shoe construction...behind the veil

[MoneyWellSpent]

Lovely stuff, cork and quite unique, but when you think about it...factoring in the physical properties of the materials involved...not really the ideal solution. Although perhaps adequate esp. in the context it's most commonly used.

This is where I feel like we are forced to land, until they decide to start using better quality insoles (which isn't going to happen).

 

[chogall]

Chogall, the other important consideration is that the insoles of the AE and Churches examples you posted are only forming a "footbed" because they had cork underneath them which displaced as they were worn. After the cork displacement occurred, the leather conformed to the bottom of the foot and hardened due to exposure to heat, sweat, etc. This is how a decent quality leather insole on a Goodyear-welted shoe works. They aren't thick enough to form an actual footbed due to the thickness of the leather as we see in DW's pair of boots he posted.

Look at the pictures of AE/Church and tell me if you cannot find foot beds, as described by DWFII "a permanent, impression of the plantar topography of the foot into the leather such that the contours of the foot are reflected and supported by the insole".

Also, thickness shouldn't be a limiting factor of leather foot bed; otherwise blake/rapid/pump stitched shoes made with thin insoles will not be able to have one.

 

[chogall]

I wasn't able to interpret any of that.

The only thing I could understand is that Saint Crispins uses insoles too thin, thus limited the depth of footbed created, and could be shown through the curvature of the insole sock liner.

And something about machine stitched outsoles not suitable for its twisted lasts and generate too much lateral pressure to the construction.

I didn't save her German text and only have Google translate...

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Look at the pictures of AE/Church and tell me if you cannot find foot beds, as described by DWFII "a permanent, impression of the plantar topography of the foot into the leather such that the contours of the foot are reflected and supported by the insole".

Also, thickness shouldn't be a limiting factor of leather foot bed; otherwise blake/rapid/pump stitched shoes made with thin insoles will not be able to have one.

I don't think you are fully digesting the contents of DW's post (or mine).

It isn't permanent. That's just it. You lose the footbed when you take off the outsole, remove the cork, and replace it with new cork. A new "footbed" has to be created after that. It's more of a pseudo-footbed. It bears many of the hallmarks at surface level glance, and it may feel similar during wear (I don't know, as I've never worn a hand-welted shoe), but a deeper understanding of it doesn't pass muster for the real thing that GY-welted shoes were created to mimic.

Nick V. at B. Nelson's has said that when they repair shoes, they actually remove the footbed by flattening the insole back out, using a special technique they employ.

The footbed you see in DW's boot insole can't be taken out. It's there forever.

Additionally, digest and consider the second half of the sentence you quoted above from DW. "Impression of the plantar topography of the foot into the leather such that the contours of the foot are reflected and supported by the insole" That isn't what's happening in a GY-welted insole. The insole is collapsing into the cork underneath it. It then only holds its shape because of the drying and hardening of the leather, but that's not permanent or irreversible. Its more like the curvature of a belt after it's been worn for a long time. Sure, it takes on a curvature, but it's not conforming to your waist, per se. Lastly, a collapsed insole isn't supporting the foot in and of itself. It's not an independent system. Without the entire system, it fails. A hand-welted insole stands alone it it's function of supporting the foot. A GY-welted insole is just a floppy piece of leather without the rest of the system in place.

 

[chogall]

I don't think you are fully digesting the contents of DW's post (or mine).

It isn't permanent. That's just it. You lose the footbed when you take off the outsole, remove the cork, and replace it with new cork. A new "footbed" has to be created after that.

Nick V. at B. Nelson's has said that when they repair shoes, they actually remove the footbed by flattening the insole back out, using a special technique they employ.

The footbed you see in DW's boot insole can't be taken out. It's there forever.

Additionally, digest and consider the second half of the sentence you quoted above from DW. "Impression of the plantar topography of the foot into the leather such that the contours of the foot are reflected and supported by the insole" That isn't what's happening in a GY-welted insole. The insole is collapsing into the cork underneath it. It then only holds its shape because of the drying and hardening of the leather, but that's not permanent or irreversible. Its more like the curvature of a belt after it's been worn for a long time. Sure, it takes on a curvature, but it's not conforming to your waist, per se. Lastly, a collapsed insole isn't supporting the foot in and of itself. It's not an independent system. Without the entire system, it fails. A hand-welted insole stands alone it it's function of supporting the foot. A GY-welted insole is just a floppy piece of leather without the rest of the system in place.

