or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › St. Crispin's Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

St. Crispin's Appreciation Thread - Page 127

post #1891 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion. Your observations on the merits of the various materials are largely in accord with my own, save that I have found Dainite to be pretty good on ice and markedly superior in grip to smooth, wet leather.

This mirrors my own experience as well.
post #1892 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstasy View Post

In so many words, are you saying that there is no objective justification for the use of leather on the outsole?

I don't know how you get from my post to mifune about breathability to that conclusion.

What I am saying about rubber and plastic is that if you understand the materials and the way they work together; if you understand and value leather for what it is; and if you value being logically consistent and objective, then every argument you can make, every rationale that you come up with for rubber outsoles is equally a valid argument for rubber uppers.

We don't value leather for the characteristics that Topy and Danite and naugahyde bring to the table and, yet, their whole raison d'etre is as a replacement for leather.

I didn't believe this when I first started as a boot and shoemaker but I have learned...here, if nowhere else...that there is a certain percentage of the population for whom substance (as opposed to "style") is irrelevant; for whom nuance and the concept of excellence is fundamentally incomprehensible. Their priorities lay elsewhere. They "know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" and there is little anyone can do to effect the kind of sea-change in attitude that would open their eyes.

At the same time there is a percentage of the population that revel in learning. That actively seek to understand...at every level. And there is little anyone can do to discourage them.
post #1893 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

I don't know how you get from my post to mifune about breathability to that conclusion.

What I am saying about rubber and plastic is that if you understand the materials and the way they work together; if you understand and value leather for what it is; and if you value being logically consistent and objective, then every argument you can make, every rationale that you come up with for rubber outsoles is equally a valid argument for rubber uppers.

We don't value leather for the characteristics that Topy and Danite and naugahyde bring to the table and, yet, their whole raison d'etre is as a replacement for leather.

I didn't believe this when I first started as a boot and shoemaker but I have learned...here, if nowhere else...that there is a certain percentage of the population for whom substance (as opposed to "style") is irrelevant; for whom nuance and the concept of excellence is fundamentally incomprehensible. Their priorities lay elsewhere. They "know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" and there is little anyone can do to effect the kind of sea-change in attitude that would open their eyes.

At the same time there is a percentage of the population that revel in learning. That actively seek to understand...at every level. And there is little anyone can do to discourage them.

Not true. Not every argument for rubber outsole will stand for rubber uppers. For instance, if I said rubber provides good traction, it would only stand as a viable argument for the outsole and not the upper. Agree?

I know you have lots of experience with the craft, and I respect that. So please don't make this personal. My interest in this is only in the argument, not the person. As far as your argument goes, I am only disputing the posts I quoted, not the rest of what you said. Honestly, you write a lot to make a point, so I didn't have time to read every post.
post #1894 of 2539

Conflating rubber soles with rubber uppers wins the daily double of being both a red herring and a straw man.  Precisely no-one is advocating rubber uppers on premium foot wear.  Certainly no-one is advocating rubber uppers on St. Crispin's. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute View Post


This mirrors my own experience as well.

 

Cheers.  And I am more that willing to accept that you are sharing your actual experiences and neither being blinded by marketing hype nor otherwise dissembling in aid of some deeply nefarious but yet completely unspecified agenda. :)

post #1895 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstasy View Post

Not true. Not every argument for rubber outsole will stand for rubber uppers.

I know you have lots of experience with the craft, and I respect that. So please don't make this personal. My interest in this is only in the argument, not the person. As far as your argument goes, I am only disputing the posts I quoted, not the rest of what you said. Honestly, you write a lot to make a point, so I didn't have time to read every post.

You're right...so let me amend my statement--"every argument you can make about the durability and waterproof qualities of rubber is an equally valid reason for choosing rubber rather than leather as an upper." That said, even the argument regarding traction is really about the functionality and utility of rubber versus leather in wet conditions. Either way it completely ignores and misunderstands the nature of leather and the reasons it is valued despite being non-durable goods.

The answer to the second point is simple--if you're not interested in reading a post of mine, don't respond to it. Don't quote it, don't pretend to understand what was said.

You're not alone in this--most of the people here who don't have any real life experience with shoes, other than wearing and bragging about how much they paid for them...much less insights into shoe making materials or techniques...are not interested in reading anything that would disturb their preconceptions.

As for me, I am not of the Twit(ter) generation. I don't have a short attention span. I don't necessarily look for easy, quick and dirty, explanations--explanations that I don't have to work or pay for. I don't mind exercising and even stretching my mind on occasion. I can follow a train of thought beyond 144 characters.

I understand the point about not making it personal and just following the argument...but I try to respect people enough that if I'm going to respond to them I'll usually re-read their posts, in entirety, several times. My philosophy is that if you want respect you have to give it.

--
Edited by DWFII - 3/19/14 at 12:48pm
post #1896 of 2539
I love your long posts, they are very poetic.
post #1897 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I love your long posts, they are very poetic.

Oh, now you're just embarrassing me.

cheers.gif
post #1898 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstasy View Post


Not true. Not every argument for rubber outsole will stand for rubber uppers. For instance, if I said rubber provides good traction, it would only stand as a viable argument for the outsole and not the upper. Agree?

 

Of course you're right. The shoe/boot is a multi-functional object. Different parts of it serve different purposes. The requirements of the sole, and that again under different conditions, are different from those of the uppers, for example. No-one is insisting on using leather for the laces, for example, are they (or though some do prefer this kind)? In similar vain, leather is choice for the uppers because of its breathability and its beauty. But under icy/snowy conditions, other synthetic materials may have better characteristics of grip than leather soles (this is a moot point - moot in the Oxford dictionary sense, and not the US sense of the term, that's to say, arguable). Has anyone tried recently wearing all-rubber boots ? They're called Wellies where I come from. Not something you'd want to do for long. But a commando sole with a leather upper, no problem.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I love your long posts, they are very poetic.

 I love your short posts, they're so ironic.

post #1899 of 2539

Anyone care to share their thoughts on the model pictured below?  Kind of an interesting take on a shell PTB.  I'm contemplating something similar in calf - I think it would make a sleek and different dressy/casual shoe.  Trying also to envision how it would look with a brogued captoe.

 

 

Hosting provided by FotoTimeHosting provided by FotoTime 

post #1900 of 2539
To keep it simple, I like the feel of leather on my feet, the looks of leather patterned uppers; and the durability of leather topy gives while not making my dress shoe soles look thick.

Topy stops sole been slippery when they are new on tiled footpath, but they can be rather slippery during wet weather, only some pairs, not all of them. So the main reason for me is durability, not non-slippery.
post #1901 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post
 

Anyone care to share their thoughts on the model pictured below?  Kind of an interesting take on a shell PTB.  I'm contemplating something similar in calf - I think it would make a sleek and different dressy/casual shoe.  Trying also to envision how it would look with a brogued captoe.

 

 

Hosting provided by FotoTimeHosting provided by FotoTime

 

   no cap toe . . . . just like that. it's clean & let's St C quality do the talkin

post #1902 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


You're right...so let me amend my statement--"every argument you can make about the durability and waterproof qualities of rubber is an equally valid reason for choosing rubber rather than leather as an upper." That said, even the argument regarding traction is really about the functionality and utility of rubber versus leather in wet conditions. Either way it completely ignores and misunderstands the nature of leather and the reasons it is valued despite being non-durable goods.

The answer to the second point is simple--if you're not interested in reading a post of mine, don't respond to it. Don't quote it, don't pretend to understand what was said.

You're not alone in this--most of the people here who don't have any real life experience with shoes, other than wearing and bragging about how much they paid for them...much less insights into shoe making materials or techniques...are not interested in reading anything that would disturb their preconceptions.

As for me, I am not of the Twit(ter) generation. I don't have a short attention span. I don't necessarily look for easy, quick and dirty, explanations--explanations that I don't have to work or pay for. I don't mind exercising and even stretching my mind on occasion. I can follow a train of thought beyond 144 characters.

