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

Thank you for the write up, that was very interesting! I have two questions. I don't have any skin in the game nor am I looking for an argument over semantics, I'd merely like to know your professional (whether that be subjective or objective I don't care) opinion. It is not often one has the ability to talk to someone with as much experience as you have. These questions have been debated many times is several threads, often by people who don't know much about shoe construction, so it would be nice to settle it once and for all.
1. What would be the cost difference between a Goodyear welted shoe and a hand welted shoe, assuming all other factors stay the same? 1.5x as expensive, 2x?
2. Do you mean that a €300 hand welted Meermin shoe would be preferable over let's say a €1000 Goodyear welted John Lobb, EG or G&G? If not, when would you prefer hand welted over Goodyear welted?

Monkeyface said:

Thank you for the write up, that was very interesting! I have two questions. I don't have any skin in the game nor am I looking for an argument over semantics, I'd merely like to know your professional (whether that be subjective or objective I don't care) opinion. It is not often one has the ability to talk to someone with as much experience as you have. These questions have been debated many times is several threads, often by people who don't know much about shoe construction, so it would be nice to settle it once and for all.
1. What would be the cost difference between a Goodyear welted shoe and a hand welted shoe, assuming all other factors stay the same? 1.5x as expensive, 2x?
2. Do you mean that a €300 hand welted Meermin shoe would be preferable over let's say a €1000 Goodyear welted John Lobb, EG or G&G? If not, when would you prefer hand welted over Goodyear welted?

Click to expand...

1. is comparing a high fixed cost low variable cost production vs. very low fixed cost and slightly higher variable cost production. The high fixed cost of GY Welted is one of the important factors how many Italian workshops retained the tradition of making shoes by hand. My guess is for low labor cost countries its cheaper to make a hand welted shoes.

2. It depends. Machine made shoes should have much less manufacturing variability than hand welted shoes, where QA/QC is much harder to obtain.

That said, everyone can write but there's only one Shakespear.



Monkeyface said:

Thank you for the write up, that was very interesting! I have two questions. I don't have any skin in the game nor am I looking for an argument over semantics, I'd merely like to know your professional (whether that be subjective or objective I don't care) opinion. It is not often one has the ability to talk to someone with as much experience as you have. These questions have been debated many times is several threads, often by people who don't know much about shoe construction, so it would be nice to settle it once and for all.


1. What would be the cost difference between a Goodyear welted shoe and a hand welted shoe, assuming all other factors stay the same? 1.5x as expensive, 2x?


2. Do you mean that a €300 hand welted Meermin shoe would be preferable over let's say a €1000 Goodyear welted John Lobb, EG or G&G? If not, when would you prefer hand welted over Goodyear welted?

Click to expand...

I don't know that it can ever be settled...simply because as you alluded, we are not all looking through the same lens.From my point of view, the issue of "value" doesn't enter into it. As was mentioned, "value" is subjective, personal, idiosyncratic...it cannot be quantified or predicted.

To your points:

1) There's no way to address that issue objectively...at some time early in the last 150 years, maybe...because at this point in time it's comparing apples to oranges. If I had to guess or offer my personal, subjective opinion, I'd say half again maybe. That's the best I can do.

Look to Meermin and St. Crispin and Vass and small-time, unknown, independent, shoemakers around the world. A good portion of retail price is determined by the need to recapture marketing, advertising and promotional costs. I know of one pretty fair bespoke shoemaker here in the US charging roughly $800.00 for a pair of handwelted shoes.

Which brings me to your second point:

2) If all things were equal? Yes, of course a $400.00 (at current exchange rates) pair of hand welted Meermins are preferable, esp. if "value" is a driving priority for you. What do the other brands bring to the game that warrants a three fold increase in price along with a 30% decrease in structural stability? Better leather? I think the case can be made that the insole, at least, is not better quality. And at some point, all other things being equal, calf leather is calf leather...the only variable is the finish and the "antiquing."

As for me...knowing what I know, having experienced what I have experienced... I would always prefer handwelted over GY. I would always prefer Blake-Rapid over GY. And I would always prefer GY over cement construction (although the underlying philosophies/dependencies are much the same). [Parenthetically, I'm rather fond of channel stitching...but where it fits, I haven't thought about it enough to say.]

Beyond that, it is always up to the customer to inform himself. Few, if any makers who go to the trouble of hand welting are going to cut corners when it comes to leather...I doubt you'll ever see a HW shoe with corrected grain leather, IOW. (stranger things have happened in a world where marketing and public perception are both paramount and inextricably intertwined, however).

That said, two points need to be made...first, as mentioned, do your homework--don't buy hand welted (or GY) shoes that are CG. And second, always be skeptical. Deny your "magpie eye"...all that glitters is not gold. Brand name cachet is vanity. Appearances can deceive.

Being a connoisseur of anything; knowing and appreciating quality; searching for excellence; is a lifelong quest...and a solitary (and probably lonely) one.

--

chogall said:

1. is comparing a high fixed cost low variable cost production vs. very low fixed cost and slightly higher variable cost production. The high fixed cost of GY Welted is one of the important factors how many Italian workshops retained the tradition of making shoes by hand. My guess is for low labor cost countries its cheaper to make a hand welted shoes.

2. It depends. Machine made shoes should have much less manufacturing variability than hand welted shoes, where QA/QC is much harder to obtain.

That said, everyone can write but there's only one Shakespear.

Click to expand...

DWFII said:

I don't know that it can ever be settled...simply because as you alluded, we are not all looking through the same lens.From my point of view, the issue of "value" doesn't enter into it. As was mentioned, "value" is subjective, personal, idiosyncratic...it cannot be quantified or predicted.

To your points:

1) There's no way to address that issue objectively...at some time early in the last 150 years, maybe...because at this point in time it's comparing apples to oranges. If I had to guess or offer my personal, subjective opinion, I'd say half again maybe. That's the best I can do.

Look to Meermin and St. Crispin and Vass and small-time, unknown, independent, shoemakers around the world. A good portion of retail price is determined by the need to recapture marketing, advertising and promotional costs. I know of one pretty fair bespoke shoemaker here in the US charging roughly $800.00 for a pair of handwelted shoes.

Which brings me to your second point:

2) If all things were equal? Yes, of course a $400.00 (at current exchange rates) pair of hand welted Meermins are preferable, esp. if "value" is a driving priority for you. What do the other brands bring to the game that warrants a three fold increase in price along with a 30% decrease in structural stability? Better leather? I think the case can be made that the insole, at least, is not better quality. And at some point, all other things being equal, calf leather is calf leather...the only variable is the finish and the "antiquing."

As for me...knowing what I know, having experienced what I have experienced... I would always prefer handwelted over GY. I would always prefer Blake-Rapid over GY. And I would always prefer GY over cement construction. [Parenthetically, I'm rather fond of channel stitching...but where it fits, I haven't thought about it enough to say.]

Beyond that, it is always up to the customer to inform himself. Few, if any makers who go to the trouble of hand welting are going to cut corners when it comes to leather...I doubt you'll ever see a HW shoe with corrected grain leather, IOW. (stranger things have happened in a world where marketing and public perception are both paramount and inextricably intertwined, however).

That said, two points need to be made...first, as mentioned, do your homework--don't buy hand welted (or GY) shoes that are CG. And second, always be skeptical. Deny your "magpie eye"...all that glitters is not gold. Brand name cachet is vanity. Appearances can deceive.

Being a connoisseur of anything; knowing and appreciating quality; searching for excellence; is a lifelong quest...and a solitary (and probably lonely) one.

--

Click to expand...

Thank you both very much for your detailed replies. This might not settle it for everyone, but it certainly does for me.



Monkeyface said:

Thank you both very much for your detailed replies. This might not settle it for everyone, but it certainly does for me. 

Click to expand...

