shoe construction...behind the veil

I have a question what is pvc welt strip? and it is understood that some goodyear shoes also use pvc welt rather than leather welt strip? I noticed that the welt on the CHEANEY shoes are like very solid colored black looking are these leather?

Also I see blake shoes using randwelt. Is it pure for decoration? or does it have a purpose?

How can one noticed if its leather or synthetic material?

vmss said:

I have a question what is pvc welt strip? and it is understood that some goodyear shoes also use pvc welt rather than leather welt strip? I noticed that the welt on the CHEANEY shoes are like very solid colored black looking are these leather?

Also I see blake shoes using randwelt. Is it pure for decoration? or does it have a purpose?

How can one noticed if its leather or synthetic material?

Click to expand...

Essentially, it's plastic welting. Cheaper brands will use pvc instead of leather, but the brands discussed in StyleForum don't. Cheaney is one of the better brands, and uses leather.

On Blake shoes, yes, it's for decoration. It is also a way to make the shoe look "welted." Not necessarily saying that they have a maliciously deceptive intent. They may just be trying to portray the aesthetics of a welted shoe, which many find preferable. Some companies certainly try to make their shoes look welted, when they aren't. So it certainly depends on the manufacturer I think.



MoneyWellSpent said:

Essentially, it's plastic welting.  Cheaper brands will use pvc instead of leather, but the brands discussed in StyleForum don't.  Cheaney is one of the better brands, and uses leather. 

On Blake shoes, yes, it's for decoration.  It is also a way to make the shoe look "welted."  Not necessarily saying that they have a maliciously deceptive intent.  They may just be trying to portray the aesthetics of a welted shoe, which many find preferable.  Some companies certainly try to make their shoes look welted, when they aren't.  So it certainly depends on the manufacturer I think. 

Click to expand...

You're so much more diplomatic than I am.

But it's not what it's pretending to be. And the average consumer can't tell the difference or know the significance.

It's like GY in that sense--they're both artificially flavoured.



MoneyWellSpent said:

It is sad to me that many of these people could be experiencing the quality reserved for the elite in modern society for the same or less money that they are spending in order to have these obese collections of lesser quality shoes. If only they could reign in their consumption and get back to the idea of a well rounded basic shoe rotation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this was basically my point.

I try to avoid words like "consumption" as much as possibly lest people dismiss my thoughts as that of a free-wheeling hippy, but I think I diluted my point there.

DWFII said:

here's a thought:

Part of the function of a forum such as this is to shorten (or flatten) that learning curve. Not just the "bad influence and peer pressure" of SF but the actual learning part.

Click to expand...

Yup.

I do wonder why there's a desire for statistics on what is a purely a qualitative issue, in every sense of the word.

It's one of the few occasions where stats are completely irrelevant.

Being a teacher I tend toward trying to answer every question to the best of my ability (and sometimes that's none too good) so I never thought of it quite like that. But I think that's such an insightful observation.

hendrix said:

I do wonder why there's a desire for statistics on what is a purely a qualitative issue, in every sense of the word.

It's one of the few occasions where stats are completely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Remember, qualitative information/data is largely bias-able, whereas numerical, or quantitative data, whilst free of bias, can be seriously shallow and lack of depth. People/researchers/data composers would often try a hybrid, but they come out stupid.

Using statistics to support his bias, Ancel Keys might have orchestrated the mass occurrence of heart attack in the post baby boomer generation.

What the hell...

hey DW and everyone,

I have found this weird pair of "JoseReal" (see the insole for brand) claimed to be Italian handmade shoes on myhabit: http://www.myhabit.com/#page=d&dept=men&asin=B00NXL30R8

it looks like norvegese welted(which should be fully hand welted i think) but it definitely isn't, not only because that the price is way too low, and the leather they used seemed not good enough. I actually went to google it's official site,http://joserealshoes.com/ , and found that on the same address this company is located(2058 NW Miami Ct, Miami, FL 33127 – U.S.A.), there is another import/export company "Impexsa Corporation", and guess what, this "Impexsa" have massive loads of import of shoes from----not Italy, but some southeast China shoe factory!

I know that is not enough to conclude that this brand "josereal" is fraud, since I can't make sure if it's falsely claiming to be "handmade" or "Italian made" with out 1 pair of proof in my hand, or can I?
anything you can add to the observation?



P.S. These findings may not be a big wonder, but I'm still wandering how this kind of fraud(not "fake" since they are not faking any brand") product found its way to Myhabit.

manasdirge said:

hey DW and everyone,

I have found this weird pair of "JoseReal" (see the insole for brand) claimed to be Italian handmade shoes on myhabit: http://www.myhabit.com/#page=d&dept=men&asin=B00NXL30R8

it looks like norvegese welted(which should be fully hand welted i think) but it definitely isn't, not only because that the price is way too low, and the leather they used seemed not good enough. I actually went to google it's official site,http://joserealshoes.com/ , and found that on the same address this company is located(2058 NW Miami Ct, Miami, FL 33127 – U.S.A.), there is another import/export company "Impexsa Corporation", and guess what, this "Impexsa" have massive loads of import of shoes from----not Italy, but some southeast China shoe factory!

I know that is not enough to conclude that this brand "josereal" is fraud, since I can't make sure if it's falsely claiming to be "handmade" or "Italian made" with out 1 pair of proof in my hand, or can I?
anything you can add to the observation?



P.S. These findings may not be a big wonder, but I'm still wandering how this kind of fraud(not "fake" since they are not faking any brand") product found its way to Myhabit.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm telling ya, we can't even trust shoes made from factories right here in the US, let alone shoes that was "claimed" made in anywhere else.



traverscao said:

Remember, qualitative information/data is largely bias-able, whereas numerical, or quantitative data, whilst free of bias, can be seriously shallow and lack of depth. People/researchers/data composers would often try a hybrid, but they come out stupid.

Click to expand...

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

chogall said:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Click to expand...

The thing is, chogall, we never know if it was a lie, or was it true, speaking qualitatively. Only when we are presented would we know. But by then, even then, if we disclosed the information to public disclosure, we still have the half-trust faces.

As of statistics, it's shallow - numbers, or groups, that doesn't really prove a point.

One question I still have that I can't quite find a satisfactory answer to is why the GY factories automatically replace the welt when a shoe is sent in.

The most satisfactory one I can think of (and to me it's a bit flimsy) is that the holes left in the welt from the prior sole stitching would be unpleasing to the eye. However, in shoes replaced by local cobblers where the welt is re-used, this doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

I have a hard time trying to make factory mentality, or expediency the reason as well. It is an extra step to remove the welt after the sole is cut off. It costs more to replace the welt. Replacing the welt can actually increase the risk of gemming failure, as it stresses the inseam during stitching, which would only increase the repair time/cost to the factory.

Since replacing the welt shortens the life of the upper, I find it highly annoying that they replace it whether it is needed or not.

Frankly, I find this aspect of GY-welted shoe manufacturing to be more frustrating than the questionable strength and durability of gemming. People buy GY-welted shoes under the belief that they can be resoled more than half a dozen times, but the truth is, the factories only estimate that a shoe can take 2-3 recraftings. This is purely due to the welt replacement factor.

To further complicate it, they all have a policy that if an aftermarket cobbler works on the shoes, then the factory may not perform a recraft. I understand the point behind this, being that they don't want to be working on a pair of shoes that have been completely botched by an incompetent repair man. But, this forces the customer to either choose a shorter life for their shoes by using the recrafting service, while finding security in the fact that they have the original last to assist in gemming/insole repairs as needed. Or, they can choose to lengthen the life of their shoes by sending them to a cobbler who will re-use the welt and prolong the life of the shoe. But, then they run the risk of the shoe being distorted or otherwise lost due to gemming failure issues and subsequent sizing changes, etc. It is a bit of a rock and a hard place in determining where to send shoes for repair.

I can't figure out if I'm missing a piece to the puzzle on why the factories wouldn't reuse the welt if it's in good shape, and thus multiply the number of resolings the shoe can take.

Maybe it would force the customer to buy a new pair of shoes?