I understand the point about not making it personal and just following the argument...but I try to respect people enough that if I'm going to respond to them I'll usually re-read their posts, in entirety, several times. My philosophy is that if you want respect you have to give it.

--

 

It is good that you read everything a person says in order to answer. I just cannot read like 20 of your posts just to respond to a point you made in your latest post, if that is indeed the number of posts you made regarding this subject (on this thread and others). As far as journalism goes, forgive me for being blunt, there are readability issues with many of your posts (at least for me).

 

Edit: I am not of the Twitter generation, but thanks for yet another remark of the sort.

post #1903 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


The other issue is that breathability, as it applies to leather, is not equivalent to the breathability of cotton or even your lungs. Air does not readily flow though any leather, not even upper leather. But because there is no impermeable barrier such as there would be with rubber of plastic, moisture can migrate away from the foot and into the leather--leather wicks moisture away from the foot in a way that no other comparable material can. But for this wicking to take place any air that exists within the substance of the leather must be able to be displaced.
 

 

Cork/rubber/neoprene is the impermeable barrier, and it appears to cover 90-95% of the area between the foot and the leather sole for a gemmed shoe (eg. Crockett & Jones).

 

If the cork covers 90-95% of the area between the foot and the leather sole, then not much moisture from the foot is going to wick away via the leather sole, is it?

 

---------Foot----------

>>>>CORK>>>>

---Leather sole-----

 

 

An analogy - cotton is a breathable fabric.  If I wear a plastic shirt (impermeable) underneath a cotton jacket then the cotton jacket is not going to be wicking away much moisture as the moisture would not make it past the plastic shirt.

 

This is nothing to do with "know the cost of everything and the value of nothing."  I want to genuinely find out whether "breathability" through the sole is an actual benefit of leather-soled shoes that contain gemming.

post #1904 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mifune View Post

 I want to genuinely find out whether "breathability" through the sole is an actual benefit of leather-soled shoes that contain gemming.

I'd say probably not much...simply because of the cork filler. But I wouldn't count on much through the upper either. Moisture coming off the foot is going to pool under the foot. Gravity alone ensures that.

If there's a decent leather insole, it will wick away some of it. If not, the shoes will be hot...just like running shoes tend to be. And smelly, just like running shoes tend to be. And incubators for whatever bacteria or fungus's are on your feet or you pick up at the gym.

If a good leather insole is bottomed with a good leather outsole, the wicking will be augmented...the amount of moisture moved away from the foot increased.

Don't take my word for it, ask any bespoke shoemaker. Ask them what they're wearing...and why. Or ask a mere 200 years of shoemakers. Read the literature. Golding, Swaysland, Bordoli, Plucknett, Rees, Leno, Thornton. Think about the shoemakers who taught me or James Carreducker. And the shoemakers who taught them. And who taught them and the generation before them. And think about all the work and thought and study and collaboration and trial and error that went into evolving the techniques and the philosophies that come down to this day.

Or better yet, there's a whole thread about breathability on SF that includes links to studies that specifically point to "occlusive" footwear as one of the prime agents of foot disease.

--
Edited by DWFII - 3/19/14 at 8:16pm
post #1905 of 2539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstasy View Post

It is good that you read everything a person says in order to answer. I just cannot read like 20 of your posts just to respond to a point you made in your latest post, if that is indeed the number of posts you made regarding this subject (on this thread and others). As far as journalism goes, forgive me for being blunt, there are readability issues with many of your posts (at least for me).

Edit: I am not of the Twitter generation, but thanks for yet another remark of the sort.

I have no aspirations to be a journalist...sorry, I don't meet your standards.

That said, I do take the time to explain why I say things; to give reason beyond nebulous unsubstantiated speculation and near hysterical defensive "feelings." I walk people through the reasoning and the logic and the mitigating facts.That's respect, pure and simple. To take people for what they are or what they present themselves as and to take them seriously.

If that's too much trouble for you, I have to assume that you really don't want to know anything that cannot be encapsulated and swallowed with one gulp of kool-aid.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › St. Crispin's Appreciation Thread