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

[dan'l]

@DWFII, thanks for your reply. I also found an older post of yours where you wrote that you use metal shanks, but I was interested in more details, hence my post.

Now I understand that C&J uses wooden shanks (beechwood, I think). One of the arguments against wooden shanks was that they would degrade overtime due to wear, moisture, etc. But wouldn't that happen to a metal shank, too? Of course it shouldn't break, but I suspect it could rust and degrade with time. When a shoe is being re-soled, is it is possible to exchange the shank, or would that alter the balance of the shoe too much, especially after the shank has been broken in?

 

[DWFII]



@DWFII, thanks for your reply. I also found an older post of yours where you wrote that you use metal shanks, but I was interested in more details, hence my post.

Now I understand that C&J uses wooden shanks (beechwood, I think). One of the arguments against wooden shanks was that they would degrade overtime due to wear, moisture, etc. But wouldn't that happen to a metal shank, too? Of course it shouldn't break, but I suspect it could rust and degrade with time. When a shoe is being re-soled, is it is possible to exchange the shank, or would that alter the balance of the shoe too much, especially after the shank has been broken in?

Metal shanks won't "break in"--they retain their shape and, ideally, are not generic.

And yes, they can be replaced if broken but in many cases, esp. in a repair shop, it is a "catch as catch can" situation. Esp. without the original last to shape the shank to.

Theoretically a handwelted shoe is water resistant enough that with the kind of mindful usage that is implied by "handwelted, bespoke" they will not be subject to much in the way of rust. That said, there are a number of ways to seal the shank from ambient moisture--dipping them in tar, for instance.

But, that said, yes, in the absence of any counter-measures, they are subject to rusting

 

[Whirling]

Although it has been discussed at length before, I am not clear why an industrious bespoke shoemaker couldn't figure out how to attach a heel firmly to a shoe without any pegs or nails. If it was done in the past, surely it can be done today? Wouldn't some experimentation with different patterns of stitching eventually produce something that worked? Or, it it that pegs work well enough that nobody feels it is worth the bother, even for academic purposes?

 

[ThunderMarch]

Here's where we get into deep water with regard to terminology. As Nicholas so correctly points out there is a big difference between securing the uppers to the insole and subsequent operations. Many manufacturers do use nails in lieu of sewing, but few quality or Tradition minded bespoke makers do.

Beyond that a "rand" or "rhan" is technically not a welt. And it is usually sewn to the upper. After which the the outsole and heel may be sewn to it...as shoefan mentioned... creating what is sometimes called a German Seat. The rand is very often folded leather...not just a strip like a welt. That said, rand and welt have almost become interchangeable but at one time they meant very different things if only in the way they were constructed.

Most shoemakers either welt all the way around--360-- or add a "U" shaped piece of leather at the heel which is the same thickness as the welt. I call this the "heel seat." I suspect this is what Nicholas is referring to. I peg this on. Some makers...including bespoke makers...nail this piece on. But it is not part of the upper, nor is it part of the insole. Neither is it part of the outsole. It is, a sense a filler. Many bootmakers in the US have dispensed with it altogether, simply because there is no welt in the immediate proximity to create a disconnect of line.

Again, the salient point is that the upper is sewn to the insole in high quality work...not nailed or pegged.

I'm very sorry. Forgive me for being dense. I do appreciate your detailed explanation, but I'm a little confused here.
Your post does make a distinction between a rand and a heel seat, but it seems (my comprehension might be the problem here) like they are both pieces of leather that go around the heel of the shoe, to which, eventually, the outsole and rest of the heel stack are attached?
In that case, is the difference between them the ? type of leather they are made (folded leather vs something else)? Or the method of attachment to the upper...... sewn (rand) vs pegged (heel seat)?

 

[tharkun]



Theoretically, metal shanks are not needed at heel heights below one inch. I'm not sure I agree with that. But in any case, with any HH above one inch the waist of the shoe is subject to break down and collapse over time (sometimes a relatively small amount of time) and the foot will not be supported as it should be through the arch.

I suspect that this theory was formulated in a time when outsole leather was harder and more rigid than it is today, however.

As far as wood goes, well it's just an expedient compromise between leather (no shank support) and metal, IMO. Eventually, it too will break down, and it doesn't have the rigidity /support of metal, to begin with...at any heel height.

For me the question becomes...given the fundamental superiority of support between metal and all other materials..."why not use metal?" I suspect it's a matter of cost--monetary and time. I'm not looking to compromise quality, even if only marginally or theortetically, nor am I looking for speed. So the answer seems obvious to me.

One reason for not using a metal shank is air travel! I'm glad I don't have metal shanks in my shoes, at least when I'm able to convince the security personnel that it won't beep even if I keep them on

What about fiberglass shanks?

 

[ntempleman]

Any casual observer to this conversation might start to worry that every pair of shoes out there is a disaster waiting to happen - nails, metal shanks rusting, wood degrading..

I've seen 50 year old shoes that are still being worn by the owner, older shoes that have been bought on eBay, brought back to the shop for a refurb and then worn by the new owner - not one of these shoes has had a failure from metal rusting, wood degrading etc etc

We're getting dangerously close to cork sniffing territory here.

 

[chogall]

Any casual observer to this conversation might start to worry that every pair of shoes out there is a disaster waiting to happen - nails, metal shanks rusting, wood degrading..

I've seen 50 year old shoes that are still being worn by the owner, older shoes that have been bought on eBay, brought back to the shop for a refurb and then worn by the new owner - not one of these shoes has had a failure from metal rusting, wood degrading etc etc

We're getting dangerously close to cork sniffing territory here.

I prefer sniffing Bitumen felt with casual shoes and cork with dress shoes, but neither are @DWFII approved as they are both waterproof and prevents breathing.

 

[ntempleman]

For what it's worth, my preference is for nails over pegs, decades/centuries of empirical evidence proves to me that there's no reason to be concerned for any possible detrimental effect to the shoe. I don't really like pegs, that's not how I was raised and they seem as though they're kind of crude - but that's just my take, shoemaking is already quite crude by nature anyway. They're harder to remove than nails are, which is an issue when you need to repair and rebuild a heelstack.

 

[DWFII]



Any casual observer to this conversation might start to worry that every pair of shoes out there is a disaster waiting to happen - nails, metal shanks rusting, wood degrading..

I've seen 50 year old shoes that are still being worn by the owner, older shoes that have been bought on eBay, brought back to the shop for a refurb and then worn by the new owner - not one of these shoes has had a failure from metal rusting, wood degrading etc etc

We're getting dangerously close to cork sniffing territory here.

Well I agree and I disagree...

First, for some of us here cork sniffing may indeed be a waste of time. But I doubt that the vintner would agree with that. And it is the vintner who is responsible...using every sense that he has...to ensure that the "recreational" cork sniffer won't get an unpleasant surprise.

Indeed, for the vintner...or other savvy (or even simply curious) individuals...there may be very good reasons to sniff the cork, if only because there are some aspects--aromas, notes, information--embedded in the cork that aren't otherwise readily apparent and that can add to the experience and the pleasure.

Secondly, as was pointed out in another conversation, sometimes shoemakers can be too insular. If you spend a decade or two with limited exposure, by way of deconstruction or repair, to any other shoes but your own, you end up with a very different perspective than if you repair all manner and brands of shoes and get to see what works and what doesn't. And perhaps...if you are of an analytical mind...even see why.

The same is true for the shoe customers...if you wear shoes on flower strewn carpets in atmospherically controlled office environments, you'll have a very different perspective than the man who is walking miles a day and in sometimes, unavoidably, inclement weather.

You've seen shoes that were fifty years old. So have I. But I've also seen shoes that were three years old that already had problems with the heel of the insole from iron nails. Simple fact is that some customers will sweat...if only because they work and move and are alive. And their particular sweat can be more corrosive than other people's.

Do we only make shoes for tidy people?

Third, the simple scientific fact is that moisture (perspiration from the body, damp from the streets, etc.) can, does, and will rust iron. And rust is inimical to leather esp. veg tanned leather. Those small black stains around your lasting tacks that appear after the insole has been blocked, are the first signs of this. It's not just a harmless stain.

The garden of Eden is gone. We...esp. you and I...are not innocent, not naive. Once we know what iron rust will do, how can we ignore it? Responsibly? Hear no evil, see no evil? And more importantly speak no evil?

For me, I have to ask myself "if I don't do it, who will?" "If I don't anticipate these problems and do everything in my power to forestall them, why do I make shoes?"

In the end, we are the vintners...if we don't smell the cork, who will?

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[DWFII]



For what it's worth, my preference is for nails over pegs, decades/centuries of empirical evidence proves to me that there's no reason to be concerned for any possible detrimental effect to the shoe. I don't really like pegs, that's not how I was raised and they seem as though they're kind of crude - but that's just my take, shoemaking is already quite crude by nature anyway. They're harder to remove than nails are, which is an issue when you need to repair and rebuild a heelstack.

I'm sorry...no disrespect intended...but that has not been my experience at all. Nails that are clinched are much harder to remove than pegs and much more detrimental to the shoe than pegs when removed. Nails are almost always clinched on an iron plate affixed to the bottom of the last. Clinching forms a tiny hook which embeds itself in the leather and doesn't always...or even vry often...straighten entirely when the nail is removed. As a result, when the nail is pulled a small amount of leather comes with it. And this is made even more problematic if the nail has rusted and the leather around it has begun to turn hard and brittle.

And actually, when you come down to it, pegs don't need to be removed--clip them flush and it's all good.

