**The Official Shoe Care Thread: Tutorials, Photos, etc.**

[Munky]

Fair enough! But you have dodged my other issues. Is GW no better than cementing? Would the members of this thread be as happy with cemented as with welted shoes? Would the customer at Lobb's be likely to ask for cemented shoes rather than welted ones? If he does't specify cemented, why not?

Finally, are most of the shoes you make, cemented?

 

[DWFII]



Fair enough! But you have dodged my other issues.  Is GW no better than cementing?  Would the members of this thread be as happy with cemented as with welted shoes? Would the customer at Lobb's be likely to ask for cemented shoes rather than welted ones? If he does't specify cemented, why not? 

Finally, are most of the shoes you make, cemented?

First things first. Virtually none. I've made a pair or two for my wife but I don't offer it as an option for my bespoke work.

As for the rest, I really did answer all your questions, you know...

Depending on perception...and what we've been "led to believe"...the answer changes. In stark, objective, mechanical terms...all other things being equal, IOW...it's hard to say GY is better than cement construction. From my point of view it's a toss up. Most women, for instance, will choose a cement construction over GY every time. Perception--the sleekness of the shoe, sans welt, trumps any advantages, bar none. Is that a real measure of worth...in any sense?

I don't know...I'm quite sure that some would be happier with cemented construction. A lot of it depends on what their own aesthetic priorities are. How many people put Topy on leather outsoles--obviating any need for a welted shoe and relying entirely on cement?

Again...at Lobbs...the real question is does the maker offer cement outsoles? If they do, then it implies that some would prefer them and that the maker is prepared to cater to customers whims no matter the objective worth.

--

 

[DWFII]



Warm hello, I have been lurking for awhile on this thread and have a few questions.

I wonder if the wearer/ owner of GY shoes doesn't spot the things you mention, do they matter?
Is it particular GY makers or all that you dislike? (maybe you don't dislike them but this is the impression I have)

I don't dislike GY manufacturers...and they are almost without exceptions manufacturers. I dislike the technique by comparison to other techniques...even other manufacturing techniques.

If we didn't have 500 years of handwelted work to measure against and/or if Blake-Rapid had never been invented, I'd say that GY was brilliant!

Or...I'd have to invent hand welting myownself.

 

[goatandtricycle]



I don't dislike GY manufacturers...and they are almost without exceptions manufacturers. I dislike the technique by comparison to other techniques...even other manufacturing techniques.

If we didn't have 500 years of handwelted work to measure against and/or if Blake-Rapid had never been invented, I'd say that GY was brilliant!

Or...I'd have to invent hand welting myownself.

Ok that clarifies a few things.
What's the cheapest you could get a pair of Blake rapid constructed?

 

[patrickBOOTH]

You know that guy with no arms who plays the guitar and drives and such only with his feet. I wonder if he could learn foot welting?

 

[Munky]

Thanks, as always, for your thought on all this! Very helpful and informative. Best wishes, Munky

 

[sleepyinsanfran]

^ this has been a very informative discussion. I am at a loss however trying to find out what brands are blake-rapid constructed. Perhaps other forumites know of manufacturers who use blake-rapid construction? (I dont have a particularly fussy foot shape, so bespoke isn't worth the cost for me)

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Rider Boot's use Blake/Rapid.

 

[DWFII]

I don't know what the brands are...I think I recall that a good number of Italian manufacturers use BR. Also I am pretty sure SF's very own Ryder uses Blake-Rapid.

Cost...shouldn't be much more than GY, all other things being equal.

--

 

[DWFII]



Rider Boot's use Blake/Rapid.

ships passing in the night...

 

[Nick V.]

I think you will have a hard time finding anyone in the shoe business that would agree under any circumstance that a cemented sole is as good as a Goodyear welted shoe.

 

[dbhdnhdbh]

Another fascinating discussion. Thanks DW.

The cement vs GY concept got me thinking about whether the two really are equivalent. Perhaps this is my failure to really understand GY, but it seems that the role of cement, and the consequences of failure would be different.

Cement construction: If the cement fails completely, all around the shoe, then the sole would fall off. It was only the cement that attached the upper and insole to the outsole. No cement, not attachment, sole falls off.

GY construction- If the cement fails completely, all around the shoe, the gemming would lose its attachment to the insole. But, if I understand the construction, and I very well may not, the sole would not fall off. The cement holds the gemming to the insole. If the cement fails, the gemming could completely detach from the insole. But what would be the consequence? If I understand correctly, the upper and lining are stiched to the welt. So cement failure would not let these come apart. The welt is stiched to the outsole, so cement failure would leave the upper, lining, welt and outsole all connected to each other. One would have an insole sandwiched inside this construct, but with nowhere to go. Assuming the space for the insole is filled by the insole, it could not move much, perhaps very little within an extremely tight space. The wearer might not even realize that anything had happended. Far from the sole falling off, the subjective impression would be --nothing?

Of course when one went to resole, the complete cement failure would mean the gemming was no longer attached to the insole, and one would need to re-gem before resoling.

But this is far from the outsole falling off. Thus, it seems, cement construction and GY are quite different in their dependence on cement.

Of course, as I said, I do not really undestand the GY process, so maybe there would be a way for the outsole to fall off if the gemming completely detached from the insole. If so, could someone explain how?

 

[DWFII]



Another fascinating discussion. Thanks DW.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

The cement vs GY concept got me thinking about whether the two really are equivalent. Perhaps this is my failure to really understand GY, but it seems that the role of cement, and the consequences of failure would be different.

Cement construction: If the cement fails completely, all around the shoe, then the sole would fall off. It was only the cement that attached the upper and insole to the outsole. No cement, not attachment, sole falls off.

GY construction- If the cement fails completely, all around the shoe, the gemming would lose its attachment to the insole. But, if I understand the construction, and I very well may not, the sole would not fall off. The cement holds the gemming to the insole. If the cement fails, the gemming could completely detach from the insole. But what would be the consequence? If I understand correctly, the upper and lining are stiched to the welt. So cement failure would not let these come apart. The welt is stiched to the outsole, so cement failure would leave the upper, lining, welt and outsole all connected to each other. One would have an insole sandwiched inside this construct, but with nowhere to go. Assuming the space for the insole is filled by the insole, it could not move much, perhaps very little within an extremely tight space. The wearer might not even realize that anything had happended. Far from the sole falling off, the subjective impression would be --nothing?

Of course when one went to resole, the complete cement failure would mean the gemming was no longer attached to the insole, and one would need to re-gem before resoling.

But this is far from the outsole falling off. Thus, it seems, cement construction and GY are quite different in their dependence on cement.

Of course, as I said, I do not really undestand the GY process, so maybe there would be a way for the outsole to fall off if the gemming completely detached from the insole. If so, could someone explain how?

No, of course you're correct and it sounds like you have a pretty good understanding of the mechanics. Although, if the failure of the gemming is that extensive, the insole will be loose inside the shoe (I've seen this on one or two occasions over the years) and the shoe will tend to deform. Without the gemming and the cement that it relies on, you don't really have a shoe...at least not for very long...all you have is a footbag.

Beyond that, I don't think I ever said that a cement sole construction was "as good as" GY year construction. I said it was "hard to say that GY was better than cement construction." And that "from my point of view, it was a toss up." My point of view is that of a bespoke shoemaker...I say a pox on both their houses.

But remember the context and the issue of perception, of worth and intrinsic worth. Again, most women...and they are consumers of high end shoes ,too, perhaps moreso than many of people posting to this forum...would prefer cement construction. They don't want that welt sticking out there. For them, and in the context of perception, preferences,etc., cement sole construction is indeed better than GY.

It's no different than the man who prefers (and defends) GY not because it is the best quality but because it's all the quality that he can afford.

--

 

[DWFII]



I think you will have a hard time finding anyone in the shoe business that would agree under any circumstance that a cemented sole is as good as a Goodyear welted shoe.

I think you will have a hard time finding anyone making bespoke shoes...professionally and from scratch...that would agree under any circumstance that a Goodyear welted shoe is as good as a handwelted shoe.

They both are entirely dependent on cement as the critical structural process.

Neither cement sole construction nor GY is the best that can be done in any context...bespoke or RTW...much less best practices.

 

[Nick V.]



I think you will have a hard time finding anyone making bespoke shoes...professionally and from scratch...that would agree under any circumstance that a Goodyear welted shoe is as good as a handwelted shoe.

They both are entirely dependent on cement as the critical structural process.

Neither cement sole construction nor GY is the best that can be done in any context...bespoke or RTW...much less best practices.

Of course Men's and Women's shoes are constructed differently. That's based on cosmetic appeal. Women's vs Men's. It's not fair to compare.
And, of course you can't compare hand-made bespoke vs RTW Goodyear welted.
It's only fair to compare apples-to-apples, not oranges.
I'll stand by my comment.....It will be hard to find a knowlegdable person in the shoe biz that would agree a cemented sole shoe is even close to a GY welted.

Then again, we could ask the members reading this thread to ask their favorite shoe salespeople, CEO's, Presidents, whom ever they have confidence in.....the question. They can report their findings back to us.

I'm not talking semantics -or- preception here, I'm talking the reality of comparing the two types of construction. Apples to apples.