Goodyear welted shoes - what's the point?

[Fred G. Unn]



I prefer the super thin look of the sole rather than bulky look of the GY.

Blake stitched and cemented shoes are often sleeker looking, but I definitely wouldn't call GY shoes inherently "bulky." I don't see anything bulky about this GY welted shoe:

Also, GY soles usually are very basic looking (rounded toe most likely) and this makes all the shoes look very similar as far as sole styling. Cemented shoes on the other hand can vary greatly

??? This just doesn't make any sense to me. GY is just the method of construction. I wouldn't call the above pair of G&Gs basic and they have a chisel toe not rounded. Also just to clarify, you can have a GY welted shoe with a Dainite, Vibram, or Ridgeway sole so there certainly are plenty of sole options other than leather as well.

 

[Claudio]

Fred, I see things from a 'creative' or designers point of view. To me those shoes are virtually like any high end styles offered by almost anyone. The sole is thick (I do agree, not the tickest) and pertruding over the upper (yuk), the toe cap is the classic beak shape, and they are awfully and uneccessarily elongated. Not to mention it is a classic half brogue. The thing is most shoe makers (except maybe for say Berlutti or Ferragamo) all have very similar, when not exact, styles. They all follow each other. This is great for the classic gentleman, I am not mocking this at all, but not something for someone who thinks (or dresses) outside the box. Berlutti, Ferragamo, Bottega Veneta I think are the only ones that are not usually 'classic' although very modern and thus very elongated, something I personally despise. I think most (all?) modern shoes have about 2cm extra length which is useless and was not there up until 30 years ago (I have worked with vintage 50s 60s 70s dress shoes for some years). I knwo this has nothing to do with GY construction and you are right, it is not all leather (but if the sole is not leather, then 'whats the point' as per title of this thread).

I am not trying to change anyones opinions on tastes and styles (each to their own), but most modern shoes IMO do not leave any space for creativity - the soles are all bog standard if you ask me.

This to me is a thin sole, and this is virtually un available in the market (if not in rubber). Subtle, hidden. May not be to anyones likeing but that is not the point.

 

[Ecstasy]

GY welted shoes are generally more durable and made of better materials. Value includes one more variable - price. If value is longevity to price ratio, then it just depends on what the maker charges you.

Pricing is arbitrary, so you cannot generalise the value of all GY shoes. Saying cemented shoes are better value than GY shoes is silly, since some designer cemented shoes can cost 1k and GY shoes can cost 200. Everything is priced to the whim of the maker.

Btw, leather soles breathing is pure bull. If one has difficulty breathing through a thick cotton shirt, how do you expect a layer as thick as a GY sole, of a less porous material, to be breathable?

 

[Claudio]



Btw, leather soles breathing is pure bull. If one has difficulty breathing through a thick cotton shirt, how do you expect a layer as thick as a GY sole, of a less porous material, to be breathable?

I dissagree on this point: huge difference between leather soles and rubber / plastic soles, try wearing no socks with either and you will find that on the former your feet are not sweaty and do not smell, not the case in the latter. Same goes for cotton shirt or poliester shirt: you will find that the body breathes much more with naturl fibres instead of plastic ones.

 

[chogall]

Just wear whatever shoes you want. But some shoes look much better than others.

And don't believe anyone who tells you leather outsoles works well in wet/rainy conditions; it doesn't. Your feet will be so wet even in storm welt leather sole shoes. Don't wear leather sole shoes in inclement weather conditions.

And hand welted shoes can be made to have thinner and more elegant sole than any cemented or Blake stitched shoes.

 

[MisterFu]

Fred, I see things from a 'creative' or designers point of view. To me those shoes are virtually like any high end styles offered by almost anyone. The sole is thick (I do agree, not the tickest) and pertruding over the upper (yuk), the toe cap is the classic beak shape, and they are awfully and uneccessarily elongated. Not to mention it is a classic half brogue. The thing is most shoe makers (except maybe for say Berlutti or Ferragamo) all have very similar, when not exact, styles. They all follow each other. This is great for the classic gentleman, I am not mocking this at all, but not something for someone who thinks (or dresses) outside the box. Berlutti, Ferragamo, Bottega Veneta I think are the only ones that are not usually 'classic' although very modern and thus very elongated, something I personally despise. I think most (all?) modern shoes have about 2cm extra length which is useless and was not there up until 30 years ago (I have worked with vintage 50s 60s 70s dress shoes for some years). I knwo this has nothing to do with GY construction and you are right, it is not all leather (but if the sole is not leather, then 'whats the point' as per title of this thread).

I am not trying to change anyones opinions on tastes and styles (each to their own), but most modern shoes IMO do not leave any space for creativity - the soles are all bog standard if you ask me.

This to me is a thin sole, and this is virtually un available in the market (if not in rubber). Subtle, hidden. May not be to anyones likeing but that is not the point.

IMHO, those shoes aren't particularly good. The sole profile is far too thin and truncated and when combined with the ugly squared off toe-box it makes them look entirely disproportionate. That look might work on a loafer of some sort, but it just looks incorrect on a spectator.

Your obsession with sole thickness and outcropping is, frankly, misplaced.

 

[Claudio]



IMHO, those shoes aren't particularly good. The sole profile is far too thin and truncated and when combined with the ugly squared off toe-box it makes them look entirely disproportionate. That look might work on a loafer of some sort, but it just looks incorrect on a spectator.

Your obsession with sole thickness and outcropping is, frankly, misplaced.

As stated, it's a matter of personal tastes and I respect your opinion. I do not expect most men that mostly or only like thicker, classic soles to like these. My obsession is what makes me design and sucessfully (since 2000) sell clothes and shoes I like and fill a gap in the market. If I were to design and sell a 'normal' spectator shoe with GY sole and more rounded toe I would be one in a million (besides, thats not what I like so would be wrong in all aspects)

 

[Mute]



Fred, I see things from a 'creative' or designers point of view. To me those shoes are virtually like any high end styles offered by almost anyone. The sole is thick (I do agree, not the tickest) and pertruding over the upper (yuk), the toe cap is the classic beak shape, and they are awfully and uneccessarily elongated. Not to mention it is a classic half brogue. The thing is most shoe makers (except maybe for say Berlutti or Ferragamo) all have very similar, when not exact, styles. They all follow each other. This is great for the classic gentleman, I am not mocking this at all, but not something for someone who thinks (or dresses) outside the box. Berlutti, Ferragamo, Bottega Veneta I think are the only ones that are not usually 'classic' although very modern and thus very elongated, something I personally despise. I think most (all?) modern shoes have about 2cm extra length which is useless and was not there up until 30 years ago (I have worked with vintage 50s 60s 70s dress shoes for some years). I knwo this has nothing to do with GY construction and you are right, it is not all leather (but if the sole is not leather, then 'whats the point' as per title of this thread).

I am not trying to change anyones opinions on tastes and styles (each to their own), but most modern shoes IMO do not leave any space for creativity - the soles are all bog standard if you ask me.

This to me is a thin sole, and this is virtually un available in the market (if not in rubber). Subtle, hidden. May not be to anyones likeing but that is not the point.

These look like a pair of fancied up bowling shoes. Not particularly attractive...oh hell, I find them plain ugly.

 

[Ecstasy]



I dissagree on this point: huge difference between leather soles and rubber / plastic soles, try wearing no socks with either and you will find that on the former your feet are not sweaty and do not smell, not the case in the latter. Same goes for cotton shirt or poliester shirt: you will find that the body breathes much more with naturl fibres instead of plastic ones.

Your example does not prove anything. Ever occurred to you that this can be attributed to different uppers? Why would you say that the sole allows breathing when it spends most of the time clamping the ground? This is like saying a highly accurate pistol gets its accuracy from a better grip instead of better rifling.

And since when was breathibility more important than traction for the outsole?

Regardless, this is not the point of this thread. I just want to say that the point of GY shoes is that they tend to be better made, not that they are of better value. Value is highly subjective. It is like comparing a diamond necklace with a fake one. Over and out.

 

[mr monty]

fyi Blake Rapid construction VS Goodyear welted construction info may surprise some?

http://www.italigente.com/wordpress/prod/?p=366

 

[cptjeff]



Your example does not prove anything. Ever occurred to you that this can be attributed to different uppers? Why would you say that the sole allows breathing when it spends most of the time clamping the ground? This is like saying a highly accurate pistol gets its accuracy from a better grip instead of better rifling.

And since when was breathibility more important than traction for the outsole?

Regardless, this is not the point of this thread. I just want to say that the point of GY shoes is that they tend to be better made, not that they are of better value. Value is highly subjective. It is like comparing a diamond necklace with a fake one. Over and out.

Breathabilty may not be the best word, but it's a good approximation, and it's not just the uppers. Rubber is impermeable to moisture- leather absorbs it. In rubber soled shoes, the moisture pools in the shoe. It soaks your sock and foot. With a leather soled shoe, a decent portion of that sweat gets absorbed into the leather. That means that your foot stays drier and cooler, providing a major element of comfort. Far more important than traction in most cases- face it, most days when you're walking around a city you don't exactly need hiking boots. A rubber heel provides more than enough traction.

 

[Claudio]



Your example does not prove anything. Ever occurred to you that this can be attributed to different uppers? Why would you say that the sole allows breathing when it spends most of the time clamping the ground? This is like saying a highly accurate pistol gets its accuracy from a better grip instead of better rifling.

And since when was breathibility more important than traction for the outsole?

Regardless, this is not the point of this thread. I just want to say that the point of GY shoes is that they tend to be better made, not that they are of better value. Value is highly subjective. It is like comparing a diamond necklace with a fake one. Over and out.

Very hard to find a maker that will use rubber soles with quality leather uppers and craftmanship, and that is for a reason. You should ask yourself why most quality makers bespoke or otherwise, use leather soles.

I fully agree about GY shoes tend to be better made, no doubt about that

 

[phillycheese]

Breathabilty may not be the best word, but it's a good approximation, and it's not just the uppers. Rubber is impermeable to moisture- leather absorbs it. In rubber soled shoes, the moisture pools in the shoe. It soaks your sock and foot. With a leather soled shoe, a decent portion of that sweat gets absorbed into the leather. That means that your foot stays drier and cooler, providing a major element of comfort. Far more important than traction in most cases- face it, most days when you're walking around a city you don't exactly need hiking boots. A rubber heel provides more than enough traction.

Leather is a natural material and absorbs water particle while rubber absorbs nothing but shock. My feet always feel less clammy in leather sole shoes vs rubber sole shoes. And its always the soles of my feet, never the tops . However in rainy weather like the last week here, my leather sole shoes allowed water to seep up into the shoe - not sure if it is from the leather sole itself or the gap between sole and upper, whereas my rubber sole shoes were dry as can be.

 

[ijustknow]

Very hard to find a maker that will use rubber soles with quality leather uppers and craftmanship, and that is for a reason. You should ask yourself why most quality makers bespoke or otherwise, use leather soles.

I fully agree about GY shoes tend to be better made, no doubt about that

I think Dainite sole is very popular even in John Lobb London.

 

[Moose22]

I think Dainite sole is very popular even in John Lobb London.

Are you responding to a five year old thread from a troll?