Sole Welting

[DWFII]



Justin, could you please elaborate on the above statement ? I recently bought a pair of Anthony Cleverley shoes and Mr. Glasgow assured me the shoes were hand welted

Why do you doubt his/Cleaverly's assurances? My advice is to take people at face value...until proven otherwise. Choosing who you want to believe solely on the basis of what you want to believe, smacks of arrogance....IMO.

On edit...re-reading, I recognize that my last sentence could be mis-taken. I did not mean it as a commentary on your remarks but rather as a general observation regarding the prevalence of misinformation on the internet...and how we got to this pass. No offense meant.

--

 

[The Shoe Snob]



If I'm not mistaken, G&G are GY. That's never been in dispute.

But from what I've been led to believe, they do some bespoke, as well. And like many...all?... makers who do bespoke, they, almost by default, handwelt.

That's the de facto, sui generis choice that even the "practical" manufacturers go to whenever they are called upon to infuse a little quality.... to "do their best," IOW.

There's a lesson there...for those who would allow it.

I can't really tell if your agreement was genuine or facetious? I can't say that I agree that practicality is the submission of defeat, but hey to each his own. I strive for excellence in everything that I do, but that does not mean that I don't also utilize practical train of thought.

G&G bespoke are of course handwelted. Would you think anything less? This whole discussion is in reference to RTW shoes, not bespoke.

G&G RTW are GYW.

G&G bespoke are hand welted.

GC RTW are GYW.

None of the above seems to be in any dispute.

The question is whether the "semi-bespoke" AC line of GC are hand lasted and hand welted.  GC says they are.  But there has long been conflicting information in the subject.

I have it on good faith from someone that I completely trust who is a good friend and is a bespoke maker, that he has once ripped the upper off of an AC shoe to then use it to make a bespoke shoe for a friend of his, saving the insole and all of the components. He said that they were GY welted. So there is that....but that again was an older shoe purchased about 1.5 years ago...if something has changed, I would be happy to know about it. The insole will tell the truth...

 

[chogall]

Hand welt is not practical for mass production. But neither is GY welting; majority of the shoes made are glued.

What's the goal in supporting the ephemeral? And why bother justifying the marketing make believe that GY welting is a good substitute for hand welting when it is clearly not?

 

[chogall]

C is GY welted.

 

[DWFII]



I can't really tell if your agreement was genuine or facetious? I can't say that I agree that practicality is the submission of defeat, but hey to each his own. I strive for excellence in everything that I do, but that does not mean that I don't also utilize practical train of thought.

I'm a very practical person, but food for thought--any time the "practical" is allowed to suborn quality or to take precedence over the pursuit of excellence it is nothing less than a defeat.

More to the point, more significantly, it is a retreat.

The phrase "to do your best" has real meaning. It is functionally the same as the "pursuit of excellence." It doesn't mean "do whatever you feel like." Or do whatever you have to in order to get by.

On the most fundamental level the only way you can escape the constraints of doing your best is to remain ignorant (which may explain a lot).

It's a matter of knowledge...if only because it is what we "think we know" that informs who we are and the tools we have at our disposal. If you know/acknowledge that handwelting is the best, then to embrace GY is not doing your best. It is doing your second...or third ...best. It is expediency.

It is not the pursuit of excellence...it is the pursuit of convenience.

Once you're exposed to the "truth" there's no escape except in denial.


--

 

[The Shoe Snob]



Hand welt is not practical for mass production. But neither is GY welting; majority of the shoes made are glued.

What's the goal in supporting the ephemeral? And why bother justifying the marketing make believe that GY welting is a good substitute for hand welting when it is clearly not?

"clearly is not"? on what basis do you support that? Because of accusations made about gemming failure (by one) and a picture of a shoe that looks 100 years old? What about Edward Greens that have lasted 30 years and are still going...lots of people have those...is that not a good replication of a shoe that is afforded by few to be afforded by a few more?

I can see that this is a dead end argument. Just a bit curious why you own GY welted shoes if you are so against them....and sorry, have you personally had gemming failure?

 

[The Shoe Snob]



I'm a very practical person, but food for thought--any time the "practical" is allowed to suborn quality or to take precedence over the pursuit of excellence it is nothing less than a defeat.

More to the point, more significantly, it is a retreat.

The phrase "to do your best" has real meaning. It is functionally the same as the "pursuit of excellence." It doesn't mean "do whatever you feel like." Or do whatever you have to in order to get by.

On the most fundamental level the only way you can escape the constraints of doing your best is to remain ignorant (which may explain a lot).

It's a matter of knowledge...if only because it is knowledge that informs who we are and the tools we have at our disposal. If you know that handwelting is the best then to embrace GY is not doing your best. It is doing your second...or third ...best. It is expediency.

It is not the pursuit of excellence...it is the pursuit of convenience.

alright well i said my bit here...i don't really have time to get dragged into an opinion war as I have important things to do. So, enjoy the rest of this thread with the others and I hope that you continue to use your shoemaking knowledge to truly educate people and not just argue your point.

Happy Holidays to all

Justin

 

[DWFII]



Hand welt is not practical for mass production. But neither is GY welting; majority of the shoes made are glued.

What's the goal in supporting the ephemeral? And why bother justifying the marketing make believe that GY welting is a good substitute for hand welting when it is clearly not?

As James Ducker pointed out in his Friday blog...GY construction is fundamentally cement construction.

 

[RogerP]

Justin - thanks for the good info throughout.

I checked as you suggested, and don't see the dimples you described on my AC pair. But then I didn't see them on the Vass pair I looked at for comparison, either. The Vass pair do seem to have a full length liner along the footbed, though, where the Cleverleys do not. Perhaps I'll try to take pics later and you or anyone else with a more informed eye may be able to see more than I can.

 

[DWFII]



"clearly is not"? on what basis do you support that? Because of accusations made about gemming failure (by one) and a picture of a shoe that looks 100 years old? What about Edward Greens that have lasted 30 years and are still going...lots of people have those...is that not a good replication of a shoe that is afforded by few to be afforded by a few more?

The counter to that is simple...how many bespoke makers gem? Why do the manufacturers who are set up to do GY as a matter of de facto convenience nevertheless choose to handwelt when doing bespoke?

I offered three photos one of which clearly...repeat, clearly...was of a relatively new shoe that had never been resoled, much less worn to the point of needing it. To redact that information is clearly not kosher.

You have anecdotes from people who have never had problems with their GY shoes. I have never doubted their testimony in these matters...anymore than I doubt the testimony of lifelong cigarette smokers that they've never gotten cancer or suffered ill effects from smoking. Some feet sweat more than others. Some people buy shoes too narrow or wear them too long before repairing; most people here wear their high end GY shoes relatively infrequently and in protected situations...all sorts of variables there.

But there is a fundamental, inherent weakness in GY construction...even a "planned obsolescence"...that cannot be rationally denied.

Nor, for those who pursue excellence in their own way, dismissed or ignored.

--

 

[RogerP]

What about Edward Greens that have lasted 30 years and are still going...lots of people have those...is that not a good replication of a shoe that is afforded by few to be afforded by a few more?

Indeed. If my EG or AC shoes provide 'ephemeral' service of three decades plus, I'd call that more than a good innings. If my Vass or (soon to arrive) St. Crispin's last twice as long, well, I likely won't be around to enjoy that extra length of service in any event.

 

[DWFII]



I hope that you continue to use your shoemaking knowledge to truly educate people and not just argue your point.

Happy Holidays to all

Justin

It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?

I said I was like you...

when I see some things that simply are not right, I must interject as to not have people thinking things are true, which in fact are not.

Sometimes "truly educating people" simply means not letting spurious information and wishful thinking obscure the facts. Such as the acknowledged fact that GY is not only inferior to handwelting it is, in all probability a "planned obsolescence" even if a necessary one.

Merry Christmas to you....

 

[chogall]



"clearly is not"? on what basis do you support that? Because of accusations made about gemming failure (by one) and a picture of a shoe that looks 100 years old? What about Edward Greens that have lasted 30 years and are still going...lots of people have those...is that not a good replication of a shoe that is afforded by few to be afforded by a few more?

I can see that this is a dead end argument. Just a bit curious why you own GY welted shoes if you are so against them....and sorry, have you personally had gemming failure?

"I can't believe it's not butter" is not butter; High fructose corn syrup is not sugar; Goodyear welted is not hand welted.

A substitue will be a replacement if it's better than the real thing; GY welted is still the substitute to hand welted, just as pleather is a substitute to leather or cemented is a substitute to sewn.

It's a sad thing when you have to base your argument on economical reasons.

 

[The Shoe Snob]

@chogall

You are clearly missing my point or just dont care to see it. I never said GY welted is handwelted, i would know as i have made both and clearly know the difference....Either way it doesnt really matter to me. You may think as you please, doesnt make you right though.... Do continue to enjoy your GY welted shoes....still confused as why you have those??

 

[Stirling]

It is a shame that some people involved in the manafacture of shoes just don't get it or perhaps they do but their motivation for maximum profit won't allow them to take an uncompromising approach to quality.
Buying a fine pair of shoes is generally an act of indulgence rather than necessity. There is a certain old world charm and elegance in stitched leather shoes and their exists a consumer perception that these fine shoes are of the very best quality, from a time honoured tradition and built to last.
If it were to become apparent to the consumer of these fine products that GY welting was "second best" to hand welting and that GY welting was simply the easier, cheaper and more practical choice for manafacturers mass producing shoes, it somewhat erodes that old world charm.