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 91

post #1351 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbhan12 View Post

Nick and DWF back at it again...come on guys

We all love that movie, don't we?

post #1352 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbhan12 View Post

Nick and DWF back at it again...come on guys

I created this thread. I'm here. I will be for the foreseeable future. (There is only three or four that I participate in with any regularity at all and most of the time not.)

I've made this offer a number of times--if Nick or Bengal Stripe or even you, want to start your own thread to talk about... anything at all, real or imagined (except actual hands-on bespoke shoemaking)...I promise to stay out of it.

And I further promise not to pretend to knowledge or experiences that I don't have...not even here.
post #1353 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post

We all love that movie, don't we?

Classic case of instigation with little or no constructive purpose.
post #1354 of 1710
Thread Starter 
For the curious...among the incurious...here is an interesting read regarding what goes into the analysis and understanding of shoes (and feet) and where they came from--their journey through time.

http://makinghistorynow.com/2016/05/making-sense-of-a-little-piece-of-leather/
post #1355 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Classic case of instigation with little or no constructive purpose.

The constructive purpose was to show the both of you, how your stupid quarrels come across.

But if you don't recognize that, what can I do?
post #1356 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post

The constructive purpose was to show the both of you, how your stupid quarrels come across.

But if you don't recognize that, what can I do?

I understood....delivered with a sense of humor. I got a kick out of it and appreciated it.
Thank you Sir!
post #1357 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post

The constructive purpose was to show the both of you, how your stupid quarrels come across.

But if you don't recognize that, what can I do?

What indeed? Maybe read the posts? Maybe contribute...objective perspective? Why else are you here?

For myself, I understand and agree such quarrels are stupid...but no more stupid than arguing about things you know nothing about. That's the definition of instigating.

And probably no more stupid that stepping into the middle of it. It's not constructive, it's snark. Constructive is when you add something that is positive or informational or that furthers a conversation.
post #1358 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

What indeed? Maybe read the posts? Maybe contribute...objective perspective? Why else are you here?

For myself, I understand and agree such quarrels are stupid...but no more stupid than arguing about things you know nothing about. That's the definition of instigating.

And probably no more stupid that stepping into the middle of it. It's not constructive, it's snark. Constructive is when you add something that is positive or informational or that furthers a conversation.

I think most people who frequent SF imagine that they appreciate fine, handcrafted products designed and made to function as well and as long as possible, according to the best practices that tradition can offer. One would also imagine such people would be delighted to learn from a man with decades of firsthand experience pursuing the zenith of excellence in his craft, who is also humble enough never to claim he's gotten there.

However, too many SFers expect this master craftsman merrily to stand by while people spread misinformation about what is not only his livelihood, but his calling, his passion. They want the end results from a man pursuing quality with utmost seriousness for decades, but then they get bent out of shape when he expects discussion of important details of his craft to be serious.

Somebody who doesn't care so much about the details might be less inclined to get into heated discussions concerning them, but then he also wouldn't have much to share in those discussion because not caring so much about the details makes a person a hack or a charlatan.

PR guys, businessmen, and status-whores can get by quite well without details. For them, details just get in the way. Serious discussions just "bum their high."

We won't have any crafts worth a lick without real craftsmen.

Folks, we can't ask DW to both care and not care at the same time. One doesn't get anywhere close to mastery with fluff and half-truths.

DW demonstrates great generosity sharing everything he knows, everything he learned by the sweat of his brow. I think that is more than enough. He answers all respectful questions thoroughly (and repeatedly). Does he also have to smile when he gets served shit in return?
post #1359 of 1710
Thread Starter 
@Whirling

Every once in a while I run across someone who gets it entirely. patrickbooth is another. I suspect I am fortunate to be acquainted with more that one...more than a few, in fact. And I am sincerely grateful for your acknowledgement and appreciation. I am in your debt if only because people such as yourself make it worthwhile and give me hope for people in general. Thank you.

cheers.gif
post #1360 of 1710

DW, do you use the shoemaker´s stitch for the inseming and the for the one to attach the outsole to the welt?.  Exactly the same technique for both?. Thanks.

post #1361 of 1710
Thread Starter 
"Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world..."

There are many threads on StyleForum--there are even a couple devoted to shoe repair... and one exclusively about B. Nelson.

I don't seek out these threads. I don't post to them. I don't seek out Nick or chogal or BengalStripe or anyone else to confront or argue with. I confine myself to the ordinarily pleasant task of answering...to the best of my ability...questions posed by genuinely interested and generally open-minded individuals. People looking for answers and insights...whether they agree with them or not.

Maybe I'm missing something but I would like someone to point out to me, beginning with post #1324, one significant bit of constructive or educational information related to shoemaking techniques and Traditions that came out of all of Nick's posts going forward.

In the absence of such I would suggest that the only reason Nick (and there are others) follows, reads (to the extent that he does, if he does) and posts to this thread is to contradict and instigate arguments. Seeking opportunities for disagreement and contention.

I agree completely...I am stupid to argue with someone so clueless and inexperienced--so arrogantly ignorant. But that's who I am--I am bulldog tenacious, ever hopeful that this time it will be different, and undoubtedly stupid.

That said, I am dismayed at the apparent discomfort and sanctimony of some who don't participate in a discussion, and yet feel compelled to admonish others about the way the thread unfolds.

It is easy for the un-involved to get up on their high-horse and shake a finger.

But where was the discomfort (esp. from self-styled/popularly acclaimed experts, such as BengalStripe) when Nick was spouting this rubbish about the shoemaker's stitch? With not one bit of constructive or objective or useful input...just peevish, adolescent argument, for the sake of argument.

Where was the outrage and opprobrium when Nick was calling me a liar?

It strikes me as awfully convenient and perhaps even manufactured to suddenly discover a sense of justice and the desire to protect the comity of the forum.

I wish I could be more even-tempered. Sometimes, I even wish I could be a Virginia gentleman. But it's not me. I am who I am, I talk and write the way I do...and have done since time out of mind. I occupy, and contribute to, a very small part of this forum and I try to limit myself to talking only about subjects I know and have first hand experience with.

Frankly, I would just as soon that those who think I am a jerk (probably so) and an asshole (sometimes), just shake their heads and walk away. Start their own threads. I'll still be here and most of the controversy and reasons for discomfort will walk away with them.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 5/12/16 at 7:56am
post #1362 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

DW, do you use the shoemaker´s stitch for the inseming and the for the one to attach the outsole to the welt?.  Exactly the same technique for both?. Thanks.

Shoemakers do use, and have Traditionally used, the shoemaker's stitch on all seams. Before the sewing machine even the uppers (at upwards of 30 -50 stitches per inch) were done with a shoemaker's stitch.

Of course the sewing machine produced a lock stitch. Its invention made the lockstitch more common than the shoemaker's stitch.

There is no machine that can produce a shoemaker's stitch. It's all lock stitch. Accordingly, when an outsole is stitched by machine it is always a lockstitch. When stitched by hand it is often, but not always, a shoemaker's stitch.

I took a page from Janne Melkersohn years ago and began offering my customers the option for outseaming--either machine stitched (mostly because I have the machine)
or hand stitched (at a premium). FWIW, I always outseam my own shoes (esp. my dress shoes) by hand, with a shoemaker's stitch.

I always sew the inseam with a shoemaker's stitch. Handwax, bristles and lingel.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 5/12/16 at 5:27am
post #1363 of 1710

Clear enough.  Thanks.

post #1364 of 1710
@DWFII
Definitely, I'd say I've (and I think most people) always been grateful you take the time you do, and fight wars on these threads, to keep doing what you do, which is to educate.

I have a question.... I was searching but can't seem to find it now.
But some time ago, you'd commented that on a particular pair of shoes, the heel was built up too high for what the last was intended. Or something to that effect.
How does one tell, that a heel was built up too high for the last?
post #1365 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post

@DWFII
Definitely, I'd say I've (and I think most people) always been grateful you take the time you do, and fight wars on these threads, to keep doing what you do, which is to educate.

I have a question.... I was searching but can't seem to find it now.
But some time ago, you'd commented that on a particular pair of shoes, the heel was built up too high for what the last was intended. Or something to that effect.
How does one tell, that a heel was built up too high for the last?

There are quite a few people who seem to appreciate what I try to do. More...in this thread at least...than those who don't. And I can't adequately put into words how much I value them.

That said there are always those who feel threatened or put off by confidence or ideas that they don't understand or aren't in control of. Most of the people I get into it with have been dogging my heels since I came on SF. Nick, Bengal Stripe, chogal...actively....and a few others who have either put me on their ignore list or given up trying to convince me that their unfounded sense of entitlement trumps first hand experience.

Every time I see one of these folks' username in the Currently Viewing area, I expect to be dissed, discounted or disagreed with, regardless of any objective reason. Just a matter of time.

===================================================================

As for heel height...there are not many things that a non-shoemaker can do to determine if the heel height is correct. For that you need to put the original last back in the shoe. At which point, a check of the location in the forepart where the outsole is resting on ground, can tell you if the shoe is properly balanced. The properly balance shoe needs to rest at the tread line...line, not approximate region. Of course, there is more to it than that...a shoe needs to be balanced lengthwise as well as width-wise.

Personally, I don't hold with the heel sitting much off of flush with ground but there are some makers who build with a heel spring. I have asked but never gotten much in the way of an answer from those who take this approach, perhaps because it is simply something they learned or intuit as being useful, not something they can articulate. I don't know and can't say one way or the other if there is any benefit in setting the heel askew. But I can't find any logic in it myself, unless it has to do with not putting a metal shank in the shoe--as a foil to arch/waist collapse.

Often times, however...for various reasons...a shoe that has been worn will seem to sit off-kilter in the heel--as if it had heel spring built in. And when they are taken in for repair, the kindly (but ill-informed) and saintly-looking old cobbler will take it upon himself to "correct" the problem. To make the shoe "better." So he grinds the perceived heel spring off. Or he adds another layer...for whatever reason...never considering that he might be altering not just the maker's intent but the gait of the owner of the shoes as well. Not to mention the structural integrity of the shoe.

But without the original last, the best intentioned cobbler doesn't know how the shoe should be balanced anymore than the consumer does.

Hope that helps...

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/12/16 at 7:21am
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..."