shoe construction...behind the veil

traverscao · Mar 23, 2015

MoneyWellSpent said:
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.

To partially interpret what is going on here:
The welt used in GYW is not of high quality. Furthermore, they don't take the time and work on recrafting - they just put whatever needs to be replaced on and then hurriedly finish up the work, send the shoes back, and consider that as done. They won't take the time to examine if the welt is good or gone, or are the stitch holes on the welt is intact. Matter of fact, since all that was needed to be done was to run the shoe through a machine, why even bother to loop every thread from the sole to the welt for? That was why they'd rather replace the welt as well, disregarding the fact that it can shorten the shoes' life significantly.

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

Certainly, in one way or another, yes. Much like how spray finishing and loading truck loads of ink would be the preferred method rather than slowly dying the upper and spend some more times burnishing and smoothing the edges of the sole.

MoneyWellSpent · Mar 23, 2015

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

There are certainly industries that get "creative" in ways to force customers into having to buy more products. I don't really know if that is what is going on or not, but I've considered it.

traverscao · Mar 23, 2015

MoneyWellSpent said:
There are certainly industries that get "creative" in ways to force customers into having to buy more products. I don't really know if that is what is going on or not, but I've considered it.

They get evil all the time.

MoneyWellSpent · Mar 23, 2015

traverscao said:
To partially interpret what is going on here:
The welt used in GYW is not of high quality. Furthermore, they don't take the time and work on recrafting - they just put whatever needs to be replaced on and then hurriedly finish up the work, send the shoes back, and consider that as done. They won't take the time to examine if the welt is good or gone, or are the stitch holes on the welt is intact. Matter of fact, since all that was needed to be done was to run the shoe through a machine, why even bother to loop every thread from the sole to the welt for? That was why they'd rather replace the welt as well, disregarding the fact that it can shorten the shoes' life significantly.

Certainly, in one way or another, yes. Much like how spray finishing and loading truck loads of ink would be the preferred method rather than slowly dying the upper and spend some more times burnishing and smoothing the edges of the sole.

I'm not aware of a substantial difference in quality where the actual welting is concerned (at least among the manufacturers generally discussed in SF). I may certainly be wrong.

You may have it though. They may feel that it is more time consuming to inspect for integrity of the welt than to just rip it off and sew on a new one, and time is money.

I'm not sure I followed you on the section I highlighted in bold. What do you mean there?

traverscao · Mar 23, 2015

MoneyWellSpent said:
I'm not aware of a substantial difference in quality where the actual welting is concerned (at least among the manufacturers generally discussed in SF). I may certainly be wrong.

You may have it though. They may feel that it is more time consuming to inspect for integrity of the welt than to just rip it off and sew on a new one, and time is money.

I'm not sure I followed you on the section I highlighted in bold. What do you mean there?

It's pretty damn hard to really put it into proper words. Here's a good example. St. Crispins' shoes would have the soles hand stitched on a "recraft", where the artisan would loop the thread back into the original holes. Cobblers using low speed machines would have a precise aim, guiding the needle into the right holes on the welt. However, industrial machines with high speed cannot do neither of these things, nor would they want to.

I hope that partially explains. Somehow I get less verbose these days LOL!

MoneyWellSpent · Mar 23, 2015

traverscao said:
It's pretty damn hard to really put it into proper words. Here's a good example. St. Crispins' shoes would have the soles hand stitched on a "recraft", where the artisan would loop the thread back into the original holes. Cobblers using low speed machines would have a precise aim, guiding the needle into the right holes on the welt. However, industrial machines with high speed cannot do neither of these things, nor would they want to.

I hope that partially explains. Somehow I get less verbose these days LOL!

No, that makes sense. Though I think they are able to control the speed. Rather, they dial up the speed and decrease the number of stitches per inch for expediency.

traverscao · Mar 23, 2015

MoneyWellSpent said:
No, that makes sense. Though I think they are able to control the speed. Rather, they dial up the speed and decrease the number of stitches per inch for expediency.

They don't want to. Rather you buy new shoes, or else accept it as is. They're not artisans or artists, and it just sickens me.

DWFII · Mar 23, 2015

There is more than a little to the idea that the outsole stitching machines have a hard time hitting the old holes in the welt. I've seen the big factory outsole machines in operation though not at a time in my life when I could take it all in or evaluate the differences between them and the curved needle machines found in most repair shops.

That said, even if a cobbler gets the stitch length settings perfectly in sync with the frequency of the old holes, there is no guarantee that all the stitching will fall into place. The way a shoe is held in the machine, the body stance of the operator, the density of the new soles, etc., all these factor into the regularity of the stitch, esp going around the toe and into the waist. Perhaps the calculation is that missed holes is more damaging to the reputation of the company than the cost of new welts. Because missing the old holes can be unsightly, no question. As well as irreparably damaging to the the welt.

Beyond that, MoneyWellSpent probably knows as much about factory operations as anyone here...more than I do certainly. And he's right--every time the gemming is restitched it is damaged. Fibers, and threads comprising the weave, are invariably cut.

Given that, I don't understand what is gained by replacing the welt while not replacing the gemming and / or the insole, either. I suspect the cost of the welt is relatively insignificant (although in most of these operations every inch of thread is tallied and monitored--wasted thread costs money) esp. if something material--a savings in labour time, for instance--is gained.

I am not as sanguine about the issues of expediency and / or the "factory mentality" as MWS is, however. One thing I do know--it is not done out of any sense of altruism. The "bottom line" drives every decision and maximizing profit is always the prime motive--Job One.

edited for punctuation and clarity

striker · Mar 23, 2015

That is why i wear cemented shoes. Blasphemous I know but all my shoes, be they welted or blakestitched, have a topy glued on the soles.

They are easily replaced without the need for the original last or any restitching that would weaken the integrity of the shoe construction. At least as far as value is concerned. GYW shoe sellers and brands like to emphasize that their shoes can be recrafted at a cost of a third of a new shoe price but truthfully, unless the factory is just next to where one lives, the cost is closer to half, and in many cases 75% the cost of the new shoe, plus a whole lot of down time spent waiting.

chogall · Mar 23, 2015

MoneyWellSpent said:
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.

SOP. Used welts most likely than not don't have the same integrity as new welts thus cannot be feed into the standard production line. But once welt is replaced, it feeds right onto the standard flow with tried and tested quality control.

Zapasman · Mar 24, 2015

And the other factor is that even if the repair at factory has taken into consideration the replacement of gemming, insole and welt, the machinery proccedings/recrafting at factory is weak; the shoes can turn much loose or too tight in fit. That is my experience for the price of 180 €. HW shoes or even BR shoes are the alternative for such a problem indeed.

DWFII · Mar 24, 2015

chogall said:
SOP. Used welts most likely than not don't have the same integrity as new welts

Not saying you're wrong because you're not...but there is no reason for welt to lose integrity if the old holes are used when replacing the outsole. All other things being equal, there should be no significant difference between the strength or integrity of the original welt and anything that might replace it.

In context, it might also be noted that if the inseam or the gemming has failed and a section of the welt needs to be replaced, a spliced section of welt on an otherwise newly recrafted shoes might not be exactly eye beguiling.

MoneyWellSpent · Mar 24, 2015

DWFII said:
Not saying you're wrong because you're not...but there is no reason for welt to lose integrity if the old holes are used when replacing the outsole. All other things being equal, there should be no significant difference between the strength or integrity of the original welt and anything that might replace it.

In context, it might also be noted that if the inseam or the gemming has failed and a section of the welt needs to be replaced, a spliced section of welt on an otherwise newly recrafted shoes might not be exactly eye beguiling.

It would seem reasonable that the welt could take as many restitchings with the rapid stitchers as the upper can when they stitch on a new welt (so 2-3 at least).

I think the SOP logic is probably the correct answer on why they indescriminately replace the welt, but I still have a hard time imagining that it is saving them much time or money. I can't argue with it since they should be the experts on their bottom line. Not me.

It should be a simple check to look at the welt and see if it is chewed up at the toe from wear. It isn't as if people aren't examining the shoes as they go through the process. They are in people's hands the whole time, while they are using machines to perform their process.

Seems to me that if the person cutting off the sole looked at the welt and decided whether to skip carrying the shoes to the re-welting station, it would only take an extra 10 seconds per pair. That would add up, until you subtract the several minutes they would save on most pairs by not cutting off and replacing the welt, plus the cost of the welting and thread. I would expect them to make it through more pairs per day that way.

DWFII · Mar 24, 2015

MoneyWellSpent said:
It would seem reasonable that the welt could take as many restitchings with the rapid stitchers as the upper can when they stitch on a new welt (so 2-3 at least).

