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 28

post #406 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenon View Post
Turn of the nineteenth century machinery (of any sort: woodworking, metal milling, ect) and up to the 1940s were designed and built to last forever. Everything was properly forged, hardenned and machined, or if castings were used, were of very heavy and careful nature. Aside from the CNC function that are available now on new machines everything else mechanical is inferior to the past and design to be cheap to build. Lots of sheet metal stampings, drawings and resistence weldings. Longevity is no longer part of the equation.

The plain honest truth and wonderfully explained to boot! You have to wonder if the same principle had been put to work in the space probes whether there would have been any accidents.
post #407 of 13652
I argued over this topic (which Xenon explained so well) with a few hayseeds on another thread here who thought the machinery of the past didn't last as long as Xenon claims. Bunch of nitwits. I would take it slightly further than Xenon and say that at least some items were still being made to last right up until the 1960s and 70s, though they were by then much fewer in number.
post #408 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post
DW, completely random question, but how much alligator skin would you need to make a pair of shoes? If its a custom project and you supply the skin - US size 9.5.

rule of thumb for calfskin is fourty square centimeters.
post #409 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by meister View Post
The plain honest truth and wonderfully explained to boot! You have to wonder if the same principle had been put to work in the space probes whether there would have been any accidents.

If the same ideas had been used for space probes they would never have left the ground.

1) Every machine left has been fixed over and over again. To the point some are more like George Washington's axe then the machine that was first built.

2) All the crappy old machines died . Yes they used to make crap.

3) The main reason many of these old machines are still around is nobody has the money to replace them.

I'm all in favour of old tools but there were plenty of people building crap in the old days. There are people building good stuff today.
post #410 of 13652
The tolerances which modern machinery works to are so much tighter than 40+ years ago that when you are making things to fit old cars the original drawings are just a starting point. A modern machine will most likely become obsolete because of the electronics within it not the materials of the machine itself. That is why some of the old stuff lasts so long it is purely mechanical.
post #411 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzl View Post
rule of thumb for calfskin is fourty square centimeters.

Forty square centimetres?!?

So you need a piece of calfskin 4 centimetres wide and 10 centimetres long (1 1/2 x 4 inches). - Is that sufficient for one shoe or a pair?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those 28 cm of crocodile, which DWFII mentions , refer to the width, not the length: a 28 cm (11”) skin will be
approximately 80 cm (32”) in length and a 34 cm (14”) wide skin will be about 100 cm (40”) in length.

From two skins (which have to come from siblings, to provide a close match), there will be plenty of material left for small leather goods.
post #412 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post
Forty square centimetres?!? So you need a piece of calfskin 4 centimetres wide and 10 centimetres long (1 1/2 x 4 inches). - Is that sufficient for one shoe or a pair?
ok, when i talked about this issue, the maker mentioned 40 sq cm. for both of us, it was totally clear that we talk about 40 x 40 cm. i never gave that a second thought. my fault.
post #413 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post
You are one of the best assets to this forum, thanks for the info.
thanks for the kind words...
post #414 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post
If the same ideas had been used for space probes they would never have left the ground.

1) Every machine left has been fixed over and over again. To the point some are more like George Washington's axe then the machine that was first built.

2) All the crappy old machines died . Yes they used to make crap.

3) The main reason many of these old machines are still around is nobody has the money to replace them.

I'm all in favour of old tools but there were plenty of people building crap in the old days. There are people building good stuff today.

I agree that the designs may have improved in many areas. Also this may be a case of the test of time erasing all the cheap stuff.

All machines require maintenance but alot of the old stuff was just built with the philosophy that too strong doesn't break. Yes tolerances may have decrease (tighter) for alot of the factory mass produced items but certainly not universally. Also there are some drastic improvements in metallurgy but alot of this never seems to find itself in most newly produced items.

TBH there are still some great machines being made. There is this company called General (don't confuse with the international line) that still makes wood working machinery to old specs. These machines will outperform and outlive anything in comparison. These are heavy beasts deigned for continuous production. They are not light and not made of sheet metal stampings. The parts are very tight and properly hardenned.

The best example is with hand guns. There simply is no current production hand gun that is built as tight and with as much finesse as a Parrabellum (luger). The parabellum will continue (if protected from corrosion) when the Glock has died a thousand deaths. Now of course it is a nightmare to build properly and complicated.

Also everywhere now you see plastics replace metal components. Why? because plastics can be cast very cheaply and NO, virtually all plastics have inferior strength to wieght ratioscompared to metals. If manufactures were seriously concerned with corrosion (reason often used to justify plastics) then there are a vast array of corrosion resistent alloys.

Sorry I have just used enough machines to know that longevity no longer matters and production cost is #1 one.
post #415 of 13652
^ Well said again, Xenon. Of course there was some crap made in the old days, as there are some very good pieces of machinery made today. But Xenon is right, more things were made to last longer back then than today. That's just the God's honest truth and nothing will change that. As Xenon rightly says, "longevity no longer matters, production cost is #1."
post #416 of 13652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenon View Post

TBH there are still some great machines being made. There is this company called General (don't confuse with the international line) that still makes wood working machinery to old specs.

Generals Canadian made stuff is (or at least was I haven't looked in years) great but how much of Generals stuff is aimed at high volume? A General cabinet saw is a hell of a lot better then a Delta contractor saw but in the old days a Norris plane was equally better then a Stanley (lets not even mention the low end stuff )

But lets ignore the high volume stuff aimed at mega factories. Compare a General saw to the European saws . General isn't competing with those machines. The high end Euro saws far out class General. Of course they cost multiples of a General.
post #417 of 13652
How come every builder/carpenter worth his salt Down Under uses an American Eastwing hammer. Does this happen anywhere else (sorry sort of off topic)?
post #418 of 13652
Hi Fellas!

Just for fun, I did some translation (Japanese to English) from the new June edition of MENS'EX magazine. From those who haven't heard, those blasphemous editors dissected some of the most iconic dress shoes (JM Weston Golf, Green's Dover, Alden shell V-tip, and G&G St.James) to analyze their quality (JM Weston got the highest overall mark btw). Really quite a shame that non-Japanese can't appreciate the bloody sacrifices. My translation (and grammar) isn't pitch perfect, but should be understandable for most of you. I'm also attaching the original Japanese version for you to compare, as well as a more crisp version as an attached file.

Been lurking here on this thread for a while, just thought I could contribute some. Enjoy








LL
post #419 of 13652
Awesome! Thanks!
post #420 of 13652
Terrific, thanks Nutcracker, what were the comments on the other shoes? What made the JMWs stand out?
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