Anthony Delos shoes and related subjects

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by ajv

It is much more difficult to have an excellent fitting with a seamless pair of shoes. And because of the difficulty involved to make a seamless shoe, i.e. there is no margin for any error as the leather is in one piece, the durability can also be affected if not done by someone at the top of his art. I think that DWFII and eventually Marcel, should be able to give us more hindsights in proper english, and not in some broken language like I would do. Adrian
There is...to my knowledge...no way around it--when you make a seamless whole cut or a seamless vamp and quarter combination, you are forced to cut a bigger piece of leather than you will eventually end up with. The excess has to go somewhere. In a perfect world, all the excess would be pulled under the last or beyond where the inseam will be. But in this world the forepart will last and stretch pretty much as it would on any shoe, but under the arch and around the heel the excess will tend to pile up like so much surplus army goods. Sure, some of it can be moved forward, backward, or under the last...but not all, by any means. So what happens to it? Good leather, especially vegetable tanned leather, will compress in lieu of stretching and pipes and wrinkles that might seem immovable at first can be boned out. It is possible to flatten a remarkable amount of surplus veg tanned leather to the point that it looks like the surplus was never there. But it was, it is, and it always will be. Fortunately much of that excess can also be "bonded" to the heel stiffener and to mid-liners and so it never really becomes an issue. If it were over the instep or the forepart it would affect fit. It would affect appearance...eventually...and it would affect wear. Ask yourself though...why don't more shoemakers make seamless wholecuts? That it's a difficult and problematic technique is certainly a factor but uncertainty about long term viability is probably the major reason why this never became a mainstay in most makers' offerings. Dog tails...as we call them over here...reinforce the backseam in a very critical manner and prevent any chance that the top line will break or fail as the last is being pulled. Some makers also run an extra line of stitching partially around the back of the heel for the same reason. I'm not sure which is more off-putting...the dog tail or the almost aesthetically irrational extra stitching. Like any technique, dog tails can be done in a clumsy or in a refined fashion. The real measure of any of this is why it was done and how much care and forethought went into it.

 

[luk-cha]

Originally Posted by bengal-stripe

Those G&G shoes have that very same reinforcement bar tack, but it is difficult to see in the photograph.

English shoemakers tend to stitch them quite discreet, while Delos and other continental makers
(Vass for example) turn them into a feature and "embroider" them with a row of knots, rather like a buttonhole.

An alternative to the bar tack would be a tiny "tongue", (vintage EG), which serves
the same purpose of protecting this stress-point, preventing accidental ripping.

I think in both pairs, the back is a bit clumsy (I hate "dog's ears", I think they are always clumsy).

In the Delos, have the seam in the bottom section as is, but cut the two suede "wings" of the upper section in a single piece
so it wraps around the heel without a seam. That would avoid the ugly dog's ear.

Originally Posted by ajv

I would tend to disagree with you, regarding the fit and I also think from various discussions with shoe-makers, that the durability can be affected if not done perfectly (talking about seamless obviously).
I do agree with you for the second part of your post.



I for one love those "dog's ears" and even insisted on having them on the next pair I will get from Anthony.
But as you imply, it's more a queston of taste than anything else. As we say in french "les coups et les douleurs.........."

Adrian

not wanting to make this into a G&G switch but these are what Tony had dont for me the black adeliade was my first commission also the first time AFAIK that they had done the seam like this the 2 balmorals 1 in calf and the other in pig skin have been refined a little better

 

[luk-cha]

Originally Posted by Corto_M

These recent posts reminded me I have pictures to share :

These are my first bespoke shoes by Anthony Delos.

these are lovely!!

Originally Posted by fritzl

i like the last shape... ...but shoes need an "ass". don't care for the seamless thing.

well i really wanted to add some snark to this comment but i wont, viva minimalism

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by bengal-stripe

An alternative to the bar tack would be a tiny "tongue", (vintage EG), which serves the same purpose of protecting this stress-point, preventing accidental ripping.
I'm not convinced. I can't imagine what an extra piece of leather, attached at the same point as the facings but not sewn to the facings, could possibly add by way of reinforcement. I suspect it is more a visual "cover"...camouflage...than any bit of function. The "frogging"--the stitch at the vamp point--draws together the facings right where they might have a tendency to pull apart and does so with extra heavy thread. This makes functional sense to me and handled with a certain deliberateness almost always works. Personally, I hate to see the facings pull apart even a little at the vamp point. It seems the ugliest and crudest indifference possible on an oxford.

 

[Wes Bourne]

Originally Posted by DWFII

There is...to my knowledge...no way around it--when you make a seamless whole cut or a seamless vamp and quarter combination, you are forced to cut a bigger piece of leather than you will eventually end up with.

The excess has to go somewhere.

In a perfect world, all the excess would be pulled under the last or beyond where the inseam will be. But in this world the forepart will last and stretch pretty much as it would on any shoe, but under the arch and around the heel the excess will tend to pile up like so much surplus army goods.

Sure, some of it can be moved forward, backward, or under the last...but not all, by any means. So what happens to it? Good leather, especially vegetable tanned leather, will compress in lieu of stretching and pipes and wrinkles that might seem immovable at first can be boned out. It is possible to flatten a remarkable amount of surplus veg tanned leather to the point that it looks like the surplus was never there.

But it was, it is, and it always will be.

Fortunately much of that excess can also be "bonded" to the heel stiffener and to mid-liners and so it never really becomes an issue. If it were over the instep or the forepart it would affect fit. It would affect appearance...eventually...and it would affect wear.

Ask yourself though...why don't more shoemakers make seamless wholecuts? That it's a difficult and problematic technique is certainly a factor but uncertainty about long term viability is probably the major reason why this never became a mainstay in most makers' offerings.

Dog tails...as we call them over here...reinforce the backseam in a very critical manner and prevent any chance that the top line will break or fail as the last is being pulled. Some makers also run an extra line of stitching partially around the back of the heel for the same reason. I'm not sure which is more off-putting...the dog tail or the almost aesthetically irrational extra stitching.

Like any technique, dog tails can be done in a clumsy or in a refined fashion. The real measure of any of this is why it was done and how much care and forethought went into it.

Very informative post, thank you!

Originally Posted by DWFII

I'm not convinced. I can't imagine what an extra piece of leather, attached at the same point as the facings but not sewn to the facings, could possibly add by way of reinforcement. I suspect it is more a visual "cover"...camouflage...than any bit of function.

Fwiw, I have 2 pairs of shoes with this semi circular piece of leather; in both cases, there's still a reinforcement tack underneath.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by Wes Bourne

Very informative post, thank you! Fwiw, I have 2 pairs of shoes with this semi circular piece of leather; in both cases, there's still a reinforcement tack underneath.
That's the way I'd do it too if I was going to use the "cover" but I've seen at least one text on making shoes that, IIRC, doesn't advocate any tacking underneath. For some reason, I've just never like the cover...not that it's particularly ugly...just not in the same league as the hand stitching.

 

[Michael Ay329]

Originally Posted by DWFII

I like balmorals myself...I'm considering making myself a pair.

But there is a reason for the stitching.

The black pair at the centipede link has eyelets. The eyelets hold the various layers of the facings together. There may be three or four layers to reinforce the eye holes against stretching and distortion caused by the laces.

The stitching on the throat on the Delos serves the same purpose.

Just saying...

Your point is interesting. I actually ordered an MTO version of the same shoe I linked. Its the G&G Warwick without any design on the topline, add steel eyelets and no stitching along the throat. If memory serves me well, I asked Dean if the stitching along the throat served any purpose...and I believe his response was that it was ornamental.

 

[bengal-stripe]

Originally Posted by DWFII

Dog tails...as we call them over here...reinforce the backseam in a very critical manner and prevent any chance that the top line will break or fail as the last is being pulled.

I think the dog's tail or other reinforcements are more for the benefit of the wearer, who is not using a shoe horn. I remember a couple of years ago, during the sale in some department store, hearing an almighty "ratch". Some guy next to me was trying to get into a shoe and had just split the back seam ("˜rent into twain' like the veil of the temple). Cool as a cucumber, he put the shoes back on the shelf and walked off.

There are other methods to reinforce the back seam (which I consider to be aesthetically more successful), like a 'back stay': a tiny strip of leather folded over the stress point at the top edge and stitched down.

Alternatively there is a 'back strap': a narrow strip of leather, running top to bottom the entire length of the heel, covering the structural back seam.

 

[sully]

The leather used by Delos always looks so good. Can anyone compare it with what other makers use.I believe most UK makers source their leather at the same place, do the Paris makers use different suppliers. I also like the toe tips used by Delos they just look a little neater to me.
A normal , neatly done backseam with or without a dog ear is my choice, although I can see the appeal of a seamless back ( no stitches to break or be rubbed away ). Part of the reason not many makers do seamless shoes could be the potential for huge waste of leather as they must cut to get the stretch just so and that could be a great big hole in a very expensive skin.

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by luk-cha

well i really wanted to add some snark to this comment but i wont, viva minimalism

if this is the prize, snark is uncalled...

Originally Posted by luk-cha

[/center]

 

[ajv]

Originally Posted by sully

The leather used by Delos always looks so good. Can anyone compare it with what other makers use.I believe most UK makers source their leather at the same place, do the Paris makers use different suppliers. I also like the toe tips used by Delos they just look a little neater to me.

I know were Delos sources his leather from, but can't tell. But all those sources also provide leather to others. A point to notice is that all tanneries offer different quality of leather, so yes there is also a question of price/margin involved. But one should not forget about the care that any bespoke shoe-maker puts into the final product to make it look as good as possible.


@DWFII, many thanks


Adrian

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by bengal-stripe

There are other methods to reinforce the back seam (which I consider to be aesthetically more successful), like a 'back stay': a tiny strip of leather folded over the stress point at the top edge and stitched down.

Aesthetically, the strip of leather turned at the top of the makes no sense, in my opinion. It is not a continuation of another piece nor is it a design element. It looks "added on" to me. As such it is far more clumsy than a dog tail. Worse, because it sits so "proud" of the quarters it not only detracts from the lines of the shoe it will physically catch on things and accumulate dirt and abuse. Minor issues, I suppose, but adding to the impression of being an afterthought. Again, you don't see it much...probably because in the long evolution of shoes and shoe design it was deemed to be either mechanically dysfunctional or aesthetically awkward. I've not looked at every last that ever was but I have looked at a lot of them. Many of the best are very narrow in the area of the topline--the "comb" of the last. This helps to create a tight topline which, in turn, benefits fit. But such lasts (all lasts actually) almost invariably swell considerably towards the bottom of the heel. It would not be out of the ordinary, on a size seven last, to find the topline visually no wider than one centimeter and the swell of the heel seven or eight centimeters. If the shoe is lasted properly, there is no slack anywhere, so getting the 8cm wide area through and past the 1cm area is not easy. It is a lot harder than you might think. Shoemakers almost always reinforce that area...as well as the entire topline...with "topline tape" --fabric (usually nylon) for the specific purpose of preventing stretch or, worse, ripping at the backseam. Another instance of forethought...and in the case of the dog tail, form following function. As for the "swans neck" stitchingon the faciings (this was the stitching I thought was being referred to in the "throat") it is ornamental but it is also functional. That's one of the things that takes a design, or the craftsmanship in a shoe, to the next level--the ability...heck, the desire...to make critical components and techniques look not only like they belong but sublimate them into some sort of harmonious gestalt. It's the difference between cordwaining and cobbling.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by luk-cha

not wanting to make this into a G&G switch but these are what Tony had dont for me the black adeliade was my first commission also the first time AFAIK that they had done the seam like this the 2 balmorals 1 in calf and the other in pig skin have been refined a little better

The lift and split technique (skin stitching) used in the first two photos is actually quite adept. I've done that work (successfully) and it's not easy. I'm not sure why it would be necessary but leaving aside the "break" in the broguing the workmanship is quite nice.

 

[DWFII]

BTW...factory lasts or lasts derived from factory designs seldom have the same amount of curve at the back of the heel that a custom last or a last used in bespoke work will have. The amount of swell will also be kept to a minimum and the disparity between the comb and the heel seat will be less...usually the comb is thicker.

 

[Wes Bourne]

Originally Posted by DWFII

If the shoe is lasted properly, there is no slack anywhere, so getting the 8cm wide area through and past the 1cm area is not easy. It is a lot harder than you might think. Shoemakers almost always reinforce that area...as well as the entire topline...with "topline tape" --fabric (usually nylon) for the specific purpose of preventing stretch or, worse, ripping at the backseam. Another instance of forethought...and in the case of the dog tail, form following function.

^ I take it you mean the difficulty in removing the last afterwards? Undoing the laces adds to that 1cm no?

Originally Posted by DWFII

The lift and split technique (skin stitching) used in the first two photos is actually quite adept. I've done that work (successfully) and it's not easy.

Very Frankenshoe.