In my time repairing I've seen leather heel stacks that were almost impossible to pull apart into their separate lifts simply because the nails had rusted and virtually welded themselves to the leather. In fact, my first teacher deliberately used iron nails in tempered (sightly moist) leather because he was hoping for exactly that effect. I've also seen those same nails literally fall out of a high heel stack simply because the rust had so damaged the leather around the nails that it had crystallized and fragmented and turned to dust and the nail was sitting in a hole many times larger in diameter than the nail itself.

Are pegs crude? Of course they're crude. As you, yourself, suggest, shoes are crude...esp. if your definition of refined (or even "not crude") is injection molded plastic and gleaming titanium. But it's a scale, isn't it? Nails are crude...I can't think of anything cruder in shoemaking or woodworking or whatever. Both nails and pegs are crude...esp. by comparison to sewing. But for me, nails are more crude than pegs. Maybe it's my experiences working with wood added to my experiences pegging boots and shoes. A peg can be part of the wood...blend in or even contrast...without looking like an afterthought in a way that a nail never can, never will. Just my opinion....

Each to his own, I suspect. If you are happy with nails and comfortable with the possible implications...it is, of course your call.

I am not so comfortable...anymore than I am comfortable using All-Purpose cement, or celastic, leatherboard, cork or gemming. Decades of experience has shown that perfectly serviceable shoes can be made with these materials and these techniques. Some makers even "hand welt" with gemming rather than a leather holdfast. Seems to me to be the same thing. Where does a "conscientious" maker draw the line?

Whether they are best practices...esp. knowing what we know...or even best anything, is the question we all must ask ourselves.

Ultimately...for me at least...it comes down to why we make shoes. Why we do anything....

For me...and again, I can only speak for myself...it has something to do with aspirations, the search for mastery and excellence, craftsmanship--all those nearly indefinable but very real things that make us human rather than cogs in a machine.

YMMV.
--

 

[chogall]

Different clientele and climate yields different experiences. I remember reading that for US Army in WWII, service shoes lasts a year with 2 resoles in the European theater while lasting only 5 months in the Pacific.

I think West Coast US have very mild climate and seasons.

 

[DWFII]



I think West Coast US have very mild climate and seasons.

Probably more like Britain esp. on the coast and in the valley and esp. in terms of precipitation

 

[DWFII]



Although it has been discussed at length before, I am not clear why an industrious bespoke shoemaker couldn't figure out how to attach a heel firmly to a shoe without any pegs or nails. If it was done in the past, surely it can be done today? Wouldn't some experimentation with different patterns of stitching eventually produce something that worked? Or, it it that pegs work well enough that nobody feels it is worth the bother, even for academic purposes?

Some makers are and do experiment with relearning and remastering these old skills...even though there is nary a master maker who can teach it, anymore. It's lost and for all intents and purposes, probably forever.

That said, and speaking only for myself, I admire the heck out of the technique. I have it on my bucket list of things to try...just "for academic purposes."

But as wondrous (and purportedly sound) as the technique is, it is kind of like Australopithecus--in shoemaking's ancestry but not really part of species as it is today.

And the reason for that is that shoes have, as I've said before, evolved to make repairing them near-as-nevermind brainless. Soles and heels can be taken off and replaced by workers who have never made a shoe and don't really have the skills or understand what it takes to make a shoe.

Personally, I'm OK with that philosophy. It works. And it makes sense.

Once you start sewing on the heel, the shoe has to go back to the original maker. Very few skilled...even master...shoemakers today know how to sew on a heel, nevermind cobblers.

 

[Whirling]



Some makers are and do experiment with relearning and remastering these old skills...even though there is nary a master maker who can teach it, anymore. It's lost and for all intents and purposes, probably forever.

That said, and speaking only for myself, I admire the heck out of the technique. I have it on my bucket list of things to try...just "for academic purposes."

But as wondrous (and purportedly sound) as the technique is, it is kind of like Australopithecus--in shoemaking's ancestry but not really part of species as it is today.

And the reason for that is that shoes have, as I've said before, evolved to make repairing them near-as-nevermind brainless. Soles and heels can be taken off and replaced by workers who have never made a shoe and don't really have the skills or understand what it takes to make a shoe.

Personally, I'm OK with that philosophy. It works. And it makes sense.

Once you start sewing on the heel, the shoe has to go back to the original maker. Very few skilled...even master...shoemakers today know how to sew on a heel, nevermind cobblers.

These are the types of posts that make SF such a great place for me to visit. Thank you for taking the time to compose such a thorough response to my question.

As technology drives down the value of labor, there may be a new age of hand crafts. Once all the cars are driving themselves and supermarkets don't require any checkers, those folks will be freed up to do something that only people can do...such as make high quality bespoke footwear...at least, that is a hope of mine.

 

[ntempleman]



I'm sorry...no disrespect intended...but that has not been my experience at all. Nails that are clinched are much harder to remove than pegs
--

I'd imagine they would be, I've never used a last with any metal plates though so I've never had to deal with a clinched nail.