Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Oyaji, Feb 20, 2010.
especially the hard driver
Must be overcompensating. You should probably pitty me. I will go away sad now.
I hold the opposite opinion. To me that Norvegese is a good looking shoe that I can confidently rock in any situation, distinct and pleasing.
That EG is - as another member expressed earlier - Vanilla. It's a same ol' same ol' shoe. In fact that EG looks like a Loake on steroids.
Note that my response was based on the set of pictures presented, and does not speak to quality of leather etc. My opinion could change, if more information is presented, but for now, that's it.
Now on with the thread.
Couldn't agree more.
Sure, I'm like that with certain woods and box construction even though the untrained eye won't appreciate the art.
Yes - emphatically.
God damn, boys - you've outdone yourselves!
Respect to Burton and DWFII, who seem to have different opinions on how to spend their money.
Most, if not all of the brands we discuss here, are aspirational for many men. Many of us started on the lower rungs and moved up or at least wish to move up.
Fit and finish is probably the biggest factor for most of us, given a particular price range.
As Gdot accurately observes, we typically do not wear out our shoes (even the K. Coles!). Namor was kind enough to post his buying and selling in 2011. I venture to say he didn't wear out any boots, even though he hikes in the mountains.
Marketing, price, perceptions - that's what we juggle and judge.
It's only "much ado" and incomprehensible to those who are so steeped in their own misinformed/uninformed opinions that they cannot accept the word of people who have experience and intimate knowledge about a subject.
I have been in the shoemaking/bootmaking business for 40+ years. I did shoe repair to augment my boot business better than half that time. I have seen gemming failure from all sides.
The significance of the photos I posted here...and which you failed to pick up on... is that I have not done shoe repair as a regular thing for many years. Obviously I was not looking to make such an obvious point 20 years ago to such an obdurate crowd, so I didn't take pictures or document such failures.
But here I am, in semi-retirement, only making shoes and boots, not repairing (except for previous customers), and low and behold of the one or two pair I see or take on in a year, in comes two pair-- one for repair, one just for my consideration--both prime examples and undeniable documentation. What are the odds? Hell, I couldn't have staged a better example of how common it really is.
Now, you have other people telling you the same thing. It strikes me as a bad case of "don't confuse me with the facts."
As for the choice that Upnorth illustrated...that's just sophistry and not worth dignifying. Just as your comment about passing on shoes to your heirs was. I never mentioned passing on shoes. Houses, yes. But when you conflate the two you are just confusing things...or maybe it's just you that is confused.
I have said repeatedly that I don't care or condemn your choices with regard to shoes. My issue is that when folks like you go about justifying your expenditures and choices...mostly made from ignorance of anything but the cachet associated with them; and, by extension, denigrating what, by every objective (and acknowledged by yourself) standard is superior quality, you perforce demean the facts. You spread falsehood and misunderstanding. I am assuming unknowingly, but the result is the same.
Let me restate this so that the gong may sound...there is much to admire about manufactured OTR shoes....not the least of which is their affordability to the insouciant masses. But GY construction...and all the attendant consequences and choices that depend on it...isn't one of them. In my objective, experience based...and humble...opinion.
Choose what you will, wear what you will. Enjoy them in good health . But don't make them into something they are not. The manufacturers do enough of that. If you can't be objective or informed at least be satisfied.
If a man's gem fails, there always is
Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
Don't mean to intrude with pics and don't want to bore anyone, but I tried some different lighting and settings:
I love these soles.
A quick re-cap of Burton's arguments on this subject (EG construction quality [gemmed] & cost).
Burton Argument #1: The QUALITY of EG shoes justifies the cost.
Burton Argument #2: The construction ALONE justifies considering a shoe a "good value". Style & "other aspects" are clearly secondary.
Burton Argument #3: Maybe Gemmed shoes ARE inferior in terms of Construction Quality...
Burton Argument #4: The Construction Quality is no longer the reason to justify the EG cost. Now that the original Argument is proven wrong, it doesn't really matter, as they "will last (a) lifetime (anyway)". NOW, the justification for EG cost lies in its' aesthetic looks... Construction Quality Be Damned
I don't feel a need to rethink my position and the idea you have that I see no value in some of the hand techniques you speak of is not true.I have met with and visited many european makers and my choice would be bespoke if I could afford it ,however the factories we talk about produce a product at a price and a level which suits many.I simply stated that they are two different worlds and comparing is pointless Just because you have made a few pairs of shoes to an average level does not make your statements any more valid than the next man. Sure you know about leather and ways of putting things together but running a factory is totally different they design and make a product to sell and make a profit or they and all the workers dont survive,improving their work can only be done within these constraints
Trying to put words in my mouth is not going to change the fact that a consumer can have a valid opinion. In reality our opinion of your work and other makers or factories makes or breaks a company if we like it we buy it if not the fabulously crafted non gemmed shoes sit on the shelf gathering dust .
Dude, please stop you are going to hurt yourself. One argument - Gemmed Goodyear welted consturction is a valid method of construction---full stop! Shoes made fro this method do not exhibit mass failure of the gem nor, from any evidence presented by anyone else, is it worthy of concern - full stop. Other methods may be superior, but the difference is one of degree and not one that challenges the validity of the method of construction - full stop.
Done. Don't complicate things for yourself Deep breath - in - out..
Having followed this debate I want to summarize some aspects pf the arguments that I feel are relevant (those related to gemming and gemming failure).
DWFII you previously stated that
Can I then infer that:
1. Gemming failure often, if not most, times goes unnoticed, prior to repair. It becomes apparent after repair. Therefore people can (as on SF) buy, sell and trade top brand second hand shoes that have gemming failure without realizing it?
2. People who do not have their shoes repaired (i,e the just run them into the ground, or sell them once they get old) are more unlikely to notice or be impacted by gemming falure?
3. Someone who has a large number of shoes in their rotation (for the sake of argument more than 15 dress, which should give about 2 wears or less a working month) is less likely to notice the consequence of gemming failure simply because their shoes are unlikely to get worn out for a loooong time?
Strawman argument. No one claimed - AFAIK - to the contrary.
How do you know about any of this? Have you made shoes? By hand or in a factory? Or did you just tour a factory?
Or are you just parroting what others have said?
I know, and have said, that handwelted bespoke shoes are not within everyone's price range. I have no problems with that. We all have our own set of priorities. I don't buy custom made shirts although I recognize and appreciate what makes them cost like they do.
On the other hand, I don't opine about or extol the virtues of Macy's Eagle Brand shirts either.
And yes, just because I have made a few pair of shoes/boots (to, I believe, a better than average level) does make my opinion on certain aspects of shoemaking worth more than someone who has not made any.
Does it make my opinion about what shoes you should buy, be happy with and/or can afford worth anything?
It is a spurious, nonsensical question for the simple reason that I have no opinion about such issues.
1. Yes. As long as the outsole is intact, no holes, the shoe will retain a semblance of the original fit. Of course a "semblance" is not actually a fit, certainly not the original fit, but, in most cases, it will not be significantly noticeable.
Much depends on how serious the slippage is and this, in turn, often depends on whether the insole is exposed to the environment. There are exceptions to this, however. The shoe that doesn't fit is more likely to deform when gemming fails. The man who walks his shoes over to one side or the other is likely to find his shoes no longer support his feet properly even if the shoe is recrafted. Of course that's true of any shoe that has been deformed...even handwelted.
2. Yes, that's correct But why would they sell them rather than get them recrafted if not for the fact that, at least some of the time, gemming slippage has resulted in some deformation of the shoe and the consequent loss of a satisfactory fit?
3. And yes.
And as I have said repeatedly, shoes worn under such conditions may last a looong time...maybe Burton's lifetime...esp. if they are sent back to the factory for recrafting. But as I've also observed, shoes made out of paper might last equally as long. Which might just be portentous simply because gemming sets up the inevitable slide into using fiberboard (a fancy form of paper) for insoles, heel stiffeners, toe stiffeners, canvas for linings, corrected grain upper leather, etc.. How long before most of the shoe is some variation of paper? The new, new standard of quality...tada!
All in the pursuit of profit at the expense to quality. Profit--the bottom line-- is job one in any factory. When, for the sake of honesty, integrity and respect for the customer if no one else, it should be job two hundred and fifty eight.
Separate names with a comma.