Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoo Porn Theard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoo Porn Theard - Page 180

post #2686 of 3900
2/21/12 at 8:22pm
My Rothchilds in Vintage Chestnut just arrived and I should arrive in a few days, which Saphir MoD shade of brown is the best match for it? All I have is black and neutral Saphir shoe cream atm. On an unrelated note, what do you guys think of the Fairmont, DG70 or TG73?
Reply
Reply
post #2687 of 3900
2/22/12 at 1:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdmoore1855 View Post

When you order from Tony you can choose your own last style, I took a friend to see Tony in HK today and he ordered a very basic round toed semi-Brogue. Tony's house style is slightly pointier but he will ask if you want it like that, its just that most of the shoes you see here or his sample shoes are mostly styled that way
Here is a beautiful new Norwegian Monk he has just made, it won't be your cup of tea but its stunning when you see it
newggbespokemonk.jpg
By cdmoore1855 at 2012-02-21

It seems the link from Tumblr was changed. Which was fair enough. The photograph didn't belong to me.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #2688 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I have an issue with my current G&G's (aside from the squeakiness). The left shoe when I walk the vamp bends dow cuts the top of my big toe. Is this just a sizing issue? I was thinking maybe going down a half a size, but in a wider width. Would this make any difference? When I was initially trying on shoes the uk 9 it seemed that my instep was too high, but it fit (laces could barely close) then uk 9.5 fit fine, but I have this toe cutting issue. Any ideas?

I would really appreciate some insight on this if anybody could help. Maybe is it a last thing?
Reply
Reply
post #2689 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:47am
drop Dean an email
Reply
Reply
post #2690 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:51am
Is he the English one, or the Italian one? Because I'd much rather speak to an Italian being a guinea myself.
Reply
Reply
post #2691 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:55am
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
Reply
Reply
post #2692 of 3900
2/22/12 at 8:42am
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?
Reply
Reply
post #2693 of 3900
2/22/12 at 10:36am
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2694 of 3900
2/22/12 at 4:53pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #2695 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:02pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2696 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:05pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2697 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:09pm
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.
Reply
Reply
post #2698 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:10pm

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

Reply
Reply
post #2699 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:11pm
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
Reply
Reply
post #2700 of 3900
2/22/12 at 5:13pm
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.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Men's Clothing
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoo Porn Theard