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 55

post #811 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoefan View Post

I believe you misunderstand my point. But first, if I write "x ONLY does/achieves Y," I mean that literally. I mean what I write, and, as DW often writes, words have specific meanings. So, I should assume, rather than people mean what they write, that they DON'T mean what they write? And I should somehow know what they actually intended to mean, rather than reading the actual words and the meaning thereof?

Here is I was responding to: "is still, and nothing but, a justification for lower quality. And one that is rooted in and informed by the 'factory mentality"...by definition." It is that statement I find to be inegalitarian.

I am not sure what he was referring to there either but I do try to be careful in the words I choose and the way I string them together.

Of course, I'm not anywhere close to perfect in that regard but I do stand by what I said. Including my assertion that I don't care whether it is inegalitarian or not.

As testudo aubreii mentioned...or implied...whether something is egalitarian or not is not any better a determiner of quality than patina. Look at my sig--it says it all. Quality and the search for excellence is not subject to political correctness. I don' t have much truck with such woo-woo (IMO) considerations.

On the other hand I don't see how your "interpretation" follows my remark. You want to see it as a dismissing of personal preferences, priorities etc. But on the face of it, and in context, it is really, and always has been, about objective quality. Period. Nothing else.

It is what it is.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 2/28/16 at 9:01am
post #812 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbhan12 View Post

I'm pretty sure DWF, chogall, and Nick V come to SF mostly to bicker with one another.

and just a quick follow-up...for clarity's sake...

I post here because it is my thread. I don't own it but I started it and it is imbued with my spirit and it is where i hang out...mostly.

I can't speak to the motivations of Nick or chogal but considering the dearth of substance (in my professional opinion) that they bring to the discussion, I can understand your suspicions. They have even been urged (by several folks) to start their own threads where they won't have to contend with me or any objective, professional shoemaker's opinion.

But for some reason they apparently prefer the role of gadfly.

post #813 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcodalondra View Post Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

When @FosterandSon started interacting on this forum promised to post a full Tuczek catalogue to be compared to their own to demonstrate how the style was common to other maker, so I do understand what @ntempleman is saying. My pictures are all stored onto my Laptop HDD, however I have quickly googled some to briefly demonstrate what I was saying about Japanese maker and Tuczek aesthetic:

Connection to the front welt (Tuczek)


Tuczek shoe:


Marques:


Not only the general last shape and mounting of the welt, but look at the proportion, facing, etc...

 

As @Whirling would say, that's surface not substance!

post #814 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
 

After much thought I have decided to add my few pennies worth about this.

I am an 'outworker'  who makes shoes for some West End firms,I trained at John Lobb,St James's and my teacher 'Morris' worked for Tuczek before Lobb took them over.Nick Templeman is correct in that many of the firms used the same makers and the last styles varied from shop to shop.Different firms also specialized in types ot work ,Tuczek were known for men's dress shoes,Maxwell for riding boots, Joseph Box for ladies work etc.They would make other styles but the specialization made their work just that bit better.Not all Tuczek shoes were sleek chiselled beasts they had to work to the foot and you can find pictures on the web of less elegant Tuczek shoes however the making is very good.

Many of the japanese makers are great fans of Tuczek and Anthony Cleverley as these were seen as the top in their day.

Some of the A. Cleverley and Tuczek work I have seen is indeed beautifully made.

 

@j-mac Are those firm "specializations" still in place in the modern world after the consolidation to a few big guys?  And how has the consolidation of West End firm impact the life of outworkers?

post #815 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

I am not sure what he was referring to there either but I do try to be careful in the words I choose and the way I string them together.

Of course, I'm not anywhere close to perfect in that regard but I do stand by what I said. Including my assertion that I don't care whether it is inegalitarian or not.

