or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Antonio Meccariello Shoes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Antonio Meccariello Shoes - Page 141

post #2101 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post

DW, do you think that the machinery needed for this specific welting process has to be distinctly different from a GYW machine to be able to execute the stitching "underneath" the incidental flap and then out the edge of the insole?
Also, do you think that by having an incidental flap from the cutting of the inside channel, gives it some advantage by protecting / covering part of the inseaming thread? It reminds me somewhat of how outsole stitching can be protected by cutting a similar kind of channel in the bottom of the outsole.
Once again, thanks in advance for your time and efforts.

I don't know the answer to the first question...it seems to me that if it were that easy it would have been done a long time ago. A long time. Or maybe not...this method is still more time and materials intensive than contemporary GY.

As to the second question....yes Ii do think it serves as some small amount of protection. I actually would rather see the incidental "flap" preserved, than cut away as so many bespoke makers do. But that''s just my personal opinion.

That said, I cut a groove in lieu of the channel.
post #2102 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

I don't know the answer to the first question...it seems to me that if it were that easy it would have been done a long time ago. A long time. Or maybe not...this method is still more time and materials intensive than contemporary GY.

As to the second question....yes Ii do think it serves as some small amount of protection. I actually would rather see the incidental "flap" preserved, than cut away as so many bespoke makers do. But that''s just my personal opinion.

Thank you DW.
By the way, over the past few days, I've actually secretly been hoping that you'd come in to contribute your thoughts on this construction method.
Your input is really much appreciated.
post #2103 of 2288

By the way, @DWFII, in conventional hand welting, is a similar flap produced when the holdfast is carved? I've always thought that (most) of the insole is shaved / carved downwards uniformly to leave a rectangular shaped holdfast "standing proud" of the rest of the insole.

post #2104 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post

By the way, @DWFII
, in conventional hand welting, is a similar flap produced when the holdfast is carved? I've always thought that (most) of the insole is shaved / carved downwards uniformly to leave a rectangular shaped holdfast "standing proud" of the rest of the insole.

Well, I edited my post above, but not to go back to that...the primary purpose of the inside channel is to open the insole up into the center of the substance. From there the inseam is much like skin stitching. It is a "tunnel stitch" (not proper terminology) through the center of the insole. And a "tunnel stitch" is the strongest seam known to man.

So some makers will make an angled cut into the depth of the insole as a way to access the center of the substance. And some...many...having cut that angled channel, will remove the "flap" leaving a flat face--one side of a rectangular hold-fast. And a "\|" shaped cavity just inward of that flat face.

Some will not cut that "flap" away at all. that's the way I was originally taught, as a matter of fact.

Some will cut straight down...like I do now...or, depending on which tool comes to hand, cut a groove straight down. Leaving a flat face--one side of a rectangular hold-fast.

I don't like to remove the "flap" just because it does leave a "hole' / cavity in the insole that, theoretically, at least, ought to be filled. But why fill a hole if you don't need to make it in the first place?

In the end, the hold fast is an integral part of the insole but it does not necessarily have to "stand proud." As I have said before...one could simply drive the awl into the center of the insole, never channeling or feathering, make a "tunnels stitch, and come out on the edge of the insole before entering the welt. That's an old way of doing the same thing and the space between where the awl enters the insole and where it exits is still the hold-fast.
post #2105 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post

Thank you DW.
By the way, over the past few days, I've actually secretly been hoping that you'd come in to contribute your thoughts on this construction method.
Your input is really much appreciated.

Indeed! I was hoping that as well. Great explanation provided by DWF.
post #2106 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by niakulah View Post

I saw them post the pics on Instagram yesterday and was about to post a question about it on the shoe construction thread until I saw it had been discussed here.

They have now updated the page with the name Argentum Construction and credited you for the name.

Goosebumps! I feel like I just witnessed an historical event.

I didn't do anything special except try to steer people away from associating what seems like a pretty good method of construction with one that is...well, not so much. That said, I appreciate the tip of the hat and I'll be happy to call it that...or "AC," to go along with GY and HW and BR.

Again, it remains to be seen how it all will shake out but, on the face of it, I think Antonio is trying to go that extra mile for his customers and... well, kudos to him for even trying.
post #2107 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by vmss View Post

Indeed! I was hoping that as well. Great explanation provided by DWF.

All you have to do is ask...and as long as I'm not asked to critique or diss some other maker's work...I'll do my best.
post #2108 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Well, I edited my post above, but not to go back to that...the primary purpose of the inside channel is to open the insole up into the center of the substance. From there the inseam is much like skin stitching. It is a "tunnel stitch" (not proper terminology) through the center of the insole. And a "tunnel stitch" is the strongest seam known to man.

So some makers will make an angled cut into the depth of the insole as a way to access the center of the substance. And some...many...having cut that angled channel, will remove the "flap" leaving a flat face--one side of a rectangular hold-fast. And a "\|" shaped cavity just inward of that flat face.

Some will not cut that "flap" away at all. that's the way I was originally taught, as a matter of fact.

Some will cut straight down...like I do now...or, depending on which tool comes to hand, cut a groove straight down. Leaving a flat face--one side of a rectangular hold-fast.

I don't like to remove the "flap" just because it does leave a "hole' / cavity in the insole that, theoretically, at least, ought to be filled. But why fill a hole if you don't need to make it in the first place?

In the end, the hold fast is an integral part of the insole but it does not necessarily have to "stand proud." As I have said before...one could simply drive the awl into the center of the insole, never channeling or feathering, make a "tunnels stitch, and come out on the edge of the insole before entering the welt. That's an old way of doing the same thing and the space between where the awl enters the insole and where it exits is still the hold-fast.

 

Thanks DW, that explanation was certainly very useful. 

post #2109 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


I didn't do anything special except try to steer people away from associating what seems like a pretty good method of construction with one that is...well, not so much. That said, I appreciate the tip of the hat and I'll be happy to call it that...or "AC," to go along with GY and HW and BR.

Again, it remains to be seen how it all will shake out but, on the face of it, I think Antonio is trying to go that extra mile for his customers and... well, kudos to him for even trying.

 

To be honest, I think this stems from the fact that a true shoemaker and artisan is the boss (and the brains) of the operation. He cares enough, and knows a good deal about shoe making to understand what quality is, and tries his best to provide good shoes that are accessible to people who cannot afford something more expensive or totally handwelted.

He cares enough that even though something might still come from a factory made process, that there can still be room for improvement. Instead of just striving for greater profit or expediency at the detriment to the final product. I've always really admired him. 

post #2110 of 2288

Need someone to post sizing comparison with common lasts from other makers...

 

And reviews from folks who have gotten their feet into the RTW models.

post #2111 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

The Classic Goodyear turns the flaps of leather created by the channels upright...contrary to, and against, the natural lie of the fiber mat. That's what made it weak and prone to breaking through.

And additionally, in order to turn those flaps upright they had to be cut quite close to one another...so the holdfast created wasn't all that thick.

And that's why manufactures went to reinforcing the upright flaps of leather with canvas...which eventually devolved into eliminating the leather channels altogether and just relying on the canvas...and cement.


But bottom line, Goodyear is Goodyear because it was invented / popularized by a man named Charles Goodyear....as an expedient machine substitute for all the work and expense and skill required to do HW.

The Argentum method isn't perfect but, at least the way the webpage describes it, the holdfast should be significantly thicker and the stitches aligned with the fibers. And none of that deep forepart cavity that needs to be filled with cork or foam rubber. And it relies on stitching and not on cement to hold it together. Of course, the stitch itself will always be a machine lock-stitch (unless it's a chain stitch) and can never be as tight or reliable as a shoemaker's stitch. The wax would almost certainly be paraffin based rather than rosin based and the thread surely a synthetic--which in the absence of a good handwax will tend to stretch and slip.

But again, I've seen similar work done by machine...not often. I suspect it takes a certain amount of dexterity and a certain widespread acceptance to be economically feasible. Maybe this will catch on and supplant GY which, as everyone knows, is a Rube Goldberg solution if there ever was one.

To call this process Goodyear, however, only serves to confuse things further and so muddy the waters that whatever advantage there is to using it becomes lost in all the hype and misunderstanding--no distinction, no reason to prefer it.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Again, I don't think so.

Here's a quick drawing that may clarify things a bit:




Top is the original GY. Insole @ 5-6mm.

Middle is contemporary GY (with the caveat that the insole is usually half as thick as illustrated--3mm?) and th holdfast is canvas cemented to the flesh side of the insole if...if it has a flesh side.

Bottom is handwelted...insole is usually approximately 5-6 mm and sometimes a bit more

The Argentum technique looks remarkably like the HW technique both visually and mechanically. And Antonio is saying the insole will be the same thickness as in HW.

--

Thank you very much for your clear exposition and drawings.  I thought the Original GYW had only one turnup flap instead of two. On the other hand, I understand that the machine welting on the Argentum line must be done much more carefully than in a GYW shoe  (tall wall/clear and neat awl entrance to the canvas ribbon) in order to preserve the integrity of the shoe with special attention to the toe area.

post #2112 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Again, it remains to be seen how it all will shake out but, on the face of it, I think Antonio is trying to go that extra mile for his customers and... well, kudos to him for even trying.

I have a handful of high end shoes, G&G, St. Crispins ect, but it has really been Antonio's that continuously surprise me for how well they wear and how comfortable they are. Whenever you post I realize how much thought went into the construction.

 

And as you point out he gets a lot of things right I didn't even know existed. While I like my other high end shoes, I always felt a bit underwhelmed. Are my St. Crispins really worth 3-5x the price of my Carminas? I can understand the tradeoffs, but I never felt the value was there the same way I did with my Meccariellos (hence why my St. Crispins are on B&S, to fund a new Meccariello purchase). 

post #2113 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
 

Need someone to post sizing comparison with common lasts from other makers...

 

And reviews from folks who have gotten their feet into the RTW models.


I ordered a pair Monday after reading about the construction method, and seeing the great short wing. They took a few days to ship, but with the number of sizes that sold out, he had to be swamped with initial orders. Based on another comment, I went with my 9.5E EG/G&G sizing (10D US). I'll follow up next week with my impressions. 

post #2114 of 2288
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
 

Need someone to post sizing comparison with common lasts from other makers...

 

And reviews from folks who have gotten their feet into the RTW models.

What size are you?

 

I find the smaller sizes scale differently than with typical UK sizes. For instance I'm a 6UK/7US wide in most makers. Antonio moved me down to a 5.5 on his lasts. 

 

Edit: I was mistaken. I wear the same UK size as my 6UK Carminas. 


Edited by MSchapiro - 7/29/16 at 12:31pm
post #2115 of 2288

Thanks guys.

 

Here is what I wear on the other makers:

 

Edward Green: UK9 (606, 202), UK9.5 (82)

Enzo Bonafe UK9 (946, 363MOD, 804)

Vass UK9 (Peter)

Carmina UK9 (Rain). I have UK9 on Uetam and Simpson and they are tight

UK9 for most UK shoemakers (Loake, Cheaney)

 

I think I should be UK9 unless it is the super slim or low instep lasts. Not sure which of A.M. lasts fit the slim and low instep lasts category like Simpson etc.

 

I am looking at A.M. Hawksbill last specifically.

 

Thanks for any advice you can give...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Antonio Meccariello Shoes