What does one do with an afternoon off and only one tin of neutral shoe polish?

[youngScholar]

Good job on the restoration.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by Borrelli

I feel that question is implicit in and at the heart of the undercurrents and hostility in this and other topics where Fritzl and Bengal-stripe meet. I am not sure how this can be solved. I do feel it's a shame, because you guys are both knowledgeable members.

thank you

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by T4phage

ysobutthurt?

no,

a little overreaction. imho, that's human...

 

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I'm finding this thread interesting in that I suspect it highlights SF's tenuous relationship with traditional artisanship. All pure speculation on my part, so feel free to skip ahead to the next post, but ...

For all our talk about how much we value the traditional manufacturing methods, we tend to grade clothing on an unforgiving scale. Fritzl is selling traditional Hungarian shoemaking, as I understand it, and I doubt many Hungarian shoemakers were ever in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather. (I doubt many shoemakers anywhere were in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather.) As such, I would expect that shoes made in Hungary, in the traditional manner, by an individual shoemaker, would typically have been far more rustic than those cranked out today for connoisseurs by a firm such as EG. Both Green and Lobb are engaged in an arms race of refinement, and many of the qualitative improvements we talk about here are really just aesthetic detailing. Is it fair to fault other shoemakers who exist outside of that? If the paprika leather is more rustic looking, so what? Does it perform less well or make the shoe less durable? I don't know, but I doubt it. No more so than a Lobb outlasts an AE.

The appeal of the paprika, as I see it, is that it represents something other, a traditional way of doing things that is now almost lost. How well the paprika represents that, I don't know. But I wouldn't buy paprika wanting flawless modern craftsmanship in exquisite materials, but specifically because it isn't that.

Anyway, just some thoughts. (No insult to Mr. Kiss' work intended, Fritzl.)


1000+
Very well put!

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Have you worn these out yet? In the creases when the leather bends and touches together do you get those gunky smudges?

 

[T4phage]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I'm finding this thread interesting in that I suspect it highlights SF's tenuous relationship with traditional artisanship. All pure speculation on my part, so feel free to skip ahead to the next post, but ...

For all our talk about how much we value the traditional manufacturing methods, we tend to grade clothing on an unforgiving scale. Fritzl is selling traditional Hungarian shoemaking, as I understand it, and I doubt many Hungarian shoemakers were ever in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather. (I doubt many shoemakers anywhere were in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather.) As such, I would expect that shoes made in Hungary, in the traditional manner, by an individual shoemaker, would typically have been far more rustic than those cranked out today for connoisseurs by a firm such as EG. Both Green and Lobb are engaged in an arms race of refinement, and many of the qualitative improvements we talk about here are really just aesthetic detailing. Is it fair to fault other shoemakers who exist outside of that? If the paprika leather is more rustic looking, so what? Does it perform less well or make the shoe less durable? I don't know, but I doubt it. No more so than a Lobb outlasts an AE.

The appeal of the paprika, as I see it, is that it represents something other, a traditional way of doing things that is now almost lost. How well the paprika represents that, I don't know. But I wouldn't buy paprika wanting flawless modern craftsmanship in exquisite materials, but specifically because it isn't that.

Anyway, just some thoughts. (No insult to Mr. Kiss' work intended, Fritzl.)
interesting viewpoint doc
[tl;dr]
'traditional manufacturing methods' - we speak of the construction methods and not the quality of the materials (although dwfii may disagree and say they are intrinsically linked). how are the handwelting methods (of the 'goodyear' type) practised by various shoemakers worldwide different from those practised in hungary? yes there are fewer practitioners but they are not exactly difficult to find. in italy for example there are still a few in local towns - ask radicaldog. i remember a post by dwfii saying that the methods practised by makers today have not changed for eons, i.e the method used by tony g, lobb, fosters, etc., of course some do this better than others. unless of course there is another 'method' that they are using in hungary.