I think the SOP logic is probably the correct answer on why they indescriminately replace the welt, but I still have a hard time imagining that it is saving them much time or money. I can't argue with it since they should be the experts on their bottom line. Not me.

It should be a simple check to look at the welt and see if it is chewed up at the toe from wear. It isn't as if people aren't examining the shoes as they go through the process. They are in people's hands the whole time, while they are using machines to perform their process.

Seems to me that if the person cutting off the sole looked at the welt and decided whether to skip carrying the shoes to the re-welting station, it would only take an extra 10 seconds per pair. That would add up, until you subtract the several minutes they would save on most pairs by not cutting off and replacing the welt, plus the cost of the welting and thread. I would expect them to make it through more pairs per day that way.

I think they would have to be much more careful about hitting the old holes in the upper unless they were relasting them and taking out whatever stretch had developed during wear. Certainly with handwelted, whether it was short sections or the whole welt, the old holes in both the holdfast and the upper would be religiously used.

Welts can take an almost indefinite number of outsole restitchings as long as the old stitches are picked and the new stitches go into the old holes. Same same with regard to inseaming even if it's to gemming. And the same again with the uppers.

It is only when the time is not taken to clear away the stitches and to stitch in the old holes that damage occurs--to the welt and/or to the upper. It is making new holes next to old holes that destroys the integrity of the leather in either location.

And FWIW, it's not just out-of-sync frequency, it's also the vector of the stitching.

Which brings up another point in conjunction with SOP--when the outsoles have been stitched, the soles and welt are trimmed. Invariably some material is removed which significantly alters the dimensions of the outsole and the width of the welt.

If the outsole stitching machines are set to stitch a specific distance from the edge of a new, untrimmed welt, and then a shoe with old (even pristine) welt is run through that same machine with the same settings, the line of stitching will be significantly displaced from where it originally was. And again new holes will be created.

Thinking about it...I suspect that right there is your answer. If they didn't replace the welts they'd be forever changing the depth gauge on the outsole stitchers with no guarantee that they would be able to reproduce the same setting from one pair to the next.

MoneyWellSpent · Mar 24, 2015

DWFII said:
I think they would have to be much more careful about hitting the old holes in the upper unless they were relasting them and taking out whatever stretch had developed during wear. Certainly with handwelted, whether it was short sections or the whole welt, the old holes in both the holdfast and the upper would be religiously used.

Welts can take an almost indefinite number of outsole restitchings as long as the old stitches are picked and the new stitches go into the old holes. Same same with regard to inseaming even if it's to gemming. And the same again with the uppers.

It is only when the time is not taken to clear away the stitches and to stitch in the old holes that damage occurs--to the welt and/or to the upper. It is making new holes next to old holes that destroys the integrity of the leather in either location.

And FWIW, it's not just out-of-sync frequency, it's also the vector of the stitching.

Which brings up another point in conjunction with SOP--when the outsoles have been stitched, the soles and welt are trimmed. Invariably some material is removed which significantly alters the dimensions of the outsole and the width of the welt.

If the outsole stitching machines are set to stitch a specific distance from the edge of a new, untrimmed welt, and then a shoe with old (even pristine) welt is run through that same machine with the same settings, the line of stitching will be significantly displaced from where it originally was. And again new holes will be created.

Thinking about it...I suspect that right there is your answer. If they didn't replace the welts they'd be forever changing the depth gauge on the outsole stitchers with no guarantee that they would be able to reproduce the same setting from one pair to the next.

Thanks for your feedback!

I think this is the most logical explanation I've heard. The trimmed welt on the worn pair is significantly different than an untrimmed welt on a newly made shoe. So, they would have to allocate machines specifically for repair of worn shoes, which I don't believe they do. Even if they did, there would still be the variable of how much trimming was done on the welt the first time, which is completely done by hand, without a guide, so the distance that the stitching is from the edge varies from shoe to shoe. So, again, they would have to be making constant adjustments to the machine in order to set the guide in the correct place. This would invariably lead to issues even within a pair, as the trimming isn't consistent all the way around the shoe, being done by hand (against a sanding wheel).

Back to the original dilemma then. Send shoes to the factory, where they can use the original last to ensure that potential issues are mitigated, but sacrifice longevity of the upper due to re-welting. Or, send them to a local cobbler where they will reuse the welt, but possibly not be able to fix structural issues properly.

shoe construction...behind the veil

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Distinguished Member

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Distinguished Member

Classic Menswear Featured products

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: