Originally Posted by Stirling
An absurd question which naively fails to comprehend that not everything is quantifiable. In order to accurately measure ANY differences one would need to take account of a spectrum of variables and that isn't going to be possible through everyday wear.
Stirling. I completely disagree that the question is in any way naive. As, a matter of fact I specifically asked the question the way I did because I already know the answer. It is you who is apparently naive in thinking that I haven't enough knowledge, or ability to deductively reason, to not already know the answer. But I'll excuse your condescending attitude yet again in the interest of healthy debate and learning.
The answer is that the life of the outsole, and it's attachment to the welt is not inherently stronger via hand stitching or machine stitching when the original shoe is created. When resoling there is indeed a difference (As Chogall mentions above) as unless a resole is handstitched through the holes in the welt left from the original sole there would indeed be more holes left in the material. Which anyone could see would be a compromise.
So, once again I'll ask the same basic question, but will rephrase in a less sophisticated was so as to make no mistake of what I am looking for.
What experts here can state with any degree of professional opinion that the machine stitched welt to outsole method used by St. Crispin is inferior in performance to handstitched, and why.
As to whether or not one can call a St. Crispin shoe 'entirely handmade' I'll leave that debate up to those who wish to have it. As I don't care. Personally, I think artisans/makers should embrace tools and technologies that allow them to produce the best quality product. If I, as an architect, were still attempting to produce construction drawings with a quill pen on vellum I can assure you that I would not be able to produce an appropriate quality of product.