or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Theard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Theard - Page 180

post #2686 of 12752
Is he the English one, or the Italian one? Because I'd much rather speak to an Italian being a guinea myself.
post #2687 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by quar View Post

But this shoe, despite being very well made I'm sure, has the proportions of a bunch of skis. I own G&G shoes, don't get me wrong, I like them. I think they are amongst the best in terms of make. But their elongated lasts leave me perplexed. How anyone can feel that such a shape is attractive leaves me stunned.

No one can tell you what to like or dislike, of course, but rhetorically...

Everything we wear is designed to make us look better than we actually do. That's the raison d'etre for tailored and high end clothing. Tailors work hard to create slimming effects and to camouflage less than optimal body shapes.

Same with shoes...there is a very real functional aspect to shoes but at bottom they are still adornment.

And aesthetically the foot leaves a lot to be desired. Some might even say feet are "ugly." The shoe slims the foot; alters proportions; introduces "fair curves" where in reality there is nothing but awkward and unattractive angles.

Fashion dictates that slim and elongated is in fashion right now. The very antipathy for square toes shoes that is so prevalent on SF is the flip side of the coin to the long and narrow toe.

There's also an "artistic" aspect to all of this...If a shoe maker were making a shoe for competition or display...and if he were wise...he would always choose a medium sized last (such as a size 9) but one that was very narrow (perhaps a 9AA). Why? Because it has long been recognized that the shoe will look better and draw the eye if the shoe is narrow. More leather, better proportions. It doesn't have anything to do with the observer's likes or dislikes or what size shoe they themselves wear. Nor does it have anything to do with toe shapes. The eye will always be drawn to the narrow shoe rather than the wider. I've heard this throughout my entire career and the few competitions that I have entered, the shows that I have been invited to, and the boots or shoes I have made for these events bears out the wisdom.
Edited by DWFII - 2/22/12 at 12:34pm
post #2688 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Fashion dictates that slim and elongated is in fashion right now. The very antipathy for square toes shoes that is so prevalent on SF is the flip side of the coin to the long and narrow toe.
There's also an "artistic" aspect to all of this...If a shoe maker were making a shoe for competition or display...and if he were wise...he would always choose a medium sized last (such as a size 9) but one that was very narrow (perhaps a 9AA). Why? Because it has long been recognized that the shoe will look better and draw the eye if the shoe is narrow. More leather, better proportions. It doesn't have anything to do with the observer's likes or dislikes or what size shoe they themselves wear. Nor does it have anything to do with toe shapes. The eye will always be drawn to the narrow shoe rather than the wider. I've heard this throughout my entire career and the few competitions that I have entered, the shows that I have been invited to, and the boots or shoes I have made for these events bears out the wisdom.

Amen. I also believe this the reason why on average women have nicer feet then men.

Question: I thought I knew what fair curves signified, but now i have serious doubts. Can you describe? Give examples?
post #2689 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenon View Post

Amen. I also believe this the reason why on average women have nicer feet then men.
Question: I thought I knew what fair curves signified, but now i have serious doubts. Can you describe? Give examples?

Well, I'm no mechanical or aeronautical engineer...although it is in this latter field that "fair curves" have their greatest contemporary currency.

So I will beg indulgence as I explain this in the terms I understand...and someone can correct me if I make a mistake.

I first ran across the concept of "fair curves" when I began turning wood. It was associated with the shapes of vases and the "golden mean." And, in another sense, the concept of vectors.

Essentially a "fair curve" is one in which there are no abrupt changes in the direction of a curving line. The shape of an airplane wing must be a fair curve...any abrupt chance in direction will create an edge, a corner, and drag.

If you examine a last...and in particular one of the old highly regarded West End classics...you will see that there are no edges, no corners, except around the bottom of the last--the "feather." And some of the old lasts don't even have that. It's all curves.

A vector is a direction or even a measure of velocity in one direction. Any change in the acceleration/velocity, plus or minus, is going to cause a change of direction. Too abrupt a change and you get an awkward curve--one that doesn't seem coherent or doesn't "flow."

A French Curve can be an example of fair curves. But some French curves seem to incorporate awkward curves...whether intentionally or not, I cannot say. The best example of an accelerating "fair" curve might be a mathematically perfect spiral.

OK...now I'm getting myself into deeper water than I can swim in, and I think I will leave it to others.

Suffice it to say that even if your conscious mind does not register it, when we look at an object that is comprised of fair curves, the eye is beguiled; when we look at objects that fall short of that ideal...just as when we see a vase that does not conform to the "Golden Mean"...the eye and the subconscious are disturbed.

Enough of these deviations from fair curves or the Golden Mean, and it begins to add up...to ugly (that's why the foot is "ugly" as compared to say, a young woman's breast). And while that's my opinion...I believe that the case may be made that at some level it is also a universal sensibility.
post #2690 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Well, I'm no mechanical or aeronautical engineer...although it is in this latter field that "fair curves" have their greatest contemporary currency.
So I will beg indulgence as I explain this in the terms I understand...and someone can correct me if I make a mistake.
I first ran across the concept of "fair curves" when I began turning wood. It was associated with the shapes of vases and the "golden mean." And, in another sense, the concept of vectors.
Essentially a "fair curve" is one in which there are no abrupt changes in the direction of a curving line. The shape of an airplane wing must be a fair curve...any abrupt chance in direction will create an edge, a corner, and drag.
If you examine a last...and in particular one of the old highly regarded West End classics...you will see that there are no edges, no corners, except around the bottom of the last--the "feather." And some of the old lasts don't even have that. It's all curves.
A vector is a direction or even a measure of velocity in one direction. Any change in the acceleration/velocity, plus or minus, is going to cause a change of direction. Too abrupt a change and you get an awkward curve--one that doesn't seem coherent or doesn't "flow."
A French Curve can be an example of fair curves. But some French curves seem to incorporate awkward curves...whether intentionally or not, I cannot say. The best example of an accelerating "fair" curve might be a mathematically perfect spiral.
OK...now I'm getting myself into deeper water than I can swim in, and I think I will leave it to others.
Suffice it to say that even if your conscious mind does not register it, when we look at an object that is comprised of fair curves, the eye is beguiled; when we look at objects that fall short of that ideal...just as when we see a vase that does not conform to the "Golden Mean"...the eye and the subconscious are disturbed.
Enough of these deviations from fair curves or the Golden Mean, and it begins to add up...to ugly (that's why the foot is "ugly" as compared to say, a young woman's breast). And while that's my opinion...I believe that the case may be made that at some level it is also a universal sensibility.

Thanks DWFII

I especially like the example and choice of word given :fing02[1].gif
post #2691 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Everything we wear is designed to make us look better than we actually do. That's the raison d'etre for tailored and high end clothing. Tailors work hard to create slimming effects and to camouflage less than optimal body shapes.
Same with shoes...there is a very real functional aspect to shoes but at bottom they are still adornment.
And aesthetically the foot leaves a lot to be desired. Some might even say feet are "ugly." The shoe slims the foot; alters proportions; introduces "fair curves" where in reality there is nothing but awkward and unattractive angles.
Fashion dictates that slim and elongated is in fashion right now. The very antipathy for square toes shoes that is so prevalent on SF is the flip side of the coin to the long and narrow toe.

I don't have any problems with an elongated last. But I think that this shoe has been styled in poor taste. As well as the shoe that I linked from the Rugged Old Salt tumblr. That photograph has since been blocked (I assume by the owner of that tumblr account), but the shoe I was referring to was the black single-monk. They are just too long. Not a little too long. Way too long. Who wants to walk around wearing shoes that make your feet look 1-inch longer than they are? It's similar to super-slim or super-wide suit lapels. They are just in bad taste in my opinion. I am sure I am not the only person in this boat.
post #2692 of 12752
There was a discussion on AAAC a while ago about the GG Hove vs. EG Dover, and basically the Hove's vamp was deemed too long and the shoe too unbalanced when compared to the well balanced Dover. Perhaps GG can MTO a Hove with 5 eyelets instead of 4, thus making the vamp shorter and the shoe better balanced.
post #2693 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

There was a discussion on AAAC a while ago about the GG Hove vs. EG Dover, and basically the Hove's vamp was deemed too long and the shoe too unbalanced when compared to the well balanced Dover. Perhaps GG can MTO a Hove with 5 eyelets instead of 4, thus making the vamp shorter and the shoe better balanced.

what a bunch of morons.
post #2694 of 12752

I love Gaziano & Girling shoes but agree that some of their styles are too elongated even for my tastes. quar, I presume the back monkstrap you're referring to is this http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzq2lpfqoB1qad1efo1_r1_1280.jpg

post #2695 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenon View Post

Amen.

well, i've seen shoes, which made medals, which haven't been on narrow lasts, anyway. amen
post #2696 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by quar View Post

Who wants to walk around wearing shoes that make your feet look 1-inch longer than they are?

oops, there should be some room for your toes to play piano. one inch is pretty standard in my book.
post #2697 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by quar View Post

I don't have any problems with an elongated last. But I think that this shoe has been styled in poor taste. As well as the shoe that I linked from the Rugged Old Salt tumblr. That photograph has since been blocked (I assume by the owner of that tumblr account), but the shoe I was referring to was the black single-monk. They are just too long. Not a little too long. Way too long. Who wants to walk around wearing shoes that make your feet look 1-inch longer than they are? It's similar to super-slim or super-wide suit lapels. They are just in bad taste in my opinion. I am sure I am not the only person in this boat.

Someone with short or small feet, perhaps?
post #2698 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by quar View Post

Who wants to walk around wearing shoes that make your feet look 1-inch longer than they are?

You realize, of course, that even the most conservative, classic English styled shoes actually are, at minimum, one inch longer than your feet?
post #2699 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzl View Post

well, i've seen shoes, which made medals, which haven't been on narrow lasts, anyway. amen

Sure. I have too. But all things being equal...equal workmanship, attention to detail, leathers, etc....the narrower shoe will almost always win. That said, judges, and their individual sensibilities, will have something to say about it.
post #2700 of 12752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

Someone with short or small feet, perhaps?
nod[1].gif

Japan being quite an important market for G&G...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Theard