'rustic' - now we can speak about quality of materials, last shape, and styling. the style and shape of the shoe is of course a personal choice, and what may appear 'rustic' to one may be 'fugly' to another. on the matter of leather quality we can all agree to some standard of 'good'. if, however, poorer quality/cuts are used, i do not see how that would constitute 'rustic' unless it harkens back to an age when every scrap was utilised for economy, and the resulting look is something that you prize. the durability issue you raise may or may not detract from the longevity of the shoe depending on where such leather was placed on the shoe. but then again, you can raise the performance/durability issue with any mass produced cheap shoe that may or may not last as long as a lobb/eg/cleverley - my old redwing derby from the early 90's is showing no signs of dying.

[/tl;dr]

 

[Wes Bourne]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I'm finding this thread interesting in that I suspect it highlights SF's tenuous relationship with traditional artisanship. All pure speculation on my part, so feel free to skip ahead to the next post, but ...

For all our talk about how much we value the traditional manufacturing methods, we tend to grade clothing on an unforgiving scale. Fritzl is selling traditional Hungarian shoemaking, as I understand it, and I doubt many Hungarian shoemakers were ever in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather. (I doubt many shoemakers anywhere were in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather.) As such, I would expect that shoes made in Hungary, in the traditional manner, by an individual shoemaker, would typically have been far more rustic than those cranked out today for connoisseurs by a firm such as EG. Both Green and Lobb are engaged in an arms race of refinement, and many of the qualitative improvements we talk about here are really just aesthetic detailing. Is it fair to fault other shoemakers who exist outside of that? If the paprika leather is more rustic looking, so what? Does it perform less well or make the shoe less durable? I don't know, but I doubt it. No more so than a Lobb outlasts an AE.

The appeal of the paprika, as I see it, is that it represents something other, a traditional way of doing things that is now almost lost. How well the paprika represents that, I don't know. But I wouldn't buy paprika wanting flawless modern craftsmanship in exquisite materials, but specifically because it isn't that.

Anyway, just some thoughts. (No insult to Mr. Kiss' work intended, Fritzl.)

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you take examples of DFW and Marcel Hun's work (first names that came to mind, there are certainly others), no obvious corners were cut by using artisanal and traditional shoemaking methods. Otoh, I get the impression that most aesthetic elements were compromised with the shoes discussed here and that we're supposed to just accept it as part of the 'rustic' package that comes with an artisanal Hungarian shoe. More credit should be given to the average SF shoe 'amateur'; surely compromises with regards to certain aspects would be acceptable if they were made up with other best of class qualities.

As fritzl always says: 'horses for courses', but I'll save the rustic for handmade loaves of bread.

 

[Sterling Gillette]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

I'm finding this thread interesting in that I suspect it highlights SF's tenuous relationship with traditional artisanship. All pure speculation on my part, so feel free to skip ahead to the next post, but ...

For all our talk about how much we value the traditional manufacturing methods, we tend to grade clothing on an unforgiving scale. Fritzl is selling traditional Hungarian shoemaking, as I understand it, and I doubt many Hungarian shoemakers were ever in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather. (I doubt many shoemakers anywhere were in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather.) As such, I would expect that shoes made in Hungary, in the traditional manner, by an individual shoemaker, would typically have been far more rustic than those cranked out today for connoisseurs by a firm such as EG. Both Green and Lobb are engaged in an arms race of refinement, and many of the qualitative improvements we talk about here are really just aesthetic detailing. Is it fair to fault other shoemakers who exist outside of that? If the paprika leather is more rustic looking, so what? Does it perform less well or make the shoe less durable? I don't know, but I doubt it. No more so than a Lobb outlasts an AE.

The appeal of the paprika, as I see it, is that it represents something other, a traditional way of doing things that is now almost lost. How well the paprika represents that, I don't know. But I wouldn't buy paprika wanting flawless modern craftsmanship in exquisite materials, but specifically because it isn't that.

Anyway, just some thoughts. (No insult to Mr. Kiss' work intended, Fritzl.)
I am d'accord with what you're saying. If you want a modern-looking, "flawless" (whatever the forumites understand as that), mass-marketed product, don't buy from Mr. Kiss. But visit him only once in his 4m² workroom and you will instantly see that there is more to bespoke shoemaking than being bitchy about minor details. The methods of shoemaking in general may not have changed, but the approach did. As you have said: The way I saw this old man make a shoe is now, sadly, almost gone.

As for the general discussion that evolved here: I did not expect this topic to develop the way it did. All I wanted was to show the way maybe our grandfathers would have polished their shoes before they were in danger of getting a sad frown from their colleages, accompanied with a "Come on, don't you have some Saphir Renovateur to prevent the leather from drying out? Don't you see these cracks on the quarters? Don't you read THE FORUMS?!". I was trying to point out that black can be an interesting choice of colour for shoes, especially when everyone finds brown shoes so droolworthy. I am honestly not expert enough as to judge if Mr. Kiss used the best leather out there for this shoe (I doubt he wouldn't use the very best leather he could find, especially for a client nd not for himself). All I can say is that the shoe (and leather) looks awesome in real life, fits great and wears very, very comfortably. If course, to some here, these shoes can't hold a candle, stylewise, to G&G's offerings. But they weren't designed to do so. Don't confuse quality with personal preference.

If anyone is interested, I could take off the polish I applied and treat the leather with what is nowadays considered proper care, just for comparison's sake. I'm sure, reactions as regards leather quality will be uite different.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by Wes Bourne

And you are a leading authority based on?...

all i can seen in your argumentation.

you want a pair for free?

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

..., as I understand it, and I doubt many Hungarian shoemakers were ever in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather. (I doubt many shoemakers anywhere were in a position to toss out 3/4 of their available leather.)

that's the way...

 

[Wes Bourne]

Originally Posted by fritzl

all i can seen in your argumentation.

you want a pair for free?

fritzl, I appreciate that you like these shoes and that you can even be passionate about them. This can be further compounded if you have money at stake. I just don't get why you need to freak out anytime someone raises certain issues in their appearance and I don't see how that could win you over some new converts...

I don't want a pair period, no offense to you or the maker.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by Wes Bourne

fritzl, I appreciate that you like these shoes and that you can even be passionate about them. This can be further compounded if you have money at stake. I just don't get why you need to freak out anytime someone raises certain issues in their appearance and I don't see how that could win you over some new converts...

I don't want a pair period, no offense to you or the maker.

you might be more clever than me, thanks

 

[DocHolliday]

Originally Posted by Wes Bourne

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you take examples of DFW and Marcel Hun's work (first names that came to mind, there are certainly others), no obvious corners were cut by using artisanal and traditional shoemaking methods. Otoh, I get the impression that most aesthetic elements were compromised with the shoes discussed here and that we're supposed to just accept it as part of the 'rustic' package that comes with an artisanal Hungarian shoe. More credit should be given to the average SF shoe 'amateur'; surely compromises with regards to certain aspects would be acceptable if they were made up with other best of class qualities.

As fritzl always says: 'horses for courses', but I'll save the rustic for handmade loaves of bread.

I don't mean to suggest that artisanship has to be rustic, just that traditionally, I imagine most such artisanship was rustic. If you're after authenticity of experience, and that's a big part of the appeal of the Hungarian shoes, then I'd guess what Fritzl is offering is much closer to what the average person there wore in the past than are the much more refined offerings of someone like Marcel Hun or an outfit like Vass. The latter are successful here specifically because they cater to SF/shoe connoisseurs' tastes, not because they represent the average small shoemaking shop of a 100 years ago.

But, like you say, horses for courses. Not everyone wants rustic, and fair enough. But I do think there is more than one standard by which we can judge these shoes.

 

[Degendorff]

Originally Posted by fritzl

that's the way...

100% agreement. And + 1 for DocHolliday's statements.

 

[Sterling Gillette]

Originally Posted by Wes Bourne

fritzl, I appreciate that you like these shoes and that you can even be passionate about them. This can be further compounded if you have money at stake. I just don't get why you need to freak out anytime someone raises certain issues in their appearance and I don't see how that could win you over some new converts...

I don't want a pair period, no offense to you or the maker.
It may be due to a mentality differences that these problems arise.