or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › **The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

**The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.** - Page 746

post #11176 of 19050

I take your point, DWF, but if I had the money to buy Carmina's and then found I could see the sunshine through the edges, I would be in tears and probably in a mental institution by the end of the week. 

post #11177 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Yes and no.

First, any kind of channeling is usually better than none (stitching aloft) or an open groove.

Second, a good many manufactured shoes will have a vertical channel. Nothing wrong with that except appearance (it's visible right from the get-go, even if only as a thin line) and such channels never open up even though no adhesive is used.

Many high end manufactured shoes, on the other hand, have a horizontal channel that is really only a thin flap of leather. They will always open up regardless of the cement (or paste) used, and generally sooner, rather than later. Simply because the leather is thin and wear and abrasion will expose the stitching and defeat the best of adhesives. But they look good, esp. at first...and emulate truly high end work.

A good bespoke channel is cut at an angle from the edge of the outsole. It gets deeper as it gets closer to the actual line of stitching. This kind of channel will open up slightly, esp. at first if the adhesive used to secure the edge is not up to the task. But as the outsole wears, it's much harder for the channel to open up no matter what cement or paste...or none...is used. In that regard, an angled channel is more nearly like a vertical channel. Of course this angled channel must be cut by hand and kept out of the way by hand while the outsole is stitched...by hand. But it looks terrific and wears well.

On edit...parenthetically, any oil or conditioner that you put on your outsoles is going to vitiate the adhesive that holds the channel closed. FFT (food for thought)

--

This is how I interpret this, and I hope I'm not severely wrong, DW.

 

Bespoke shoes and boots have better closed channel, because the artist/artisan took great care in sealing up that channel, then wax and seal up that sole. Factory shoes, no matter how good is the "handgrade", will never be close to a match.

post #11178 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

This is how I interpret this, and I hope I'm not severely wrong, DW.

Bespoke shoes and boots have better closed channel, because the artist/artisan took great care in sealing up that channel, then wax and seal up that sole. Factory shoes, no matter how good is the "handgrade", will never be close to a match.

Bespoke shoes and boots don't necessarily have a better closed channel--it depends on the skill and the experience and the "time in harness" of the maker, of course.

A vertical channel...which is a closed channel as well...is almost always a product of machine work. And the vertical channel is functionally as good as or even better than...simply because there is no risk of flapping open and ragged edges...the horizontal or even angled channel.

But that said, there are limitations to what a machine can do...esp. relative to what skilled hands can do (see "64 to the inch") and most factories are not going to take the time to hand channel and hand stitch the outsole. If they did it would probably add another $600.00 to a pair of shoes.

Whereas that's the stock in Trade of the highest level of bespoke work.

I know several bespoke makers (myself included) that offer both options--a handsewn (at 12spi in my case), angled, hand channeled outsole, or a machine stitched, vertical channeled, outsole. Depends on what the customer wants to pay for.

--
Edited by DWFII - 10/17/14 at 2:18pm
post #11179 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

On edit...parenthetically, any oil or conditioner that you put on your outsoles is going to vitiate the adhesive that holds the channel closed. FFT (food for thought)

--

 

Vitiate: :  to make faulty or defective

 

I was made smarter today.  I love this place :inlove:

post #11180 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDeKelver View Post

Vitiate: :  to make faulty or defective

I was made smarter today.

I doubt that...you were already smart enough to realize that you didn't know the meaning of the word and smart enough to look it up. That's really almost the definition of smart and more than some ever come to.

I'm getting old, my memory doesn't serve the way it used to. I use a thesaurus almost every day when I'm writing. It keeps me from identifying every object around me as "thing."

smile.gif

--
post #11181 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


I doubt that...you were already smart enough to realize that you didn't know the meaning of the word and smart enough to look it up. That's really almost the definition of smart and more than some ever come to.

I'm getting old, my memory doesn't serve the way it used to. I use a thesaurus almost every day when I'm writing. It keeps me from identifying every object around me as "thing."

smile.gif

--

Worse yet, kids nowadays are addicted to the term "thinggy", whereabouts this term came from, God knows. 

post #11182 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by traverscao View Post

Worse yet, kids nowadays are addicted to the term "thinggy", whereabouts this term came from, God knows. 

It's all the more disturbing because it's English and for most of us, it's our first language, our native tongue. And it should be "second-nature." It's not like learning calculus or conjugating Latin verbs.

--
Edited by DWFII - 10/18/14 at 7:26am
post #11183 of 19050

Language is always changing and cannot be set in stone. It's no good looking back to a golden age of 'proper' English; there never was such a thing. 

post #11184 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munky View Post

Language is always changing and cannot be set in stone. It's no good looking back to a golden age of 'proper' English; there never was such a thing. 

On the other hand, acknowledging that language is always changing doesn't mean that it has to devolve into grunting and insouciant gibberish...nevermind take to knuckle-dragging and beetle-browing, ourselves.

Language is a tool and when used with skill and mindfulness--the kind you would would bring to using any tool--it can be wonderfully specific and accurate in expressing our ideas, needs, wants, feelings and generally easing the interactions between people.

The fact that it is the only tool we have to make connections is almost beside the point--that should, if reason and logic have any influence, increase our facility with it. Not abridge our skill or comprehension. Yet some seem almost deliberately intent on divorcing themselves from fluency or even awareness of fluency. Repudiating specificity...for fear of being held accountable, perhaps?

This is such a fundamental issue that over centuries a real concerted and sustained effort has been made to codify and preserve the language and the way it is used. Dictionaries abound, books and blogs are written about grammar and syntax. At some cultural, if not genetic, level we all realize the inadequacies of grunting and singular, self-informed definitions.

It's kind of like the Traditions of shoemaking. Dismiss or deprecate them and everything shoemaking is coarsened. Made prosaic and hackneyed.

Regardless of the subject, skill and fluency are very nearly, if not entirely, synonymous and a necessary predicate to real understanding.

--
Edited by DWFII - 10/18/14 at 9:18am
post #11185 of 19050

Thank you, DW. That seems to sort everything out!  :happy:

post #11186 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munky View Post

Thank you, DW. That seems to sort everything out!  happy.gif

Well, maybe not, but it makes more sense to me...perhaps because I am a tool user...than shaking my head in bewilderment.

Life takes courage...and commitment. tinfoil.gif

(within slapping distance of 70, I'm allowed to say these kinds of things...and FWIW, I read Grammarphobia daily)
post #11187 of 19050

Anyway, why don't we come back to shoes? Anybody got experience with the Saphir Beauté du Cuir Greasy Cream? I know I used it on calfskin shoes to a great effect.

post #11188 of 19050
With my latest shoe purchase I got a complementary tin of Burgol Piz. I understand it's some kind of waterproofing agent but I don't know how to apply it. Generously all over my boots or sparsely on the seams only?
post #11189 of 19050
Quote:
Originally Posted by zarkov View Post

With my latest shoe purchase I got a complementary tin of Burgol Piz. I understand it's some kind of waterproofing agent but I don't know how to apply it. Generously all over my boots or sparsely on the seams only?

Bath the upper lightly with clean, warm water, then brush the surface with a shoe brush. Once the leather is dry and warm, apply a light coat of the stuff to the upper, brush a coat to the welt seams, get it on the tongue... remember to rub it in really well, then let it sit and absorb for, preferably, 12 hours to overnite. Once it is all dry, get a clean brush and brush the surface off. You're basically done by then.

 

Alternatively, for the next aplication, get Montana Pitch Blend or Saphir Graisse for better penetration and absorption, in case this stuff - Burgol Piz - is too thick.

post #11190 of 19050
I'd advise against using it at all...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › **The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**