Sole Welting

DWFII · Feb 2, 2014

Nick V. said:
So let me get this right...In an earlier post in this thread you made mention that we all have the right to comment and share. Now you question me about why I posted the link?
It was approved by:
http://www.cummings.com/history.html
I guess you consider yourself a bigger and better authority....as always.

Sympathies.

No, I questioned why you posted the link...to what point?! To what purpose?

And yes, I do consider myself a bigger and better authority than you...on this subject or any other subject dealing with shoemaking. I don't care how many third party observers and pop culture raconteurs you've interviewed or schmoozed.

And I damn sure consider people like June Swann and Al Saguto--and others who have spent their entire lives...devoted, dedicated...their entire lives to researching, testing, validating, and understanding the intricacies and the histories and antecedents of shoemaking...and yes, again and again and again, getting their hands dirty-- in fact, not in fantasy...bigger and better authorities than all the kibitzers, contrarians, charlatans and outright bored-and-looking-for-a-fight poseurs who know nothing about the issues that they presume to pontificate and conjure phantasms around. And who, while having a right to comment and share, ought to have better sense. Or, at least, the grace to be ashamed of themselves.

You bet!

[Fact of the matter is, I don't remember having said anything of the sort...my philosophy is that ignorance is never to be trumpeted, esp. without qualification, and have said so explicitly and repeatedly.]

There must be a better use of time than to spend all this energy actively seeking to refute unimpeachable sources like June Swann for no more valid reason than the sake of argumentativeness. Because if you comb this thread and particularly focus on the energy expended by all the usual suspects, what really stands out is the number (a small but avid number) of people who have, in all the blather, added nothing of objective substance except controversy and contentiousness.

All of it truly is "a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And once you take away all the air...the oxygen...from the repeated oxymorons, contradictions, and argument for argument's sake, all that is left is the morons.

--

Nick V. · Feb 2, 2014

DWFII said:
I don't know why this was posted, but it's like a lot of stuff on the 'net--full of misinformation and misdirection. The website itself is well intentioned but the page and the source it is drawn from fall more into the Marvel Comic or Nickelodean School of Shoe History than serious scholarship. It's the dumbed down version of history...for those who cribbed notes for their high school and / or college (?) finals.

My particular friend Al Saguto, (the head of the Shoemaking Faculty at Colonial Williamsburg and recognized as one of the foremost shoe historians in the world, and a protege of June Swann--past Keeper of the Shoe Collection at the Northampton Shoe Museum and widely acclaimed as the most knowledgeable shoe historian in the world) said this when he first saw the webapge linked above...
FWIW...

--

I'm still confused.....
Al Saguto, You mean this Guy?;
http://podcast.history.org/2012/03/26/meet-the-shoemaker/
Well if he a "particular friend" of yours how about asking him to weigh in with his own comments on my link? Surely a "particular friend" would be happy to do so.
June Swan? It seems that She mostly focuses on Woman's shoes and where they came from. But, you'll have to prove that.

DWFII · Feb 2, 2014

Nick V. said:
I'm still confused.....

That's the most valid thing you said in this whole thread.

DWFII · Feb 2, 2014

Nick V. said:
I'm still confused.....
Al Saguto, You mean this Guy?;
http://podcast.history.org/2012/03/26/meet-the-shoemaker/
Well if he a "particular friend" of yours how about asking him to weigh in with his own comments on my link? Surely a "particular friend" would be happy to do so.

Fact of the matter is...for those with attention deficit...he did. I quoted him verbatim. That's why his remarks are in blue with the word "QUOTE" before them.

I would not have thrown that out there without getting his explicit permission. As hard a concept as it may be for some here to come to terms with, I don't bandy about information that I am not sure of without saying so. And that includes pretending to be knowledgeable about subjects that I am not, or stealing someone elses thunder by quoting or "interpreting" their words without their permission.

Nick V. · Feb 2, 2014

DWFII said:
No, I questioned why you posted the link...to what point?! To what purpose?

And yes, I do consider myself a bigger and better authority than you...on this subject or any other subject dealing with shoemaking. I don't care how many third party observers and pop culture raconteurs you've interviewed or schmoozed.

And I damn sure consider people like June Swann and Al Saguto--and others who have spent their entire lives...devoted, dedicated...their entire lives to researching, testing, validating, and understanding the intricacies and the histories and antecedents of shoemaking...and yes, again and again and again, getting their hands dirty-- in fact, not in fantasy...bigger and better authorities than all the kibitzers, contrarians, charlatans and outright bored-and-looking-for-a-fight poseurs who know nothing about the issues that they presume to pontificate and conjure phantasms around. And who, while having a right to comment and share, ought to have better sense. Or, at least, the grace to be ashamed of themselves.

You bet!

[Fact of the matter is, I don't remember having said anything of the sort...my philosophy is that ignorance is never to be trumpeted, esp. without qualification, and have said so explicitly and repeatedly.]

There must be a better use of time than to spend all this energy actively seeking to refute unimpeachable sources like June Swann for no more valid reason than the sake of argumentativeness. Because if you comb this thread and particularly focus on the energy expended by all the usual suspects, what really stands out is the number (a small but avid number) of people who have, in all the blather, added nothing of objective substance except controversy and contentiousness.

All of it truly is "a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And once you take away all the air...the oxygen...from the repeated oxymorons, contradictions, and argument for argument's sake, all that is left is the morons.

--

DWFII · Feb 2, 2014

dbhdnhdbh said:
With turnshoe construction did they make the entire shoe, then turn it inside out??? Was the leather so flexible that this was possible? DId they have to get it soaking wet to make it soft enough to turn it? Or was the upper stitched to the sole but not completely closed, inverted, then finished?

If you're interested in more information about turnshoes here's a website that may be of help. This was set up and is run by Marc Carlson--an historical researcher at the University of Oklahoma Tulsa, and a member of The Honourable Cordwainers' Company, a 501 C-3, non-profit educational Trade Guild, dedicated to protecting and preserving Traditional shoemaking skills, techniques, and knowledge (this is the Guild I belong to, and serve on the board of directors for). The Crispin Colloquy is an adjunct of, and sponsored by, the HCC.

Footwear in the Middle Ages

I am told that the site is extremely accurate and well researched. And knowing Marc, I believe it.

Nick V. · Feb 2, 2014

DWFII said:
No, I questioned why you posted the link...to what point?! To what purpose?

And yes, I do consider myself a bigger and better authority than you...on this subject or any other subject dealing with shoemaking. I don't care how many third party observers and pop culture raconteurs you've interviewed or schmoozed.

And I damn sure consider people like June Swann and Al Saguto--and others who have spent their entire lives...devoted, dedicated...their entire lives to researching, testing, validating, and understanding the intricacies and the histories and antecedents of shoemaking...and yes, again and again and again, getting their hands dirty-- in fact, not in fantasy...bigger and better authorities than all the kibitzers, contrarians, charlatans and outright bored-and-looking-for-a-fight poseurs who know nothing about the issues that they presume to pontificate and conjure phantasms around. And who, while having a right to comment and share, ought to have better sense. Or, at least, the grace to be ashamed of themselves.

You bet!

[Fact of the matter is, I don't remember having said anything of the sort...my philosophy is that ignorance is never to be trumpeted, esp. without qualification, and have said so explicitly and repeatedly.]

There must be a better use of time than to spend all this energy actively seeking to refute unimpeachable sources like June Swann for no more valid reason than the sake of argumentativeness. Because if you comb this thread and particularly focus on the energy expended by all the usual suspects, what really stands out is the number (a small but avid number) of people who have, in all the blather, added nothing of objective substance except controversy and contentiousness.

All of it truly is "a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And once you take away all the air...the oxygen.from the repeated oxymorons, contradictions, and argument for argument's sake, all that is left is the morons.

--

1. I posted it because their was some dispute. Just another viewpoint. That was the purpose
2. I agree you know more about the intricacies of making a shoe than I. But what I wrote regarded USM being an authority. Sorry if that was not clear.
3. When you write:
" I don't care how many third party observers and pop culture raconteurs you've interviewed or schmoozed"
Well thank you for reading but, who specifically are you referring to here?
4. You may be dammed to June Swan and Al Saguto but if either one are a "particular" friend surely at least one will weigh in with with a comment here.
No need for blue quotes.

DWFII · Feb 2, 2014

Nick V. said:
1. I posted it because their was some dispute. Just another viewpoint. That was the purpose
2. I agree you know more about the intricacies of making a shoe than I. But what I wrote regarded USM being an authority. Sorry if that was not clear.

1) what viewpoint? what dispute? How did that link address any thing?

2) Damned straight.

And USM is an authority on USM and...as witnessed by the link...not much else. Either that or they were dumbing the information down to cater to people who don't like thinking or learning and prefer the the cotton batting of ignorance. More to the point, they are not historians and in all probability the person who wrote that piece was not even interested in the content. It was and is part of a PR campaign.

I have spent a good portion of my life and career learning, testing, validating, researching, and trying to "protect and preserve" the Traditional skills and techniques of shoemaking. The link that you posted comes from a source that is generally discredited among serious historians--people who care about preserving and protecting the Trade, IOW.

Rather than diss you for your credulity, I asked Al Saguto to look at the link and comment. Just to set the record straight...about straights, about tools, about all the nonsense that is spouted right here from deliberately chosen, wallowing-in, ignorance. I then asked him if I could have his permission to quote and attribute him.

You chose to make it personal.

I don't personally know June Swann but I do know Al Saguto and he is a bona fide protege of Ms Swann and an Internationally recognized shoe historian in his own right. I also have...and have read...several of Swann's books. Rest assured she is not just interested in women's shoes. I do hope that you will have the grace to get your facts straight before you characterize either of them again...or at least say outright that you don't know what you're talking about..

If for no other reason than that, I would not ask either of them to personally jump into the cesspool of snottiness and ignorance that characterizes portions of this thread. It would be a terrible imposition on our friendship.

That said, I am sure that if you are willing to expend as much energy doing a little research, as you do posting bogus or contrarian information, you can contact him and confirm both our relationship and the truth of my attribution. He is, after all, not all that far from you and you might actually enjoy Colonial Williamsburg...or even learn something.

--

RogerP · Feb 2, 2014

We ignorant blathering idiotic brand-whoring insipid name-dropping moronic snotty cesspool residents are definitely feelin' the love all right.

Hang in there, Nick.

dbhdnhdbh · Feb 2, 2014

Wow! Not only responses from the DWF, Nick V and Bengal Stripe reservoirs of knowledge, but now Radhruin contributing. This is a fascinating topic.

For you bespoke makers and afficianados: Do people who buy multiple pairs of bespoke shoes actually care about longevity? I imagine them as wearing a given pair perhaps once a month, if they really like them, for a year or two, then deciding they no longer fit evolving demands of fashion. Thus, they drop out of rotation long before they were due for their first resole, let alone wearing out or failing. From reading SF one certainly hears about people who buy suits of the thinnest possible wool fibers, wear them till styles change, and then give them away. They don't care how long they would last if kept until they wore out. Does someone who has dozens of pairs of shoes and buys 5-10 more pair per year ever find out how long shoes would last?

None of this is a criticism. I recognize that collecting fine shoes is like collecting watches, cars, or art. A hobby. Cheaper than the others, even if one always goes bespoke. Just as DWF pointed out that fit is not necessarily the reason one might buy bespoke, I wonder whether the concerns about durability are also completely off target in describing the motivations of the buyers. Like telling a collectors of Old Masters that he could get modern reproductions that would look new when purchased and last longer. "OK, but why would I want that?"

DWFII · Feb 2, 2014

dbhdnhdbh said:
For you bespoke makers...: Do people who buy multiple pairs of bespoke shoes actually care about longevity?

Most people who buy bespoke...at least from me...aren't all that interested in fashion or style or boxes or brand-names. (think about Prince Charles and the shoes he wears) There is a certain personality type that just likes to do things right. To do the best they can. And what they buy and own tends to be the best that they can identify, regardless of price.

I have customers who have been buying from me for over 30 years. Who own ten and more pairs of my boots or shoes. I had...until I retired (semi-retired)...customers willing to pay both top dollar and wait four years for a pair of my boots.

Many of my customers are working men--the kind that also get their hands dirty. I see those boots come back for repair --resoling, re-heeling--year after year. Some of those boots are 30 yrs old and still going despite being exposed, daily, to barnyard acids (urine and manure tea) as well as being "rode hard and put up wet."

I think they do buy for longevity, for durability, for comfort, and for the satisfaction of being involved with something that is both well done and done with joy, passion, and a nod to the "singularity" of the customer.

jerrybrowne · Feb 2, 2014

dbhdnhdbh said:
For you bespoke makers and afficianados: Do people who buy multiple pairs of bespoke shoes actually care about longevity? I imagine them as wearing a given pair perhaps once a month, if they really like them, for a year or two, then deciding they no longer fit evolving demands of fashion. Thus, they drop out of rotation long before they were due for their first resole, let alone wearing out or failing. From reading SF one certainly hears about people who buy suits of the thinnest possible wool fibers, wear them till styles change, and then give them away. They don't care how long they would last if kept until they wore out. Does someone who has dozens of pairs of shoes and buys 5-10 more pair per year ever find out how long shoes would last?

None of this is a criticism. I recognize that collecting fine shoes is like collecting watches, cars, or art. A hobby. Cheaper than the others, even if one always goes bespoke. Just as DWF pointed out that fit is not necessarily the reason one might buy bespoke, I wonder whether the concerns about durability are also completely off target in describing the motivations of the buyers. Like telling a collectors of Old Masters that he could get modern reproductions that would look new when purchased and last longer. "OK, but why would I want that?"

Of course longevity matters. I wear my bespoke shoes, coats, shirts etc every single day. They get well worn, buttons fall off, shoes need repair etc.

I do not consider bespoke items disposable. It is a commitment to get the fit right, and once it is right, you hang on to these things, believe me, and you do what you can to keep them in good shape. Fit IS a major reason why I purchase bespoke items. Another is proportions. Even if you have fairly standard measurements, having something made exactly to your proportions makes you look better. Minor adjustment are very important.

Bespoke shoes are also significantly lighter in my experience. Couple that with good fit and you can really feel a big difference.

jerrybrowne · Feb 2, 2014

DWFII said:
Most people who buy bespoke...at least from me...aren't all that interested in fashion or style or boxes or brand-names. (think about Prince Charles and the shoes he wears) There is a certain personality type that just likes to do things right. To do the best they can. And what they buy and own tends to be the best that they can identify, regardless of price.

I have customers who have been buying from me for over 30 years. Who own ten and more pairs of my boots or shoes. I had...until I retired (semi-retired)...customers willing to pay both top dollar and wait four years for a pair of my boots.

Many of my customers are working men--the kind that also get their hands dirty. I see those boots come back for repair --resoling, re-heeling--year after year. Some of those boots are 30 yrs old and still going despite being exposed, daily, to barnyard acids (urine and manure tea) as well as being "rode hard and put up wet."

I think they do buy for longevity, for durability, for comfort, and for the satisfaction of being involved with something that is both well done and done with joy, passion, and a nod to the "singularity" of the customer.

+1. Very well said.

Nick V. · Feb 2, 2014

DWFII said:
1) what viewpoint? what dispute? How did that link address any thing?

2) Damned straight.

