Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Thread (including reviews, purchases, pictures)

[hoodog]

I hope the text is not too small. Click on photo to enlarge it.

I might be a bit daft or something, but I am still having a hard time seeing what you mean by just looking at this photo and reading your comments. So here is a real photo bomb of pictures taken of the toe of the exact same shoe as above in different lighting and angles. Could you please try and point out the same issue in one of these? Also, could you please try and explain to a dummie like me, why this "problem" really is a problem?

In total disclosure, these pictures were taken of a G&G Arran in vintage oak on the MH71 last and in size UK 9.5E. They are completely unworn and had no shoe trees in them while the photos were taken.

Thanks in advance.

 

[hoodog]

G&G Canterbury - DG70 - Vintage Rioja

I was originally reticent to use black wax polish on G&G's rioja...but I am really like the results over time. I apply a thin layer to the whole shoe..but have been laying it on with a mirror for the toes...and I really like the contrast that the very darkened and high shined toes give to the rioja body.

Awesome, once again. I have the same boot, bot in vintage oak & brown highland grain. Superb!

 

[j ingevaldsson]



Gotcha.  Based on your original post ("several makers...") I assumed you had some in mind - I'd love to hear of some more than the three I can think of.

Some RTW/MTO makers I can think of of the top of my head, that do hand welt:

• Meermin LM - China/Spain
• Vass - Hungary
• Buday Shoes - Hungary
• Rozsnyai Shoes - Hungary
• Enzo Bonafé - Italy
• Paolo Scafora - Italy
• Stefano Bemer - Italy
• Riccardo Bestetti - Italy
• Zonkey Boot - Austria
• Saint Crispin's - Romania
• Antonio Meccariello - Italy
• Kiton - Italy

The price range is from just €260 up to €1800 and everything in between.

If I am correct informed, some of these makers (Meermin, Enzo Bonafé, Saint Crispin's and maybe some more) use insoles that they buy with the holdfast already cut out. It's still leather insoles with a leather holdfast, but the fact that it is machine cut out makes the hollow space a bit larger than on hand welted shoes where you cut out the holdfast by hand. So in that term when it comes to the hollow space that needs to be filled inside the shoe, it's something between a Goodyear welted shoe and a hand welted shoe with hand cut out insole.

Also, as known, some of them sew the sole stitch with machine.

 

[hoodog]

G&G Canterbury - DG70 - Vintage Rioja

I was originally reticent to use black wax polish on G&G's rioja...but I am really like the results over time. I apply a thin layer to the whole shoe..but have been laying it on with a mirror for the toes...and I really like the contrast that the very darkened and high shined toes give to the rioja body.

Awesome, once again. I have the exact same boot, but in vintage oak and brown highland grain. Superb!

 

[bengal-stripe]



There's more to fine shoes than design and details alone, and I'll stick with Hungarian or Eastern-European pairs.

“Oedipus, Schmoedipus!”

Whether or not they use celastics, EG consistently achieves a better moulded toe cap than SC (which can be quite lumpy at times). SC omits one important step which is deemed essential (at least in English shoemaking). SC glue the toe puff between upper and lining in place, then pull in a single step upper, toe puff (still mellow) and lining over the last.(watch from about 4:45)


[VIDEO] [/VIDEO]


The classic way is lasting upper and lining (without toe puff), then you partially undo the nails so you can pull the upper leather back but the lining still stays in place. Glue in toe puff, let it dry and rasp it (some makers place side linings below the toe puff, others on top of it. Then you put on glue again and pull the upper leather over again, re-last and hammer it down

 

[TheWraith]

^ Don't mention the glue. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.

 

[VRaivio]

Oh, we can start a whole new debate about glue -- animal-based natural glue vs. chemical, unnatural factory glue! I can already picture a few scenes of men ripping their beards or moustaches in agony after popping $1500 on a pair of shoes, only to learn afterwards that they didn't even get natural glue for the money.

I wonder if anyone at G&G reads this thread and whether they laugh out loud at the folly of men.

 

[DWFII]



I might be a bit daft or something, but I am still having a hard time seeing what you mean by just looking at this photo and reading your comments. Also, could you please try and explain to a dummie like me, why this "problem" really is a problem? 

Thanks in advance.

Is cement or burnishing ink on the upper a problem? Is an incomplete skive at the topline a problem? Is excess white acrylic on a pebble grain top a problem? Is being told that it is not a problem, a problem?

If not, then the answer is "no," the bulging of the toe puff...the fact that you can see it in the finished shoe, that it doesn't blend into the lines of the last and disappear...is not a problem.

Do you know what a "fair curve" is? Take a last...a well designed last and look at it. I mean really look at it. Note the way that except for functional elements there are no corners, no "breaks" in the flow of any curve. Hold the last up to the light and squint at it. Look, study, the edge that is profiled by the light. Again note the way the lines of the last flow with no anomalous lumps or bumps. Rotate the last just slightly in the light. Note how a new curve appears and again how it flows.

For a curve to be "fair" it must "move"--change direction--smoothly and with a constant velocity. When a curve changes direction abruptly or seems to suddenly and without reason deviate from the direction it was going, it is no longer "fair."

Lasts are comprised of fair curves. Well made shoes are mostly fair curves. When you have a last that presents a forepart that is all fair curves from any angle, at any point in a rotation, and you add a build-up or lengthen the last you run the risk of destroying those lines. Of changing those fair curves into curves that don't make sense aesthetically. Sometimes for the sake of fit, a maker has no choice. But not often. The ideal is to preserve the beauty of the last--that's what makes the shoe beautiful.

Similarly when you add a toe stiffener. You are changing the lines of the last. If the stiffener is not shaped (rasped, scraped, cut) so that the stiffener melds into the lines of the last you will always have a lump and it will always look clumsy. Anytime anyone who cares to "see" actually does see the stiffener in a finished but unworn shoe, the chances are that the stiffener has not been married into the lines of the last.

I am not a Photoshop wonk but I have "fixed" the photo such that the forepart of the shoe, as it blends into the toe stiffener is now a fair curve and the bulge at the back edge of the toe stiffener has disappeared. Sorry I couldn't get rid of the red line. (click on photo to see large version)

Perhaps you can see it now. If not, well, not everyone has an "eye" for such things. I do. It's what I do. What I'm trained to do.

PS...you have photos of the shoe from many angles in your montage. Not every angle will show such problems, but they are there and they are real. That said, on almost every toe pic in your montage I can see the toe puff and/or the bulge that I spoke of. If you can see the outline of the toe puff it is not blended into the lines of the last. Period.

On some subconscious level even the least discriminating eye sees that anomaly, sees that discrepancy and is "offended" by it. The shoemaker has to deliberately look for such problems. That's his job...if he's any good. That's the difference between "caring" and not caring.

It is something that all craftsmen deal with and obsess over because while one such anomaly is perhaps trivial enough to overlook, three or more of them add up to ugly. That's what makes one shoe beautiful to our eyes and another not so much--a lot of little things that we can't consciously zero in on but which the eye has picked up on.
--

 

[DWFII]



Oh, we can start a whole new debate about glue -- animal-based natural glue vs. chemical, unnatural factory glue! I can already picture a few scenes of men ripping their beards or moustaches in agony after popping $1500 on a pair of shoes, only to learn afterwards that they didn't even get natural glue for the money.

I wonder if anyone at G&G reads this thread and whether they laugh out loud at the folly of men.

Of course they do--that's what public relations is all about. That's what proclaiming your product to be the "finest shoe in..." is all about. That's what asserting objectively inferior techniques and materials are "just as good as" is all about.

The public is stupid...everyone knows that. That's what dismissing the damage that voc's and petrochemically based materials(cements) ...and the cumulative damage that is done to the world we live in...is all about.

And to the extent that we deceive ourselves, defend the indefensible, buy into the hype, we are stupid. And infinitely gullible.

Who wouldn't get a laugh out of that?

--

 

[DWFII]



The classic way is lasting upper and lining (without toe puff), then you partially undo the nails so you can pull the upper leather back but the lining still stays in place. Glue in toe puff, let it dry and rasp it (some makers place side linings below the toe puff, others on top of it. Then you put on glue again and pull the upper leather over again, re-last and hammer it down

That's the way I do it. That's the only way, IMO, to achieve a married toe puff. And fair curves.

 

[JubeiSpiegel]



I wonder if anyone at G&G reads this thread and whether they laugh out loud at the folly of men.

If they did, i don't think they would be laughing, as much as sweating that secret was out...

 

[hoodog]

Quote:
Thanks for taking the time to explain further. I really appreciate it. I can see your point. However, I don't really agree with you that this so called bulge is showing in all or even most of my photos. And in those where it might show, I think it might have to do in part with the MH71 toe shape together with lighting and reflections.

Anyhow, I guess I've somewhat come to the conclusion that I don't think this is a problem, even if the bulges in fact are present.

 

[DWFII]



Thanks for taking the time to explain further. I really appreciate it. I can see your point. However, I don't really agree with you that this so called bulge is showing in all or even most of my photos. And in those where it might show, I think it might have to do in part with the MH71 toe shape together with lighting and reflections.

Anyhow, I guess I've somewhat come to the conclusion that I don't think this is a problem, even if the bulges in fact are present.

I was happy to let your original version of this response go. But "lighting and reflection" is the easy but bogus answer simply because lighting and reflection are almost entirely dependent on contours. Reflections are light bouncing off of surfaces...smooth or irregular. If the contours are smooth, the reflections will be smooth. The light cannot reflect what's not there.

And you're not alone deciding that it might not be a problem. As I said, it takes an "eye.' And sometimes it takes years to develop, much less refine, that eye.

But...referring back to a previous post in this thread... if such nuances don't bother a person---if the cosmetics don't matter--then what is the justification for paying high dollar for shoes that are technically only marginally better than shoes at one tenth the cost? Again I ask, is it the box? The name, IOW?

Maybe it doesn't matter...or maybe it only matters to people like me who care about shoes...and, in particular, "the Art and Mysterie"[COLOR=FF0000]*[/COLOR] of shoemaking.

[COLOR=FF0000]*[/COLOR]John F. Rees, The Art and Mysterie of a Cordwainer, 1813

--

 

[mimo]

... if such nuances don't bother a person---if the cosmetics, don't matter--then what is the justification for paying high dollar for shoes that are technically only marginally better than shoes at one tenth the cost? Again I ask, is it box? The name, IOW?

I think cosmetics do matter a great deal: I agree with you entirely that "high-end" GY welted shoes are inherently less well-made than traditionally-made shoes that might even be cheaper. But at the same time, I also acknowledge that we often buy things simply because they are pretty - wisely or not.

The whole value proposition of fine shoes is rather distorted for the centipedes of this forum (me among them) anyway - kidding ourselves that we are getting "value" because our fine shoes could last a lifetime. Given that I wear many of my shoes no more than once a month, and much of that time sitting on my backside, I suspect even my cheapest GY shoes have a reasonable chance of out-living me. I continue to buy them because I like them - for all sorts of subjective reasons.

I'm grateful for the knowledge of masters of the craft, like yourself, as part of the joy of this interest as a consumer is making ever more informed purchases, and understanding what went in to whatever thing of beauty has caught the eye. But I can't say that I will never again buy an expensive shoe that's technically inferior, just because I like the shape and the colour. I most certainly will - just more knowingly, perhaps.

 

[DWFII]



I think cosmetics do matter a great deal: I agree with you entirely that "high-end" GY welted shoes are inherently less well-made than traditionally-made shoes that might even be cheaper.  But at the same time, I also acknowledge that we often buy things simply because they are pretty - wisely or not.

The whole value proposition of fine shoes is rather distorted for the centipedes of this forum (me among them) anyway - kidding ourselves that we are getting "value" because our fine shoes could last a lifetime.  Given that I wear many of my shoes no more than once a month, and much of that time sitting on my backside, I suspect even my cheapest GY shoes have a reasonable chance of out-living me.  I continue to buy them because I like them - for all sorts of subjective reasons.

I'm grateful for the knowledge of masters of the craft, like yourself, as part of the joy of this interest as a consumer is making ever more informed purchases, and understanding what went in to whatever thing of beauty has caught the eye. But I can't say that I will never again buy an expensive shoe that's technically inferior, just because I like the shape and the colour.  I most certainly will - just more knowingly, perhaps.

No harm, no foul.

Informed...as opposed to deliberately ignorant...choices--that's the key.