Hand lasted vs machine lasted

[glenjay]

Originally Posted by Nick V.

Here's a way to settle this debate (if the participants are willing):

We select a member of the forum that has a prestigious shoe collection. Someone that we agree would be unbiased and has vast knowledge of footwear.
We all chip in to have DWFII make him a pair of shoes or boots.
DWFII posts pics along the way. This way we can actually see the details described that are unseen in the final product.
Upon completion the member compares the look, feel, and, fit to their favorites.

Any takers?

I'm your Huckleberry (sorry Doc).
http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=165331

Originally Posted by DWFII

People who buy...even prefer...and especially apologize for, $100.00 shoes know, at some gut level, that what they are getting is sub-par. They have to...or they are in denial.

I may be taking this somewhat out of context (ok, almost completly out of context) , but I think it is important to note that the vast majority of (American) males believe that a dress shoe that costs more than $100 is an expensive high-end shoe. We are discussing the nuances of hand lasting versus machine lasting, while the majority of the men I know have never heard of a blucher and think Balmoral is a castle that the state of Arizona purchased some years ago (at least they know it's a castle).

My point is that there is a sad lack of awareness out there (beyond SF and Ask Andy) in regard to shoes.

Sorry to side track the thread, but unless someone's shoes explode, I think this thread is about to die a bludgeoned death.

 

[TheFoo]

Originally Posted by srivats

The point DFWII is trying to make is that sometimes there is not enough attention paid (intentionally or otherwise) in a factory.
Actually, he stated much more boldly that the best machine work is always inferior to the best handwork. That is the claim that Furo and I find contentious.

Originally Posted by srivats

Like in shoes, when it comes to stitching the welt - RTW shoes are almost always gemmed, the most probable reason being expediency (also probably due to the fact that it is expensive/as time consuming to operate a machine that does welting similar to the hand welting process). I see Gemming as a "engineering fix" - in the sense that it is a solution that makes some compromises but still produces an acceptable (to me) product. For someone like DFWII, it is not acceptable, at whatever price. Done right, gemmed shoes might last as long as a non-gemmed hand-welted one, or maybe even longer. His point is, why would you pay as much as you do for such a shoe? For brand name? For prestige? For Aesthetics? Those maybe all OK reasons ... but the reason should never be 'Out of ignorance' - this is DFWII's main point.
If you or DFWII want to persuade that something is inferior or superior, it's your burden to say why. After all, that gemming or machine lasting is expedient, less laborious, or less expensive, does not make it practically worse. It's a ridiculous line of argument to refuse stating why something is inferior, demand that others see your point, and then claim if they are ignorant if they don't. It's a page straight out of the FNB school of debate.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by clintonf

I've been reading this thread and watching it disappear up it's own desire for "who's right and who's wrong". However, reading this single post is EXACTLY what sums up this forum - Education.
That's what I thought too. I originally came here to learn about men's suits and jackets and, if I recall correctly, I was hoping to find someone who still made good quality detachable collars (eventually I found a good source). I stayed to contribute, hopefully, something of what I know intimately--in my bones and blood. I don't know much...never went to college...but I live shoemaking. But there's a lot of people here who already know everything they need to know...about everything. They've learned...about shoemaking or pottery or what have you...the best way possible--they spent a night at the Holiday Inn.

Originally Posted by srivats Those maybe all OK reasons ... but the reason should never be 'Out of ignorance' - this is DFWII's main point.

I don't agree with all of what preceded this snip from Sri's post but with the last sentence he has nailed it in one. Problem is that I have said that repeatedly in this and other discussions. The fact that Sri picked it up (as well as a number of others) reassures me that it was presented in a fashion that was reasonably understandable. The fact that a few others have not warns me that there are dim sparks looking for dry tinder everywhere you go. But it also depresses me because as Vox said...

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

In addition, many sympathize with your feeling that the asymmetry of quality between what is visible and what is not in these shoes represents a kind of aesthetic compromise or even dishonesty that falls short of what we would hope to be ideal. Others, however, do not care, and are unable to muster that much energy of thought and feeling about shoes at this intricate level of analysis.
And that implies or confirms what I have suspected all along--that those who read to understand...understand (agreement is not required.) Those who read to find points for argument don't need to understand and have no desire to understand (agreement is the last thing they want). And those who don't bother to read at all just snipe from the shadows. No big deal in any of that...I'm a grown man and I don't require agreement or even understanding. I don't post for those last two categories of people anyway.

Originally Posted by glenjay

I think it is important to note that the vast majority of (American) males believe that a dress shoe that costs more than $100 is an expensive high-end shoe. We are discussing the nuances of hand lasting versus machine lasting, while the majority of the men I know have never heard of a blucher and think Balmoral is a castle that the state of Arizona purchased some years ago (at least they know it's a castle). My point is that there is a sad lack of awareness out there (beyond SF and Ask Andy) in regard to shoes.
I hope I'm not putting GlenJay too much in the spotlight but here's a fellow that didn't spend last night at the Holiday Inn.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Actually, he stated much more boldly that the best machine work is always inferior to the best handwork. That is the claim that Furo and I find contentious. If you or DFWII want to persuade that something is inferior or superior, it's your burden to say why. After all, that gemming or machine lasting is expedient, less laborious, or less expensive, does not make it practically worse. It's a ridiculous line of argument to refuse stating why something is inferior, demand that others see your point, and then claim if they are ignorant if they don't. It's a page straight out of the FNB school of debate.
Been on the road?

Originally Posted by DWFII

As with any seam the point is to come as close as possible to making the two (or more) pieces being joined function as a unit without weakening either piece. In the example above the gap between stitches is, if nothing else, certain to allow more dust debris and moisture into the the shoe. An easy, if not altogether exact, analogy would be between a button fly and a zippered fly.

Or the difference between a piano hinge and two Ace hardware specials. Ask yourself why not make the stitches even longer? On the face of it, it would seem that more stitches per inch would be better...after all, we often stitch the outsole at 10, 12 or even 16 stitches per inch. But again, we need to be careful not to weaken the leather with too many stitches. This is (repeating myself) particularly important when welt stitching because in that case the stitches are being pulled extremely hard. The whole notion of functioning as a unit underscores another reason why hand welting...leather to leather (and of approximately the same temper)...is superior to gemming where you have three different materials with three different tensile strengths, densities, and temper, all being held together by a fourth material--the glue--in a configuration that doesn't really make any attempt to join the various components in a way that they can function as a unit.

 

[bengal-stripe]

Originally Posted by Nick V.

Here's a way to settle this debate (if the participants are willing):

We select a member of the forum that has a prestigious shoe collection........We all chip in to have DWFII make him a pair of shoes or boots.......Any takers?

Originally Posted by glenjay

I'm your Huckleberry (sorry Doc).

Nope, that will not do.

One shoe gets fully handmade, the other shoe gets fully machine-made, using the same upper, the same last and the same bottom materials.
And most important, you will not know which one is the handmade and which one is the machine-made shoe.

Then, after five, ten and twenty years you come back and tell us how different the left shoe feels from the right one (if at all).

To compare one pair with an other pair will not be possible without bias creeping in: you prefer the style or the last of one pair,
so you wear it more often and feel more positive about it.

After all, it ought to be a scientific test.

 

[glenjay]

Originally Posted by DWFII

I hope I'm not putting GlenJay too much in the spotlight but here's a fellow that didn't spend last night at the Holiday Inn.

I'm not sure how to take that, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn one time for 6 weeks in Kuwait City, Kuwait. I woke up each day far smarter than the prior (and eventually left Kuwait).

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by bengal-stripe

Nope, that will not do. One shoe gets fully handmade, the other shoe gets fully machine-made, using the same upper, the same last and the same bottom materials. And most important, you will not know which one is the handmade and which one is the machine-made shoe. Then, after five, ten and twenty years you come back and tell us how different the left shoe feels from the right one (if at all). To compare one pair with an other pair will not be possible without bias creeping in: you prefer the style or the last of one pair, so you wear it more often and feel more positive about it. After all, it ought to be a scientific test.
May I point out something for everyone...including Bengal-Stripe who is quite knowledgeable, but doesn't live in the pond, doesn't know what the water feels or tastes like. We don't need ten or twenty years...at max, we need half an hour...probably a lot less than that.. In the thread linked to above by GlenJay, another poster mentioned that John Lobb sends out welted fitter's models (obviously bespoke). When I finish welting a shoe, and before the insole lining is in place, the customer can immediately wear the shoe around...almost indefinitely. Even outside, on the pavement. And although I may grumble over having to knock the grit off, it will still fit just as it did when it came off the last. I can still put an outsole on it. This is true of any handwelted leather shoe...regardless the skill level or aesthetic sensibilities of the shoemaker. Because of the materials, because of the techniques, the shoe is already a shoe...functioning as a coherent unit. It is intrinsically stable. It has a native integrity. If you try this with a gemmed shoe, I've got even money it will be ruined within ten minutes, but the probability is that it may not last even that long. The gemming will break down, the glue will release, and the shoe will have to be re-lasted and re-gemmed to recover the uppers and regain the fit. It is not a shoe until the outsole is added. It is just a hodge-podge of disparate, bottom-dollar components pinned together by compromise, haste and expediency. The outsole is the exoskeleton of a gemmed shoe, without it there is no shoe...just squishy yellow ichor.

The insole is the backbone of the welted shoe. The thread and welt are the sinew and muscle. The shoemaker provides the blood sweat and tears. Now, ain't science grand?

 

[srivats]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Actually, he stated much more boldly that the best machine work is always inferior to the best handwork. That is the claim that Furo and I find contentious.

I am a big proponent of using tools. I am a proud engineer by education and trade. Without tools, I simply cannot do my work.

I do not agree with DFWII either on his point about handmade being *always* superior to machine made ... he is well aware of this fact. I refer you to my many posts on the shoe damage part I thread (search for blake+rapid and my username). Still I respect his stand and I respect the standards he wants *all* shoemakers to adhere to ((be it bespoke or handmade or factory).

However, I do agree with DFWII on point - that I stated earlier - that irrespective of who makes the shoe, if you learn how it is made, do so - *then* decide if you want to spend that money on that shoe.

You can buy a gemmed shoe and be perfectly happy with it because the overall value you get is satisfactory for you - in terms of aesthetics, fit and durability. I know I am happy with my RTW aldens - but that doesn't stop me from learning what makes a better shoe.

As as engineer, I really can appreciate the thought that went into automating shoe making. However, I can also see that compromises have to be made for that - as long as they are reasonable, it is still OK. Only when it stops being reasonable is value lost. What level does it stop being reasonable to you is something only you have to decide - and learning how the shoe is made is a big factor in that decision. I think this is what DFWII is trying to convey.

 

[apropos]

Well, hardly any of us wear shoes without outsoles so your an entire aspect of your post is really moot. What I am interested in is whether a gemmed shoe is appreciably inferior in daily use to a non-gemmed one, and whether a completely handmade shoe is appreciably inferior in daily use to a partly/fully machine made one. That is a question you have not answered to the satisfaction of many here. The key word is appreciable. So far all of our collective practical experience with 'better' shoes contradicts your theory-based predictions of doom and gloom, of arch collapse or shoe self-destruction. Many of us here own shoes, or know people with shoes, that are made using 'inferior' techniques that have lasted 10, 20, 30 years. Some have gone through multiple resolings. I'll come out and say that like most others here, if I can't tell in my capacity as a consumer, I really don't care whether A is technically better than B or whatever. Fit and design are more important to me than the technical nitty-gritty. Only if the first 2 are nailed down would I care about the last aspect enough to affect a purchase of a shoe. I'm never going to buy a technically perfect Fritzl-approved shoe that looks like something Mickey Mouse would wear, but I may consider a technically-imperfect shoe that fits me well and looks nice. Of course a combination of all 3 in a shoe (technically correct execution, fit, & design) would be the 'best case scenario', but given the apparent rarity of that happy coincidence I think that if it came down to it, most here would agree that if it were a zero sum game and they could only have a single shoe, fit & appearance would trump construction, especially since these issues of construction are not readily appreciable to the consumer at the point of purchase or even 20 years down the road. I really don't care whether I'm flying in an Airbus A330 or a Boeing B777, or whether the exterior paneling is carbon fibre or anodised aluminium. I really don't care whether a human or a robot did the welding, or whether the wiring was planned with CAD or pen & paper. I really don't care whether the plane has a delta wing or a conventional wing. I really don't care if the engine lubrication is done with synthetic or mineral oils. As long as the plane reliably gets me there speedily in safety and comfort, I'm happy with it. You have explained to us why a shoe that is highly regarded may actually be technically inferior, and we all appreciate that. What you do not appear to understand is that our priorities differ, and that in the big scheme of things these technical issues are actually not that important to most of us - especially since the inferior shoes are likely in practical use to not be noticeably outperformed by their technically 'perfect' peers. Which I think is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

 

[srivats]

Originally Posted by apropos

What you do not appear to understand is that really, our priorities differ and that in the big scheme of things these issues are actually not that important to most of us, especially since the inferior shoes are likely in practical use to not be noticeably outperformed by their technically 'perfect' peers. Which I think is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

I think you misunderstand DFWII - he perfectly understand that our priorities differ, and that people are still going to continue buying whatever thy want for howmuchever they see fit. What he wants us to know is to be aware of the choices we are making.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by sully

I did as DWFII suggested and checked old post for pictures of his work. I found a selection of pictures in a thread called 'A bootmakers journey into shoemaking'. The boots look very fine but not the kind of thing I would wear, but to completely make these all by hand is wonderful. The shoes looked a little rustic to me. I'm sure well put together but not as stylish as I had hoped. I didn't realise that DWFII has only really just started to make shoes and has a wish to create shoes in a G &G , Edward Green look (both of which use gemmed insoles, machine lasting and metal nails in their heels for their RTW shoes.)
I'm not sure that is fair, although I don't know why I would expect it to be...certainly they are not to your tastes...after all they were somewhat early. I am learning...but I have all the knowledge, all the technical skills, even the aesthetics sense, that I need. The most difficult part is fitting up...it is a little different than fitting a boot...and fitting is, and always was, where the magic is. I am semi-retired. I made my living for nearly forty years making boots...enough that I own my own house have my own purpose-built shop and no debt. I don't need to make shoes. I am learning and I don't make every style of shoe or women's shoes. I don't do loafers for instance. That said I don't need to charge like Lobbs or Corthay either. My bespoke shoes are less than some RTW shoes. And because I'm semi-retired I also have the freedom to refuse an order from someone who I think wouldn't appreciate my work. Life is good.

 

[Sir James]

Originally Posted by clintonf

I've been reading this thread and watching it disappear up it's own desire for "who's right and who's wrong". However, reading this single post is EXACTLY what sums up this forum - Education.

I cannot say that I agree with most of what's said on many sides. That is not important. What is important is that there is truth in what's said. People want to "present" their truth in different ways, but it's the fact that new understanding has been given to people who otherwise, may not have known, IS THE POINT!!!

I, for one, will happily purchase what I want to purchase. However, I will be enlightened by additional knowledge gained from threads such as this one. I cannot claim ignorance. But I can (and will) claim acceptance. Does that make me any "less" of a person?

I'm out.

Clint

+1 Well said, I share your sentiments!

 

[apropos]

Originally Posted by srivats

I think you misunderstand DFWII - he perfectly understand that our priorities differ, and that people are still going to continue buying whatever thy want for howmuchever they see fit. What he wants us to know is to be aware of the choices we are making.
In that case I apologise for mistaking his POV. I was slightly taken aback at his earlier tirade about consumers not caring for much more than mere appearances being the root of all that is wrong in today's society, that's all.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by srivats

I think you misunderstand DFWII - he perfectly understand that our priorities differ, and that people are still going to continue buying whatever thy want for howmuchever they see fit. What he wants us to know is to be aware of the choices we are making.

Originally Posted by apropos

In that case I apologise for mistaking his POV. I was slightly taken aback at his earlier tirade about consumers not caring for much more than mere appearances being the root of all that is wrong in today's society, that's all.

Sri's right And I have said it, unequivocally...over and over again--even in this thread if I remember correctly. How is it Sri picked it up and you didn't? It's not really in good taste to come in...kibitzing...on the tail-end of a conversation, reluctant to go to the hassle of reading all that has gone before, and think that your comments can be germane. It don't signify, as who should say. As for my earlier "tirade"...I stand behind it. If you don't know what you are getting for your $600.00 and don't want to know...what considerations, other than flash, glitz, and hearsay, can possibly enter into your decision to buy a shoe that is presented as similar or identical to really quality shoes of the the last century, but underneath it all are something altogether different? Something that could, from some points of view be called something of a sham. If you do know and don't care--still think it's worth it (and it might be from your point of view)--then why are you so defensive about all this? It's your decision...I'm not going to come to your city and picket your house. In the end you didn't make the shoes...you don't "own" the results even if you own the shoes. Only the maker...craftsman or factory...has to answer for the quality or lack thereof. But sometimes I think people aspire to quality but don't really want to pay for it--not in dollars nor, more importantly, in the energy it takes to understand what it really is.

 

[furo]

Originally Posted by apropos

I was slightly taken aback at his earlier tirade about consumers not caring for much more than mere appearances being the root of all that is wrong in today's society, that's all.

+1

And I'm taken aback by his blatant generalization as to every single shoe factory worker's lack of responsibility, care, and respect toward any given customer.

I have been to more than one local boot making operation here in town, and I can personally state that at one particular factory, each worker has been there many years (at least 10 years on average), some of them since the inception of the company decades ago. They each have their niche in the process, and take great pride in their work. The entire factory was less than 20 people, and they only make 7-8 pairs of boots per day.

So when I read things like this:

Originally Posted by DFWII

But in the workshop there is an added factor that is not present in the factory--responsibility

and this:

Originally Posted by DFWII

In the factory the operator of the machine only has to make sure the machine is running correctly. He only has to get through the next eight hours. He doesn't have to face the customer. He doesn't have to constantly monitor himself and refine his techniques and think about balance and harmony and negative space and textural contrasts.

and this:

Originally Posted by DFWII

He's not...not...thinking about "aesthetic sensibilities," he's not even thinking about how this shoe is going to fit the customer--that's somebody else's job.

.... well ... you get the picture...

And let's not forget this gem:

Originally Posted by DFWII

And in the context of a shoe factory, there is no machine that takes as much skill to operate as it takes to do the same job by hand. Period. Those who have never made shoes don't get a voice in this...neither do those who have only casually toured a workshop or factory.

Folks are free to call this line of thinking whatever they like, but I refer to it as arrogance.