or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Thread (including reviews, purchases, pictures, etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Thread (including reviews, purchases, pictures, etc...) - Page 806

post #12076 of 21778

I heard that G&G RTW shoes are gemmed. Thats incredibly fraudulent. Oh, the humanity!

post #12077 of 21778
Been a while since I posted here, these just arrived at the shop though, wanted to share them.

G&G Hove in Vintage Oak.


G&G Isham, also in Vintage Oak (for myself actually).


G&G Kent (modified) in Vintage Cherry and Cherry Alligator.


G&G Westminster in Racing Green.


We also received a small restock of Sinatra, Gable and St. James II for those of you who might be interested. We have a larger restock incoming in June and some really nice new models rolling in this fall, please stay tuned for more info.
post #12078 of 21778
Any F width stock?
post #12079 of 21778
Quote:
I heard that G&G RTW shoes are gemmed. Thats incredibly fraudulent. Oh, the humanity!
No, gemming is not, by itself, fraudulent. Nor are plastic/celastic toe puffs or plastic/celastic heel stiffeners.

It is when the customer is told that gemming is "as good as"; or some variation of "the strongest, highest quality method"; or misled into thinking that handmade, or near bespoke quality techniques or materials are being used; or simply when the customer is denied sufficient information to make a considered evaluation on his own, that the element of deception and fraud enters into the picture.

Aren't quality materials part of the high end RTW attraction? Aren't they? Aren't they supposed to be? Esp. at high end prices? Are plastic/celastic high end, quality materials? Maybe for you but for people expecting...as a result of PR or advertising claims...quality materials to be used throughout the shoe, even where they can't be seen, there is something deceptive going on.

Isn't the way a shoe is put together essential to the very concept of quality? Is constructing a shoe so that it looks like it is handwelted when in fact it is essentially cement construction--isn't there an element of deception there...nevermind indifference... especially when the customer has no way of knowing that?

I have long since ceased to wonder at the gullibility of the average consumer--I suspect it is a deliberate choice. It is easier to allow yourself to be fooled...to buy into the reassurances that are being spoon fed to you...than to go to all the effort of learning and, heaven forbid, actually deciding for yourself.

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/21/14 at 7:09am
post #12080 of 21778

When I hear this and I think of those who want leather soles for tradition...just get the wensum, and have a shoe with a synthetic sole that lasts forever...

post #12081 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by daizawaguy View Post

When I hear this and I think of those who want leather soles for tradition...just get the wensum, and have a shoe with a synthetic sole that lasts forever...

Never tried a wensum before. How is it?
post #12082 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by agedashidofu View Post


Never tried a wensum before. How is it?

Honestly, fantastic. Thin but very durable....like lifetime durable. From the side cannot tell the difference...

post #12083 of 21778
I have decided that in the future i will order all of my chukkas with a wensum like sole. I want to use my chukkas for all propose & travel situations, and not worry about sole wear and weather conditions. Seems like a plan...
post #12084 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by daizawaguy View Post

When I hear this and I think of those who want leather soles for tradition...just get the wensum, and have a shoe with a synthetic sole that lasts forever...

You're right. If a plastic toe puff is acceptable, why not a plastic heel base? Why not a leatherboard insole? Why not corrected grain or bonded leather uppers?

If you had a wensum outsole and a bonded leather upper with celastic toe puffs and celastic or plastic heel stiffeners, you'd have a shoe that would never get wet, never wear out, never need polishing or conditioning and always look absolutely mahvelous.

"And the road goes on forever and the party never ends..."
post #12085 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
 
Quote:
I heard that G&G RTW shoes are gemmed. Thats incredibly fraudulent. Oh, the humanity!
No, gemming is not, by itself, fraudulent. Nor are plastic/celastic toe puffs or plastic/celastic heel stiffeners.

It is when the customer is told that gemming is "as good as"; or some variation of "the strongest, highest quality method"; or misled into thinking that handmade, or near bespoke quality techniques or materials are being used; or simply when the customer is denied sufficient information to make a considered evaluation on his own, that the element of deception and fraud enters into the picture.

Aren't quality materials part of the high end RTW attraction? Aren't they? Aren't they supposed to be? Esp. at high end prices? Are plastic/celastic high end, quality materials? Maybe for you but for people expecting...as a result of PR or advertising claims...quality materials to be used throughout the shoe, even where they can't be seen, there is something deceptive going on.

Isn't the way a shoe is put together essential to the very concept of quality? Is constructing a shoe so that it looks like it is handwelted when in fact it is essentially cement construction--isn't there an element of deception there...nevermind indifference... especially when the customer has no way of knowing that?

I have long since ceased to wonder at the gullibility of the average consumer--I suspect it is a deliberate choice. It is easier to allow yourself to be fooled...to buy into the reassurances that are being spoon fed to you...than to go to all the effort of learning and, heaven forbid, actually deciding for yourself.

--

 

You do realize that I was ironic in my last post, right?

 

I really don't care about gemming. I guess that makes me gullible, ignorant, foolish, lazy or even plain stupid in your book. So be it. Let's just leave it at that. I don't see the reason to why you keep going on and on about this. Your point has been made more than enough already.

post #12086 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodog View Post

You do realize that I was ironic in my last post, right?

I really don't care about gemming. I guess that makes me gullible, ignorant, foolish, lazy or even plain stupid in your book. So be it. Let's just leave it at that. I don't see the reason to why you keep going on and on about this. Your point has been made more than enough already.

Ironic or not, the reason I keep going on about this is that there are so many who keep dismissing it out of hand all the while appearing, and making noises, as if they value objective quality. Obviously, I haven't made my point if people are ignorant of it or dismissing objective facts ...and/or continuing to keep such misinformation alive.

Maybe a better way of saying it is that people who don't know what they are talking about and/or prefer it that way have made their point "more than enough already."

Let the light shine in.

And FWIW, unless I miss my guess (he posts occasionally over on the Crispin Colloquy) Valeriy was trying to make the same point. Another FWIW...he is a bona fide shoemaker (I don't think he is the "master Polish shoemaker" he referred to...so he wasn't promoting himself) and, IMO, whether people agreed with him or not, he deserved better.

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/21/14 at 11:04am
post #12087 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodog View Post

You do realize that I was ironic in my last post, right?

I really don't care about gemming. I guess that makes me gullible, ignorant, foolish, lazy or even plain stupid in your book. So be it. Let's just leave it at that. I don't see the reason to why you keep going on and on about this. Your point has been made more than enough already.

Oh, and one other FWIW...I wasn't dissing you or anyone else. I was simply providing another perspective/opinion (I didn't use your name, I didn't even attribute the quote--it was a generalized observation)--that's what discussion forums are about.
post #12088 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

And FWIW, unless I miss my guess (he posts occasionally over on the Crispin Colloquy) Valeriy was trying to make the same point. Another FWIW...he is a bona fide shoemaker (I don't think he is the "master Polish shoemaker" he referred to...so he wasn't promoting himself) and, IMO, whether people agreed with him or not, he deserved better.

I understand now, your response was in defense of the gent, fair enough. But there are better places to have this discussion, especially when so much is lost in translation, to the point that it looks antagonizing.

FWIW, we just had a discussion about objective quality just recently on this thread. How about sharing the knowledge and starting this discussion on the JL, EG, C&J, etc. threads instead this time?
post #12089 of 21778
Quote:
Originally Posted by JubeiSpiegel View Post

I understand now, your response was in defense of the gent, fair enough. But there are better places to have this discussion, especially when so much is lost in translation, to the point that it looks antagonizing.

FWIW, we just had a discussion about objective quality just recently on this thread. How about sharing the knowledge and starting this discussion on the JL, EG, C&J, etc. threads instead this time?

I don't deliberately seek to participate in...and I seldom if ever initiate...such discussions in this or any other thread. The "discussion about objective quality" that you refer to arose in response to your own observations and expressed dissatisfaction with G&G quality re: the white residue on the tops of your boots (page 793).

One thing led to another...and in the midst of it all...in a thread that is supposed to be exclusively for, and about, G&G show-and-tell, people were comparing G&G to Vass, StC and Meermin.

From my perspective...I don't like criticizing any maker. I don't do it unless I can do it as a general observation about shoes...not the policies of a specific maker. Sometimes I skirt that self-imposed reservation pretty close, I'll admit. But again almost always in response to someone else's criticisms, questions, or observations.

Myself...I have no problems with, and actually prefer a "free marketplace of ideas." But if some don't, I have to observe, at the very least, that if people don't want to talk about Vass or StC or Meermin...here in this thread...or if they don't want to raise criticisms of G&G or get into generalized discussions about objective quality, they don't have to. It's as simple as not raising or responding to those issues where they don't want to see them.

No offense to you (who I think has his head screwed on pretty straight) but as my old jumpmaster said "You volunteered for this shit."

nest.gif

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/21/14 at 12:38pm
post #12090 of 21778
No offense taken DW, and I appreciate your help on the issue of my boots (amongst all your other contributions).

In this instance, Valeriy brought up a finished discussion, and because of the communication issue it came off as antagonizing.

It is curious though, a lot of these discussions take place in regards to GG shoes and on this thread. You don't see these discussions happening in many of the other well liked GYW brand threads. I wonder if that has had any effect in swaying people on their choices?
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 Thread (including reviews, purchases, pictures, etc...)