes to be the case, your anger won't educate him, and it apparently isn't making him go away. 

 

My humble suggestion would be to ignore all insults from chogall.  When he says something you know to be wrong or misleading, point that out for all of us, citing your experience on the matter.  This may be repetitive, but so are all the insults, back and forth.

 

If there are people reading this thread who cannot appreciate what you have to offer, then I don't think virtual shouting will get them to do so.  Some people just can't be helped.  If they can't recognize the value of your experience, I am sure they have bigger problems than paying too much for GYW footwear.

post #1331 of 1514
Thread Starter 
I think there's a real need for some people to start their own thread...I said this before and even offered to stay out of it. But that would spoil all the fun for some people.

That said, I know how to end all this dissension...although I doubt it will go over well...here's what I propose:

I'll try to remember to preface all my remarks with something along the order of "In my professional opinion..." or " From the perspective of having made shoes for 45 years, day in and day out..."

And those who insist on questioning my experience or my integrity or truthfulness, or the sincerity of my offerings, can preface theirs with 'In my personal experience..." or 'I don't know anything about shoemaking but..."

This way we can each have our say and let the angels and the reader sort it out as to who is right and who is wrong...who has more credibility and who they want to believe. No need for any back and forth.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 2/10/16 at 1:27pm
post #1332 of 1514
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirling View Post

DW,

I read this thread to hear what you have to say based on your first-hand, direct experience.  It is tremendously interesting to me.

If Chogall is a troll, which I don't think is the case, expressing anger with him is only making him happy.  If he is not a troll, but rather someone sharing what he truly believes to be the case, your anger won't educate him, and it apparently isn't making him go away. 

My humble suggestion would be to ignore all insults from chogall.  When he says something you know to be wrong or misleading, point that out for all of us, citing your experience on the matter.  This may be repetitive, but so are all the insults, back and forth.

If there are people reading this thread who cannot appreciate what you have to offer, then I don't think virtual shouting will get them to do so.  Some people just can't be helped.  If they can't recognize the value of your experience, I am sure they have bigger problems than paying too much for GYW footwear.

I hear you. I agree.

But with all due respect, look how long I have been here and how many posts I have. It's always the same people or type of people. And it's been a long, long time having to deal with it. Eventually, it comes home to you that people who are inclined to trouble-make only take courage when you don't respond. As you responded to thelonious. And eventually polite, patient responses give way to testy responses, just because of the "same old, same old" of it.

Stick around, after you've been called a liar in every possible way--tacit and overt, had the effort and generosity of your efforts dismissed out of hand, or had your courage questioned enough times, you'll change your tune.

IMO....personal, not professional
post #1333 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

I hear you. I agree.

But with all due respect, look how long I have been here and how many posts I have. It's always the same people or type of people. And it's been a long, long time having to deal with it. Eventually, it comes home to you that people who are inclined to trouble-make only take courage when you don't respond. As you responded to thelonious. And eventually polite, patient responses give way to testy responses, just because of the "same old, same old" of it.

Stick around, after you've been called a liar in every possible way--tacit and overt, had the effort and generosity of your efforts dismissed out of hand, or had your courage questioned enough times, you'll change your tune.

IMO....personal, not professional

I, as one who is sadly ignorant about these matters, appreciate DWF's generosity in taking the time to educate me about them. DWF, could I try your generosity one more time and ask for your thoughts on the durability of this cut-and-turn gemmed hand-welting used in the Tramezza video? Would
you rate it a 5 like you did Weston's machine Goodyear cut-and-turn, or does it rate higher because of what you said was the ability to use a shoemaker's stitch and to wax the thread? Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

Awesome post, DWF. Thanks. So the makers of that SF Tramezza are doing cut-and-turned insole, supported with gemming, and then hand-welting it. You say, though, that this gemmed cut-turn hand-welting is probably a bit better than Weston's machine cut-and-turn supported by gemming, though. So would this be a 6 if Weston's is a 5?

Yanagi, thanks for the Bonafe video. That looks like hand-welting to a true leather holdfast, so I guess Bonafe are in the clear. They do use the term "hand-welted cucitura a mano" instead of Tramezza's "Goodyear a mano," so that would make sense. Now what about Meermin LM? They call it "Goodyear cosido a mano" after all. nest.gif
post #1334 of 1514
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

I think there's a real need for some people to start their own thread...I said this before and even offered to stay out of it. But that would spoil all the fun for some people.

That said, I know how to end all this dissension...although I doubt it will go over well...here's what I propose:

I'll try to remember to preface all my remarks with something along the order of "In my professional opinion..." or " From the perspective of having made shoes for 45 years, day in and day out..."

And those who insist on questioning my experience or my integrity or truthfulness, or the sincerity of my offerings, can preface theirs with 'In my personal experience..." or 'I don't know anything about shoemaking but..."

This way we can each have our say and let the angels and the reader sort it out as to who is right and who is wrong...who has more credibility and who they want to believe. No need for any back and forth.

edited for punctuation and clarity

I actually think the above plan might work. We can't make people preface their remarks. However, if you prefeace your remarks and they don't, most thread readers will learn to recognize the difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

I hear you. I agree.

But with all due respect, look how long I have been here and how many posts I have. It's always the same people or type of people. And it's been a long, long time having to deal with it. Eventually, it comes home to you that people who are inclined to trouble-make only take courage when you don't respond. As you responded to thelonious. And eventually polite, patient responses give way to testy responses, just because of the "same old, same old" of it.

Stick around, after you've been called a liar in every possible way--tacit and overt, had the effort and generosity of your efforts dismissed out of hand, or had your courage questioned enough times, you'll change your tune.

IMO....personal, not professional

I am as prone or more prone to taking offense and getting angry as most men. I cannot imagine how you have put up with so much. You have plenty of reason to be angry and disgusted. You are justified in being disgusted by people's inability or unwillingness to acknowledge your experience actually making shoes versus other people buying them and reading about them. However, and I have not been here long, so I may be mistaken, your railing against the inanity of others doesn't do much of any good and may, sadly, discredit your experience with some people. Some people hear anger and, rather than determining whether it is justified, simply dismiss the source of the anger as a "disturbed individual."

Again, I value your contribution to this forum above all others. I am writing this, humbly, to propose experimenting with a different strategy. Obviously, I might be completely wrong.

Ideally, we could all disagree vehemently about footwear without ever making personal attacks against one another. Of course, we all have failings. We are all sinners. It is not that there aren't things to criticize in one another; it is because there are so many that we need to avoid the criticism of each other's character.

I know next-to-nothing about footwear and want to learn more without having to experience quite as much hostility.
post #1335 of 1514
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirling View Post

I actually think the above plan might work. We can't make people preface their remarks. However, if you prefeace your remarks and they don't, most thread readers will learn to recognize the difference.

Well, you may have noticed I started prefacing at least some of my remarks with "In my professional opinion..." some days ago. And if you've gotten into other threads that are not about shoemaking and seen my occasional...very occasional...posts there, you know I generally say something along the order of "personal opinion only". I often, no matter where I'm at say "IMO..."Although that could be regarded as a placeholder. Still, I don't see much in the way of reciprocity, esp. in these threads, (present company excepted.).

Or course that's just my personal experience...
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