Sole Welting

[LA Guy]

Not going to try to gainsay you but I suspect it all comes down to how you define "great product." So and so say they make the finest shoes in England..." AFAIK, they are all GY.

Are they the finest shoes in England? What about James Duckers shoes? Or Lobb's of London shoes? I guess we just dismiss them and the many other bespoke makers in England. Is it deceptive advertising? Or willful forgetfulness/blindness in that they are indeed dismissing the others. Or is it simply that their definition of "great product"/ "finest shoes" is so dumbed down that they actually believe it?

Beyond that, the money or shoes dichotomy is a metaphor (and I have said this many times) for the real dichotomy between the demand to maximize profit and the desire to maximize quality. By definition you can't maximize both at the same time...you cannot have two Job Ones. One is Job One and the other is Job Two. By definition.

And the decision trees are different depending on which is Job One and which is Job Two. Choices made early in the decision tree will unalterably affect choices, and even available choices later on.

I deliberately took something other than shoes as an example, on purpose, so that we could discuss this without anyone getting emotionally charged.

But, let's pretend that you are not semi-retired, and you are in your prime, and you have trained a small atelier of shoemakers, all of who can make shoes to the highest level possible. And you have a top notch stylist and designer who works with you to make sure that your shoes are not only incredibly crafted, but also extremely desirable by the richest shoppers around the world. And imagine that you have a business partner who is also a great marketer, who makes your shoes the most desirable shoes to have, amongst the richest men and women on earth, and to whom paying $10K, $100K, for a pair of shoes, and so many of them want to order them that you have to limit how many they can order at any one time, and even then, they have to wait for years to get their product.

Bam, you are a rich, rich man, without ever having to compromise your quality. In fact, there is good reason to never compromise your quaity. That other companies may have chosen a different route means nothing.

 

[DWFII]



I deliberately took something other than shoes as an example, on purpose, so that we could discuss this without anyone getting emotionally charged.

But, let's pretend that you are not semi-retired, and you are in your prime, and you have trained a small atelier of shoemakers, all of who can make shoes to the highest level possible.  And you have a top notch stylist and designer who works with you to make sure that your shoes are not only incredibly crafted, but also extremely desirable by the richest shoppers around the world.  And imagine that you have a business partner who is also a great marketer, who makes your shoes the most desirable shoes to have, amongst the richest men and women on earth, and to whom paying $10K, $100K, for a pair of shoes, and so many of them want to order them that you have to limit how many they can order at any one time, and even then, they have to wait for years to get their product.  

Bam, you are a rich, rich man, without ever having to compromise your quality.  In fact, there is good reason to never compromise your quaity.  That other companies may have chosen a different route means nothing.

Hey, I have nothing against money. If I did I'd be living off the grid. That said, you've set up an almost impossibly ideal set of conditions. Maybe one that is so at odds with what is actually and realistically possible as to be facetious.

But OK...going with it...the key element there is "never have to compromise your quality." The problem that immediately comes to mind is that you cannot control the passion of workers...even those you've personally trained. That's really...when you come down to it.... what quality control is. Each worker at each station has to care exactly as much as you do and have the same drive to perfection as you do. Even working with your..beloved and much admired...wife compromises quality. DAMHIKT.

And who sets the standards? It has to be you or you've compromised your quality right out of the gate. Passion isn't infectious. It doesn't spread...it cannot spread.... esp. in a milieu that is frightened to death of passion.

There's one other point, in some ways shoemaking is unique in this regard. Not totally but unique relative to other industries in the modern world. It has been evolving for 10,000 years. It reached its apex in the 18th century and its maturity in the 19th. By any objective measure, nothing since has moved the ball forward. The only thing left is to either milk the knowledge for profit or to preserve the knowledge for posterity. It doesn't appear that those two goals are compatible.

Cabinet making might be a close comparison. Goldsmithing also...the ancient goldsmiths had a technique (is it "granulation"?) that "welded" tiny spheres of gold to a larger surface. Which, last I heard--when I was making jewelry--can not be duplicated today regardless of the technology. Does anyone know for certain what Guarneri's secrets were? Knifemaking---who does hand folded 1000 layer damascus steel, anymore? and don't tell me that machine folding is just as good. Or rather don't tell those who understand and admire Samurai swords, that machine folding is just as good.

Many modern industries have yet to reach maturity...and the comparisons just can't be made or applied.

PS...I deliberately brought it back to shoes because that's what the thread is about and that's really all I know anything about. If this were a sword maker's forum, I'd lurk but lurk silently...it's surprising what you can learn when you're not trying to be an expert in subjects you're not qualified to speak to. (just a general observation to remind myself that I'm not qualified to speak about much beyond shoemaking.)

--

 

[LA Guy]

Hey, I have nothing against money. If I did I'd be living off the grid. That said, you've set up an almost impossibly ideal set of conditions. Maybe one that is so at odds with what is actually and realistically possible as to be facetious.

But OK...going with it...the key element there is "never have to compromise your quality." The problem that immediately comes to mind is that you cannot control the passion of workers...even those you've personally trained. That's really...when you come down to it.... what quality control is. Each worker at each station has to care exactly as much as you do and have the same drive to perfection as you do. Even working with your..beloved and much admired...wife compromises quality. DAMHIKT.

And who sets the standards? It has to be you or you've compromised your quality right out of the gate. Passion isn't infectious. It doesn't spread...it cannot spread.... esp. in a milieu that is frightened to death of passion.

There's one other point, in some ways shoemaking is unique in this regard. Not totally but unique relative to other industries in the modern world. It has been evolving for 10,000 years. It reached its apex in the 18th century and its maturity in the 19th. By any objective measure, nothing since has moved the ball forward. The only thing left is to either milk the knowledge for profit or to preserve the knowledge for posterity. It doesn't appear that those two goals are compatible.

Cabinet making might be a close comparison. Goldsmithing also...the ancient goldsmiths had a technique (is it "granulation"?) that applied tiny spheres of gold to a large surface, that last I heard when i was making jewelry, can not be duplicated today regardless of the technology being applied. Does anyone know for certain what Guarneri's secrets were? Knifemaking---who does hand folded 1000 layer damascus steel?

Many modern industries have yet to reach maturity...and the comparisons just can't be made or applied.

Well, it is an unlikely scenario that has happened in other industries. But, becoming very successful doing anything is improbable.

And you are right, passion cannot be taught. It can be found though. And in any case, at a certain point, it's about properly formalizing standards. That can be done. And whether or not someone has passion, they can meet codified standards. Great restaurants give great service because of training and because people are held to high expectations, not because the waiters have innate passion. My formal training is in engineering. The principle is that you set up a strong framework that allows for human failings, but allows for human initiative. Any organization that depends on a single person ultimately fails.

 

[DWFII]

I've eaten in great restaurants...they aren't always great on successive days.

And again what is great? With shoemaking we already have standards...set in the 18th and 19th century. Nothing contemporary comes close. Formalized standards or no.

The other point is really a question...why do great companies with great products inevitably go down hill? Most of the great Northant manufacturies were once small, highly respected workshops that did things by hand and according to Tradition--which is just another kind of "formalized standards".

Yet, today, none of them can match or even come close to the quality, panache, and finesse of the shoes made in the 19th century. Objectively, I think you'd have to say they compromised their quality. Sure they're making money, but every year it gets tougher and every year the quality goes down just that little bit more.

I'm no marketing expert but maybe someone who is, can tell me why.

--

 

[Nick V.]

I once had a conversation with the owner of a internationally very well known company. During our discussion it came out that they were changing their business plan. When I questioned it he told me "I'd rather sell to the asses than the masses" When I heard that I lost all respect for him.
The Guy can buy a small country.
My brother owns a prosthetic and orthopedic company. One He started Himself. He is very well respected internationally in the trade.
A few years ago he was approached by the owner of a major national drug store chain. At their dinner meeting the drug store guy made a proposal/offer that would have made my brother very wealthy ( he does always did do very well) overnight. My Bro. told him thanks but my goals are to help the patients not line my pockets.

There's lot's of bells and whistles out there. Lot's of ways to make money. But, in the end as a business owner it all boils down to you're objective.
Is making the most I can my goal?
Is providing a superior product/service at a fair price my goal?

When you rest you're eyes at night you know the answer.

 

[shoefan]



Hermes is a true lifestyle brand now, but they are certainly not "jacks of all trades, master of none".  They are undisputedly masters of at least one, maybe two, trades, and very good at many others besides that.  

The point was the they did not have to compromise the quality of their (core) goods to grow (Q2 of 2014 showed a 1.9B Euro turnover, which is definitely big time, +8% with currency adjustments) to become a global company, and that in fact, compromising their quality would have been deleterious to their $$$$$$$.  And their core goods are undisputedly artisanal goods.

I don't think any of us here know for certain that Hermes hasn't compromised the quality of their goods at all. First, I've read that some portions of Hermes bags, including the Kelly and perhaps the Birkins, are machine stitched. To a leather-worker, this would signify a reduction of quality, all else being equal -- I don't know whether they've done so, nor whether it is a change from previous practices, but if they have and if they are.....

[Parenthetically, and generally speaking, I would suggest we should in fact be discussing 'maximizing shareholder value/wealth' rather than 'maximizing profit.' This distinction can lead to very different behavior and decisions, due to long- versus short-term perspectives and incentive structures that prioritize the latter over the former. This is also one factor that can lead to a preference for private ownership over public ownership. One can argue that Hermes, while publicly held, behaves in a manner more akin to a private company than a public one, and this (long term) perspective is part of the reason they have so far rejected LVMH's overtures for outright acquisition. (Perhaps this argues in support of LAGuy's argument. Still, I think the example of Hermes introducing Lobb RTW is a counter-example to the assertion that they haven't cheapened their 'core' products, if we consider leather working to be their core business. Also, anyone know anything about their saddlery business, which is where the company really started?)]

Further, I think DW stated 'you can make shoes or make money, not both,' or words to that effect, not 'you can't make leather goods (or purses, or ______) and make money.' Look at Anthony Delos -- he is widely admired, but decided to join forces with Berluti because the challenges created when he tried to expand production to meet demand while maintaining his standards, or at least making products he was proud of (not sure if his employees truly made products as good as Anthony could). We'll see whether folks like Koji Suzuki (who at least used to have a waiting list for his waiting list!) can get rich while not compromising their standards.

As noted, the other thing necessary to make money (or maximize owner/shareholder value) is effective marketing. I do think many/most artisans are mediocre at this, perhaps because it isn't of interest to them, or it smacks of self-promotion, or dishonesty, or it isn't what they care about, or whatever. One thing I learned from a decidedly profit-maximizing colleague is that, to profit maximize, you need to ruthlessly, persistently, and consciously prioritize and invest your time and effort in what drives profit, not what you enjoy doing. Most artisans are doing what they do because that is what they enjoy. So, to take time away from that activity to market themselves is contrary to the very reason they decided to pursue their trade in the first place.

Certainly, DW's statement is not literally and absolutely true. But, at least where shoemaking is concerned, it is probably 95% true if what you care about is making the best product you can. Better marketing might help, but it is still going to be difficult for a shoemaker to get rich while sticking to handmade welted shoes.

 

[Nick V.]

Here is a picture of the thread failure I mentioned yesterday.
Any shoe repair shop will tell you that they see this occur far more often then gem failure:

 

[LA Guy]

I don't think any of us here know for certain that Hermes hasn't compromised the quality of their goods at all. First, I've read that some portions of Hermes bags, including the Kelly and perhaps the Birkins, are machine stitched. To a leather-worker, this would signify a reduction of quality, all else being equal -- I don't know whether they've done so, nor whether it is a change from previous practices, but if they have and if they are.....

[Parenthetically, and generally speaking, I would suggest we should in fact be discussing 'maximizing shareholder value/wealth' rather than 'maximizing profit.' This distinction can lead to very different behavior and decisions, due to long- versus short-term perspectives and incentive structures that prioritize the latter over the former. This is also one factor that can lead to a preference for private ownership over public ownership. One can argue that Hermes, while publicly held, behaves in a manner more akin to a private company than a public one, and this (long term) perspective is part of the reason they have so far rejected LVMH's overtures for outright acquisition. (Perhaps this argues in support of LAGuy's argument. Still, I think the example of Hermes introducing Lobb RTW is a counter-example to the assertion that they haven't cheapened their 'core' products, if we consider leather working to be their core business. Also, anyone know anything about their saddlery business, which is where the company really started?)]

Further, I think DW stated 'you can make shoes or make money, not both,' or words to that effect, not 'you can't make leather goods (or purses, or ______) and make money.' Look at Anthony Delos -- he is widely admired, but decided to join forces with Berluti because the challenges created when he tried to expand production to meet demand while maintaining his standards, or at least making products he was proud of (not sure if his employees truly made products as good as Anthony could). We'll see whether folks like Koji Suzuki (who at least used to have a waiting list for his waiting list!) can get rich while not compromising their standards.

As noted, the other thing necessary to make money (or maximize owner/shareholder value) is effective marketing. I do think many/most artisans are mediocre at this, perhaps because it isn't of interest to them, or it smacks of self-promotion, or dishonesty, or it isn't what they care about, or whatever. One thing I learned from a decidedly profit-maximizing colleague is that, to profit maximize, you need to ruthlessly, persistently, and consciously prioritize and invest your time and effort in what drives profit, not what you enjoy doing. Most artisans are doing what they do because that is what they enjoy. So, to take time away from that activity to market themselves is contrary to the very reason they decided to pursue their trade in the first place.

Certainly, DW's statement is not literally and absolutely true. But, at least where shoemaking is concerned, it is probably 95% true if what you care about is making the best product you can. Better marketing might help, but it is still going to be difficult for a shoemaker to get rich while sticking to handmade welted shoes.

I wouldn't disagree with any of your salient points. However, I'm not sure that there is a substantive differenve between the phrases "you can make shoes or make money, not both," and "you can't make leather goods (or purses, or ______) and make money." As I read it, he is saying that you can't scale up to become a highly profitable company. And as I read it, this comes from a misunderstanding that in order to make money, you have to cut corners, which is simply not true. My rather simplistic example was just to illustrate that if you can make more money just by getting the same or more people to buy your (quality) product for a much more than they were paying for it. That's obviously not the only way you can make more money while keeping your quiality at the same level. You can just leave that variable alone, and crank everything around it, in any number of ways. No, there's no guarantee that you would succeed, but there's no guarantee of anything.

But, literally, DW's statement is true. If all that you care about is making the best product that you can, and you are resistant to any type of business strategy that takes you away from doing that and only that, then no, you are never going to make any real money. That goes for everything. You can also take the "best" out of "best product", and the statement would still be true. There's no shame in that. But by the same token, it's would be disingenuous to say that if you focus on the business of selling the product as well as the actual manufacture of the product, that the product quality will necessarily suffer.

But I digress, as usual.

 

[LA Guy]

The other point is really a question...why do great companies with great products inevitably go down hill? Most of the great Northant manufacturies were once small, highly respected workshops that did things by hand and according to Tradition--which is just another kind of "formalized standards".

I'll be a historical meta-pessimist here, and say that this is because all things that rise, always fall. No one and nothing can be great forever. Empires fall. Kings fall. Nations come and go. Companies outlive their usefulness, can't adapt in a changing world (and the world is constantly changing), make a critical strategy error at a critical time. Who knows? There are any number of reasons that companies fail, that are not apparent until afterwards, and often, not even then. Others take their place. To channel the Dude, that's just the world, man. I think that most companies are lucky to just havea pretty good run. Most companies don't ever get off the ground at all.

 

[DWFII]



But, literally, DW's statement is true.  If all that you care about is making the best product that you can, and you are resistant to any type of business strategy that takes you away from doing that and only that, then no, you are never going to make any real money.  That goes for everything.  You can also take the "best" out of "best product", and the statement would still be true.  There's no shame in that.  But by the same token, it's would be disingenuous to say that if you focus on the business of selling the product as well as the actual manufacture of the product, that the product quality will necessarily suffer.

Turn it around...if you know that that using a better quality insole leather is will increase production costs, and company policy or the strictures of competing in a market where every one of your competitors are scrambling for every customer they can get (and from what we've heard here profit margins are actually, well, marginal) you're going to be resistant to any notion of better, but more expensive, quality. But you will make money.

I'm just a simple shoemaker. I don't have an MBA. (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn once ) The "money or shoes" thing is based on what I know about leather and techniques and the Traditions and historical facts of the Trade--the ongoing, accelerating, loss of almost every level...from apprentice to master...of skilled bottom men in the Trade.

If any of the high end manufacturies in N'ants wanted to go back to the same model of making as present day Lobbs of London ("we have turned our backs on the machine"), they could not do it. They. Could, Not. Do. It. It would not be possible...either physically or philosophically. Not only because the skill and knowledge is not there--the old men pensioned off. Not only because the philosophical underpinnings have been pulled away. But also, and most importantly, because, again, no one can have two masters. There cannot be two Job Ones. By. Definition.

Nick mentions goals...essentially the same thing. You can talk all you want about "Finest in England" and wanting to make the best product possible. But you have to walk the walk not just talk the talk. And that means deciding what is Job One.

And once that decision is made, Job One will always take precedent. By definition.

Goals. Job One. Prime Directive. Focus. A divided focus is no focus at all.

IMO...

--

 

[DWFII]

Shoefan,

You know, it's odd ...we've never really conversed about shoemaking...at least in this kind of depth. I didn't really know where you were coming from--you are obviously dedicated and persistent and you know some aspects of the Trade better than I do...in fact, I admit to being insanely jealous of your time with your mentor in Britain (can't remember his name at the moment)...but you haven't thrown everything else aside and dedicated yourself life and limb to it, as far as I know (meaning only that you don't do it full time).

But I should have known better. You've been helpful to me, supportive of the Guild, and you're obviously someone who thinks and cares about things.

I applaud you and your efforts.

 

[LA Guy]

Turn it around...if you know that that using a better quality insole leather is will increase production costs, and company policy or the strictures of competing in a market where every one of your competitors are scrambling for every customer they can get (and from what we've heard here profit margins are actually, well, marginal) you're going to be resistant to any notion of better, but more expensive, quality. But you will make money.

You are missing the critical point, which is that you can market pretty much anything. This is Tom Sawyer and whitewashing the fence level stuff. Why do people even care about Goodyear welting (which is what brought us here in the first place?) Effective marketing. Even as late as a decade ago, pretty much no one not in the trade or not somehow related to the industry could tell you what is a Goodyear welt (something to do with tires, right?) You don't even have to look beyond Styleforum to see this. Search the forum for the term "Goodyear welt", and graph the number of mentions, from the forum's inception in 2002 to today. You can normalize per member and you'd find the same trend. Now, every shoe company in the world advertises "Goodyear welted" as pretty awesome. We want what we want because someone, sometime, convinced us that we wanted it. I'm going to say that sex, sleep, and shelter/warmth, are the exceptions. If you can convince enough people that what you are selling is awesome, they'll buy it. If someone can convince the market that "handwelting and leather insoles are the most awesome thing - Goodyear welting sucks", then you can way more than defray the cost of the materials and the labor.

The "value" of a product is not intrinsic to that product. What is value? It's what we have collectively agreed that it is. Handmade is not intrinsically more valuable than machine made, nor vice versa. There is a pretty good argument to be made that the value we place on the terms "authenticity", "artisanal", etc.., are a post-modern reaction towards modernism (go figure, right?) Even a cursory look at the language used in product copy in the early part of the 20th century shows that modernization is highly praised. And there are good arguments for it. Product quality are more consistent, for one. Fast forward 70 years, and you'll find that a lot of garment companies now embrace small inconsistencies and differences between different garments as a sign of "artisanal quality". What's changed? Cultural values. That's it. Mechanization is better than ever, and as you said, a lot of traditional techniques have been lost, or are just being rediscovered or re-invented. But in 2014, we place a lot of value on the romance of handiwork.

We obviously come from different vantage points. I deliberately refrained from any comment about welting, because I know very little about it. My point is merely that you anything can be sold for any price; The caveat, of course, is that it's not true that anything can be sold for any price, at any time, any where. It's highly context dependent.

 

[DWFII]



You are missing the critical point, which is that you can market pretty much anything.  This is Tom Sawyer and whitewashing the fence level stuff.  Why do people even care about Goodyear welting (which is what brought us here in the first place?)  Effective marketing.  Even as late as a decade ago, pretty much no one not in the trade or not somehow related to the industry could tell you what is a Goodyear welt (something to do with tires, right?)  You don't even have to look beyond Styleforum to see this. Search the forum for the term "Goodyear welt", and graph the number of mentions, from the forum's inception in 2002 to today.  You can normalize per member and you'd find the same trend.  Now, every shoe company in the world advertises "Goodyear welted" as pretty awesome.  We want what we want because someone, sometime, convinced us that we wanted it.  I'm going to say that sex, sleep, and shelter/warmth, are the exceptions.  If you can convince enough people that what you are selling is awesome, they'll buy it.  If someone can convince the market that "handwelting and leather insoles are the most awesome thing - Goodyear welting sucks", then you can way more than defray the cost of the materials and the labor.  

The "value" of a product is not intrinsic to that product.  What is value?  It's what we have collectively agreed that it is.  Handmade is not intrinsically more valuable than machine made, nor vice versa.  There is a pretty good argument to be made that the value we place on the terms "authenticity", "artisanal", etc.., are a post-modern reaction towards modernism (go figure, right?)  Even a cursory look at the language used in product copy in the early part of the 20th century shows that modernization is highly praised.  And there are good arguments for it.  Product quality are more consistent, for one.  Fast forward 70 years, and you'll find that a lot of garment companies now embrace small inconsistencies and differences between different garments as a sign of "artisanal quality".  What's changed?  Cultural values.  That's it.  Mechanization is better than ever, and as you said, a lot of traditional techniques have been lost, or are just being rediscovered or re-invented.  But in 2014, we place a lot of value on the romance of handiwork.

We obviously come from different vantage points.  I deliberately refrained from any comment about welting, because I know very little about it. My point is merely that you anything can be sold for any price;  The caveat, of course, is that it's not true that anything can be sold for any price, at any time, any where.  It's highly context dependent.

We do indeed come from different vantage points...I have to say that, particularly in context (refer back to my remarks in post #1405), "marketing" is deception. Suspiciously knowing and deliberate deception. It's damn sure not truth.

There is no such thing as "Truth in Advertising."

shoefan suggests that artisans are poor at marketing. I suggest that the reason is that to be an artisan you must be brutally honest with yourself and to be a successful artisan you must be honest with the customer. There is no room for marketing in the mentality of an artisan.

 

[LA Guy]

We do indeed come from different vantage points...I have to say that, particularly in context (refer back to my remarks in post #1405), "marketing" is deception. Suspiciously knowing and deliberate deception. It's damn sure not truth.

There is no such thing as "Truth in Advertising."

shoefan suggests that artisans are poor at marketing. I suggest that the reason is that to be an artisan you must be brutally honest with yourself and to be a successful artisan you must be honest with the customer. There is no room for marketing in the mentality of an artisan.

That's a pretty common perception, but I challenge you to look at it another way. We are all telling a story. The story is usually fundamentally about romance, and in order to be compelling, it must be self-consistent, and more than that, present a wholly self consistent world that is also consistent with the experience and observations of the listener.

For example, if you took a specific pair of cemented shoes, and told me that they were the most valuable shoes, on the basis that they took the most handiwork, the story would ring false. I mean, what? It's harder to apply glue than to painstakingly stitch things by hand? What a dreadful, terrible story. But, what if the glue that is needed is made from the bones of an endangered tiger, and that in order to get the right consistency requires that the glue only be be made of bones from a tiger that has die peacefully of old age, because otherwise, the "stress" will make the glue separate? Now, now those cemented shoes are really valuable, more valuable than any handwelted, shoe, at least to anyone who cares about the romance of wearing shoes constructed using glue made from the bones of rare tigers that died of old age.

Again, I'm not saying making any statements at all about the "quality" of handwelted vs. Goodyear welted shoes. I've read a lot more of this thread now, and it seems that people are talking at cross purposes, talking about all sorts of different things, The only way to have a meaningful conversation here would be to hold all other variables constant, and then the argument would become either meaningless or bogged down in situation dependent minutaie. I'm just challenging you to examine your perception of marketing.

 

[thelonius]

That's a pretty common perception, but I challenge you to look at it another way. We are all telling a story. The story is usually fundamentally about romance, and in order to be compelling, it must be self-consistent, and more than that, present a wholly self consistent world that is also consistent with the experience and observations of the listener.

For example, if you took a specific pair of cemented shoes, and told me that they were the most valuable shoes, on the basis that they took the most handiwork, the story would ring false. I mean, what? It's harder to apply glue than to painstakingly stitch things by hand? What a dreadful, terrible story. But, what if the glue that is needed is made from the bones of an endangered tiger, and that in order to get the right consistency requires that the glue only be be made of bones from a tiger that has die peacefully of old age, because otherwise, the "stress" will make the glue separate? Now, now those cemented shoes are really valuable, more valuable than any handwelted, shoe, at least to anyone who cares about the romance of wearing shoes constructed using glue made from the bones of rare tigers that died of old age.

Again, I'm not saying making any statements at all about the "quality" of handwelted vs. Goodyear welted shoes. I've read a lot more of this thread now, and it seems that people are talking at cross purposes, talking about all sorts of different things, The only way to have a meaningful conversation here would be to hold all other variables constant, and then the argument would become either meaningless or bogged down in situation dependent minutaie. I'm just challenging you to examine your perception of marketing.

Meanwhile, over in Budapest, several shoemakers are working to a business model that involves making excellent shoes, hand sewn at the inseaming and welting stages, selling their products at very reasonable prices, and making enough profit (but not "maximizing profit") to pay overheads and wages for the craftsmen/women they employ.