STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Quarantanove, Apr 19, 2012.
Pretty much what I have been saying all the while:
^ Agreed, Nick, thanks for sharing.
It's a myth that just keeps on keeping on, I'm sad to see.
I took the shoes in to a cobbler by my house, who also happens to be one of the highest-rated in town, to ask about a topy (which I pronounced "top-ee" and he pronounced "tope-e", so I guess I'll follow his lead).
I mentioned that I thought the shoes were Blake/Rapid but they were just Blake, and he already seemed confused. Not a good start. When I explained the difference, he said "Oh, you mean just McKay vs. welt-stitched [I think that's what he said]". I explained that Blake sold the patent to McKay so they're basically synonymous, and that that extra stitch through the welt is called a rapid stitch. He quickly noticed and agreed that the Bonwelt on it is just a faux welt.
I mentioned that I thought a topy would be useful since it's hard to find McKay stitchers. It turns out he has an old McKay machine that they've had 60-70 years since back when his father owned the shop. He believes it's the only one in town. Good to know that there's one in town if I ever need it.
Anyway, I decided to pass on the topy and instead keep these as dry weather shoes after all. But I wanted to come back thank you all for your insight and knowledge of shoe construction (he asked if my father was in the business based on what I seemed to understand), and to share my experience with my local cobbler.
Sigh. This again, huh?
^Well said, as usual. You make two good points imo:
1) They define gemming failure as "the sole and uppers of the shoe supposedly part company catastrophically with the insole." DW has never defined it as such. This is a lot closer to the standard Vox jokingly set when talking about gemming "explosions." If one defines it at such an extreme, I can believe it doesn't happen. If it's defined more reasonably as the ribbing separating at places, such that parts or the whole thing needs replacing (as DW does), I'm sure it happens at some frequency. What exactly the frequency is, I don't know, and I doubt anyone knows.
2) They say no one has sent in a shoe for this reason. As you mention now and DW has in the past, a consumer would rarely if ever notice the problem, even if s/he were aware it existed, which almost no one does. SF'ers pride ourselves on our knowledge of shoes, but virtually no one knew it was possible till DW discussed it.
What exactly is the myth? The only myths imo are those of two false dichotomies: gemming is perfect or gemming explodes. No one believes either of those myths. Justin's post certainly doesn't advocate blindly for one or the other. It is fair imo, arguing for the superiority of hand-welting and the suitability of GY welting. A good line from his page that summarizes it imo is this:
"Sure, cutting the holdfast by hand and then welting by hand is much better, but it is simply not practical for selling shoes at a reasonable price when manufactured from a country that pays their workers justified wages."
^ The myth is that gemming is as bad as some make out. Yes, as everyone ad mauseum has said (including myself, numerous times), hand welting is better. But GYW isn't as bad as some here claim it is. Common sense, that is all for goodness sake!
Nice to read the conclusion to your story, kentyman. Thanks for sharing
Wrong again. The myth...as emptym pointed out, as many other have also done, repeatedly...is that anyone has ever said, or even implied, anything remotely close to the Chicken Little fantasy you and others have created in your own minds and become fixated on. A fantasy that you cling to because it gives you something to chew on.
The myth is...just as in this thread and your response to emptym... is that you and others would be gracious enough to extend to others the courtesy that you expect for yourselves. To read, to listen, to think objectively about any issue.
You didn't read emptym's post. You haven't really read anyone's post. You scan for buzzwords and what you perceive as points of leverage in order to score points or continue the argument.
And you sanctimoniously and religiously pat all your fellow travelers on the back for echoing your hysterical notion that the sky in falling.
Common sense? If it's common sense, in this case it's as common as intransigence. It's as common as ignorance. It's as common as "don't confuse me with the facts."
I think he thinks your position is that the sky is falling.
I don't think anyone actually thinks the sky if falling.
And imo it would be best if everyone treated each other this way and tried to read the best into each other's posts rather than the worst.
No doubt. But as you yourself pointed out...independently...I've never said anything like that. I've never said the things he and others attribute to me in this discussion. It is a fantasy and a myth that they are perpetuating.
I certainly understand exactly what myth you are referring to. But I don't see much point in revisiting ground well covered.
^ Agreed, Roger.
Gemming killed my dog and set my spouse on fire.
Seriously, though, all this puritanical artisanal quibbling is silly. But perhaps I'd feel less so if I actually owned any ungemmed shoes and had a compulsive need to justify why I spent several thou' on something besides 'it looks good'.
Most shoes here will outlast their owners.
None of mine, albeit one pair have lasted more than five years. For various reasons.
Just another made-up conversation we sold ourselves.
I figure most people here get tired, sell them, and buy new ones before they hit that point. At least for the non-bespoke stuff.
What happens in five years to damage shoes so catastrophically they can't be recrafted? Do people wearing cleats step on your feet a lot?
Separate names with a comma.