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

[vmss]

@DWFII I read through Jimenez article and he used the term "original goodyear welt" several times. Also, I have seen many other makers use this term "handsewn goodyear". IMO brings confusion and opens the opportunity for factory to abuse this term. What do you make of this? What does Jimenez means by traditional goodyear welting?

I hereby quote several lines of Jimenez:
"First, I’m not against gemming, but it’s important to go back to the traditional definition of Goodyear construction in order to be informed. I’m not speaking of the definition of Goodyear by Wikipedia, but rather from a shoe maker’s dictionary—which describes a method of shoe assembly in which a ribbed welt is stitched directly into the insole.

" When a “cemented synthetic wall” is introduced as an attach-point for the sole—for me, this is not the definition of Goodyear (whether machine or hand-welted)."
"I ask myself why a shoe maker would not stay with traditional Goodyear welting techniques? The answer is that through the practice of gemming, one can save up to four hours of work on a pair of shoes and it is much easier to sew through a strip of fabric surrounding the insole than it is to sew through the leather insole itself. Also, preparing the insole for traditional Goodyear welting does take time, as the leather around perimeter of the insole has to be sculpted down (i.e., ribbed) to prepare for the sewing process and to fit nicely around the perimeter the shoe. In my opinion, this time-savings and ease-of-work are the only reasons a maker would choose the practice of gemming instead of the practice of traditional Goodyear welting.
Many will say that I am playing with words in regard to the definition of Goodyear and what I speak about is strictly “hand welting”. But I disagree because I am among the purists advocating for the nobility of the Goodyear method, and I’m annoyed by these details which goes against the original definition of Goodyear."

 

[ntempleman]

It’s a French thing to call it Goodyear for some reason, more specifically to translate into English as Goodyear. I can only presume they believe that’s the English term for it, the French for welt it “trepointe”

 

[DWFII]

@vmss

Well, I have to disagree with Stephane here. I don't know whether it is simply a matter of language barriers or what, but there are several assumptions in his remarks that don't ring true...to me, at least.

First, the technique of making a shoe which we know as "handwelting" can be historically dated to the early 1500's. Given that Charles Goodyear wasn't even born until 300 years later, I have to ask what shoemakers would have called this technique, in 1550, or 1650, or 1750 or even 1850?

Second, the "original Goodyear" technique did not...originally...include any fabric strips or gemming or canvas ribs. The inseam was sewn through two, thin, channel "covers" cut from the bottom* of the insole and turned up--against the lie of the fibers, thus creating an almost automatic breakage of these fibers--and positioned so close to one another as to nearly make their attachment to the insole proper, immaterial...literally.

Third, and FWIW, Weston is, AFAIK, the only company in the world still using machines that duplicate Charles Goodyear's process and they have found that they have to reinforce the leather flaps *** "holdfast" with canvas gemming.

This canvas reinforcement is the prima facie origin of "gemming" as we know, and implement, it today--without any attachment to the insole except cement. Not only is it the natural evolution of GY but it calls into question the structural integrity of the 1869 process...else the canvas reinforcing would not be necessary.

Finally, no matter what you think of the Goodyear welting process, Charles Goodyear, himself, deserves some credit and respect for the work he did. Co-opting his name for convenience and expediency (and probably to take advantage of marketing myths) does him a disservice...as well as the Trade itself.

There is a Spanish shoemaker that I follow on IG --Antonio Enrile, out of Seville. https://www.instagram.com/enrileshoes/

He made these remarks (which I agree with 100%):

"Goodyear term is on the way to turn into a generic and this bring me sadness, particularly when I see how some shoemekers that make handwelt refer those products using a "goodyear" hastag or even worst, "goodyear handmade". These are completely opposite terms.

The term "goodyear" comes from the surname of the person that invented and patented the machines to sew welt: Charles Goodyear. Therefore it is nonsense referring something handmade by the name of a industrial ensemble.

When something is handmade its name is definitely handwelt or, in spanish, "empalmillado". Shoemakers' duty is to preserve both the trade and language, otherwise the confusion among these terms will be taken advantage of." (emphasis mine)

*(the flesh...and therefor the least strong part of the leather)

 

[DWFII]

It’s a French thing to call it Goodyear for some reason, more specifically to translate into English as Goodyear. I can only presume they believe that’s the English term for it, the French for welt it “trepointe”

I don't know for sure but I have been told ...and IIRC, read...that many Italian shoemakers also refer to handwelting as "handsewn Goodyear" or something similar.

I strongly agree with Enrile's last sentence above.

 

[Zapasman]

^ Surprised DW you follow Antonio Enrile as he is not much known overseas. He is a true leather artisan and became a shoemaker too. He is very humble and proud of his work.

 

[DWFII]

He is a true leather artisan and became a shoemaker too. He is very humble and proud of his work.

Given that, maybe not all that surprising.

 

[DWFII]

PS...I follow makers from all over--Sweden, England, Australia, Germany, Norway, Italy, Spain, Japan, and even Russia and several other Eastern European counties whose language I haven't got a clue.

 

[DWFII]

FWIW, my friend (and, in many ways, mentor) D.A. Saguto...one of the foremost Shoe Historians in the world and the English language translator of M. de Garsault's 1767 Art du Cordonnier...says that before Charles Goodyear perfected his machine, what we know as "handwelting" would have been referred to simply as "welting." It was all done by hand and the prefix "hand" wasn't needed.

 

[Luigi_M]

I don't master English well enough to discuss upon the etymology of the term "Goodyear".
Anyway I'm under the sensation that, at least here in Italy, it's often used in a deceptive way ("Goodyear fatto a mano" > "handwelted Goodyear") so its meaning is never stressed enough ...
Good to see @DWFII is posting again.
His thoughts give added value to the membership to this Forum.

 

[DWFII]

I don't master English well enough to discuss upon the etymology of the term "Goodyear".
Anyway I'm under the sensation that, at least here in Italy, it's often used in a deceptive way ("Goodyear fatto a mano" > "handwelted Goodyear") so its meaning is never stressed enough ...
Good to see @DWFII is posting again.
His thoughts give added value to the membership to this Forum.

Luigi,

Thank you...and the many others...for the kind words and support. It is gratifying and appreciated.

As for etymology--etymology is the study of the history and origins of words. In that context, there really is no mysterie. Goodyear is a surname. Anything that is associated with a surname, almost by definition, must have originated with the bearer of that surname. Ipso facto, Goodyear welting has to have originated, in every particular, with Charles Goodyear and the year 1869. One origin and little history.

It seems to me that the use of the term Goodyear fatto a mano is less about deception on the part of individual shoemakers and more about confusion. And/or by extension, misperception resulting from deceptive advertising/public relations campaigns.

Your English...no worries.

 

[NoNameNecessary]

Hi,
I just understood all the shoes construction types and about to MTO a pair winter service boots. I just wonder the superiority between 2 row stitch down and 360 Norwegian welt, like which one is better if I am going to walk in snow and rain in Canadian weather. Just base on my imagination, I would think Veldtschoen is the best, but modern 2 row stitchdown does not have the extra welt stitches the insole and outsole. So I would think Veldtschoen > Norwegian welt > 2 row stitchdown? I know all of them will be suffice, but I am talking about extreme Canadian winter. Really appreciate the knowledge.
@DWFII

 

[DWFII]

Really appreciate the knowledge.
@DWFII

Well, this kind of construction is really not my forte' although I have both made and repaired them.

The thing that struck me immediately, however, is that even with ones I have repaired, I don't ever remember seeing shoes with the welt under the turned out upper. Not to say it couldn't be done like that, I suppose. Although in the absence of actually having done a pair like that, I am not particularly sanguine about the long term stability--my immediate take is that the uppers are kind of "floating."

That said, all else being equal I suspect illustration "A" represents a better made, more weather-resistant shoe than "B".

 

[Zapasman]

Edited

 

[Zapasman]

Whats your opinión of the construction in graphic A @DWFII?.it seems the insole is cemented.

 

[DWFII]

Whats your opinión of the construction in graphic A @DWFII?.it seems the insole is cemented.

If it's as depicted, it would almost have to be. But that's not the way I would do it.

First, there would still be some sort of filler even if it were only a thin wool felt or tarred felt, if only to prevent creaking. Second, I would probably "channel stitch" (like Blake only done by hand) the midsole to the insole. Another maker might actually use a Blake machine to make it all faster. No cement would actually be needed to construct the shoe, although the outsole would probably have to be mounted with cement.

And yes, for some makers it would be cement, cement, cement...all the way.

Again, this kind of shoe is not my remit. I don't make them on a regular basis, and don't particularly care for the construction techniques esp. with regard to dress shoes.