STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Oyaji, Feb 20, 2010.
Yabba Dabba Do!
you should re-read those 575 the ones that make sense in English, that is). The gentleman knows a LOT about shoe construction. You can agree with the opinions as you wish, but what he offers as fact is just that... fact.
A HUGE part of spending the BIG Bucks on top shoes is simply KNOWING that they are so well made. That all the detailing is perfect. From 3+ feet away, it becomes difficult or impossible to discern any of those details which separate the $250 shoe from the $600 from the $1200+. The Shoe Connoisseur (IE: ADDICT) doesn't care if anyone else knows or notices. It's about the pleasure of knowing yourself. It seems that the man sometimes throws a wrench into this line of thinking with his Construction Facts. Isn't construction supposed to be one of those "details"- maybe even the most important one?
If so, can one justify buying a pair of $1100+ shoes for "the details" when the most important one is being ignored?????
no no no,
you assume wrong!
you ask good shoe repair factory,
they tell you truth.
They tell you gemming slip is common,
they tell you the blake rapid much better.
The hand welt and the gemming not comparable.
yes it could be for many people.
The goodyear yes!
St Crispin can be rebuild good again by maker because it handmade.
It last long as upper if man do rebuild.
Many many time the goodyear not last long as upper,
big rebulid is not likely to happen.
The wood peg very very good,
rebulid make construction last as long as upper,
proper shoe do this always!.
Me do lesson once and get very good sometime.
Me read very good.
Me write good.
Me speak very very bad.
Me do lesson two year ago and register here and get very good.
Me forget some word now,
but me study the notes and it get good now.
Read the forum help me get very good.
To hand welt factory made shoes would add a huge amount to the costs making them even more expensive to the customer.It is pointless comparing industrial made shoes to small scale handwork, they are not the same beast.
One man's subjective opinion on a factory technique or mindset is not a valid reason to dismiss a whole way of shoemaking.
See above post about big rebuild.
Factory not designed to do big rebuild on goodyear shoe.
St crispin workshop designed to do big rebuild for wood peg.
Wood peg has problem that hand welt not have,
but rebuild fix it good again and make construction last as good as upper.
so how many times can goodyear welted shoes have their soles replaced? if the machine keeps poking new holes in the welt everytime it is resoled then won't the welt need to be replaced eventually and how much would that cost?
I know that SOS and DWF know their stuff. Again, if this is such a big deal please produce the stock piles of expensive English shoes which have suffered gemming failure--they don't exist.
This is a silly argument . . . beyond silly. The anti-gemming group believe that gemmed shoes are inferior. Fine. In theory you are likely correct. In practice it is a distinction without a difference. It is completely meaningless--it is blue on black. I can show you tons of old Goodyear welt constructed shoes that have countless miles on them. I am not going to buy shoes which I don't find attractive because someone thinks that I sould will them to the next generation in my family--let them buy their own damn shoes. If my gemmed shoes fail--I will just go buy another pair. I have some shoes that are 20 years old and still waiting for the gem failure.
it depend on many thing.
how wide welt,
leather quality and condition of welt.
not many man know how to welt gemmed shoe by hand this day now.
some man know how to hand welt to gemming but many man not want to do it.
it not worth factory to do hand work instead of using machine for work.
Cost depend on many many thing.
it big problem,
it not good,
it can be very very bad.
I completely agree with you. Until you get to the last line. Is durability necessarily the most important feature of shoe for everyone? It certainly isn't for me.
In my life and my world I find that I need a wide variety of shoes for a wide variety of locales and situations. Because many shoes have less than frequent wear and almost never see a wet sidewalk I rarely actually wear them out before I have determined that they are no longer presentable enough for my purposes. (I don't find that much of the business world shares our appreciation for a well worn shoe.) Thus exterior styling, and appearance LOGICALLY are more important to my needs than internal construction. Thus factors such as quality of leather, quality of external stitching, care and matching of hides, as well as styling etc. etc. become more important to me in terms of suitability for my needs than the durability of the 'hidden' components.