As testudo aubreii mentioned...or implied...whether something is egalitarian or not is not any better a determiner of quality than patina. Look at my sig--it says it all. Quality and the search for excellence is not subject to political correctness. I don' t have much truck with such woo-woo (IMO) considerations.
Egalitarianism refers to attitudes about people, not things. So, I am not using the term in reference to nor in the context of comparing products, defining the quality thereof, or any other such matters. Here is what I mean by Egalitarianism: [def] a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth. I find DW's statement (note: that statement, I am not extending it to DW's general attitudes, personal beliefs, or anything else) anti egalitarian, as I find it dismissive of people's self-awareness and motivation; I find it condescending.
Quote:
On the other hand I don't see how your "interpretation" follows my remark. You want to see it as a dismissing of personal preferences, priorities etc. But on the face of it, and in context, it is really, and always has been, about objective quality. Period. Nothing else.
Well, I disagree (obviously) -- not saying that was your intention, just that is a reasonable interpretation. Oh well, people both misspeak and misinterpret all the time. Sorry if I did the latter.
post #816 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoefan View Post

Egalitarianism refers to attitudes about people, not things. So, I am not using in reference to nor in the context of comparing products, defining the quality thereof, or any other such matters. here is what I mean by Egalitarianism: [def] a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals from birth. I find DW's statement (note: that statement, I am not extending it to DW's general attitudes, personal beliefs, or anything else) anti egalitarian, as I find it dismissive of
Well, I disagree (obviously) -- not saying that was your intention, just that is a reasonable interpretation. Oh well, people both misspeak and misinterpret all the time. Sorry if I did the latter.

You're right I am un-egalitarian--about people, about attitudes, about things...proud of it.

"And without the recognition that there is a hierarchy of excellence in all things, nothing rises above the level of mundane."

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov, column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)

Words to live by...at least for me

PS ....I agree everyone is born equal and should be given the benefit of the doubt, if nothing else. But things change rapidly after that...mostly by choice.
post #817 of 1710

The West End  has always had a number of  ' bigger'  firms , although they are still relatively small businesses What has changed is the number of individual makers who have set up on their own so they can make to their own style and preference.

For outworkers things stay much the same,the specialization is now more by individual workers, you may have an outworker who is especially good at making riding boots or light ladies work and  they will make for various shops to the spec that shop likes.

post #818 of 1710

Sorry a bit new to this posting thing,my last comment was a reply to Chogall's question about the West End.I thought I had linked it :)

post #819 of 1710
...now that Anthony Cleverley was mentioned, here's a few pairs made by the man's shop:

1976.259.2a–d_F.jpg

http://metmuseum.org/search-results?ft=cleverley

http://centipede.web.fc2.com/vmacleverley.html
post #820 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VRaivio View Post

...now that Anthony Cleverley was mentioned, here's a few pairs made by the man's shop:

http://metmuseum.org/search-results?ft=cleverley

Curious...at the metmuseum link the refer to the shoes as "leather, wood, and (sic) synthetic."

What is the synthetic? Do you know?
post #821 of 1710
1/4 rubber heel piece?
post #822 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

That's certainly at the heart of what I've been saying and why I've been saying it. We are rapidly reaching a point where we can never go back. Where our standards of quality and how to get there are so corrupted, dumbed down, and lost that "mediocre" is now "best."

And even given a new generation of people kind of interested in trying to learn...kinda, sorta...about bespoke shoemaking, the Traditions and Traditional skills are so disrespected and / or dismissed that what they will take forward with them into the future will be more akin to what we see in RTW factories than in bespoke workshops now. Witness real handsewn GY (not just the mangled-language version). Again, "mediocre" becomes the new "best."

There is a shoemaker who used to post here on SF who made much of the fact that he was a "certified" master shoemaker in the country he came from. In the US, there is a federally recognized "standard" for promotion from apprentice to journeyman. In part, it states that the apprentice must be able to stitch, by hand, and by eye, 16spi on the welt/outsole and 22spi on the uppers. I only know one person in the US who can do that, none abroad...and virtually no one who thinks it worthwhile to learn.




edited for punctuation and clarity

Do you mind saying who this person is who can do what you listed above?
post #823 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

What is the synthetic? Do you know?

I might have thought the laces, but then, also the loafers (allegedly) contain synthetic.



Here is an unusual loafer design, sporting a heel strap, made more than forty years ago by
Anthony Cleverley for his great patron Alexis Baron de Redé, :



And here is a modern re-interpretation made a couple of years ago by George Cleverley (the firm) in London for Jun Kuwana:


http://cobblersweb.style.coocan.jp/cleverley27/cleverley27.html
post #824 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mw313 View Post

Do you mind saying who this person is who can do what you listed above?

Not at all.

Al Saguto. At CWF. He's the only American "certified" master shoemaker in the US...AFAIK.
post #825 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntempleman View Post

1/4 rubber heel piece?

I suppose.
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..."