Your argument rest on the fact that 1) its GY welted insole so it must be junk and 2) they have cork underneath. But those two alone does not and can not prove that GY welted insoles have no foot beds. 1) is your confirmation bias while 2) does not impede against the fact that leather insoles can have foot beds even if its not hand welted.

Step outside of the box of GYW marketing, forget all those bullshit that they claim about having the cork forming a footbed, and see the photographic evidence on their leather insoles having foot prints.

Oh, and those AE/Churchs insoles aint floppy pieces of leather. They are insoles, not sock liners.

 

[emptym]

Does the disagreement stem from Chogall's conception of a footbed as having two dimensions and DW/MWS/etc.'s definition that it must have three dimensions? A thin piece of leather will show some evidence of a foot, but not the same as a thick one.

Of course everything in space has three dimension, so it'd really be a question of degree. Thus, thin leather have some three dimensionality but less than a thick piece. Seems that DW and MWS are saying that difference is meaningful.

Doesn't seem like the construction technique makes much of a difference, all other things being equal. What matters is the thickness of the leather. Perhaps GY always has a thin insole relative to HW.

All just speculation on my part. I could be wrong. If I'm not hat really might be helpful would be pics and measurements of the depth of the impression in a footbed.

 

[chogall]

Does the disagreement stem from Chogall's conception of a footbed as having two dimensions and DW/MWS/etc.'s definition that it must have three dimensions? A thin piece of leather will show some evidence of a foot, but not the same as a thick one. The latter will be less three dimensional than the former.

Again, look at those AE/Church insoles. They clearly have 3 dimensional evidence of foot bed, not just warped but also compressed...

Or, just discredit all photographic evidences base on the fact that its GY welted with cork fillers.

 

[bdavro23]

Your argument rest on the fact that 1) its GY welted insole so it must be junk and 2) they have cork underneath. But those two alone does not and can not prove that GY welted insoles have no foot beds. 1) is your confirmation bias while 2) does not impede against the fact that leather insoles can have foot beds even if its not hand welted.

Step outside of the box of GYW marketing, forget all those bullshit that they claim about having the cork forming a footbed, and see the photographic evidence on their leather insoles having foot prints.

Oh, and those AE/Churchs insoles aint floppy pieces of leather. They are insoles, not sock liners.

The picture you've referenced does not evidence a foot bed in the context of this conversation, but rather a "foot print" as you aptly describe. Moisture, heat and friction combine to polish and discolor the insole in such a way that you see pressure points from the foot.

Much in the same way that having your fingerprints taking will leave a print of your finger, what you are arguing is really a two dimensional representation and not the 3 dimensional imprint that you think.

I feel like this has been explained to you repeatedly and in clear understandable terms. It is also clear that in spite of the facts presented, you choose to not understand or believe them. I respect your right to your own opinion and will not attempt to convince you otherwise any further.

 

[patrickBOOTH]



The only thing I could understand is that Saint Crispins uses insoles too thin, thus limited the depth of footbed created, and could be shown through the curvature of the insole sock liner.

And something about machine stitched outsoles not suitable for its twisted lasts and generate too much lateral pressure to the construction.

I didn't save her German text and only have Google translate...

DW commented on a Saint Crispins video that his insoles he uses are thicker. "Too thin" to me would be you wouldn't be able to hand welt at all.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Your argument rest on the fact that 1) its GY welted insole so it must be junk and 2) they have cork underneath. But those two alone does not and can not prove that GY welted insoles have no foot beds. 1) is your confirmation bias while 2) does not impede against the fact that leather insoles can have foot beds even if its not hand welted.

Step outside of the box of GYW marketing, forget all those bullshit that they claim about having the cork forming a footbed, and see the photographic evidence on their leather insoles having foot prints.

Oh, and those AE/Churchs insoles aint floppy pieces of leather. They are insoles, not sock liners.

I'm not at all saying that since it's a GY-welted insole, it must be junk. Neither is DW. Its too thin to be channeled for hand-welting, but that doesn't make it junk. It just makes it a thinner piece of leather. They may well be the finest pieces of leather known to man, but they need to have a certain fiber character and thickness to form a true footbed.

Please don't miss that I'm a GY-welted shoe wearer. They are all I wear in the dress shoe realm, so I'm not attacking them as a useable product. I'm simply not giving them more credit than they are due. They fit my cost/benefit ratio for the stage of life I'm in. Nothing more or less.

Leather insoles can certainly have a footbed even if they aren't hand-welted. But they have to be thick enough, and have the right physical characteristics. Most GY-welted leather insoles don't have these necessary traits, that's all.

I'm not at all deluded by GY manufacturer's marketing. My posts should stand alone in defense of that. I've handled new (outside the shoe) unused insoles from AE, and they are floppy before they are built into the shoe manufacturing process. They are floppy just like a leather belt is floppy. Watch any GY-welted shoe manufacturing video where they apply the gemming, and you'll see how floppy they are.

Here is an insole from an AE shoe that I personally ripped apart. The insole does not have a permanent impression in the leather itself. The leather itself is deformed, due to the void underneath it where the cork used to be. There is a major difference. I could take this AE insole, wet it, pound it flat on a hard surface, and it would be a flat insole again.






An insole that is from the shoulder and is thick enough for channeling in hand-welting wouldn't do that.

Please don't mistake me for getting upset or defensive. I enjoy these conversations very much.

 

[DWFII]

[quote name="chogall" url="/t/191166/shoe-construction-behind-the-veil/495#post_7995270"]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

No, you are wrong. Here's the Google translate of a shoemaker's comment on Saint Crispins.

Curiously, I also think the mark of a too-small sole iron?​

​

It could be the impression of too little pressure plate, which has bent the edge of the insole / sock unnätürlich.​

​

​

A smaller pressure plate iron would press the bottom nice and round and press the sole vorallen things around in the joint. (Pseudo-bevelled waist)​

​

​

But why stick the sock purely not later?​

​

​

(If the Pf ... more obscure, at least before the customer).​

​

​

The outer edge of the Brand-/Decksohle is still high even though the customer has worn the shoe for some time?​

​

​

So it could also be that the insole was ranked too low and the edge of the Einstechdamms by pressing:.

Confused:????​

​

​

​

It does not look good!​

​

​

@ Le.​

​

​

The gentleman massive creases of the shaft are an indication, for a good hand-Tweaked shoe widens not afterwards so serious.​

​

​

-------------------------------------​

​

​

A shoe with such a small frame can not "be making" doubled with a double machine, therefore being the sole glued before the Ausleisten and already milled, however, must be guaranteed then to push away the stem leaves the machine doubling and the gripper of the double machine detect the frame at all.​

​

​

Of course, why should the shoe again later "neat"

SOS​

​

are pressed.​

​

​

The talks back to the small pressure plate??​

​

​

-------------------------------------------------- -​

​

​

Unfortunately,​

the double machine, so that the double seam as "beautiful" close to the stem is (rather @ corium;: pat, doubled almost continually through the Einstechnaht.​

​

​

​

[/quote] This is why 3-D scanned feet will never make good lasts...if the algorithm that translates from German to English (and how long has such translation software been around) can't end up with something that is at least minimally comprehensible how is anyone going to write code to translate a scanned foot into instructions for a last that actually fits that foot? Are you just latching on to stuff--ideas and concepts...that spring mostly from speculation and wishful thinking...regardless of whether it makes sense or not? just to advance your contrariness? German or English or some distorted conflation of both a lot of what you are saying in this discussion is completely oblivious to the points others are making much less simple logic.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Does the disagreement stem from Chogall's conception of a footbed as having two dimensions and DW/MWS/etc.'s definition that it must have three dimensions? A thin piece of leather will show some evidence of a foot, but not the same as a thick one.

Of course everything in space has three dimension, so it'd really be a question of degree. Thus, thin leather have some three dimensionality but less than a thick piece. Seems that DW and MWS are saying that difference is meaningful.

Doesn't seem like the construction technique makes much of a difference, all other things being equal. What matters is the thickness of the leather. Perhaps GY always has a thin insole relative to HW.

All just speculation on my part. I could be wrong. If I'm not hat really might be helpful would be pics and measurements of the depth of the impression in a footbed.

I think you have it. A GY-welted insole will compress some, but to a meaningless amount. It wouldn't be anywhere near the shape that you see if it weren't for the void underneath that it is collapsing into. A photo of a Blake/Rapid shoe that has been worn shows this meaningful difference. It is decidedly less conformed to the foot, despite being similar qualities and thickness of leather:




You can see some slight depression in the leather right against the upper edge of the cross section, but most of what you see is simply darkening of the leather due to the foot's moisture and time.

Contrast that to the AE insoles above, and you see what we are trying to say. The difference is significant.

Looking down from the top, DW's boot insole from a hand-welted pair looks like a similar footbed that you see in the AE photos (again looking down from the top). But, it's when you consider that you could lay DW's insole on the floor and stand on it that the difference becomes important. If you laid his insole on a hard floor and stood on it, you would feel the imprint properly underneath your foot. Just like stepping into an existing footprint in the sand on a beach. But if you stood on the AE insole, flat on the floor, it would collapse under your weight and feel hard and lifeless by comparison.

 

[emptym]

... A foot bed is a permanent, impression of the plantar topography of the foot into the leather such that the contours of the foot are reflected and supported by the insole; such that foot always finds the same position in the shoe, and is prevented from shifting around by those contours.

In functional terms, a leather has to be thick enough and of a tannage and cut that will allow permanent compression for a footbed to form. Chrome tanned leathers, for instance...such as a majority of sockliners are made of...will not compress and stay compressed to any significant degree. Neither will fiberboard or leatherboard. That's why insoles have Traditionally been cut from vegetable tanned leather and from the shoulder or belly time out of mind. And the thinner a vegetable tanned leather insole is the less there is to compress. Those are the facts, the "science" that shoemakers have been working with for hundreds and thousands of years.

[ I might add, parenthetically, that most manufactures today are using insoles cut not from the shoulder but from the bend--where the fiber mat is far denser and less subject to compression than the shoulder.]
...

It definitely seems like MWS is correct that you're not reading DW carefully, Chogall. For example. In the post above, DW writes that it is possible for GYW shoes to have a footbed. In fact he says the AE shoe has one and the Churches one is forming one:

...the AE does have a footbed and the Churches seems to be forming one, neither of the others do. It's just staining...

You, the shoemaker with many decades of experience, said "from a photo/deconstruction of another shoe (GYW?) that had no discernible footbed at all when finally cut apart. In fact, I seem to remember a number of similar examples in deconstructions posted on SF."

And I just happen to have some pictures against your statement. Those AE and Church insoles have clear permanent impression of feet with curvatures contour to foot.

Or you could please kindly describe those foot prints on the AE and Church insoles are not permenant foot beds, aside from discrediting them solely based on that they are GY welted and have cork underneath them.

 

[DWFII]



You, the shoemaker with many decades of experience, said "from a photo/deconstruction of another shoe (GYW?) that had no discernible footbed at all when finally cut apart. In fact, I seem to remember a number of similar examples in deconstructions posted on SF."

And I just happen to have some pictures against your statement.  Those AE and Church insoles have clear permanent impression of feet with curvatures contour to foot.

Or you could please kindly describe those foot prints on the AE and Church insoles are not permenant foot beds, aside from discrediting them solely based on that they are GY welted and have cork underneath them.

What part of...

All vegetable tanned leather will compress and mold to a shape...much moreso than chrome tannages.

If a GY welted shoe uses a vegetable tanned insole shoulder for insoles, it will naturally form a footbed--the inseaming method doesn't have much to do with whether the footbed forms or not.

...don't you understand?


What part of ..

the AE does have a footbed and the Churches seems to be forming one, neither of the others do. It's just staining.

...don't you understand?
I wish we could have a constructive discussion but you're not paying attention to anything anyone else is saying. It's disrespectful...don't worry about me...I'm used to it. But you're disrespecting everyone in this thread.

 

[emptym]

Again, look at those AE/Church insoles. They clearly have 3 dimensional evidence of foot bed, not just warped but also compressed...

Or, just discredit all photographic evidences base on the fact that its GY welted with cork fillers.

Again, DW did say the AE shoe had a footbed and the Church was forming one.