Trying to compare the costs of GYW versus HW requires all sorts of assumptions about capacity utilization of the fixed asset (the GYW equipment), the relative costs of labor for a machine operator versus a skilled hand-welter, etc. As DW has pointed out repeatedly, the GYW system also allow (encourages?) the use of lower cost insoles.

All of that being said, when GYW first displaced HW in the factory environment in the US (the late 1800's/early 1900's), the cost of the inseaming process was reduced by about 80% -- from 20 - 25 cents/pair to around 4 cents per pair. The latter include about 2 cents of labor and 2 cents of royalty/lease payments to United Shoe Machinery Corp, which was basically a monopolist in the shoe equipment business. Welted men's shoes sold for in the range of $3.50 - $4.00 back then, so wholesale maybe $2.00. If the cost of inseaming was 10% of the wholesale price of the shoe, you can see the powerful motivation for automation. The cost of hand welted inseams and hand sewn outsoles was more in the range of 60 cents - 75 cents/pair, so even more powerful economic motivation to get rid of the hand work. The total cost of the 'automated' GYW/outsole stitch was 4 cents labor and 4 cents equipment lease. (In point of fact, the inseaming and outsole stiching were leased as a system, so my cited lease cost for the inseaming is an assumption/allocation.)

Today, if you assume that a factory worker makes a total compensation (wages and benefits) of $75,000/year, and works 1800 hours, and can crank out 10 pairs/hour, then the labor cost of the GYW inseaming is around $4/pair. Of course, there a cost to buying or leasing the equipment which is not reflected in this number.

A handwelted shoe takes a minimum of around 1 hour/pair; at the same wage rate, that inseaming would cost around $40. So, the GYW has reduced the inseaming labor cost by 90%, leaving aside the cost of the gemming itself and of course the equipment.

For the bespoke outworkers I've seen, I would say the total inseaming process takes more like 2 hours - 2.5 hours, since they have to cut the holdfast, pre-hole the insole, prepare the threads, and then do the actual sewing. At current UK outworker rates, I would peg that cost at around $60 - $100 /pair (based on the inseaming as a percentage of the overall time spent by the outworker). This cost also includes the outworker's overhead costs (rent, utilities, etc), so not perfectly apples to apples, but still it gives an indication of the relative economics.

Here are a couple of interesting references on the history of the Goodyear system:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y...alfred donovan shoe machines analyzed&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1820095?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents

There's some mighty fine info in this thread for all of us shoe nerds around the world. I wish more shoemakers had the time to take part so that John and Jane Does could make better decisions in the shoe store. Thank you both.



shoefan said:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Trying to compare the costs of GYW versus HW requires all sorts of assumptions about capacity utilization of the fixed asset (the GYW equipment), the relative costs of labor for a machine operator versus a skilled hand-welter, etc. As DW has pointed out repeatedly, the GYW system also allow (encourages?) the use of lower cost insoles.

All of that being said, when GYW first displaced HW in the factory environment in the US (the late 1800's/early 1900's), the cost of the inseaming process was reduced by about 80% -- from 20 - 25 cents/pair to around 4 cents per pair. The latter include about 2 cents of labor and 2 cents of royalty/lease payments to United Shoe Machinery Corp, which was basically a monopolist in the shoe equipment business. Welted men's shoes sold for in the range of $3.50 - $4.00 back then, so wholesale maybe $2.00. If the cost of inseaming was 10% of the wholesale price of the shoe, you can see the powerful motivation for automation. The cost of hand welted inseams and hand sewn outsoles was more in the range of 60 cents - 75 cents/pair, so even more powerful economic motivation to get rid of the hand work. The total cost of the 'automated' GYW/outsole stitch was 4 cents labor and 4 cents equipment lease. (In point of fact, the inseaming and outsole stiching were leased as a system, so my cited lease cost for the inseaming is an assumption/allocation.)

Today, if you assume that a factory worker makes a total compensation (wages and benefits) of $75,000/year, and works 1800 hours, and can crank out 10 pairs/hour, then the labor cost of the GYW inseaming is around $4/pair. Of course, there a cost to buying or leasing the equipment which is not reflected in this number.

A handwelted shoe takes a minimum of around 1 hour/pair; at the same wage rate, that inseaming would cost around $40. So, the GYW has reduced the inseaming labor cost by 90%, leaving aside the cost of the gemming itself and of course the equipment.

For the bespoke outworkers I've seen, I would say the total inseaming process takes more like 2 hours - 2.5 hours, since they have to cut the holdfast, pre-hole the insole, prepare the threads, and then do the actual sewing. At current UK outworker rates, I would peg that cost at around $60 - $100 /pair (based on the inseaming as a percentage of the overall time spent by the outworker). This cost also includes the outworker's overhead costs (rent, utilities, etc), so not perfectly apples to apples, but still it gives an indication of the relative economics.

Here are a couple of interesting references on the history of the Goodyear system:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Y...alfred donovan shoe machines analyzed&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1820095?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents

Click to expand...

Good information.....but it begs the question that I have asked more than a few times--if GYW has reduced the cost of making a shoe by 90% versus hand welting; and then you consider the other processes, such as lasting, outseaming, etc., that have also been automated; and you factor in the notion, forbye, that, all else being equal there really is no significant difference in the techniques used in a $400.00 RTW shoe and a $1500.00 RTW shoe--why do high end RTW shoes cost so much? Sometimes not significantly less than hand welted?

Does this change anyone's perception of "value"...as it relates to hand welted?

Just food for thought...



DWFII said:

Good information.....but it begs the question that I have asked more than a few times--if GYW has reduced the cost of making a shoe by 90% versus hand welting; and then you consider the other processes, such as lasting, outseaming, etc., that have also been automated; and you factor in the notion, forbye, that, all else being equal there really is no significant difference in the techniques used in a $400.00 RTW shoe and a $1500.00 RTW shoe--why do high end RTW shoes cost so much? Sometimes not significantly less than hand welted?

Does this change anyone's perception of "value"...as it relates to hand welted?

Just food for thought...

Click to expand...

Certainly a reasonable question. I personally cannot imagine paying $1500 for a RTW GY shoe, but to each his own.

I do think that the high end shoes have seen price increases over the last decade that are a bit hard to swallow. In 2003, the retail price for E Green was about $700; today (11 years later) it is about $1200. That represents an annual price increase of 5%, in an overall inflation environment of 2%. I would imagine that the price increase reflects higher material costs (leather has clearly gotten more expensive), some increase in wages/benefits, and likely a somewhat increased profit margin. With the increasing wealth at the top end of the income scale, the growing/resurgent interest in traditional mens clothing, and the greater familiarity of high-end brands due to the internet, I think that brands such as E Green have been able to market themselves in the right way to their desired target market and thus to support their price increases.



shoefan said:

Certainly a reasonable question. I personally cannot imagine paying $1500 for a RTW GY shoe, but to each his own.

I do think that the high end shoes have seen price increases over the last decade that are a bit hard to swallow. In 2003, the retail price for E Green was about $700; today (11 years later) it is about $1200. That represents an annual price increase of 5%, in an overall inflation environment of 2%. I would imagine that the price increase reflects higher material costs (leather has clearly gotten more expensive), some increase in wages/benefits, and likely a somewhat increased profit margin. With the increasing wealth at the top end of the income scale, the growing/resurgent interest in traditional mens clothing, and the greater familiarity of high-end brands due to the internet, I think that brands such as E Green have been able to market themselves in the right way to their desired target market and thus to support their price increases.

Click to expand...

You said the magic word--"marketing." Public relations. Blue sky. That's what the prices reflect. That's what people are paying for.

What portion of that discrepancy between the hypothetical $400.00 RTW and the $1500.00 RTW is marketing, do you suppose?

