or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..." - Page 71

post #1051 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post

The bottom one is how everyone in the UK does it, or nearly everyone at least. The top one is how the French seem to prefer doing it.

If a firm seems to use both methods, it's probably because you're looking at the work of two different outworkers rather than any conscious decision to choose one over the other for certain styles.

Pelle used to whip-stitch the heel to the insole. Don't know if he learned that from his master or just started it on his own.
post #1052 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post

The bottom one is how everyone in the UK does it, or nearly everyone at least. The top one is how the French seem to prefer doing it.

If a firm seems to use both methods, it's probably because you're looking at the work of two different outworkers rather than any conscious decision to choose one over the other for certain styles.

Interestingly enough both pix came from D Wegan Instagram. Not sure if he did it as a discovery practice or for actual customer delivery. Or it's from some out workers.

I've also seen a Spanish maker doing both.

Thus my curiosity.
post #1053 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post

The top one is how the French seem to prefer doing it.

Yet, it was in Hasluck's Bootmaking and Mending, 1900, Casell and Company Ltd., Ludgate Hill, London, where I ran across it for the first time.

And, I may be mistaken but I seem to recall Delos doing it like the bottom photo.
post #1054 of 1710
Dimitri Gomez



Delos



I don't doubt for a moment that some makers in England do it that way too, or even that it was done at some point historically, every one I've come across does it the other way though. It's something I've been meaning to try if only for the yuks, I just keep forgetting.
post #1055 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post

Delos



I don't doubt for a moment that some makers in England do it that way too, or even that it was done at some point historically, every one I've come across does it the other way though. It's something I've been meaning to try if only for the yuks, I just keep forgetting.

From what you posted, it's clear that I was mistaken. But I've always admired Delos, so maybe, subliminally, that's one of the reasons why I choose to do it the "French" / Hasluck way.

I'd like to try the "English" way sometime. But like you, I keep forgetting.
post #1056 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post


I hope no one's using nails or pegs to secure an upper to the insole with, because that doesn't sound too good.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Many manufacturers do use nails to secure the upper to the insole.

And, sad to say, there are all too many 'bespoke" makers who, taking their cue from the manufacturers and the relatively commonplace-ness of such techniques...and in the absence of instruction in Traditional techniques...also use nails. Esp. in the heel seat. That's what bottom plates on lasts are all about, after all.

Not telling you anything you don't know but..."we are not alone." lol8[1].gif

 

There are some renowned shoemakers that pegs/nails upper to the insole.

 

How do you attach rand to heel seat if you don't inseam/welt all the way around? Nails? Pegs?

post #1057 of 1710
A split lift (rand) is neither upper nor insole, but it's attached by nails most often in my neck of the woods, sometimes pegs but very seldom. Whether the split lift even comes into contact with the upper depends on what type of waist you intend to make, as a beveled waist has the long sole placed first.

I wouldn't advocate skipping the job of sewing of the upper to the insole and relying on the nails to do the job, particularly not when you've already gone to the effort of welting. Good luck rebottoming that shoe in a few years time, you'll probably rip the upper away with the sole.
post #1058 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post

A split lift (rand) is neither upper nor insole, but it's attached by nails most often in my neck of the woods, sometimes pegs but very seldom. Whether the split lift even comes into contact with the upper depends on what type of waist you intend to make, as a beveled waist has the long sole placed first.

I wouldn't advocate skipping the job of sewing of the upper to the insole and relying on the nails to do the job, particularly not when you've already gone to the effort of welting. Good luck rebottoming that shoe in a few years time, you'll probably rip the upper away with the sole.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but this picture demonstrated what you have described.  My question is then, wouldn't the nails/pegs go through the rand and upper and then into the insole? If so, whats the difference between that and securing upper to insole around heels with nails.  Thanks!

 

post #1059 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Here's where we get into deep water with regard to terminology. As Nicholas so correctly points out there is a big difference between securing the uppers to the insole and subsequent operations. Many manufacturers do use nails in lieu of sewing, but few quality or Tradition minded bespoke makers do.

Beyond that a "rand" or "rhan" is technically not a welt. And it is usually sewn to the upper. After which the the outsole and heel may be sewn to it...as shoefan mentioned... creating what is sometimes called a German Seat. The rand is very often folded leather...not just a strip like a welt. That said, rand and welt have almost become interchangeable but at one time they meant very different things if only in the way they were constructed.

Most shoemakers either welt all the way around--360-- or add a "U" shaped piece of leather at the heel which is the same thickness as the welt. I call this the "heel seat." I suspect this is what Nicholas is referring to. I peg this on. Some makers...including bespoke makers...nail this piece on. But it is not part of the upper, nor is it part of the insole. Neither is it part of the outsole. It is, a sense a filler. Many bootmakers in the US have dispensed with it altogether, simply because there is no welt in the immediate proximity to create a disconnect of line.

Again, the salient point is that the upper is sewn to the insole in high quality work...not nailed or pegged.
post #1060 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Correct me if I am wrong, but this picture demonstrated what you have described.  My question is then, wouldn't the nails/pegs go through the rand and upper and then into the insole? If so, whats the difference between that and securing upper to insole around heels with nails.  Thanks!

What if they do? The handwelted shoe is a entity unto itself once it has been inseamed. The handwelted, bespoke shoe is compleat. It looks and fits as it is intended to look and feel. Little that is done or added will change that. Anything else--from "heel seats" to outsoles to shank covers to heel stacks--is added. And intentionally subject to removal and replacement, as needed.

And again, the upper is secured to the insole with thread. How these other parts are mounted / secured has no bearing on how the upper is secured (although they may have some effect on the integrity and longevity of the whole).
post #1061 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

. My question is then, wouldn't the nails/pegs go through the rand and upper and then into the insole? If so, whats the difference between that and securing upper to insole around heels with nails.  Thanks!

The nails are going through after the upper and insole have been fastened together with thread. The nails are playing no part In securing the upper, their job is to hold the split lift in place for the next stages of the shoemaking process. You "could" nail the upper down and leave it at that. Why stop there though? May as well nail the welt on too, it'll hold them in place. Won't even see them once the sole is on. Result! Hey, let's nail the sole to the welt too, the channel will cover them up nicely.

It's not the fastener that goes through the soft upper leather which holds it in place, it's the pressure of the tightened threads above and below the material which does this. Relying on nails alone would be like making a shirt with pins alone - it'll be ok until you start wearing it.

(I've actually seen a repaired shoe (I use the term very loosely here) where the "craftsman" did in fact nail the new sole to the welt and closed a channel over the heads. The reason I saw this is they brought them back after the sole started falling away and they didn't know why)
post #1062 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post



Hate to derail the the interesting discussion, but seeing this pic reminded me of a question I have for the shoemakers here. That's a metal shank in the right picture, correct? What are the benefits/drawbacks of steel vs. wood vs. leather shanks? I've been reading up a bit on the topic and it seems there are various opinions. Carreducker uses leather for men's shoes:

http://carreducker.blogspot.de/2010/10/shanks.html
post #1063 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


What if they do? The handwelted shoe is a entity unto itself once it has been inseamed. The handwelted, bespoke shoe is compleat. It looks and fits as it is intended to look and feel. Little that is done or added will change that. Anything else--from "heel seats" to outsoles to shank covers to heel stacks--is added. And intentionally subject to removal and replacement, as needed.

And again, the upper is secured to the insole with thread. How these other parts are mounted / secured has no bearing on how the upper is secured (although they may have some effect on the integrity and longevity of the whole).

 

I thought one of the argument against using nails to inseam/secure the upper to the insole around the heel area is that nails do rust and eventually destroys leather.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post


The nails are going through after the upper and insole have been fastened together with thread. The nails are playing no part In securing the upper, their job is to hold the split lift in place for the next stages of the shoemaking process. You "could" nail the upper down and leave it at that. Why stop there though? May as well nail the welt on too, it'll hold them in place. Won't even see them once the sole is on. Result! Hey, let's nail the sole to the welt too, the channel will cover them up nicely.

It's not the fastener that goes through the soft upper leather which holds it in place, it's the pressure of the tightened threads above and below the material which does this. Relying on nails alone would be like making a shirt with pins alone - it'll be ok until you start wearing it.

(I've actually seen a repaired shoe (I use the term very loosely here) where the "craftsman" did in fact nail the new sole to the welt and closed a channel over the heads. The reason I saw this is they brought them back after the sole started falling away and they didn't know why)

 

Thanks for the explanation.  I thought one of the argument against nails/pegs is that they will rust and damage the insole.  Then wouldn't using nails to secure the split lift do exactly that?  It seems welting 360" all the way around would be even better?

 

There are shoemakers who do pegged construction.

post #1064 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan'l View Post

Hate to derail the the interesting discussion, but seeing this pic reminded me of a question I have for the shoemakers here. That's a metal shank in the right picture, correct? What are the benefits/drawbacks of steel vs. wood vs. leather shanks? I've been reading up a bit on the topic and it seems there are various opinions. Carreducker uses leather for men's shoes:

http://carreducker.blogspot.de/2010/10/shanks.html

Theoretically, metal shanks are not needed at heel heights below one inch. I'm not sure I agree with that. But in any case, with any HH above one inch the waist of the shoe is subject to break down and collapse over time (sometimes a relatively small amount of time) and the foot will not be supported as it should be through the arch.

I suspect that this theory was formulated in a time when outsole leather was harder and more rigid than it is today, however.

As far as wood goes, well it's just an expedient compromise between leather (no shank support) and metal, IMO. Eventually, it too will break down, and it doesn't have the rigidity /support of metal, to begin with...at any heel height.

For me the question becomes...given the fundamental superiority of support between metal and all other materials..."why not use metal?" I suspect it's a matter of cost--monetary and time. I'm not looking to compromise quality, even if only marginally or theortetically, nor am I looking for speed. So the answer seems obvious to me.
post #1065 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

I thought one of the argument against using nails to inseam/secure the upper to the insole around the heel area is that nails do rust and eventually destroys leather.

That's correct ...at least for me.

Quote:
I thought one of the argument against nails/pegs is that they will rust and damage the insole.  Then wouldn't using nails to secure the split lift do exactly that?  It seems welting 360" all the way around would be even better?

There are shoemakers who do pegged construction.

Full pegged construction refers to the way the outsole is mounted. In almost every example the upper will still be sewn to the insole even if it is only a simple whip stitch.

But unless and until people are ready to pay the shoemaker to recapitulate ancient and virtually lost skills, parts of the outsole and the heel stack must be mounted with some method short of stitching. Even on a 360 welt, the heel stack gets nailed or pegged. These nails pierce the insole and clinch on a bottom plate mounted on the last itself. But in general these areas are not subject to as much flexing or abuse as the forepart of the outsole and insole.

So, it's "in for a penny, in for a pound." And the best you can hope to do is minimize the damage....that's why I avoid nails like the plague.

edited for punctuation and clarity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."