Sole Welting

[Nick V.]



The problem with that...no specific person referenced...is that I don't know of a single shoe repair shop in the US that has the resources to to a credible "recraft" that involves replacement of the insole and the gemming. The original last is critical and essential if nothing else.

From a makers' point of view this is just another failure of the GY process, as shoes spent 10,000 years evolving towards the goal of any shoe repair being able to address all but the most massive breakdowns related to wear.

There again we see "planned obsolescence" in all its glory. Sending them back to the manufacturer is the only guaranteed way to ensure...that the manufacturer has a steady income stream.
Well you hit it in one there. I drink juices daily (never soft drinks) and my teeth are a wreck. Is there a correlation between the juice or does it have something to do with the fact that I neglected them most of my life but esp. during my time in a remote jungles far from home?

Funny...We often get shoes in that were re-crafted by the maker. After the re-craft the cust. can't wear them. They get sent to us for correction. The makers have themselves sent us re-crafts that they started but got stuck completing. We pull them out of that jam. Very often makers return shoes to the customer with a note explaining that that their shoes were condemned. The cust. sends them to us...we re-craft them to the satisfaction of the customer.

 

[DWFII]



Funny...We often get shoes in that were re-crafted by the maker. After the re-craft the cust. can't wear them. They get sent to us for correction. The makers have themselves sent us re-crafts that they started but got stuck completing. We pull them out of that jam. Very often makers return shoes to the customer with a note explaining that that their shoes were condemned. The cust. sends them to us...we re-craft them to the satisfaction of the customer.

If you think about it you know why that is--the manufacturers are dependent on machines, unskilled workers and rote actions. If you're lasting shoes with a bed laster your flexibility is limited by the length of the machine's stroke. The manufactuaries are limited by the length of their operation's stroke.

They don't have the desire to fiddle with issues that don't fit into that pattern.

It also illustrates the point I've made repeatedly--that the manufacturers don't feel compelled in any way to be responsible for their work. The bottom line is all that counts. That's another flaw with the whole paradigm of mass production.

--

 

[Nick V.]



If you think about it you know why that is--the manufacturers are dependent on machines, unskilled workers and rote actions. If you're lasting shoes with a bed laster your flexibility is limited by the length of the machine's stroke. The manufactuaries are limited by the length of their operation's stroke.

They don't have the desire to fiddle with issues that don't fit into that pattern.

It also illustrates the point I've made repeatedly--that the manufacturers don't feel compelled in any way to be responsible for their work. The bottom line is all that counts. That's another flaw with the whole paradigm of mass production.

--

Agreed with most of that. However, some of the companies I am referring to are not known for mass producing.
All of this is another reason I feel having to have the original lasts for re-crafting is over-rated when you have skilled craftsman.

 

[DWFII]



Agreed with most of that. However, some of the companies I am referring to are not known for mass producing.
All of this is another reason I feel having to have the original lasts for re-crafting is over-rated when you have skilled craftsman.

Depends on the definitions, I suppose...mine of "credible"; yours of "skilled craftsmen."

I don't doubt that you employ skilled craftsmen. But a world-renown bag maker, for instance, doesn't have the same skills or depth of knowledge as a shoemaker. Nor is he qualified...beyond a certain point...to comment on shoemaking issues (and vice-versa of course).

The resolution in all of this is for someone like yourself, who has all these contacts...or like Bengal Stripe...to approach one of these major recrafters--the workers themselves, say the shop foreman, and ask what percentage of shoes coming back show signs of gemming failures no matter how minor.

That's something I would be interested in learning and something I would pursue myownself but I know none of you would believe me if I turned out to be correct.

If I was wrong...it would be no skin off my teeth. Times change, technology changes. Maybe the adhesives are better...I suspect they are and that it won't be long before we'll see a new crop of apolgizers defending CC.

Regardless, it wouldn't bother me to admit that GY was now perfectly stable tick-tacky.