Again, I'm not wanting to debate personal preferences or "value(s)" but I have to ask again, does paying for marketing costs affect anyone's perception of "value?"

Should it?



DWFII said:

.........

But when makers disregard Tradition as in the following photo...and, just as importantly, common and aesthetic sense...and whether through an excess of frugality or simply cynicism start piecing and placing seams almost at random, it raises a fundamental question:

Why?!

The only reasons I can come up with is that

a) the maker didn't have enough leather to make a full vamp.
b) the maker didn't know how to shape the front of the boot when using gator/croc.

In either case it is almost a sacrilege...in my opinion...to break up the lines of the boot and/or disrespect the gator.

And it doesn't have to be that way--there is no functional or aesthetic rationale. Consider the following: Virtually the same shoe, same leather, no misplaced piecing of the vamp.

..........

--

Click to expand...

here is another
by a known
bespoke maker



when asked why
he makes that cut
his response was
that he needed a
'special' machine
like a hat shaper
to make it without
that central cut...
we wondered
why he couldn;t
pre-last/block it by
hand

and then we see
another maker
hand lasting a
wholecut seamless
croc boot



T4phage said:

we wondered
why he couldn;t
pre-last/block it by
hand

Click to expand...

It can be done. It could even be done as a whole cut (seam in back). In some respects it might even be easier.

and then we see
another maker
hand lasting a
wholecut seamless
croc boot

Click to expand...

I saw that in the alligator thread. Very tasty.



DWFII said:

You said the magic word--"marketing." Public relations. Blue sky. That's what the prices reflect. That's what people are paying for.

What portion of that discrepancy between the hypothetical $400.00 RTW and the $1500.00 RTW is marketing, do you suppose?

Again, I'm not wanting to debate personal preferences or "value(s)" but I have to ask again, does paying for marketing costs affect anyone's perception of "value?"

Should it?

Click to expand...

First, I would take issue with your equating marketing with public relations and 'blue sky.' Marketing can be those things, but it can also be communications that educate the prospective customer. However, as you've noted before, the onus is on the consumer to separate the wheat from the chaff in evaluating marketing and advertising. (Also, note that, in business strategy parlance, advertising is only one component of marketing.)

Alas, one thing that is typically true is that advertising is very scale sensitive -- it is a fixed cost investment, so cost/unit goes down as you sell more units. It is also somewhat scale sensitive, in the sense that buying more units of advertising can get you a reduced cost/ad placement; and, some types of advertising are much cheaper on a cost-per-impression basis than others, although much more expensive on a per-ad basis (e.g. national tv advertising). When you combine these factors, big producers can advertise much more efficiently that can small producers. This leads to a somewhat vicious cycle of the big getting bigger.

Nevertheless, clever marketing can help get around this reality, and I think creative use of the internet is one such opportunity. Look at Tom Mahon, who has built a great little clothing business in large part through his blog (The English Cut). Arguably, Vass (with his book), some of the affiliates on this site (with clever promotion), and many others are doing the same. In some sense, the internet can be a great equalizer and allow people to learn about actual product differences, versus advertising blather. Today, in making big purchases, consumers increasing do on-line research before spending money.

However, for many consumers, you also have to consider the opportunity cost of doing the research -- if you are a law-firm partner, or a doctor, or a consultant, or a large-firm accountant, your time is probably worth $200/hour. For many, that number is more like $500. So, if you are going to buy a pair of shoes once a year (on average), how much time should you invest in learning about the underlying product differences? Likely, you will either rely on what you've 'learned' from ads, or you will rely on the advice of your preferred retailer. Of course, there is also the issue of availability. Sadly, HW shoes are basically not at all available at retail, so do you really want to invest the time in tracking down an online source of a HW shoe, run the risk they won't fit, or you won't like the style, etc. etc.? Remember that about half of the price of the shoes at retail is mark-up to that retailer. The retailer is taking those risks off the shoulders of the customer, which obviously has a cost.

To answer your question, I have no real idea what the cost differences would be between a $400 RTW shoe and a $1500 RTW shoe; I'm not sure that much is actually in advertising, as the small firms such as E Green/J Lobb (rtw)/G&G don't seem to do that much of it. Probably a combination of much higher overhead cost, somewhat higher material costs, a bit higher labor costs (if we are comparing to someone like AE, Loake, etc, not low-cost location maker), somewhat higher marketing costs, and a bit greater profit margin. They may also have to offer their retailers a bit more of a retail mark up (in percentage terms), as the more expensive shoes may have a lower retail velocity/turnover rate.

One other thought: a challenge with educating the consumer is that there is a real 'free-rider' problem. If one HW company spends advertising money to educate consumers, all the other HW companies benefit. I imagine one reason that GYW shoes are perceived as the gold standard is that USM at one time likely promoted that idea, since any GYW shoe sold, of whoever's manufacture, still benefitted USM (more recently, near-monopolists/dominant suppliers like Intel, Microsoft, Google (Android), Dupont (Stainmaster carpet fiber) have done similar things). I have written in the past that the Savile Row makers should get together to create a marketing mechanism to promote their products vs. the likes of Kiton, Brioni, et al. I know they've done a bit of this, but not (to my knowledge) terribly effectively. I don't think the HW shoe makers have done this at all, and I don't think it likely they will, but it would be interesting if they did.



shoefan said:

One other thought: a challenge with educating the consumer is that there is a real 'free-rider' problem. If one HW company spends advertising money to educate consumers, all the other HW companies benefit. I imagine one reason that GYW shoes are perceived as the gold standard is that USM at one time likely promoted that idea, since any GYW shoe sold, of whoever's manufacture, still benefitted USM (more recently, near-monopolists/dominant suppliers like Intel, Microsoft, Google (Android), Dupont (Stainmaster carpet fiber) have done similar things). I have written in the past that the Savile Row makers should get together to create a marketing mechanism to promote their products vs. the likes of Kiton, Brioni, et al. I know they've done a bit of this, but not (to my knowledge) terribly effectively. I don't think the HW shoe makers have done this at all, and I don't think it likely they will, but it would be interesting if they did.

Click to expand...

Well, while not on any significant or meaningful scale, that's our job--yours and mine.

(And the HCC's...as time and energy will allow).

--



shoefan said:

I do think that the high end shoes have seen price increases over the last decade that are a bit hard to swallow. In 2003, the retail price for E Green was about $700; today (11 years later) it is about $1200. That represents an annual price increase of 5%, in an overall inflation environment of 2%.

Click to expand...

That is very much in line with bespoke shoes.

I don't know about 2003, but in 2005 the price for a bespoke shoes from one of the West-End firms (excluding Lobb, who always charged more) was around GBP 1,800. Now, some 10 years later price for bespoke shoes is a smidgeon short of GBP 3,000 (I'm not so up-to-date with the current prices, the 3k might even be exceeded by now).

The wholesale price for EG/JLP/G&G is about the same as a skilled out-worker will earn for doing the bottom work on a pair of bespoke shoes. In the first case, In the first case, that price will give you a complete pair of shoes, including bags and box, In the other case that same money pays for with the hand-made labour only, last, upper and bottoming leathers are not included; they will get supplied by the bespoke firm who has commissioned the work.

shoefan said:

I think that brands such as E Green have been able to market themselves in the right way to their desired target market and thus to support their price increases.

Click to expand...

I don't think EG is particular good at marketing, the only EG advertising I have seen ever, is on the Simon Crompton "Permanent Style" site. I presume these ads cost peanuts. EG has hovered for decades on the brink of bankruptcy. The company (bankrupt in all but name) was sold some 30 years ago as a going concern - with all the debts included - for one Pound Sterling. So now, some 30 years later, Ms Freeman has managed to put the company on a sound financial footing (I believe she has, but I have no access to the company's balance sheets).

It doesn't sound to me like these excessive profits DW likes to talk about, just plain and simple good housekeeping.