- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 10,132
- Reaction score
- 5,714
In another thread there was a discussion about pricking up the welt that got turned around. Got me to thinking about all the little things-- the picky and immaterial and "foolish" things that take a really fine pair of shoes to the next level...beyond ordinary, IOW. Techniques that potential customers can look for or appreciate.
This is a thread where people can ask or talk about, or post photos of all kinds of techniques...good or bad...without associating it with a specific maker.
One of the techniques that came up in that same thread was frequency of the stitching on the uppers and the welt. Obviously the coarser the stitching the less time has been taken...the easier it was to do. This is a point of pride with shoemakers but often doesn't mean much to customers. Of course, stitches per inch (spi) can be taken to extremes in either direction. And frankly, a small spi (less stitches per inch--such as 8spi) won't ordinarily mean that the seams are weaker or more apt to fail...although a case can be made that stitches that are further apart are less "sealed" against the penetration of water and dirt.
But below 12 spi, stitching starts to look a little crude, esp. on shoes associated with dress.
Here's an example of what I would consider coarse stitching...I'm guessing 8-10spi:
Conversely, a larger spi (16 spi for example) doesn't necessarily mean that the seam is stronger. In fact, too many stitches per inch and the seam will be more likely to fail than if the spi were smaller...simply because the density of the leather won't support such closely spaced perforations. But larger spi is generally considered a distinguishing "tell" of good work. 14-18 spi on upper work is probably pushing the limits of leather quality as well as aesthetics, although there are museum examples of much, much finer work being done--as many as 64spi--by hand in earlier times.
Here's a photo from Lobb's of London of 50spi (?) done by hand (courtesy of shoefan):
But frequency is not the whole story...the evenness of the lines of stitching is almost more important. When a line of stitching is run along the topline of a shoe, for instance, or at the edge of a toe cap, it needs to be as perfectly parallel to that edge as is humanly possible. Any deviation from parallel is going to catch the eye, even if only on a subliminal level. And if a second or third line is added each must run parallel to the first. The eye sees these discrepancies, no matter how minor and a subtle sense of dissatisfaction is the result. A dissatisfaction we may not be able to articulate but which abides with us nevertheless.
Here's an example of great work both in the frequency (spi) and in the evenness of the lines of stitching--zero significant deviation.
Welt stitching actually conforms to much the same standards. 12 spi seems to be a common standard for hand stitched welt although many makers are doing 16spi and even 18-20. And again there is curated work that exhibits welt / outsole stitching in the 40-60spi range. String of pears indeed. (thanks to shoefan, again)
At the same time, some shoemakers...as a result of local Traditions...favour longer stitches--as few as four or five to the inch. This kind of work has its own following...dedicated admirers...but IMO it's hard to make the case that such "broad' work is shoemaking at its finest.
Machine stitched outsoles tend to run in the 6-8spi range although the machines can hit 10-11spi easily enough.
One of the reasons I draw these comparisons...and especially why I include the 19th century handwork...is to make the case that shoemaking reached its zenith in the 19th century. All the standards of quality and good work that shoemakers...and even some customers...revere and aspire to, are informed by the work done in that era. In many ways it has been all downhill since. The case can be made that no machine, no tool, no technique introduced since the mid 1800's has added or improved upon those standards. And that there are few, if any, makers working today that can match or even rival what was produced by the best makers of the 19th century.
Unfortunately, as the work is industrialized...and trivialized...the ability to do such work becomes even harder to achieve even for those makers who strive obsessively to equal it--simply because the skills, tools, and materials are not there.
Yet the standards remain...if only because they are unchallenged.
Stitch work is one of the most easily observed indicators of quality. Because if a maker cannot be bothered to take care with work that can be seen, how likely is it that the techniques applied where they can't be seen will be anymore fastidious?
--
This is a thread where people can ask or talk about, or post photos of all kinds of techniques...good or bad...without associating it with a specific maker.
One of the techniques that came up in that same thread was frequency of the stitching on the uppers and the welt. Obviously the coarser the stitching the less time has been taken...the easier it was to do. This is a point of pride with shoemakers but often doesn't mean much to customers. Of course, stitches per inch (spi) can be taken to extremes in either direction. And frankly, a small spi (less stitches per inch--such as 8spi) won't ordinarily mean that the seams are weaker or more apt to fail...although a case can be made that stitches that are further apart are less "sealed" against the penetration of water and dirt.
But below 12 spi, stitching starts to look a little crude, esp. on shoes associated with dress.
Here's an example of what I would consider coarse stitching...I'm guessing 8-10spi:
Conversely, a larger spi (16 spi for example) doesn't necessarily mean that the seam is stronger. In fact, too many stitches per inch and the seam will be more likely to fail than if the spi were smaller...simply because the density of the leather won't support such closely spaced perforations. But larger spi is generally considered a distinguishing "tell" of good work. 14-18 spi on upper work is probably pushing the limits of leather quality as well as aesthetics, although there are museum examples of much, much finer work being done--as many as 64spi--by hand in earlier times.
Here's a photo from Lobb's of London of 50spi (?) done by hand (courtesy of shoefan):
But frequency is not the whole story...the evenness of the lines of stitching is almost more important. When a line of stitching is run along the topline of a shoe, for instance, or at the edge of a toe cap, it needs to be as perfectly parallel to that edge as is humanly possible. Any deviation from parallel is going to catch the eye, even if only on a subliminal level. And if a second or third line is added each must run parallel to the first. The eye sees these discrepancies, no matter how minor and a subtle sense of dissatisfaction is the result. A dissatisfaction we may not be able to articulate but which abides with us nevertheless.
Here's an example of great work both in the frequency (spi) and in the evenness of the lines of stitching--zero significant deviation.
Welt stitching actually conforms to much the same standards. 12 spi seems to be a common standard for hand stitched welt although many makers are doing 16spi and even 18-20. And again there is curated work that exhibits welt / outsole stitching in the 40-60spi range. String of pears indeed. (thanks to shoefan, again)
At the same time, some shoemakers...as a result of local Traditions...favour longer stitches--as few as four or five to the inch. This kind of work has its own following...dedicated admirers...but IMO it's hard to make the case that such "broad' work is shoemaking at its finest.
Machine stitched outsoles tend to run in the 6-8spi range although the machines can hit 10-11spi easily enough.
One of the reasons I draw these comparisons...and especially why I include the 19th century handwork...is to make the case that shoemaking reached its zenith in the 19th century. All the standards of quality and good work that shoemakers...and even some customers...revere and aspire to, are informed by the work done in that era. In many ways it has been all downhill since. The case can be made that no machine, no tool, no technique introduced since the mid 1800's has added or improved upon those standards. And that there are few, if any, makers working today that can match or even rival what was produced by the best makers of the 19th century.
Unfortunately, as the work is industrialized...and trivialized...the ability to do such work becomes even harder to achieve even for those makers who strive obsessively to equal it--simply because the skills, tools, and materials are not there.
Yet the standards remain...if only because they are unchallenged.
Stitch work is one of the most easily observed indicators of quality. Because if a maker cannot be bothered to take care with work that can be seen, how likely is it that the techniques applied where they can't be seen will be anymore fastidious?
--
Last edited: