BColl_Has_Too_Many_Shoes
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2017
- Messages
- 5,585
- Reaction score
- 28,996
The Dover absolutely has competing styles - the heel counter has double stitching while nowhere else does.
I would disagree that it is a competing style because the counter's stitching is supposed to replicate a standard apron seam. Of course, it does not from an overhead prospective, because of that crust stitching on the apron.
From a side profile (where presumably would be your point of view as the person looking at another person's shoes) it does. Allow me to demonstrate.
EG could have used the traditional machine stitched apron where it would have a seam accompanied by a dbl stitch on either end, like the counter. Essentially something similar to what both Carmina did in my picture No. 1 & the SoH SpTD (although theirs is a truncated counter seam).
It could work. For all intensive purposes, it does work based on the Carmina and SoH. Remember, I take umbridge with Carmina due to balancing issues not design issues on that particular SpTD. Although, I must admit I feel like the apron seams protrude too much but that's personal preference.
What EG decided on doing was to take a handsewn apron approach probably to demonstrate that someone took the time to sew those apron's on. A nice touch especially considering the price paid (it is the least they could do).
More importantly when seen from the viewers perspective, the counter seam and apron look similar, as I mentioned previously. Here you can see the counter with a "center" protruding seam. The adjacent dbl seams accentuate it the center. From the side profile (your line of view), you can see the apron's protruding seam. Which is what the counter looks like.
Additionally, imagine if you drew a line from the end of the apron continuing through the counter it would look like a seamless line. However, it is not necessary because it results in a cleaner more minimalist shoe. Resulting in a very elegant shoe overall
On the handsewn apron'd Carmina. They could have eliminated the seams under the facings (which are superfluous), and opened up the truncated seam (on the counter) and it would have worked. As is, looks like an amalgamated shoe from the perspective of the admirer of the shoe.
You can then make the argument that from an overhead perspective the upper does not match the counter. I would argue, "what the heck are you doing standing on top of the guys shoes for!" ?