Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."

[DWFII]



What accounts for the increase in stitch tension? Does the welt not compress but rather "flow" so that the center of the stitch is higher than it would have been had it not been pricked?

Also, do you do this on the bottom stitching on the outsole?

A little of both I would say. The welt does compress but to some extent the leather moves sideways, as well. The increased tension is simply the result of the prick pushing the thread deeper into the hole. But the increased tension is mostly just cosmetic, the overall tightness of the stitch is not affected.

No, the stitches on the bottom of the insole are in a channel. Literally...or all but...invisible. And in any case, the outsole is so much denser and firmer, pricking wouldn't do much--all by way of trying to convey a sense of the temper of the welt.

 

[mry8s]

A little of both I would say. The welt does compress but to some extent the leather moves sideways, as well. The increased tension is simply the result of the prick pushing the thread deeper into the hole. But the increased tension is mostly just cosmetic, the overall tightness of the stitch is not affected.

See this is what confused me. You are pushing a completed stitch into a hole. Doesn't it have to come out the bottom and won't that leave the bottom stitch a little looser? Or is the amount so trivial that it doesn't move that much?

 

[bengal-stripe]



I rarely see this type of construction.  Is it any good?

“Opanka” is a very ancient construction method, primarily from the Balkans but also used elsewhere. It’s very similar to genuine moccasin construction. Traditionally the sole comes up the side (but not as high as in a moccasin). There have been machine methods invented to produce opankas and apparently they were very popular in Central Europe as cheap utilitarian footwear until WWII (just as clogs were).

I presume that this fashionable interpretation of the classic opanka has an additional outsole (maybe rubber) just as modern moccasins will have.

Photographs of shoe construction:
http://forum.hassiaceltica.de/index.php?page=Thread&postID=26924&highlight=opanken#post26924

 

[DWFII]



See this is what confused me. You are pushing a completed stitch into a hole. Doesn't it have to come out the bottom and won't that leave the bottom stitch a little looser? Or is the amount so trivial that it doesn't move that much?

I think it is Rees who says that the welt side stitch should not be pulled down so tight it compresses the welt. Of course, as the stitching progresses, tightening the sole side stitch tightly has some effect on the previous weltside stitch, but fundamentally the weltside stitch is sitting on top of the welt. The friction of the prick blade alone on the strand of thread pushing it deeper into the indentation the prick is making in the welt, tightens the appearance of the weltside stitch.

 

[DWFII]



“Opanka” is a very ancient construction method, primarily from the Balkans but also used elsewhere. It’s very similar to genuine moccasin construction. Traditionally the sole comes up the side (but not as high as in a moccasin). There have been machine methods invented to produce opankas and apparently they were very popular in Central Europe as cheap utilitarian footwear until WWII (just as clogs were).

I presume that this fashionable interpretation of the classic opanka has an additional outsole (maybe rubber) just as modern moccasins will have.

Very interesting...I don't think the shoe in question is going to have an additional rubber outsole added, however, unless it will be Topy--the heel is already mounted. and the shoe balanced for the heel.

 

[vmss]

A brand that uses this similar ""construction is Magnanni. They have a video http://www.magnanni.com/about/ showing how this "Opanka" construction shoes is made. Also on the website you can read about the bologna construction they use on their shoes.

Can the Opanka and bologna construction methods provide durability and quality? And is it possible to resole these types of constructions? How are they compared in terms of quality to Goodyear method, since they are in the similar price ranges as Carmina and AE?

 

[T4phage]



It could be argued that in terms of aesthetics as well as functionality, the whole cut oxford is the epitome of shoemaking. Just as the whole cut full wellington is the epitome of the pull on boot.

In aesthetic terms, the fewer pieces that are needed to create the form--the shoe or boot--the more elegant it will be. The "lines" will be clean and unbroken, the tale told without interruptions or digressions, and the leather allowed to speak for itself.

Every "ornament," whether it be the crowing on the bottom of the outsole or the broguing and gimping on the upper, has a purpose whether it be aesthetic or, rarely, functional. And that purpose is primarily to beguile the eye in some manner. To camouflage an "awkwardness" or to break up the lines of the shoe, or simply to amuse the customer and provide something novel. Toe caps and brogued medallions, even counters and quarters, are, at best, whimsies--divertimenti.

In functional terms, however, there is very little reason for these embellishments. Most ornamentation on the uppers vitiates or degrades the integrity of the shoe. If nothing else these are often areas of structural weakness as well as portals to the interior of the shoe for moisture and dirt. The only truly functional rationale for all the different styles / cuts on a shoe is to maximize the yield from a hide. And without question, that's reason enough.

Having said that, all shoes are costume as well as our interface with the environment--ornamental, as well as protective and functional. And over the centuries certain styles, ornaments and cuts have become established in the Tradition. Whether they arose from necessity or from whimsey is unimportant...they are part of the Tradition now.

But when makers disregard Tradition as in the following photo...and, just as importantly, common and aesthetic sense...and whether through an excess of frugality or simply cynicism start piecing and placing seams almost at random, it raises a fundamental question:

Why?!

The only reasons I can come up with is that

a) the maker didn't have enough leather to make a full vamp.
b) the maker didn't know how to shape the front of the boot when using gator/croc.

In either case it is almost a sacrilege...in my opinion...to break up the lines of the boot and/or disrespect the gator.

......

i found a rather
.... amusing descriptor
of this particular
'feature' on teh
chelsea boot
to wit:

"The technical performance hides in the V-shaped piece sewn on the top of the vamp (see photo). It is connected on one side by a flat seam and on the other by a reverse seam turned backwards (!)"

is there any
'technical performance'
advantage given
by this
?

or is it
a performance
of selling a
shortcoming
?

 

[T4phage]

@DWFII

i would like
to ask a
technical/pattern
question regarding
two iconic rtw
loafers on the
market

first, these are
described as:

" ...with the outer skin and inner lining each crafted from a section of leather that is cut in one piece."

are these
wholecuts
?
both pairs
seems to have
a seam at the toe
(nb the calfskin
version lacks
this toe seam)

a shoemaker who
is currently making
a wholecut gator
loafer for me says
that these most
likely are not
and that two
skins were able
to be used
to make two
pairs
with skillful
cutters

he commented
that the black
uses flank skin
for teh sides
of the shoe
and the apron
seems to
be from the
belly

while the brown
uses prime belly
for the sides
and the throat
skin for the
apron
(due to the design
of the scales)

what is your opinion?

 

[T4phage]

@DWFII

2nd iconic
loafer is this:

a pity that
a mid four figure
shoe is made up
of so many pieces

would teh apron
have been cut
in this manner
because i seem to
see indication of
the transition to
flank scales:

if so
with one
skin they could
make a pair of
shoes
with a rather
poor apron
up front
and centre

 

[DWFII]



i found a rather
.... amusing descriptor
of this particular
'feature' on teh
chelsea boot
to wit:

"The technical performance hides in the V-shaped piece sewn on the top of the vamp (see photo). It is connected on one side by a flat seam and on the other by a reverse seam turned backwards (!)"

is there any
'technical performance'
advantage given
by this
?

or is it
a performance
of selling a
shortcoming
?

I don't know what advantage there could possibly be...esp. if compared to no seams.

In my opinion, it's flim-flam...pettifoggery...pure and simple.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[DWFII]



@DWFII

i would like
to ask a
technical/pattern
question regarding
two iconic rtw
loafers on the
market

first, these are
described as:

" ...with the outer skin and inner lining each crafted from a section of leather that is cut in one piece."



are these
wholecuts
?
both pairs
seems to have
a seam at the toe
(nb the calfskin
version lacks
this toe seam)

a shoemaker who
is currently making
a wholecut gator
loafer for me says
that these most
likely are not
and that two
skins were able
to be used
to make two
pairs
with skillful
cutters

he commented
that the black
uses flank skin
for teh sides
of the shoe
and the apron
seems to
be from the
belly

while the brown
uses prime belly
for the sides
and the throat
skin for the
apron
(due to the design
of the scales)

what is your opinion?

I'm not sure what the manufacturer means...or if that's just another piece of flummery.

But clearly neither are whole cuts... at least not as most of us would define "whole cuts." If the manufacturer means that each shoe was cut from one hide...maybe. But so what?!

The brown ones look like they could have been cut from adjacent sections of one hide. The black ones not so much although it's not entirely out of the question. May be a matter of how big the hides were.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[DWFII]



@DWFII

2nd iconic
loafer is this:

a pity that
a mid four figure
shoe is made up
of so many pieces

would teh apron
have been cut
in this manner
because i seem to
see indication of
the transition to
flank scales:


if so
with one
skin they could
make a pair of
shoes
with a rather
poor apron
up front
and centre

Yes...to all your questions and observations.

 

[T4phage]

thanks @DWFII
for taking the
time to reply

 

[DWFII]



thanks @DWFII
for taking the
time to reply

 

[emptym]



“Opanka” is a very ancient construction method, primarily from the Balkans but also used elsewhere. It’s very similar to genuine moccasin construction. Traditionally the sole comes up the side (but not as high as in a moccasin). There have been machine methods invented to produce opankas and apparently they were very popular in Central Europe as cheap utilitarian footwear until WWII (just as clogs were).

I presume that this fashionable interpretation of the classic opanka has an additional outsole (maybe rubber) just as modern moccasins will have.

Interesting! I bought a pair of these in Dubrovnik when it was still part of Yugoslavia. Complete w/ (even more) upturned toe. I never wear them, but I still wear a couple belts I got then. Loved the smell of leather in the little street markets.

Very interesting...I don't think the shoe in question is going to have an additional rubber outsole added, however, unless it will be Topy--the heel is already mounted. and the shoe balanced for the heel.

Mine didn't have a rubber outsole or an insole of any kind. Just one layer or leather. And the upper was woven strips. Something like this: