Sole Welting

[Fishball]



My two cents on a topic raised by DW somewhere in this thread. As I recall, DW said that one of the advantages of a handsewn welt is that it makes for a simpler repair job, usually, than a gemmed welt if for no other reason that access to the original last is less necessary to ensure stability since the rib should remain in place. That makes sense to me as an abstract matter, but what I struggle with is that despite the theoretically lower cost of a simpler repair job, the coat of ownership of a bespoke shoe is pretty high. Where exactly can I go to get the soles replaced on a pair of bespoke shoes? Does Nick do it? Will I get as beautifully closed seams? Does he charge less than a Goodyear welt repair because it is easier? I know the stitching on my is handsewn shoes is finer than on the work he usually does on GyW. Dies that mean it will cost me more? Ercolino charges $400 last I checked? That's not nothing. I don't even know how much the London shops charge to resolve their own shoes, but I would expect as much as Perry or more. Anyone have an idea? Anyone know where else one can go to do a resole on a handsewn shoe? And what kind of work do you get if you use a cobbler rather than sending it to the maker?

Does anyone have experience with the long-term cost of ownership of bespoke or handsewn shoes. My oldest pair is about 17 years old, from Seville. When I noticed some wear, I was concerned about how to get then repaired and decide to just put a Topy on them. They are paddock boots so the appearance wasn't a concern. But I certainly didn't want to worry about ruining them with a bad repair.

Nowaday, I do the resole mostly by myself. But I can find a workshop in HK to do the resole sewn by hand at around USD200. If I send it to a shoemaker shop, it would be around USD280.

 

[chogall]



Most restaurant critics aren't chefs. Most film reviewers/critics aren't filmmakers. Most book reviewers/critics aren't novelists. That's how it is out there in the world.

That doesn't mean they don't understand how to cook/film/write.

I don't, but maybe some ignorant folks out there truly can appreciate baseball commentators who can't tell the difference between cricket and baseball or food critica who can't tell the difference between green onion and leek.

After all, most critics nowadays serves more as a source for entertainment, not information.

I put more value on information than entertainment. Some might value things otherwise.

 

[TheWraith]

While there are many bad critics out there, there are also plenty of good ones who match the description I mentioned earlier, whose critiques are often informative as much as anything else.

 

[bengal-stripe]



I put more value on information than entertainment.

But if you do not get your information from a variety of sources, you have no idea if the information has been filtered for ideological reasons and the indoctrination begins.

There is something to be said for being "widely read".

 

[Stirling]

Usus magister est Optimus.

 

[chogall]



But if you do not get your information from a variety of sources, you have no idea if the information has been filtered for ideological reasons and the indoctrination begins.

There is something to be said for being "widely read".

Of course. Thus I very much respect your opinion as well as DWFII or Nick's. And other shoemakers and experienced customers.

Others, not so much.

 

[RogerP]

But if you do not get your information from a variety of sources, you have no idea if the information has been filtered for ideological reasons and the indoctrination begins.

There is something to be said for being "widely read".

Absolutely correct. My skepticism is primarily reserved for anyone constantly bellowing the message that their voice should be singular - or at least paramount - and constantly deriding the expertise (there are many kinds) and contributions of others. Sorry, nobody gets to set my reading list for me. That kind of filtering I reject categorically. Contributions from a wide variety of sources are most welcome - and as I said earlier - essential for balance and accuracy.

 

[DWFII]



But if you do not get your information from a variety of sources, you have no idea if the information has been filtered for ideological reasons and the indoctrination begins.

There is something to be said for being "widely read".

It's an easy sophistry, is what it is. It's true enough as far as it goes but completely bogus without thought and understanding.

You might as well say "there's something to be said about being a trash collector." Because if you can't integrate it and make sense of it, you can't apply it. It's superficial and it makes you superficial. You can be brilliant, erudite, well read...a virtual walking encyclopedia of fragments of other people's wisdom....and still be an idiot--telling tales full of sound and fury which signify nothing. With no wisdom you can call your own.

And truth to tell, information by itself is neutral. Only you can filter it for ideology or indoctrination. If you're all that worried about such things, it suggests a weak mind full of unexamined speculation.

What good is being widely read if all you do is stuff it in the musty corners of your head--those seldom illuminated shadows where you hoard the accumulated and uncatalogued artifacts of other people's lives that you yourself can never bring to bear or put to use?

If knowledge is power, only a fool dabbles in it.

--

 

[reidrothchild]

Way off the topic of sole welting, but I remembered reading this a few weeks back and thought it seemed somewhat relevant to the current debate:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

 

[DWFII]



Way off the topic of sole welting, but I remembered reading this a few weeks back and thought it seemed somewhat relevant to the current debate:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

Experts come in many flavors. Education enables it, but practitioners in a field acquire expertise through experience; usually the combination of the two is the mark of a true expert in a field. But if you have neither education nor experience, you might want to consider exactly what it is you’re bringing to the argument.

In any discussion, you have a positive obligation to learn at least enough to make the conversation possible. The University of Google doesn’t count. Remember: having a strong opinion about something isn’t the same as knowing something.

And the people who most determinedly reject the professional observations of "experts" (often casting about desperately for some other, usually less qualified, less focused expert to hang their ignorance and foolishness on) are the one's who are the most determinedly ignorant...who know the least. And as Steven Dutch pointed out...arrogant.

We all come into this world ignorant, but clinging to ignorance is the surest path to stupidity. And the surest sign of.

--

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Way off the topic of sole welting, but I remembered reading this a few weeks back and thought it seemed somewhat relevant to the current debate:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

That is one of the best, most true, and should-be-required-reading articles I've read in a long time. At the very least, everyone participating in this thread should read it before making any more posts.

I was also struck by the not so coincidental title of the last section of the article: "Experts: the servants, not masters, of a democracy." How many times have I seen DW respond to someone thanking him for his answer to a question by answering "Your humble servant?" Quite a few.

 

[DWFII]



That is one of the best, most true, and should-be-required-reading articles I've read in a long time.  At the very least, everyone participating in this thread should read it before making any more posts.

I was also struck by the not so coincidental title of the last section of the article: "Experts: the servants, not masters, of a democracy."  How many times have I seen DW respond to someone thanking him for his answer to a question by answering "Your humble servant?"  Quite a few.

I hesitate to embroider such a gracious and flattering comment but I am of the opinion that it takes a certain mindfulness to not only notice a closing of that kind but more importantly to understand the sincerity that must, by necessity, inform it (no one wants to be thought of as stiff and affected unless they really mean it).

I don't always close with it but for some people it not only comes naturally but I take a certain pleasure in it...

Yr. Hmb. Svt.

 

[RogerP]

Quote:
Interesting. I recall a past case in which I was involved that centered upon the competing testimony of two experts - forensic pathologists - as to the cause of death. The fellow on our side was a highly respected local chap. Soft spoken, clear and consise, utterly thorough in exlplaining his conclusions and entirely candid in his acknowledgement of the limitations as to complete certainty in what was something of a grey area. The expert called on the other side was from a major American city with one of the highest murder rates in that country - and one whch vastly exceeded (thankflly) that which we experience locally. As such, he had presided over far more autopsies on an annual basis than our local chap. His testimony commenced with his resume, and I thought we had heard the end of it - but whenever the competing conclusions were put to him, he returned to what would be a repetitive mantra "Well, I have conducted over x hundred autopsies a year for y years." He was utterly dimissive of the conclusions of the local fellow - not primarily on the basis of scientific analysis - but on the basis that "He's not in my league." A witness like that, all you need do is give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. And this chucklehead (and a chucklehead he was despite his unquestioned expertise) was gathering rope for himself by the armful. When he was cross-examined, he displayed previously unplumbed depths of arrogant condescension. Again, we heard (for the umpteenth time) how many autopsies he had performed and a clear theme of "How DARE you question me!" emerged. There was NO grey in his world - his knowledge was boundless and his vast experience had already provided him with the answers to all the questions worth asking. He was so dogmatically wedded to his conclusions that he would not acknowledge the most remote possibility of anything less than 100% certainty in any area upon which he had pronounced. If we would all just shut the hell up and take his word as Gospel we would be the better for it. Well, it was the death of AN expert that day. Any guesses as to whose testimony was found to be more credible and reliable? Any guesses as to why?

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

Roger, you bring up a good point, and it is disappointing when people are so blinded by their expert status that they can't see or hear anyone else's expert voice or point of view.

However, I don't think that is what's generally the case in this thread (heated emotion that reaches it's boiling point aside). Also, I would just point you back to the very first item on the article's list of conclusions: "We can all stipulate: the expert isn't always right." Also, the heated emotion that is already simmering is understandable when it's placed in the context of a society or atmosphere that the article is directly addressing.

It is very easy to find posts by DW where he prefaces his comments by clarifying that he isn't an expert in some given area. He has also clearly stated that he defers to other experts in other areas (read non-shoemaker areas) regarding the discussion in this thread. As far as I know, DW is the only expert shoemaker that's been in this thread, unless some anonymous one is lurking or hiding behind his SF name. In other words, with regard to the aspects of discussion that strictly fall to expertise in shoemaking, there isn't anyone that he needs or has to defer to. Further, it bears mentioning that no expert shoemakers are stepping in to disagree. Only non-experts (in shoemaking) are disagreeing.

A doctor doesn't have to go make sure his partners agree with his diagnosis before he prescribes you treatment for what you went to the clinic for. He's an expert. His education, credentials, and license say so. Is he held accountable to that? Absolutely. Can you seek a second opinion? Absolutely. If he's wrong, or if other doctors disagree, does that fact alone nullify his expert status? No. If he's a good expert, he will learn from his incorrectness and implement that new knowledge. The best teachers are also the best students. The case you presented above is certainly unfortunate.

When someone in this thread brings up a counter point from some other source (which may or may not be from an expert), which conflicts with his expert opinion, he should be free to state why he thinks that information is bogus without being bashed, accused of arrogance, or otherwise slandered for not allowing other "opinions." If he knows that information which has been presented here by a lay person is widely discredited by most or all experts, why does that bring about such a visceral reaction from the lay person who first presented it? The article more than adequately addresses this. It's become rampant in modern culture.

 

[RogerP]

MWS - people can take what they wish from the example given. I do not choose to debate with you the degree to which the example does or does not reflect the conduct of any thread participant as a) I do not believe that such a discussion can take place on a level playing field and b) partly as a consequence, I'm not sure that anything of value would come of such a discussion, and c) if you see one party here as a blameless victimized bashee rather than a serial basher then there is likely no room for meaningful discussion in any event. I respct your opinion - and your right to express it - even if I disagree with it.