I can appreciate the love of craft, the love of perfection, the love of artistry. And if money were no object I would certainly be a full on 'consumer' of fully handmade shoes. Unfortunately I find that 'mercenary' concerns such as how much moola is in my retirement fund, or how much bread I might have to travel and appreciate art, architecture and fine food are somewhat more important to me personally than how my shoes are sewn together.
This conversation never dies because some people refuse to accept that their particular criteria for shoes are simply not the only criteria and that one criteria is not necessarily more logical than another. I can perfectly well accept that some people's criteria in regard to shoes is craftsmenship and artistry at any cost. That's cool by me. But wouldn't you agree that it is somewhat judgemental and shortsided for you to presume that your level of appreciation and commitment is perhaps nothing more than a personal choice?
Agreed. Some people on SF do not appreciate the "imposing posters", however. Maybe he fits in perfectly as is?
A minute ago you were arguing lasts & styles as the Major Determining Factor in deciding what to purchase. Now you're saying that the upper-to-topsole connection determines value. Which is it?
Have you ever looked up the definition of "subjective?" As opposed to say, the objective observations that come from actual real world experience and in-depth knowledge of how shoes are made?
Perhaps you might want to rethink that position. If only because it is based upon, and gives rise to, a whole spate of assumptions and conclusions that you personally have no real basis for. Such as "construction techniques don't matter." Such as "handwelted isn't worth it. "Such as "gemmed is just as good as inseamed" (I think I should begin referring to hand welted as "inseamed" to emphasis the quasi-cement construction of GY versus the leather to leather connection of handwelted).
Admittedly, none of these are your words specifically but I suspect they could be.
What was it Isaac Asimov said?
Despite the spurious myths that have grown up around my passion for the Traditional techniques of shoemaking, i don't care one way or the other about any particular brand. Much that has been said here about quintessentially English appearing shoes, I agree with. I even admire some of them, gemmed or not...although not for that reason. And I know that some people will never recognize nor appreciate the difference--will always buy the $500.00 shoe or the $25.00 bottle of blended whisky.
For that reason, among others, I assiduously avoid mentioning brand names or criticizing specific makers. I speak instead about techniques and materials. And those who can, or want to learn, will. Those who can't, won't, no matter what facts are presented to them.
They are simply unable to understand the concept much less exercise objective thought...at least not on this subject.
Ce la vie, say the old folks, it shows you never can tell.
The good news that I would like to share with everyone is that we are very, very close to resolving these differences of both informed and uninformed opinion within the next several posts.
Yes, I know: an exciting development!
When that post is made, I will identity it with the sound of four gong dongs, like so:
So, grab your cup of coffee and newspaper now. You'll want to stay pealed to your Internet device.
Stick to bespoke!
GY welted shoes can be recrafted as many times as the condition of the upper will allow. Repairing them...as in taking them to a competent cobbler...is another matter. As SOS alluded to anyone who has done shoe repair knows (and many one man shoemaking shops take on such work) gemming failure is a common occurrence. The customer often can't see it or feel it (exceptions to this observation abound, however) until the shoe is repaired. At which point the consequences of a slipped gem becomes apparent. Simply because without the original last, any failure in the gemming means that the repairman has little or no way to reconstruct the fit and shape of the shoe.
As for wearing out the welting ...during recrafting the welting and the insole are completely replaced (and any footbed, no matter how inconsequential, is lost).
During a repair job, if, and where, the gemming is intact, neither the welt nor the gemming will be restitched. If the gemming has failed, the better shoe repairmen...insofar as they can determine where to position it...will resole the welt and gemming using the same holes.
During outsoling...stitching the outsole on...the old holes in the surface of the welt are used, as well. At least by the more conscientious repairmen.
Separate names with a comma.