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 83

post #1231 of 1710

@DWFII

Sorry this question does not quite pertain to Traditional techniques or handwelting. 

But I'd recently been thinking....

Comparing Blake Rapid construction against GYW.... Would you think that Blake Rapid represents the sturdier construction method?

There is no gemming to worry about, the insole and uppers are stitched directly to a midsole, which is then in turn stitched to the outsole.

Seems like there is less room for failure than the much vaunted GYW system???

post #1232 of 1710

I would like to ask shoemakers and cobblers about pros and cons of the following different HW inseaming techniques:

 

A.-Carving a holdfast with inside channel and feather.

 

B.-Stitching aloft.

 

C.-Cut an inside channel and turn-up a leather flap by hand.

 

D.-Cut a small and straight inside channel but no leather flap (although not clear here).

 

 

1.-Would you rely on the strenght of those B, C and D techniques if done correctly and with good quality materials?.

2.-Would you still consider B, C and D techniques to be of superior quality than GYW if done correctly and with good quality materials?

3.-If the welt is damaged, could it be an issue to replace it on those B, C and D shoes?.

 

It seems clear to me the superiority of the hand welting construction carving a holdfast but I am not sure about the rest of techniques specially C & D.

 

Thanks for your inputs.


Edited by Zapasman - 5/3/16 at 7:43am
post #1233 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post

@DWFII

Sorry this question does not quite pertain to Traditional techniques or handwelting. 
But I'd recently been thinking....
Comparing Blake Rapid construction against GYW.... Would you think that Blake Rapid represents the sturdier construction method?
There is no gemming to worry about, the insole and uppers are stitched directly to a midsole, which is then in turn stitched to the outsole.
Seems like there is less room for failure than the much vaunted GYW system???

IMO...B-R is far superior to GY.

As far as "vaunted" is concerned there isn't much "vaunting" from folks who know and appreciate the differences.
post #1234 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

I would like to ask shoemakers and cobblers about pros and cons of the following different HW inseaming techniques:

A.-Carving a holdfast with inside channel and feather.

B.-Stitching a loft.

C.-Cut an inside channel and turn-up a leather flap by hand.

D.-Cut a small and straight inside channel but no leather flap (although not clear here).


1.-Would you rely on the strenght of those B, C and D techniques if done correctly and with good quality materials?.
2.-Would you still consider B, C and D techniques to be of superior quality than GYW if done correctly and with good quality materials?
3.-If the welt is damaged, could it be an issue to replace it on those B, C and D shoes?.

It seems clear to me the superiority of the hand welting construction carving a holdfast but I am not sure about the rest of techniques specially C & D.

Thanks for your inputs.

Everything comes down to technique and materials. I've been saying this forever.

1) As you can see, D results in a mess if not done correctly. Or if the leather of the insole is poor or unsuitable. But the same could be said for any of them, although IMO, B and D are especially vulnerable simply because the technique leaves the thread vulnerable. And because, thinner insole leather is often employed.

2) Again the same general observations apply...good leather, skilled and mindful technique makes good shoes. But fundamentally good leather and skilled technique are contrary to the purposes and goals of GYW. So...in answer to your question...any one of these examples, "if done correctly and with good quality materials," will be better than GY. Objectively. In my professional opinion.

3) Depends on how well the work is done. It seems evident that the work was done poorly on D. Replacing welt would probably be an issue.

There's not a lot of difference, IMO, between B and D except execution and length of time in service.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 5/3/16 at 5:46am
post #1235 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

IMO...B-R is far superior to GY.

As far as "vaunted" is concerned there isn't much "vaunting" from folks who know and appreciate the differences.

Haha. Yes Sir.
I was saying that with a good bit of sarcasm.
post #1236 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post

Haha. Yes Sir.
I was saying that with a good bit of sarcasm.

I understood--wry humour.
post #1237 of 1710

 

I just wanted to share some different matererials used in a shoe and have your opinions.

 

What do you think is the filler made of?.  It seems like a thin layer made of neoprene fabric or tarred felt but is not clear to me.  On the other hand the shank is a short piece of wooden paste (?) screwed to the insole with a leather piece cut on top mounted at the waist.

 

Any thoughts?.

post #1238 of 1710
Looks like tarred felt in the forepart judging by the colour, and the shank is either a shaped bit of composite material or it's a cover piece for the wood/metal shank underneath. The shaped bit on the waist is presumably to assist in shaping a fiddle waist. Are these pictures from GG?
post #1239 of 1710

Thanks, Nicholas.  I doubt that the wooden paste or composite material piece is covering any metal/wood shank because it seems to flat to me and there is only one little screw to anchor it.  In fact I thought the shank was the short piece of leather on the waist that could assist to conform a fiddle back waist too.  On the other hand, it is the second time I see tarred felt used as a filler (the only maker I know it uses is DW). Those are Enzo Bonafe shoes which are HW; I ordered a pair and I am curious about its construction.

post #1240 of 1710

I actually thought it was one of those ready made leather pieces for the waist but covered up by another layer.

post #1241 of 1710
what is this? Can you consider this stitching aloft? I see no hold fast or channel. the upper seems to be folded over the insole and just glued. Then the welt is just stitched on top.

I am not sure if a channel is in there,



post #1242 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

the shank was the short piece of leather .......it is the second time I see tarred felt used as a filler....

A shank in strong leather (this a not a cover over a metal or wooden shank) and tarred felt as bottom filler
is the classic method used by bespoke shoemakers in London's West-End.


felt_zpsclv6bfmx.png
post #1243 of 1710

I thought most of the West-End bespoke shoemakers used a metal shank and a layer of cork (no cork paste) as bottom filler for their shoes.  I do not think EB´s shank is a piece of leather anyway. Thanks for you contribution Bengal.

post #1244 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

I thought most of the West-End bespoke shoemakers used a metal shank and a layer of cork (no cork paste) as bottom filler for their shoes.

You might have seen pictures of 'in welt' fittings showing a metal shank. But that's only temporarily, just for the trial. Occasionally a metal shank might be used, for a very heavy man and/or heels higher than the standard 1 1/8" (28 mm), but that's the exception.

Also tarred felt is generally used, although, I believe, it is quite unpleasant to work with. I heard the story of an outworker (no longer in the trade) who disliked working with the felt so much, that he took the liberty to substitute the felt with sheet cork. That was probably quite naughty, but, of course, once the sole is in place nobody will know what filling material was used.
post #1245 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post


I just wanted to share some different matererials used in a shoe and have your opinions.

What do you think is the filler made of?.  It seems like a thin layer made of neoprene fabric or tarred felt but is not clear to me.  On the other hand the shank is a short piece of wooden paste (?) screwed to the insole with a leather piece cut on top mounted at the waist.

Any thoughts?.

The photos are not clear enough, nor large enough to zoom in on, to tell for sure but I am guessing that the forepart filler is neoprene. I've seen this many times and it has always been black or dark, dark charcoal grey.

I don't use tarred felt. I don't know anywhere in the world to get it. I can get tar paper but that is not the same thing. In fact, I use 100% wool felt affixed with a non-occlusive paste.

The shank filler looks too regular to be anything but a pre-made part. Again the photos don't reveal much about the material, source or even structure. Being pre-made would be even more certain if your description about it being a "wood paste" is correct. I don't like screws in the insole. Either it is long enough to be of real use in holding the filler in place...in which case any settling of the insole in the forming of a footbed raises the possibility of it poking up through the insole...or it is useless. But the placement as well as the fact that it is there, does suggest that there is no metal shank involved.

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/6/16 at 5:29am
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..."