Sole Welting

[patrickBOOTH]

Nick, for an upcharge are you willing stretch my shoes with some Johnnie Walker Blue?

 

[DWFII]

pB,

I like everything about this idea--it has a certain high mindedness about it...anointing your shoes with Scotch...and yet by choosing a blend it makes use of that which is, in all its myriad apologies, otherwise mundane. A bridging of the gap between the sacred and the profane. A kind of noblesse oblige.

 

[JubeiSpiegel]



Nick, for an upcharge are you willing stretch my shoes with some Johnnie Walker Blue?

I think that is the best use of JWB i have read of yet...

 

[Zapasman]

Would you say that Carmina uses the same machine than JM Weston to prepare the insole for inseaming . If yes, I suppose that this method is stronger/more reliable than the normal gemming method (just the canvas cemented to the insole) taking into account that here they have two operations to finish the insole with a higher cost (leather ribet+canvas)?. Does this method implies the use of a thicker/better insole?. Do you think that recrafting/resoling it is more difficult to carrie out in this method?

 

[DWFII]



Would you say that Carmina uses the same machine than JM Weston to prepare the insole for inseaming . If yes, I suppose that this method is stronger/more reliable than the normal gemming method (just the canvas cemented to the insole) taking into account that here they have two operations to finish the insole with a higher cost (leather ribet+canvas)?. Does this method implies the use of a  thicker/better insole?.  Do you think that recrafting/resoling it is more difficult to carrie out in this method?

What you're looking at in that photo is the outsole being stitched.

Insole, inseam, canvas, thicker/better, ...ain't in it.

 

[Zapasman]

What you're looking at in that photo is the outsole being stitched.

Insole, inseam, canvas, thicker/better, ...ain't in it.

Well... uummmm...I better use my eyeglasses next time, lol!!. You are completly right (I am in my lates forties).

So, what can you say about the JM Weston method with regard to my questions?

 

[DWFII]



Well... uummmm...I better use my eyeglasses next time, lol!!. You are completly right (I am in my lates forties).:foo:

So, what can you say about the JM Weston method with regard to my questions?

I don't keep track of who does what or how.

From this shoemaker's POV...if it's GY, it is a perversion of everything that a shoe has been and is supposed to be.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Well... uummmm...I better use my eyeglasses next time, lol!!. You are completly right (I am in my lates forties).

So, what can you say about the JM Weston method with regard to my questions?

I don't keep track of who does what or how.

From this shoemaker's POV...if it's GY, it is a perversion of everything that a shoe has been and is supposed to be.

Carmina certainly doesn't use the original Goodyear-welting technique of cutting and turning the leather and reinforcing with canvas. They use the standard canvas rib cemented to the insole. JM Weston is the only company I know of that still uses the original method, though I read recently that Church's retained their machinery to perform this technique as a "fall-back" for when the current method wasn't available. Whatever that means.

Also, JM Weston uses both methods. Not just the original.

I'm not entirely sure that the original technique for GY-welting is better than the current method either. It has been discussed that the reason for the original method being replaced was because of the inherent flaw in the process that left a weak inseam due to the leather becoming brittle and ripping with the flexing of the shoe. They attempted to mitigate this by cementing the canvas sheet for reinforcement of the leather rib, and eventually they replaced the entire method with the current full canvas rib.

As DW alluded to, GY-welting is a machine made imitation of the original process. But, within the realm of Goodyear manufacturing, there are companies that are hell-bent on doing things the "original" Goodyear manufacturing way, and they stand behind their product (albeit within the context of an inherently weaker product which we don't need to rehash). The Northampton industry and some American manufacturers take a lot of pride in their product. I don't say any of this to take sides or reopen the merits of the manufacturing process. Rather, I'm talking about this for a perspective to consider that the current method of gemming may not be inferior to the original cut and turned Goodyear technique. Also, considering the advances in cements that have been made, I wouldn't be fully confident to say that the current gemming may not be just as strong (or stronger) as the thin cut and turned leather flaps from the original method. I really can't say, as I haven't performed any scientific tests myself, and I haven't found any literature to indicate one way or the other. It's purely speculation, and something to consider. It's all shoddy in strength compared to a channeled insole for hand-welting. But, ignoring that for the sake of this conversation, I think it's possible that nearly all of the companies have shifted to the current method of gemming because it actually may be better than the original method.

There is the consideration that the current method probably did open the door to even thinner leather insoles than what the cut and turned method allowed for, which would be cost-saving to the manufacturer and certainly plays a role in their bottom-line decision making which all factories are faced with.

The original method was also probably a bit more expensive to carry out. There would have been three people to pay (one person guiding the insole through the cut/turn machine, one person cutting and attaching the gemming, and one person for trimming the gemming with another machine). There would also be the cost of the canvas sheets, cement, and the cost/maintenance of the cut/turn machine and trimming machine.

With the current method, there is the machine which applies the gemming rib, and the person who guides the insole through it. I suspect that the cost of the current gemming rib is greater than the rolls of canvas sheets, being far more specialized. In the original method, they just had someone cutting sheets to size with a pair of scissors, and sticking it to the leather with a small hand tool, followed by the person trimming it to size.

So, I would venture a guess that at best, the factory is saving money on two people's salaries, and some cost on leather. DW could probably speak to the cost savings of a slightly thinner insole that they may have shifted to when they no longer used the cut/turn method.

Again, I'm no cost/efficiency expert, but I'm not fully convinced that they moved from the original method to the current method simply because it's cheaper. I suspect that the flaws in the original process were great enough to warrant seeking improvement, and the current process is the result.

I suppose I could be trivializing the "factory mentality" and drive to shave cost from manufacturing to improve the bottom line though.

 

[Zapasman]

Thank you MoneyWelSpent for your reply. I am very interested on this issue cause I am a final user of shoes with this original GY technique.

First, I actually was thinking of the benefits of the original GY welting technique as far as its producction has to be more expensive (more processes involved , more materials and more human resourses and time). Maybe no benefits at all as pointed out.

Second comes with the complexity of recrafting or resoling the shoe produced with this technique in comparison to the others. Ex: If the leather rib is damaged (it seems not very consistent) are you suppose to change the insole?. If that leather rib is not much consistent, the maker/cobbler has to deal with two materials; the canvas and the leather rib (not just the canvas sheet). I wonder if the new technique has taken this issue into account too.

What do you think?

 

[thelonius]

Carmina certainly doesn't use the original Goodyear-welting technique of cutting and turning the leather and reinforcing with canvas. They use the standard canvas rib cemented to the insole. JM Weston is the only company I know of that still uses the original method, though I read recently that Church's retained their machinery to perform this technique as a "fall-back" for when the current method wasn't available. Whatever that means.

Also, JM Weston uses both methods. Not just the original.

I'm not entirely sure that the original technique for GY-welting is better than the current method either. It has been discussed that the reason for the original method being replaced was because of the inherent flaw in the process that left a weak inseam due to the leather becoming brittle and ripping with the flexing of the shoe. They attempted to mitigate this by cementing the canvas sheet for reinforcement of the leather rib, and eventually they replaced the entire method with the current full canvas rib.

As DW alluded to, GY-welting is a machine made imitation of the original process. But, within the realm of Goodyear manufacturing, there are companies that are hell-bent on doing things the "original" Goodyear manufacturing way, and they stand behind their product (albeit within the context of an inherently weaker product which we don't need to rehash). The Northampton industry and some American manufacturers take a lot of pride in their product. I don't say any of this to take sides or reopen the merits of the manufacturing process. Rather, I'm talking about this for a perspective to consider that the current method of gemming may not be inferior to the original cut and turned Goodyear technique. Also, considering the advances in cements that have been made, I wouldn't be fully confident to say that the current gemming may not be just as strong (or stronger) as the thin cut and turned leather flaps from the original method. I really can't say, as I haven't performed any scientific tests myself, and I haven't found any literature to indicate one way or the other. It's purely speculation, and something to consider. It's all shoddy in strength compared to a channeled insole for hand-welting. But, ignoring that for the sake of this conversation, I think it's possible that nearly all of the companies have shifted to the current method of gemming because it actually may be better than the original method.

There is the consideration that the current method probably did open the door to even thinner leather insoles than what the cut and turned method allowed for, which would be cost-saving to the manufacturer and certainly plays a role in their bottom-line decision making which all factories are faced with.

The original method was also probably a bit more expensive to carry out. There would have been three people to pay (one person guiding the insole through the cut/turn machine, one person cutting and attaching the gemming, and one person for trimming the gemming with another machine). There would also be the cost of the canvas sheets, cement, and the cost/maintenance of the cut/turn machine and trimming machine.

With the current method, there is the machine which applies the gemming rib, and the person who guides the insole through it. I suspect that the cost of the current gemming rib is greater than the rolls of canvas sheets, being far more specialized. In the original method, they just had someone cutting sheets to size with a pair of scissors, and sticking it to the leather with a small hand tool, followed by the person trimming it to size.

So, I would venture a guess that at best, the factory is saving money on two people's salaries, and some cost on leather. DW could probably speak to the cost savings of a slightly thinner insole that they may have shifted to when they no longer used the cut/turn method.

Again, I'm no cost/efficiency expert, but I'm not fully convinced that they moved from the original method to the current method simply because it's cheaper. I suspect that the flaws in the original process were great enough to warrant seeking improvement, and the current process is the result.

I suppose I could be trivializing the "factory mentality" and drive to shave cost from manufacturing to improve the bottom line though.

I read that Paraboot uses this technique for some of its lines, JFTR.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Thank you MoneyWelSpent for your reply. I am very interested on this issue cause I am a final user of shoes with this original GY technique.

First, I actually was thinking of the benefits of the original GY welting technique as far as its producction has to be more expensive (more processes involved , more materials and more human resourses and time). Maybe no benefits at all as pointed out.

Second comes with the complexity of recrafting or resoling the shoe produced with this technique in comparison to the others. Ex: If the leather rib is damaged (it seems not very consistent) are you suppose to change the insole?. If that leather rib is not much consistent, the maker/cobbler has to deal with two materials; the canvas and the leather rib (not just the canvas sheet). I wonder if the new technique has taken this issue into account too.

What do you think?

I would suspect that it is easier to repair small sections that are damaged using the current method, since they could just re-glue it. I don't know how they would deal with small torn sections in the old method. I suspect they would feel the need to replace the insole sooner. However, for larger sections of damage, I think they replace the insole even in the current method rather than trying to reattach new gemming due to the way that the machine works. It's simply made to attach the gemming when the insole is separate from the rest of the shoe.

So, it would seem logical to me that the current method would be easier to repair small sections of damage or separated gemming. But, I don't work in a shoe factory and can't say anything beyond what seems to be logical from an engineering standpoint.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

I read that Paraboot uses this technique for some of its lines, JFTR.

Good to know, I'll look them up.

 

[Zapasman]

I would suspect that it is easier to repair small sections that are damaged using the current method, since they could just re-glue it. I don't know how they would deal with small torn sections in the old method. I suspect they would feel the need to replace the insole sooner. However, for larger sections of damage, I think they replace the insole even in the current method rather than trying to reattach new gemming due to the way that the machine works. It's simply made to attach the gemming when the insole is separate from the rest of the shoe.

So, it would seem logical to me that the current method would be easier to repair small sections of damage or separated gemming. But, I don't work in a shoe factory and can't say anything beyond what seems to be logical from an engineering standpoint.

I think the same. Thanks for your inputs.

 

[DWFII]



First,  I actually was thinking of thebenefits of the  original GY welting technique as far as its producction has to be more expensive (more processes involved , more materials and more human resourses and time). Maybe no benefits at all as pointed out.  

What benefits? Neither technique is as reliable and sturdy as handwelting; but the old GY technique is not as cheap and fast as the contemporary GY process. Seems to me it loses on every count--neither reliable nor expedient. I suspect that's why it didn't survive as a viable process, before it was dumbed down even further.

Second comes with the complexity of recrafting or resoling the shoe produced with this technique in comparison to the others. Ex: If the leather rib is damaged (it seems not very consistent) are you suppose to change the insole?. If that leather rib is not much consistent, the maker/cobbler has to deal with two materials; the canvas and the leather rib (not just the canvas sheet). I wonder if the new technique has taken this issue into account too.

Re-gluing or replacing even small sections of failed gemming may seem simple on the face of it. And maybe it is...when the shoes are never worn hard. But, as I've mentioned numerous times, many of the examples I've dealt with are in shoes and boots that seldom see a carpet. Not abused, mind you, but not mollycoddled either.

When a hole is worn through the outsole, dirt and moisture gain access to the space between the outsole and the insole, and just as importantly, to the gemming and the inseam, as well.

What happens when you walk on an outsole? The leather gets soiled--dirt and tar and all sorts of unthinkable materials get ground into the fibers of the outsole. The world, the environment...the reason we wear shoes in the first place...happens and leaves its mark.

The same thing happens to the gemming and to the insole.

If you Topy an outsole and then wear a hole in it..."same, same, GI." If you want to replace the Topy, you need to grind away the dirt that is impregnated into the underlying leather to ensure that the cement will adhere. (Not a big deal, although it does reduce the substance of the outsole rather unevenly.)

The same factors affect re-gluing or replacing the gemming...even in short sections...except you don't have the ability to expose a new, fresh, surface to anchor the gemming.

Look at these photos:

The reason the insole (which is fairly thick leather) is grey, is dirt. The reason the gemming (which started life a pristine white) is grey, is dirt. It's the same reason the gemming is shredded in this photo (as it often is, dirt or no).

Gluing or re-gluing the gemming is problematic in such cases.

In the old technique, the folded up flaps of leather, which comprised the putative holdfast, got brittle and broke...maybe hastened by dirt. If the canvas was intact, the inseam remained intact and everyone exhaled. If the canvas was frayed and the leather holdfast gone, the only way to repair it was to replace the insole.

In either case...in either method...the only way to repair extensive or intractable gemming/inseam failure is to replace the insole. With the current method, the insole is significantly cheaper to replace than with the older method. That's why recraft departments, associated with the line, were created in the first place.

The end result, in either case...sadly enough...is to facilitate, even nurture, a throw-away society. Ultimately, philosophically...pervasively...the practical result, if not the unspoken agenda, is to make even high end shoes disposable.

Not too surprisingly, there's even a term for it--"planned obsolescence."

edited for punctuation and clarity

--

 

[Zapasman]

Thanks again DW. As I posted before in SF I sent my Weston loafers for resoling. They came out wider and my right foot (the big one) slipes away from the heel area. I sent to the factory an email just to inform about the issue and still waiting for an answer that I am sure it will arrive.

I still wonder why JMW uses both tecniques for different models as MoneyWellSpent said.