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 10

post #136 of 454

has anyone ever heard of the tyrolese welt, any pictures or descriptions are much appreciated

post #137 of 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeeef View Post

has anyone ever heard of the tyrolese welt, any pictures or descriptions are much appreciated

depending on who you talk to, tyrolese is either the same thing as goiser welting, or bentivegna welting. Both are pretty similar to each other.
post #138 of 454
I'm also curious about this. Nobody has answered or reacted this question. Of this method is so flawed and all the companies and consumers are aware of this matter, why would they just simply use Blake or Blake rapid method ?
post #139 of 454
"Why has goodyear welting become almost a standard in RTW shoemaking if it has all of these inherent problems? I don't understand why shoe manufacterers don't just use blake/rapid construction which has the benefits of stitching, but none of the time, money and skill constraints of handwelting? Makes no sense to me "Patrickboot

I'm also curious about this. Nobody has answered or reacted on this question. If the goodyear method is so flawed and all the companies and consumers are aware of this matter, why would they just simply use Blake or Blake rapid method ?
post #140 of 454
Essentially because "Goodyear welting" has some sort of marketing cache. Many manufacturers of blake rapid use cheap, thin, insoles that may not even be leather to get around using a proper insole.
post #141 of 454
So you are suggesting because of the marketing cache and the use of cheaper insole on Blake method good year method is seen as the gold standard?

let's now take the resole/recrafting option out of the Goodyear equation, since many folks relates this possibility for resoling as quality. Which of these two Blake versus Goodyear will last longer without resoling or considered superior quality construction ?
Since in Goodyear relies on glue canvas and Blake on direct stitches.

Also according to most manufacturers you can only recraft a Goodyear shoes 2-3 times which in my opinion is not alot. I have resoled Blake and bologna construction shoes which can also can be resoled at the same amount of times. So I don't get this fuss about the recrafting of Goodyear while you can also recraft/ resole of construction methods like Blake and bologna construction. BNelson shoes NYC also resoles all these construction shoes.
post #142 of 454
I think it has to do with the marketing cache of goodyear, also probably the machines for blake rapid not being as common.

In terms of quality, it isn't simply one construction vs. another, but the materials used. Holding all constant if you're using a cheap fiberboard insole, which some manufactures do in both construction you aren't getting any benefit over another.

In terms of amount of times something can be resoled, it depends as well. If you're running an outsole machine across the welt several times tearing it up, yes, only a few times until it is shredded. If you take your time and thread it in the existing holes probably much longer. The same goes for Blake Rapid. There are several factors at play. Also, like you mentioned places like B. Nelson can replace welts and mid soles (in the case of blake rapid) so in that case the weakest link is in the construction, and the insole.

If good insoles are used (which they probably aren't bespoke level quality in RTW) then yes, blake/rapid is probably the better choice.
post #143 of 454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmss View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
So you are suggesting because of the marketing cache and the use of cheaper insole on Blake method good year method is seen as the gold standard?

let's now take the resole/recrafting option out of the Goodyear equation, since many folks relates this possibility for resoling as quality. Which of these two Blake versus Goodyear will last longer without resoling or considered superior quality construction ?
Since in Goodyear relies on glue canvas and Blake on direct stitches.

Also according to most manufacturers you can only recraft a Goodyear shoes 2-3 times which in my opinion is not alot. I have resoled Blake and bologna construction shoes which can also can be resoled at the same amount of times. So I don't get this fuss about the recrafting of Goodyear while you can also recraft/ resole of construction methods like Blake and bologna construction. BNelson shoes NYC also resoles all these construction shoes.

It all comes down, in the end, to what's the cheapest and most expedient...in terms of materials and time...and which method will turn a profit fastest. It's all down to cash flow.

Between GY and Blake Rapid, I would prefer to see Blake Rapid (not Blake) as long as it is founded on a good, substantial leather insole. That's not guaranteed. But when a pair of shoes is made like that, and when they are taken care of, they can be resoled almost indefinitely. Recrafting really isn't an issue...for either a well made BR or a HW shoe.

Blake Rapid is nearly as reliable and steadfast a method as HandWelted. Almost, but not quite.

Goodyear is well behind either, IMO, simply because any method for doing anything is only as strong as its weakest component--and from materials to techniques, nothing about GY is "best practices." Every technique, every material essential to the construction of a GY shoe is chosen for fast and cheap.
post #144 of 454
Thanks for your reply. I see alot of emphasis on the quality of insoles. Why is it so important? What difference would it make of thick vs thin insoles.

shoes construction such as moccasins/bologna uses "bag" thin insoles. Does that means that these are also inferior constructions?
post #145 of 454
Thread Starter 
pB has it correct. Blake-Rapid is much harder to do than GY. And the machines are more expensive. As is the materials needed to make a good BR shoe.

Beyond that, it is not that GY has a cachet, it is the companies that have the cachet. Most of the Northampton shoe manufacturers were once workshops of highly skilled shoemakers (not machine operators or button pushers).

When Charles Goodyear invented the GY process (in the mid 19th century) it was seen as an opportunity to cut the cost of making a shoe, up production by an order of magnitude, and get rid of those high skilled, highly trained (and highly paid) shoemakers who also demanded a pension.

Most of those companies in Northampton are riding on the reputations and the cachet that they created when they were workshops of highly skilled shoemakers.

Anyone can accept the marketing hype at face value and...I'm sure...be satisfied that it makes no difference. And for them, it probably doesn't.

But it is another thing to really look closely at the components and how they work together; to objectively analyze the structural properties of the materials in question and the integrity of the techniques that combine them. When you do that, the commonly held perceptions...mostly based on what these companies tell the public and with absolutely no reference to Traditional or even objectively better techniques...fall apart.

--

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 3/9/15 at 2:11pm
post #146 of 454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmss View Post

Thanks for your reply. I see alot of emphasis on the quality of insoles. Why is it so important? What difference would it make of thick vs thin insoles.

shoes construction such as moccasins/bologna uses "bag" thin insoles. Does that means that these are also inferior constructions?

In some cases none.

In GY, for instance, a thin insole...sometimes not even leather...is acceptable because, fundamentally GY is a cement reliant construction. Thin insoles are cheaper than thicker insoles (insole leather is sold by weight). And even the quality of the insole can be downgraded (at an additional savings)...all for the same reason--GY is cement construction.

In BR a thinner insole is simply less likely to bear the strain of the stitches...better than fiberboard, but less so than a thicker insole.

In a HW shoe the holdfast is created in the insole. It is the anchor for the upper as well as the welt via the inseam. It is the backbone of the shoe. To a certain extent, thicker is better.

With a moccasin the construction techniques that hold the footwear together don't rely upon or even need an insole. Fundamentally, the outsole are connected directly to the uppers.

And FWIW, a thicker insole is, in the long run, more comfortable because the foot can create deep, individualized impressions--a "footbed"--in the leather.

--

edited for punctuation and clarity
post #147 of 454
Thanks for you feedback! Truly appreciate it.
what about the simple blake construction does the thickness of the insole matter?
post #148 of 454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmss View Post

Thanks for you feedback! Truly appreciate it.
what about the simple blake construction does the thickness of the insole matter?

Same as for Blake Rapid. But you need to understand the difference in the two techniques and what it implies.

Blake stitching runs from the insole to the outsole. The threads are, one way or the other, sooner or late , exposed to the environment and the threads can wick moisture into the shoe.

But perhaps more importantly, once the outsole is worn to the point where the "thread lock" is broken, it becomes a bit problematic to replace the outsole. The machine that sews from the inside of the shoe to the outside is not likely to place the new stitches in the old holes. If nothing else the insole gets damaged.

Blake Rapid sews from the insole to a "mid sole" which functions as a welt along its perimeter. The outsole is sewn to the midsole just as it would be sewn to a welt. When the outsole wears out it can be stripped off and the stitches picked from the edge of the midsole and a new outsole sewn on. No harm no foul. Except!! Unlike handwelted, that "edge" cannot be easily replaced. If the cobbler is less than rigourous in his work and grinds away the edge of the midsole (more common than admitted), it is damaged irrevocably. If the customer has a habit of kicking curbstones, same same.
post #149 of 454
So you are implying that its difficult to resole a Blake constructed shoes?
post #150 of 454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmss View Post

So you are implying that its difficult to resole a Blake constructed shoes?

I don't know that I'd say "difficult"...depending on your access to the proper machine. But I am saying that it's destructive of the insole. And ultimately destructive of the shoe.

Thing is it doesn't fulfill the expectation of being repeatedly and easily repairable as well as GY or BR...much less HW.
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