That's one of the secret joys of being a bespoke shoemaker (or tailor, or any bespoke anything)--I know there will always be people who appreciate quality and fine things and who "do not prize the word cheap".

And I know I'll always be dealing with them.

--

 

[RogerP]

Quote:
Good info here, Nick - and throughout.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Having been reading this thread for a long time now without commenting, it's been obvious to me throughout that this thread is caught in a vicious cycle. The irony of that being that from my perspective, everyone agrees on the basic premise of the thread that is being argued over. The issue seems to be that people aren't appreciating how the opposing person is wording their stance. After so many posts, people are losing sight of the fact that they agree on the basic premise at the expense of how it was stated. As the ladies are fond of saying... "It's not what you said, it's how you said it."

People arguing against DW's stance have repeatedly said that they take no issue with the fact that hand-welting is superior to GY-welting. Thereby acknowledging DW's essential point.

On the flip side, DW has said again and again that he recognizes the reason for GY-welted shoes, and accepts that they have their place in the quality hierarchy. He has said again and again that he realizes that when subjected to the type of use that the average businessman will use them for, and even more so to the gentle use that the average SF member will use them for, that gemming failure may never be experienced. In other words, he's acknowledging that in all likelihood, you haven't experienced it. He's also acknowledging that even if you have experienced it, you may not have known it. He isn't saying that you should go throw all your GY-welted shoes in the trash. He has acknowledged your basic argument as well!

He is simply saying that GY-welted shoes aren't the best, and explained why. As he said, he didn't restart this thread. He was called out and asked, and he responded.

People keep the argument going while agreeing on the basic premise. "Yes, Hand-welted shoes are better... but..." And then the discussion spirals back into name calling taking issue with how something was said rather than the meat of what was said. You can't acknowledge that hand-welted construction is better, while making claims in the same breath that GY-welting isn't fundamentally flawed. You are contradicting yourself. In order for something to be superior or inferior to something else, it has to have reason for being so.

I can agree that DW doesn't sugar coat his stance on this, and sometimes it smarts a bit. Why does that matter at the end of the day? We are all internet strangers. If you were an expert in something (and perhaps you are), you would probably get frustrated by the propagation of ignorance in your area of expertise as well. I sure do. Even the most patient types will lose patience after years of arguing the same argument, when the basic premise is agreed upon and tangible for all to see and touch. Just accept that this is an area of contention, and is a source of frustration for someone who knows what they are talking about, and don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

From what I can tell, the reason people are keeping up the circular argument is because they aren't comfortable with an expert taking a solid position and sticking with it. That may be subconscious, but I think it's true. DW doesn't compromise on the quality of the product he puts out, to the best of his ability. In some cases, the "best" isn't an option because of the state of the industry, but he weeds out inferior components when they are discovered to have a fundamental flaw that makes them inherently inferior to something else, and always chooses the better option. People seem to be uncomfortable with someone else pointing out that there are very few companies that use this approach. Rather, they approach it from the bottom line, and they are ok with compromises which will still keep the customer happy while ensuring that they make their necessary profit.

Rather than getting uncomfortable and angry with someone who espouses knowledge and clearly delineates what makes one product better than another, I take comfort in knowing that someone is keeping tabs on preventing quality and knowledge from falling by the wayside. For all you history buffs, haven't we learned anything from the collapse of the Roman Empire? Why were the Middle Ages also called the "Dark Ages", and why was the end of it called the "Renaissance?" Shoes have been going through their own "dark age" for a while now, and with the renaissance in men's wear that's been taking place in recent years, much as come to light with regard how things once were and where we have cheapened things in the name of expediency and profit. I can't afford a pair of shoes like the ones DW makes, but I take great comfort in knowing that there is someone who knows how, rather than deriding that. I also take comfort in knowing that I am doing the best I can with my money. Someone else's knowledge and ability to point out weaknesses in the best product I can afford doesn't unsettle me. I guess I'm just not that fragile. I'm still doing the best I can, and nobody but me can take that away, because it's a choice. It's also a choice that is easier to be made when I know my options and why I'm choosing them. Without someone who makes the best, I wouldn't have a standard by which to compare the rest.

It is interesting that welting techniques seem to be the only area that incite such a heated discussion. Why do the best shoes use certain cuts of leather over others? Why use wooden pegs instead of nails? The list can go on and on. You could easily say that you haven't personally had problems with having nails in your shoes. Does that mean that Lemon wood pegs aren't better for a fundamental reason? Will your shoes ever fail because they used nails instead of pegs, if everything else is top quality? Who knows. But, if everything else is top quality (read pinnacle of construction aimed at durability) then nails are still your weak link. Deal with it. Live with it. Or, use wooden pegs. Don't get angry and bitter at the guy that tells you why they are better. They are the single component of your shoe that is preventing them from entirely reaching the pinnacle of quality. This knowledge shouldn't make you feel uncomfortable if your economics dictate that shoes with nails are all you can afford. Take the knowledge that there is something better, be enriched by that, perhaps even aspire to that (or perhaps not), and move on.

Are nails good enough for a shoe to last for decades under "average businessman's use?" Sure. Does that make them "good enough?" Sure, under certain points of view. Does that mean it's wrong to approach your craft from the angle that "good enough" isn't best? Not at all.

I can just hear someone's weepy anecdote right now... "I thought nails were good enough, and wooden pegs were over-rated, so I bought shoes with nails. That old chap, DW, told me why nails were inferior to pegs, but I just shrugged because he makes shoes to handle abuse that I never throw at them. I thought he was just blowing smoke and wasn't appreciating that I'm spending tons of money on my shoes. *********, I thought to myself. I wear my shoes in a carpeted home, get in my garaged car, drive to work and park in a parking garage, and work in a carpeted office building. Some time later, I was on a business trip and got word that a close friend of mine died. I had to catch a flight directly to their funeral, and wore the suit and shoes I had with me. On the day of the funeral, it was pouring rain, and I had to trudge across hundreds of yards of slushy soft wet grass. I stood in the rain during the service for over an hour. I was soaked to the bone. It took my shoes nearly a week to dry completely after I got home. Once they were dry, they seemed fine. When I sent them in for re-soling several months later, I was told by the manufacturer that they can't be repaired because the nails in the heel of the insole had rusted and destroyed the leather they were clinched to. When they disassembled the shoe, the heel area of the insole lost it's integrity and can't be repaired. They were my favorite shoes."

"Good enough is an enemy" - Skip Horween

 

[Nick V.]



Depends on the definitions, I suppose...mine of "credible"; yours of "skilled craftsmen."

I don't doubt that you employ skilled craftsmen. But a world-renown bag maker, for instance, doesn't have the same skills or depth of knowledge as a shoemaker. Nor is he qualified...beyond a certain point...to comment on shoemaking issues (and vice-versa of course).

The resolution in all of this is for someone like yourself, who has all these contacts...or like Bengal Stripe...to approach one of these major recrafters--the workers themselves, say the shop foreman, and ask what percentage of shoes coming back show signs of gemming failures no matter how minor.

That's something I would be interested in learning and something I would pursue myownself but I know none of you would believe me if I turned out to be correct.

If I was wrong...it would be no skin off my teeth. Times change, technology changes. Maybe the adhesives are better...I suspect they are and that it won't be long before we'll see a new crop of apolgizers defending CC.

Regardless, it wouldn't bother me to admit that GY was now perfectly stable tick-tacky.

That's one of the secret joys of being a bespoke shoemaker (or tailor, or any bespoke anything)--I know there will always be people who appreciate quality and fine things and who "do not prize the word cheap".

And I know I'll always be dealing with them.

 

[RogerP]

Re. "You can't acknowledge that hand-welted construction is better, while making claims in the same breath that GY-welting isn't fundamentally flawed."

Of course you can. Just because A is better than B, it does not follow that B is fundamentally flawed.

And if B were fundamentally flawed in terms of construction, then the resulting failures would be widely evident. They are not.

 

[DWFII]

MoneyWellSpent,

Thanks...

I thought you might enjoy this:

For Want of a...Nail? by D.W. Frommer II

My story’s one that goes back a ways, bout an Oregon buckaroo.
Back when we was still runnin’ ‘em to market in Elko and Winnemucca too.

Now Oxbow Bob craved a new pair of boots when he come off the trail
For three long months he’d favored the left on account of a wayward nail.

He’d pointed the herd from the old "P" Ranch to where the Humbolt river flows.
There’s a bootshop down on mainstreet and that’s where Oxbow goes.

So he eases into the settee and wrenches off a boot
His socks are black from a winter back when he cleaned the lantern soot.

Now a smell like ancient mummies arose from the tattered wraps
And it makes the master stagger and a customer collapse.

Bob, he never notices the gentlefolk streamin’ out the door,
But braces his back for the other boot and leans into the chore.

His muscles knot, his face turns red and his eyes begin to swell.
He curses the damned old stinker in words I dare not tell.

But it’s the left boot boys, that won’t come off and when all is said and done,
That nail is deep in Oxbow’s flesh - he and the boot are one.

Now the master knows his duty and approaches with a sigh,
He’s seen this problem many times and he knows the reason why.

"That boot will have to be cut off," he says, "and maybe a part of yore heel,
Yer lucky you didn’t loose the leg to that chunk of rusty steel!"

Now Bob, he’s got a new nickname, the hands all call him Tilt.
And Francine, down at Mona’s, thinks he oughta have a bootheel built

That will straighten up his stature and allow old Bob to hold her,
As they waltz around the dance floor, without his chin hooked on her shoulder.

So beware of a boot that’s made with nails, what you want is the hardwood peg,
At least if it lodges itself in your heel, you’ll have the start of a wooden leg.​

PS...Mona's is a famous whorehouse in Elko, Nevada that is over a hundred years old and still in operation.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Re. "You can't acknowledge that hand-welted construction is better, while making claims in the same breath that GY-welting isn't fundamentally flawed."

Of course you can. Just because A is better than B, it does not follow that B is fundamentally flawed.

And if B were fundamentally flawed in terms of construction, then the resulting failures would be widely evident. They are not.

The problem is, you can't turn that statement into a mathematical equation, or a logical fallacy.

If A is better than B, it is for a reason. The definition of fundamental is being taken too seriously by some here.

Quite simply:

Fundamental (adjective): forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.

Fundamental (noun): a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based.

The fundamental difference between a GY-welted shoe and a hand-welted shoe is the canvas gemming. If the gemming is weaker than a carved hold-fast on a hand-welted shoe, no matter how statistically significant (or insignificant) that may be, then it is fundamentally flawed when compared to a hand-welted shoe.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

MoneyWellSpent,

Thanks...

I thought you might enjoy this:

For Want of a...Nail? by D.W. Frommer II

My story’s one that goes back a ways, bout an Oregon buckaroo.
Back when we was still runnin’ ‘em to market in Elko and Winnemucca too.

Now Oxbow Bob craved a new pair of boots when he come off the trail
For three long months he’d favored the left on account of a wayward nail.

He’d pointed the herd from the old "P" Ranch to where the Humbolt river flows.
There’s a bootshop down on mainstreet and that’s where Oxbow goes.

So he eases into the settee and wrenches off a boot
His socks are black from a winter back when he cleaned the lantern soot.

Now a smell like ancient mummies arose from the tattered wraps
And it makes the master stagger and a customer collapse.

Bob, he never notices the gentlefolk streamin’ out the door,
But braces his back for the other boot and leans into the chore.

His muscles knot, his face turns red and his eyes begin to swell.
He curses the damned old stinker in words I dare not tell.

But it’s the left boot boys, that won’t come off and when all is said and done,
That nail is deep in Oxbow’s flesh - he and the boot are one.

Now the master knows his duty and approaches with a sigh,
He’s seen this problem many times and he knows the reason why.

"That boot will have to be cut off," he says, "and maybe a part of yore heel,
Yer lucky you didn’t loose the leg to that chunk of rusty steel!"

Now Bob, he’s got a new nickname, the hands all call him Tilt.
And Francine, down at Mona’s, thinks he oughta have a bootheel built

That will straighten up his stature and allow old Bob to hold her,
As they waltz around the dance floor, without his chin hooked on her shoulder.

So beware of a boot that’s made with nails, what you want is the hardwood peg,
At least if it lodges itself in your heel, you’ll have the start of a wooden leg.​

PS...Mona's is a famous whorehouse in Elko, Nevada that is over a hundred years old and still in operation.

 

[RogerP]

Quote:
Sorry, I'm not buying that as an example of logic at all. In terms of quality of any product, there can and usually are varying degrees. Poor, fair, good, better, best - however one wants to differentiate. It does not follow that between each level, the one that is inferior must be "fundamentally flawed" in comparison to the one that is immediately superior. This is even more the case where the very top levels are being compared. That which separates the very good from the very best is often a small improvement, not a large one. You could argue that a Bentley is superior to an Audi, but few would accept that the very best Audis are, as a consequence, "fundamentally flawed". And again, examined not in comparison, but on its own merit, proclaiming GYW welt construction to be fundameentally flawed is, well, fundamentally at odds with reality. A fundamentally flawed construction method will not fail so infrequently as to hardly be worthy of mention. If so, the flaw could not meaningfully be described a "fundamental". It's not a question of that term being "taken too seriously". Rather, it's a question of that term being grossly misused to wildly inflate and exaggerate the practical consequences of the stated "flaw".

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Sorry, I'm not buying that as an example of logic at all. In terms of quality of any product, there can and usually are varying degrees. Poor, fair, good, better, best - however one wants to differentiate.

It does not follow that between each level, the one that is inferior must be "fundamentally flawed" in comparison to the one that is immediately superior. This is even more the case where the very top levels are being compared. That which separates the very good from the very best is often a small improvement, not a large one. You could argue that a Bentley is superior to an Audi, but few would accept that the very best Audis are, as a consequence, "fundamentally flawed".

And again, examined not in comparison, but on its own merit, proclaiming GYW welt construction to be fundameentally flawed is, well, fundamentally at odds with reality. A fundamentally flawed construction method will not fail so infrequently as to hardly be worthy of mention. If so, the flaw could not meaningfully be described a "fundamental".

It's not a question of that term being "taken too seriously". Rather, it's a question of that term being grossly misused to wildly inflate and exaggerate the practical consequences of the stated "flaw".

I have tried to use car analogies when having these discussions many times, and I nearly always delete the post because cars are so complex that they just can't really apply to the situation. I get what you are trying to say. However, I still think that the word "fundamental" is being blown out of proportion, even though you may disagree. You are fully correct that quality has varying degrees. It is a spectrum, in other words. You are also fully correct that it doesn't follow that there must be a fundamental flaw between each level of quality. That is because the differences between the levels of quality may not be fundamental themselves. What is the difference between a John Lobb and an Edward Green? We all know enough about shoes that I don't need to create a bulleted list. Are the differences fundamental flaws? No. The differences are not fundamental to the shoe at all. They don't meet the definitions of the word I provided.

A sole is a fundamental component of a shoe.

A fiddleback waist is not. If it were, then all shoes without fiddleback waists wouldn't meet the requirements of being as shoe.

This thread was reawakened with one of the questions being what the aesthetic differences are between a GY-welted shoe and a hand-welted shoe. Aesthetically, there doesn't have to be any difference. Therefore, it isn't fundamental to the difference.

Without gemming, a GY-welted shoe can't exist. That is fundamental to the existence of the shoe. Without it, it is something else entirely. The gemming is the source of discussion which this entire thread is based, in comparison to hand-welted. If hand-welted is better, which we all agree that it is, then we come full circle. The reason it is better is because it is stronger. If it is stronger because of the fundamental component of a GY-welted shoe that even allows that GY-welted shoe to exist, then that fundamental component is flawed compared to the superior hand-welt.

It has to remain in the context of the discussion. I'm not saying that GY-welted shoes are fundamentally flawed when compared to other irrelevant issues which we aren't discussing.

 

[RogerP]

Car analogies aren't a perfect equivalent by any stretch - it was merely advanced in this instance to demontrate that, as a matter of logic "A is superior to B" does not necesarily equal "B is fundamentally flawed in comparison to A'. A can be superior in a manner that is less than fundamental.

You don't accept that, and that's fine.

To my mind, a fundamentally flawed method of construction that doesn't fail, isn't fundamentally flawed in the first place.

You don't accept hat, and that's fine.

A sole is fundamental to a shoe just as an engine is fundamental to a car. But it doesn't follow as a matter of logic, language or practical reality, that in each and every respect that one engine can be said to be better than another, it renders the latter engine "fundamentally flawed". In other words, the degree to which an indisputably fundamental element is superior can be great or it can be small.

You don't accept that, and that's fine.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

I have tried to use car analogies when having these discussions many times, and I nearly always delete the post because cars are so complex that they just can't really apply to the situation. I get what you are trying to say. However, I still think that the word "fundamental" is being blown out of proportion, even though you may disagree. You are fully correct that quality has varying degrees. It is a spectrum, in other words. You are also fully correct that it doesn't follow that there must be a fundamental flaw between each level of quality. That is because the differences between the levels of quality may not be fundamental themselves. What is the difference between a John Lobb and an Edward Green? We all know enough about shoes that I don't need to create a bulleted list. Are the differences fundamental flaws? No. The differences are not fundamental to the shoe at all. They don't meet the definitions of the word I provided.

A sole is a fundamental component of a shoe.

A fiddleback waist is not. If it were, then all shoes without fiddleback waists wouldn't meet the requirements of being as shoe.

This thread was reawakened with one of the questions being what the aesthetic differences are between a GY-welted shoe and a hand-welted shoe. Aesthetically, there doesn't have to be any difference. Therefore, it isn't fundamental to the difference.

Without gemming, a GY-welted shoe can't exist. That is fundamental to the existence of the shoe. Without it, it is something else entirely. The gemming is the source of discussion which this entire thread is based, in comparison to hand-welted. If hand-welted is better, which we all agree that it is, then we come full circle. The reason it is better is because it is stronger. If it is stronger because of the fundamental component of a GY-welted shoe that even allows that GY-welted shoe to exist, then that fundamental component is flawed compared to the superior hand-welt.

It has to remain in the context of the discussion. I'm not saying that GY-welted shoes are fundamentally flawed when compared to other irrelevant issues which we aren't discussing.

Car analogies aren't a perfect equivalent by any stretch - it was merely advanced in this instance to demontrate that, as a matter of logic "A is superior to B" does not necesarily equal "B is fundamentally flawed in comparison to A'. A can be superior in a manner that is less than fundamental.

You don't accept that, and that's fine.

To my mind, a fundamentally flawed method of construction that doesn't fail, isn't fundamentally flawed in the first place.

You don't accept hat, and that's fine.

A sole is fundamental to a shoe just as an engine is fundamental to a car. But it doesn't follow as a matter of logic, language or practical reality, that in each and every respect that one engine can be said to be better than another, it renders the latter engine "fundamentally flawed". In other words, the degree to which an indisputably fundamental element is superior can be great or it can be small.

You don't accept that, and that's fine.

You are putting words in my mouth with some of your "you don't accept that" comments. To my mind, I said the same thing as you did in your first sentence (see bolded in my post). Something can be superior in a manner that is less than fundamental. I agree with your statement in your last point regarding engines. I also don't think that each and every respect that one engine can be said to be better than another renders the latter engine fundamentally flawed, and of course the degree to which an indisputably fundamental element is superior can be great or small.

Gemming does fail. Frequency of failure aside, it does fail. I comfortably wear GY-welted shoes and don't worry about them failing, that doesn't change that I am aware that it can happen. I'm also aware that my water heater could spring a leak and flood my house. Do I lose sleep over it, or choose to take cold showers? No.

I think the engine analogy is just as complex as the car analogy. We aren't talking shoes as a whole, with all their nuances and variables. We are strictly talking about two directly comparable methods of attaching a welt. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), in the case of the shoe, we are talking about one method (GY-welting) having been developed to mimic the other method (hand-welting) by using machines. GY-welting was not developed in an attempt to fix something that wasn't broken from a structural standpoint. They weren't looking to improve the shoes themselves. They were looking to improve on economics of shoemaking and availability, while keeping the product "good enough." It stands to reason that those to whom economics don't apply (because they are wealthy enough) would want their product to me made the way it was originally intended. After all, it wasn't broken, and as DW fondly says, shoes evolved to their pinnacle of quality for a reason.

Perhaps we should create a hypothetical engine scenario rather than a real world one. Take two identical engines by the same maker, only in one of them substitute your block for a synthetic alternative to the traditional one. You are trying to decide which car to buy. The one with the synthetic block costs a bit less than the one with the traditional one. The synthetic material block is not better than traditional ones, and they have simply been designed to save people money. The salesman says that both cars will safely get you to 100,000 miles. You tell him that you would like to get as many miles as you can, and would like more than the status quo. You ask him what the failure rate is of synthetic material blocks compared to traditional ones, and he says that they are so rare that it isn't worth worrying about as long as you just drive your car on the highway and around town at typical speed limits, and as long as you maintain your engine properly, changing the oil at the recommended intervals. He says that he has heard a few reports of synthetic engine block failure, but they are so rare that they are deemed perfectly acceptable and safe. You tell him that sometimes you like to race your car, and that you like to drive faster than the speed limit. You also tell him that sometimes you are not optimal about maintaining your car. What do you think he would recommend? I think he would recommend against the synthetic option. Now, fast forward 100 years and the synthetic blocks have been around so long that most people don't even know that there used to be anything different, if they even look under the hood to begin with, and 99 out of 100 cars has synthetic engine blocks. The one outlying car with the traditional engine block is multiple times more expensive, and it is viewed as an "exclusive" model. You debate on the merits of which one to buy, and get angry at the person who reminds you that the traditional material is better because it can withstand more abuse. You get angry because you only plan to drive your car around town and obey the speed limit and you plan to maintain it carefully. Does this make the synthetic engine block car equal to the traditional one, or is it still inferior in spite of your economic situation and intended use?

I think the issue really is that simple, and people are trying to make it more complicated than it is. If the hand-welt is superior, why is that?

When a hand-welted shoe fails, as was seen in the photo posted a while back by Bengal-Stripe, is it because of a fundamental flaw in the design of the shoe, or is it because the shoe wasn't built properly? When gemming fails, is it because of a fundamental flaw in the design of the shoe, or is it because it wasn't built properly? With regard to the hand-welted shoe, I'd submit that it failed because it wasn't built properly. With the GY-welted shoe, I'd submit that it could be either one. I've been using glue since I was knee high to a grass-hopper on all manner of things. I know that glue is a man-made product that doesn't always hold. Does that mean that I don't use glue? No. A thick piece of leather that is stitched through, compared to a thin piece of leather with a piece of canvas glued to it that is subjected to the same forces will not have equal results over time. The question is how much time? This debate has been made much more complicated that it really has to be, I think.