Shoe Damage Report & Shoe P0rn Central - Part II

[add911_11]



I could certainly see these being worn by feminine chicks like ellen, rachel maddow etc.

Fair enough.

 

[TehBunny]

How similar is a shoe to a womens body? Or is it just me...

 

[mimo]

I know I've never fucked a shoe, even though I like them very much.

 

[goodlensboy]



dream waist

 

[ljrcustom]



beautiful.

-LR

 

[SHS]

They truly are. Cravate_Noire, where were these from, and where were the womes shoes from? Same place?

 

[stevent]

Nothing special but the George Cleverley Russian Reindeer Saddles

Also got the Aubergine double monks, can't decide if I want to waterproof / baby them or just beat them up? Thoughts? They are on a dainite

 

[mimo]

Nothing special but the George Cleverley Russian Reindeer Saddles


Also got the Aubergine double monks, can't decide if I want to waterproof / baby them or just beat them up? Thoughts? They are on a dainite

Nothing special? That is all special. The Russian reindeer is just incredible.

And I think the monks deserve looking after, Dainite or not.

 

[chogall]



I know I've never fucked a shoe, even though I like them very much.

Are you the creator of those notorious YouTube shoe porns?

 

[mimo]

Not guilty. My love for them is purely platonic!

Anyway, I prefer a thicker-tailed lady and a finer-heeled shoe...different tastes for different purposes! That shoe above is beautiful, but would be quite unsatisfactory to me in human form.

 

[claes500]



Wow!

Which maker is this?

 

[DWFII]



dream waist

It's visually attractive, I suppose...on one level, at least...but questionable as to whether it makes sense mechanically. If the insole is that narrow in the waist it may not be fully functional or healthy for the foot, esp. if it's RTW. And to make the outsole that narrow if the insole is wider, exposes the vamp leather to abuse that it would not otherwise encounter.

The outsole should be as wide as, or a little wider than, the insole and vamp combined. It's a protective measure.

Beyond that it is interesting to note that this style of waist goes back at least to the late 19th and early 20th C., especially on lady's shoes.

 

[mimo]

DWFII,

I admire your insights, and I suppose you're right. But if shoes were all about practicality and mechanical pragmatism, we'd be wearing glued together Hush Puppies. *shudder*

 

[DWFII]



DWFII,

I admire your insights, and I suppose you're right.  But if shoes were all about practicality and mechanical pragmatism, we'd be wearing glued together Hush Puppies. *shudder*

Your fundamental observation is correct up to a point...although the example is entirely off base--nothing practical or pragmatic about glue and splits.

That said, what makes a Traditional, bespoke shoe so attractive is that it is the culmination of 10,000 years of evolution/development deliberately and mindfully aimed at combining the most practical, durable, sound, pragmatic, etc. techniques, to create something that is both functional and beautiful. But make no mistake the "beauty" part of it is, and must be, subordinate to the practicality.

I'm sure there will be those who would rush to disagree...Style vs. Substance...but shoemaking, as a Trade, has had this intent all along. It is part of the "ethos" of Shoemaking-as-a-Trade, if you will.

And again, in that context, I must stress I'm not against ornamentation or styling devices (I actually like, from a purely aesthetic POV, the narrow waist) ...as long as they do not detract from the life or function of the shoe. Which, in this circumstance, I suspect (or at least question) it does.

Just sayin'...

--

 

[mimo]

Your fundamental observation is correct up to a point...although the example is entirely off base--nothing practical or pragmatic about glue and splits.

That said, what makes a Traditional, bespoke shoe so attractive is that it is the culmination of 10,000 years of evolution/development deliberately and mindfully aimed at combining the most practical, durable, sound, pragmatic, etc. techniques, to create something that is both functional and beautiful. But make no mistake the "beauty" part of it is and must be subordinate to the practicality.

I'm sure there will be those who would rush to disagree...Style vs. Substance...but shoemaking as a Trade has had this intent all along. It is part the 'ethos" of shoemaking, if you will.

And again, in that context, I must stress I'm not against ornamentation or styling devices(I actually like, from a purely aesthetic POV, the narrow waist) ...as long as they do not detract from the life or function of the shoe. Which, in this circumstance, I suspect (or at least question) it does.

I can't argue with you my friend. In purely practical terms, you are surely right that this puts more strain on the upper. And i'm not advocating **** shoes, of course. I'd just say that sometimes we blur the line for the sake of style - in either direction. This might be i-Gent heresy, but cordovan loafers make no sense at all, nor covering it up with galoshes: isn't the point of cordovan that it's waterproof and virtually indestructible? But in our style-fest here, heaven forbid that a drop of water might mark one's whiskey shell tassles! I think I'd only buy cordovan as a heavy boot or country derby, and I'd get it wet and dirty.

Anyway, my point is that you're right about the history and evolution of artisan technology that is beautiful in itself, and also that by seeking quality, we are affirming the practicality and original meaning of this kind of workmanship. But I'm just saying we're also entitled to play with the form as art sometimes - even if that does mean a less supportive fiddleback waist or, conversely, a bullet-proof ballet shoe.