And USM is an authority on USM and...as witnessed by the link...not much else. Either that or they were dumbing the information down to cater to people who don't like thinking or learning and prefer the the cotton batting of ignorance. More to the point, they are not historians and in all probability the person who wrote that piece was not even interested in the content. It was and is part of a PR campaign.

I have spent a good portion of my life and career learning, testing, validating, researching, and trying to "protect and preserve" the Traditional skills and techniques of shoemaking. The link that you posted comes from a source that is generally discredited among serious historians--people who care about preserving and protecting the Trade, IOW.

Rather than diss you for your credulity, I asked Al Saguto to look at the link and comment. Just to set the record straight...about straights, about tools, about all the nonsense that is spouted right here from deliberately chosen, wallowing-in, ignorance. I then asked him if I could have his permission to quote and attribute him.

You chose to make it personal.

I don't personally know June Swann but I do know Al Saguto and he is a bona fide protege of Ms Swann and an Internationally recognized shoe historian in his own right. I also have...and have read...several of Swann's books. Rest assured she is not just interested in women's shoes. I do hope that you will have the grace to get your facts straight before you characterize either of them again...or at least say outright that you don't know what you're talking about..

If for no other reason than that, I would not ask either of them to personally jump into the cesspool of snottiness and ignorance that characterizes portions of this thread. It would be a terrible imposition on our friendship.

Been there.
Put up -or-shut-up.
Wind-bag.

That said, I am sure that if you are willing to expend as much energy doing a little research, as you do posting bogus or contrarian information, you can contact him and confirm both our relationship and the truth of my attribution. He is, after all, not all that far from you and you might actually enjoy Colonial Williamsburg...or even learn something.

--

Nick V. · Feb 2, 2014

DWFII said:
1) what viewpoint? what dispute? How did that link address any thing?

2) Damned straight.

And USM is an authority on USM and...as witnessed by the link...not much else. Either that or they were dumbing the information down to cater to people who don't like thinking or learning and prefer the the cotton batting of ignorance. More to the point, they are not historians and in all probability the person who wrote that piece was not even interested in the content. It was and is part of a PR campaign.

I have spent a good portion of my life and career learning, testing, validating, researching, and trying to "protect and preserve" the Traditional skills and techniques of shoemaking. The link that you posted comes from a source that is generally discredited among serious historians--people who care about preserving and protecting the Trade, IOW.

Rather than diss you for your credulity, I asked Al Saguto to look at the link and comment. Just to set the record straight...about straights, about tools, about all the nonsense that is spouted right here from deliberately chosen, wallowing-in, ignorance. I then asked him if I could have his permission to quote and attribute him.

You chose to make it personal.

I don't personally know June Swann but I do know Al Saguto and he is a bona fide protege of Ms Swann and an Internationally recognized shoe historian in his own right. I also have...and have read...several of Swann's books. Rest assured she is not just interested in women's shoes. I do hope that you will have the grace to get your facts straight before you characterize either of them again...or at least say outright that you don't know what you're talking about..

If for no other reason than that, I would not ask either of them to personally jump into the cesspool of snottiness and ignorance that characterizes portions of this thread. It would be a terrible imposition on our friendship.

1. Been their 3 times. Beautiful place to visit with the family.
2, AGAIN Who were you referring to when you wrote" I don't care how many third party observers and pop culture raconteurs you've interviewed or schmoozed."
Name a name to qualify yourself please.
3. It would be nice to hear from you're friend Al. I'm sure we can all learn something from Him. It's not a big deal. He's your friend.

.
That said, I am sure that if you are willing to expend as much energy doing a little research, as you do posting bogus or contrarian information, you can contact him and confirm both our relationship and the truth of my attribution. He is, after all, not all that far from you and you might actually enjoy Colonial Williamsburg...or even learn something.

--

Sole Welting

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Distinguished Member

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Distinguished Member

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Distinguished Member

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Bespoke Boot and Shoemaker

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Classic Menswear Featured products

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: