Leather Quality and Properties

[patrickBOOTH]

When you talk about your passion it really makes one feel happy to be alive. I find it inspiring and it motivates me to do the very best at what I do in this world.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

I appreciate your open-mindedness and willingness to ask for clarification rather than bluster and sneer as some would do.

See my above post.

But if that doesn't answer bear in mind that I didn't say you couldn't make money while making shoes nor did I say you couldn't make shoes while making money. I said you had to choose--had to choose which would be your ultimate goal, your focus, as who should say.

Because no man can serve two masters.
And call me DW...it's shorter and less likely to be confused with DFW--which is an Internationally famous airport somewhere in Texas.

--

Not at all a suggestion of a primary focus. Not one MORE than the other. One OR the other. NOT both. You even bolded it. A false dichotomy if I ever saw one.

Glad to see that you have moved away from that absurdity.

I don't want to put words in DW's mouth, but I wanted to interject with what I have interpreted his meaning with those statements to be if I may be so bold, and I'm sure he will correct me where I'm wrong.

There is a big difference between earning a living through hard work, as opposed to measuring everything against your bottom line, seeking to satisfy a hungry corporation with investors or even just a smaller union company for that matter.

I thoroughly enjoy learning about how shoes are made, down to every detail I can figure out, and I have read each and every thread that DW has had these discussions in. Essentially, all he's saying is that when there is a choice to make between two components in making a pair of shoes, he chooses the option that is better for the shoes rather than what will allow him to increase his profit margin. People make these types of decisions all the time. When you have something in your home that needs fixing, and you go down to the hardware store to buy materials, you will be faced with several choices ranging in quality. If you always choose the most expensive, highest quality option, you can guarantee yourself one thing for sure... after a few decades of fixing things, you will end up with a top quality home. But what does it mean to always pick the highest quality option? It may mean that you don't have as much money for gadgets, or vacations, or the nicest cars, or a plethora of other toys. Rarely does choosing the highest quality option mean that you can't put food on your table. It just means denying yourself elsewhere, almost always in the excesses.

People have always made money making shoes, since the beginning of time. Cordwaining has never been some lone communist profession where you work to satisfy the needs of the greater good and then get your paycheck from the government regardless of the quality of your work. What they haven't always done is build large companies with investors and dozens of employees who want annual salary raises which requires cutting costs elsewhere to satisfy the hunger of the machine. That's a product of the modern era.

DW isn't saying that we should all throw away our Goodyear-welted shoes because they're worth no more than dust. He recognizes their place and the need that they fill. He knows that most people can't afford to pay thousands of dollars for a single pair of shoes. Goodyear-welting provides average people with the ability to have sturdy shoes that can be resoled several times (even if it should technically be done by the factory, unfortunately). However, it is irrefutable that even the most expensive Goodyear-welted shoes (and even many bespoke/hand-welted ones) have components that aren't the absolute best available. With Goodyear-welting, you automatically start a rung lower simply because of the gemming issue. The question is why? DW has answered that time and time again. It isn't because gemming is better than a carved leather hold-fast. It isn't because nails are better than wooden pegs. It isn't because thinner insoles are better than thicker ones. It isn't because "oak tanned" outsoles tanned with modern machinery and methods are better than genuine oak bark tanned outsoles that have taken a year to produce using old world methods. It isn't because plastic heel and toe stiffeners are better than leather ones. It isn't because a lower number of stitches per inch is better than a higher one. The list can go on and on and on. The answer is because one option was better for the bottom line of the company. Does that mean that the company that made the decision is automatically evil? I don't think so. Each and every company that makes Goodyear-welted shoes takes a high level of pride in their product. They want to provide their customers with a great, durable product. However, it's within the context of a corporate mentality.

Context is crucial. I recently remodeled my kitchen. I had a budget that I had to work within. I wanted the best I could get for my money. One of my neighbors is an old cabinet maker, and he took on the job. When we sat down to look at our choices, we started with the best quality materials available. Once I realized what it would cost to redo our kitchen using only the best materials, we began cutting costs by downgrading the quality of materials until we were within our budget. We talked about every component and the consequences of down grading them in terms of maintenance and durability. We kept some components at their highest level because of their central importance, and others we weighed the cost/benefit ratio and had to choose the more affordable options at times. I can go to my cabinet making neighbor's house whenever I want to and see his kitchen that is made of only the highest quality materials. However, I can't forget one seriously crucial point. He made it himself! His finished kitchen probably didn't cost any more money than mine did, but that's because I had to pay someone else to do mine for me, and he didn't. DW has practiced making shoes for decades and he can make world class shoes for what someone around here can buy a pair of Allen Edmonds for. He knows that! He isn't saying that we have no excuse for not buying world class shoes. He's just saying that he wants people to quit making excuses for their lower quality versions by saying that the lower quality components aren't really lower quality. That's the ignorance he keeps referring to. My neighbor would just roll his eyes at me if I said "well, I'm pretty sure that my linoleum countertops are just as good as your quartz ones because they will still last me for a decade or two, so I will have gotten my money's worth." He wouldn't be rolling his eyes at the notion that I will have gotten my money's worth. He would be rolling his eyes at the logic. Getting your money's worth out of something doesn't negate the quality difference that still exists. However, getting your money's worth is what most people have to base their decisions on. In the spectrum of Goodyear-welted shoes, where you can pay $150 all the way up to $2,500, you have to ask yourself where the line is on no longer getting your money's worth, from an objective point of view. You can subjectively argue that an Edward Green is worth $1200 while a Vass is only worth $800 because the Edward Green is prettier. However, it doesn't change that the Vass may be higher quality from an objective standpoint. A Vass shoe is much sturdier than an Edward Green, and yet it costs less. This is the very heart of what DW is trying to get across. Some people around here have shoe collections that are worth a small fortune. They have so many pairs of shoes that they could wear a different pair every day and only repeat 2-3 times per year. What he's saying is that from an objective standpoint, those people would be much better served having less pairs of shoes made to the highest standards, and they could do it without having spent more money in the long run. That doesn't apply to the lowly StyleForumer who has half a dozen pairs of AE's that are worth a total of one pair of Edward Green. But, people get very defensive at the notion that their empire of shoes isn't the best money can buy. They would rather have the number of pairs than admit that having a few less would mean being able to afford higher quality ones, so they rationalize it by ignoring the fact that there really are objective differences. They rationalize it by equating getting their money's worth from a subjective standpoint, because what they really want is a huge collection of shoes which only the super informed will realize aren't the best money can buy.

 

[DWFII]



I don't want to put words in DW's mouth, but I wanted to interject with what I have interpreted his meaning with those statements to be if I may be so bold, and I'm sure he will correct me where I'm wrong.

There is a big difference between earning a living through hard work, as opposed to measuring everything against your bottom line,
[...snip...]

I wish I'd said that. Thank you.

 

[DWFII]



When you talk about your passion it really makes one feel happy to be alive. I find it inspiring and it motivates me to do the very best at what I do in this world.

But you "get it". You always have. It's apparent in everything you post even when we see things from slightly different angles.

 

[patrickBOOTH]



But you "get it". You always have. It's apparent in everything you post even when we see things from slightly different angles.

 

[RogerP]

Quote:
Hi Patrick, Thanks for your rational and reasoned response. I don't disagree with much of what you have said, but I'm quoting the first paragraph alone as it most directly addresses the quality versus profit point that I was making - and it is one that I stand by - they are NOT mutually exclusive goals. No doubt there are some - even a great many - examples in both apparel and footwear where quality is deliberately compromised in the name of profit, but I think you would agree that, at a minimum, it would be obtuse to contend that because this is so in some cases, it is necessarily so in all cases where "making money" stands among the goals of the maker or manufacturer. I am certain that the good people of St. Crispin's possess a true passion for their craft and a genuine dedication to produce a quality product - indeed such is quite evident in the product itself. It is very much evident in the person of Phillip Carr, whom we have both met. But I would venture to guess that neither he, nor they, are unconcerned as to whether they make money as a consequence of making shoes. Mr. Carr wouldn't be such a frequent traveller in an effort to grow the brand if he were indifferent to the bottom line. And of course, being contemptuously indifferent of the fiscal success of the company would inevitably bring production to an end. Not much craftsmnaship would be happening then. I don't even think that is arguable. By any rational measure, when it comes to pursuit of a quality product and the desire to make a profit, you CAN DO BOTH. On a secondary point, I would just add that it is not every step in a manufacturing process which moves away from traditional methods and towards efficiency that results in "corners being cut". Moving away from shoes for a moment, I am a part-time bladesmith - I hand-forge custom knives using largely traditional methods. I know a fair bit about the laborious creation of a product that must stand the test of time on both aesthetic, ergonomic and functional levels. And yes, I have expended blood, swear and tears in pursuit of same, as well as the occasional burn. When I craft the handle for one of my knives, it is shaped from a solid block of walnut much larger than the ultimate handle itself. Now in the old days before the invention of power tools, this would be done entirely by hand - draw files and sanding. But I don't do that. I cut away the excess wood with a band saw to a rough outline of the handle. I then do the initial shaping - probably 80% of the way - with a grinder. Only the final, critical, shaping and finishing is done by hand. Now some grumpy self-proclaimed purist would no doubt scoff about how that wasn't the way it was done in the old days on the frontier, and pound out an angry web-missive (pause to savor the irony) about how I have cut corners and demeaned the best traditions of the Craft (pause to observe the unneccesarily grandiose capitalization). I would point out that this is complete baloney. The quality of the product isn't sompromised one iota. Neither are its aesthetics. There is no meaningful downside. I have encountered the loud braying of asses who loudly proclaim "There is the way I do things and every other way is a cheap and treacherous compromise!" in more than one arena. The discorant tune doesn't really change, only the insipid lyrics. Cheers, Roger

 

[JermynStreet]

Great discussion, gents.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

I wish I'd said that. Thank you.

I appreciate your continued perseverance with Style Forum even in the face of such frequent vitriol. Most would have decided it's hopeless and thrown in the towel a long time ago.

I also appreciate your post about craftsmanship. My money always goes to the craftsman as long as it allows me to keep providing for my family the way I seek to. Funny that you mentioned knives... As a one time knife collector (I quit a few years ago, because I realized I didn't want a collection that was larger than one I could actually get use out of), I enjoy my hand made knives to their fullest.

 

[RogerP]

Moneywellspent - if you had put words in DWF's mmouth at the outset, I doube there would have been much disagreement on my part. But he said what he said - not what you said, after the fact. He may even have meant what you said. But he didn't say it himself. He quoted what he claims to have often said in thepast, and bolded it for good measure. It was neither vague nor equivoval. Given the amount of time he spends saying stuff, I work on the assumption that he means what he actually says. Until, as here, he says otherwise.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

I hear you Roger. I reckon for me it is all about context, which MWS touched on. Facts are facts, and all else is how I chose to interpret, process, and make something of it. My perception of DWF has never been that of an angry elitist, but rather an educator.

 

[DWFII]



The discorant tune doesn't really change, only the insipid lyrics.

Cheers,

Roger

Well you're much too "sophisticated" (see root word--sophistry) for the likes of me. Too worldly wise and sneering.

I am not a purist and have never advocated that position. I have always said that "If, after you sweep up the scraps, what's left is near-as-nevermind identical to another way of doing it then it doesn't matter how you get there." But when I sweep up the scraps after inseaming, what's left is entirely, objectively, different from what's left after GY inseaming. Mechanically different. Functionally different.

But no matter what anyone says...no matter that you simply don't have the experience to be objective...you're going to interpret, redact and backfill to support what you want to believe. You defend the use of a band saw just as some will vociferously defend their GY welted shoes; or their choice to lay off a skilled worker; or to substitute leatherboard for real leather; or the use of a utility knife with replaceable blades rather than learning to sharpen a knife correctly. And on the face of it there's noting wrong with that. Or is there? There's no skill in it. No patience. No mastery. It's expediency, pure and simple.

More importantly, and on a deeper level than my words above, every skill a craftsman masters hones his sense in preparation for making the next step in his development/evolution as a craftsman. To hone the eye is as critically important as honing the blade. To refine the sensibilities is the essence of both the creation and the appreciation of quality, of excellence. So use your bandsaw--the quality of the knife may not suffer but your skill as a craftsman surely will.

People who sneeringly use words like "insipid" when confronted by things that they don't, and may never, understand are fundamentally crippled. Intellectually and spiritually crippled. They are unable to follow simple logic and so resort to pedantic nit-picking and parsing of words--words/remarks that others understand quite well for the simple reason that they are willing to put forth the energy to think things through. My ex-wife was like that--it was always about "how" things were said and not "what" was being said. That takes too much energy.

My meaning about "choosing" was there in the original statement...in full. There for those who would but look. So much so that you appear to be the only one who didn't get it.

If you think that my comments were insipid, what must you think about even deeper concepts like "honour," "duty,", "respect," "truth." You seem to play fast and loose with that last one particularly when it comes to honouring the content...and intent...of other people's remarks. .

I have always tried to keep the dark places in my soul at bay, so to speak. You seem to revel in yours. You've obviously got an issue with me. I think it relates to insecurity but who knows? Bottom line is that while I'll defend myself when I feel it's required, I don't really give a crap about what you think of me or, hey, what you think about anything. All that has come from you in this thread (and others I've encountered you in) is vitriol. Nothing that has ever contributed to the conversation nor provided hard, detailed evidence that you wish to help, much less have a rational conversation with people.

When I said that no one had asked you for your opinion, as usual you read that to suit yourself--that somehow i was suggesting that you needed permission. Of course you don't need permission to post here--you don't need permission to be a dick either and you understand that full well. But what I was saying is that no one was asking for your input because you've shown no sign that you have anything of value to impart.

--

 

[RogerP]

Hi D,

As usual, I find any direct exchage with you largely a waste of time - save for the sheer entertainment of watching you chuck stones in your great big glass house. This most recent tirade was particularly amusing. If you need any tips on how to properly sharpen a knife, I'm happy to help.

Have a nice day.

Roger

 

[DWFII]

^ He said, whistling past the graveyard.

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Quote: Well, way off topic from "Leather Quality", but here goes

I read SF mainly to learn about care and maintenance of clothes. Given my goals, I want what I have to last as long as possible, and stay in good condition. I read somewhat to learn what to look for when acquiring clothes that are new to me. But here, it really depends. I now know more than I care about fused vs canvassed jackets. After inspecting some I own, I concluded that, except for carefully checking, I cannot tell the difference in the way they look when worn. So I don't worry about it, and I don't consider canvassed something to seek out.

I realize it is called "STYLE" forum, but I use it for clothing education. I have learned a lot about what to do, and what not to do, if I want my clothes to endure. I have also learned a lot about how clothes are made, why they are made that way, and why certain activities would be helpful or harmful.

Beyond that, I am completely addicted to DWF's writing. I admire his tireless devotion to quality, and I find his encyclopedic knowledge of shoemaking, present and past, fascinating. Before I started reading SF I never would have imagined what went in to making a good pair of shoes. It makes sense that an activity in which humans have engaged since prehistoric times would have evolved a long way. But I still viewed them as bags of leather somehow attached to something sturdy enough to walk on. Discovering the level to which artisans have taken the craft is interesting. So I try to read every DWF post on shoemaking. The other experts who post on the topic, Bengalstripe, Ron Rider, etc, are equally informative, but do not go into the detail of DWF.

In my job I am told all the time that I am an unrealistic perfectionist. In our strange workplace the people who worry about cost are different than those who worry about how difficult something may be. But I have had my fill of lectures from both types about how a cheaper or easier way is "good enough". Well, if there is a better way, the cheaper easier alternative is not the best, so by definition it is not good enough. I feel that way about my work, as DWF feels about his. I appreciate his dedication. The fact that I don't feel the need to have shoes made to that standard does not detract from my admiration.

I also love his writing. You can hear the O'Brian influence.

None of this is to say that I disagree that canvassed jackets are better than fused, or that DWF's shoes are far better than anything I will ever wear. As I said, I just don't need that level of quality.

I am not a car guy, so I don't know whether this is true, but for the sake of this discussion, let's pretend that whatever is the "best" Bentley is the "best car in the world". If that were true, then I assume a car guy could tell me in detail why a $350,000 Bentley was objectively and unequivocally a better car than my 19 year old Volvo. Once it was explained to me, I would probably agree. But I would still say that my Volvo goes when I press the accelerator, stops when I hit the brakes, turns when told, and is respectably safe. It is quiet enough and comfortable enough. The Bentley may be an incomparably better car, but I don't need an incomparably better car. And the Volvo is paid for.

As you can imagine from the above, I ignore the "fashion" threads. I don't know who the popular designers or fashion icons might be. I don't know which celebrities are considered unusually well dressed. I don't know where they shop or who makes their clothes. I don't have any ill will towards people who do know these things. I just don't care. My "fashion" is dictated by the goal of being anonymous at work. I wear clothes that fit in. I try to stay far away from being underdressed, but I also don't want to be known as the "Style guy", or even noticeably well dressed. If people were to ask coworkers "Did you see him today? What was he wearing?" I would like their answer to be "I don't know. A suit? Some shade of gray,.. I think. Or maybe navy blue?"

Long as that was, I cut out the part about the virtues of Depression era frugality. Let's just say that, to extent that my stylistic preferences find expression at all in what I wear- opposed to what looks good to me- I like the principle of "Use it up. Wear it out. Make it do or do without"

I want the "wear it out part" to take place slowly. That is why I read SF.

But back to shoes.

I would think that hand lasting and hand welting would give the cordwainer the ability to make all manner of subtle adjustments in the upper and its attachment to the insole. These might arise, I imagine, from the inherently variable nature of leather itself, from the exact contours required by a particular set of feet, changes in the tension required to stretch the leather over the last, maybe the temperature and humidity in the shop??? When this is done by machine, the process is too fast and automated to make any adjustments. In the real world, are there constant adaptations as one lasts and welts by hand?

 

[JubeiSpiegel]

I get what DW is saying.

In relation to what I do, I'm a classically trained illustrator, but I find myself making a living doing graphic design work for a large company.
Instead of toiling away with pen/brush & paper/canvas, I sit in front of a computer and utilize programs designed to make the mastery of such old fashion tools inefficient and unnecessary for work.
It would be comparable to hand welted and Goodyear welted. My current work would be comparable to GY shoes, even though I have the skill to do traditional work.

In the end, I can say that I am proud of my work regardless of the medium and it's inherent flaws. But I do acknowledged that I have chosen to compromise and work in mainly digital, for the exchange of being well compensated. Instead of only making traditional art pieces for knowledgeable clients, and possibly having an unstable/humble income.
My joy comes from my ability to use my creativity, even if most of what I create now is theoretical. An interesting idea in itself
I wonder if craftsmen at EG, JL, and GG considered such things and understand it as such?