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

[DWFII]



Really? Now you are really being disingenuous -or- As I have said in the past a phony.
My guess is a true self anointing phony. But, I won't let you chase me away.......(Go to confession and tell them of your lies). You well feel better about yourself.

I don't think you know what the word "disingenuous" means. I don't think you know what the word "phony" means either. If you did, you'd be embarrassed.

What am I pretending to be that I am not? How can I be a phony...unless you have some unique, NickV definition that you're not sharing with anyone else? I actually do what I give people to believe I do. Unlike you, I actually have real, extensive, hands-on experience doing the things I talk about.

If you let people think that you are more than you really are, or an authority on topics that you have no direct experience with; if you pose and posture and/or wear medals or a uniform that you're not entitled to wear--that is a lie. Nothing less. You don't have to speak the lie, you're living it.

Whatever I am, good or bad, I don't pretend to knowledge I don't have. I don't posture as someone or something I am not.

As for chasing you away...nothing could be further from my mind. You don't speak with the authority of real hands-on experience, so it's all moot as far as I'm concerned. You're the one picking fights with me--by deliberately distorting my comments for the sole purpose of creating disagreement...mostly out of thin air.

--

 

[Nick V.]



I was not talking about the pros and cons of HW or GY welting. 

I was stating the fact that GY Welted manufacturers could turn down repair jobs based on different conditions of the shoes; i.e., if the upper is cracked, upper lining hole, insole hole, improperly repaired by other cobblers, etc.  And they won't know until they disassembled your shoes.  FYI, AE only recrafts their own shoes once or twice.

Recrafting RTW shoes at the manufacturer usually costs 1/4 to 1/3 of the retail price for the British makers, i.e., $450-$500 for John Lobb RTW.  It's fairly reasonable as they send the shoes through the assembly line, doing the recrafting at cost.  Thus it's not always the affordable $150 that AE charges.  Or the $250+shipping that Saint Crispin charges.

Economics never justify wearing GY welted or HW shoes.  A poorly made cemented rubber sole shoes that costs $10 @ Payless will always beat out any GY welted or HW shoes in the long run.  I buy welted shoes because they look and age well and I love the artisanship behind bespoke shoes.

Some good points made here. The reality is that the makers encourage using their re-crafting services. That's understandable because they want to keep you as a loyal customer. It also aides in making the sale of a new shoe. However, they are not trained to deal with typical repair issues. Rather, their mentality is to run the shoes through a sort of assembly line. It's a factory mentality/operation. If anything needs more attention, needs to be pulled off the line, it cuts into their profits. They are not geared, nor think to do that.
An example is, Let's say some butcher hacked on a pair of 1/2 soles on a pair of $700.00 shoes, chances are, there are many sins in the way he preformed his work. When the factory eventually recievies the same pair for a re-craft they see it can't be run down the line and reject it. It really doesn't mean that the shoes are shot. In most cases it only means that the shoes require more self-attention that the factory is not willing or capable to do.

 

[Nick V.]



I don't think you know what the word "disingenuous" means. I don't think you know what the word "phony" means either. If you did, you'd be embarrassed.

What am I pretending to be that I am not? How can I be a phony...unless you have some unique, NickV definition that you're not sharing with anyone else? I actually do what I give people to believe I do. Unlike you, I actually have real, extensive, hands-on experience doing the things I talk about.

If you let people think that you are more than you really are, or an authority on topics that you have no direct experience with; if you pose and posture and/or wear medals or a uniform that you're not entitled to wear--that is a lie. Nothing less. You don't have to speak the lie, you're living it.

Whatever I am, good or bad, I don't pretend to knowledge I don't have. I don't posture as someone or something I am not.

As for chasing you away...nothing could be further from my mind. You don't speak with the authority of real hands-on experience, so it's all moot as far as I'm concerned. You're the one picking fights with me--by deliberately distorting my comments for the sole purpose of creating disagreement...mostly out of thin air.

--

You are ridiculously pathetic and more obviously paranoid. I don't know why but, that's you're problem.....
To you and you're dreams:



I live in the real world.

 

[TweedyProf]

Insomnia and skimming old posts. To briefly sum up

1. GY welting involves gemming or ribbing which uses cement
2. In this respect, this part if process is a weak point that makes this specific aspect not better than cemented soles. You learn something every day.

I see no disagreement about these two points. There is a disagreement over a probability: what is the likelihood of the cement coming undone for a given pair of shoe over time or for a model or for those from a specific manufacturer? Then one can argue about appropriateness of sample, sample size, type of materials, etc. Unless there's a scientific study I see the second issue as not resolvable to my empirical satisfaction, ie what the probabilities are for a given kind of shoe.

But now practical questions. Say on my GY welted shoes on their nth resole the cobbler notices that part of the cement has come undone and has to make a guess as to where to recement. Say that guess is off.

Structurally what is the disadvantage of this? Say worse case scenario.

How does the factory know the precise location of the ribbing when recrafting?

I hope one of the experts could describe this to someone who has seen the diagrams of GY shoes but has only a vague sense oh how one is assembled and more importantly how one is resoled. Sorry if my terminology is off

 

[chogall]

Cobblers use their best judgement. Manufacturers don't give a damn and run the shoes through their assembly line.

 

[LS7]



JM Weston are pretty expensive, that's how they can afford it!  But I've never owned a pair, so whether they're actually better than, say, Church's, Cheaney, C&J or Alfred Sargeant, is something on which I'm unable to offer informed opinion.  Some of them are pretty, and sometimes that's enough - if the price is right.  For me, I've never been able to justify $1000+ shoes from EG, JL, G&G or JM Weston for that matter.  I love G&G's lasts, but unless they are on some awesome clearance in my size, I'm not going there.    

My new self-imposed rule is a $200 ceiling for GY shoes.  I might make a slight exception for MTO, or boots, or shell cordovan or something else that's inherently "more".  Not that I never have spent more than that - many times, and much more.  But I'm starting to think it's a good discipline.  As hand-welted Vass cost about $600, I can't see the value added in twice that for a more industrial product, and I'm trying to be more disciplined about buying shiny things for the shine alone.  Anyway, each to his own.  But it's nice to be informed, and this thread just keeps on giving.

My plan was to follow your line of thinking, but I've been consistently disappointed by the quality control of Vass. The poor finishing of the upper leather, and sometimes just using poor quality leather full stop, has made me think again regarding this maker. The flaws I see on my brand new Vass would be considered as sufficient reasons for the shoes to be rejected if they were EGs (and therefore you could only buy them at the factory store).

EG crust leather appears to be holding up much better than Vass boxcalf (comparing max. 3 yr old Vass to max. 5 yr old EG). I'm using the same shoe care routine for all my shoes.

Therefore I'm probably going to just stick to Vass for boots and Derbies from now on, leaning towards EG for Oxfords.

 

[Kuro]



Same price as GY welted. Prices are listed on my web-site. It's the same work unless you request some custom work done. Then the price can vary.

Do you also hand stitch the sole to the welt, say like Anthony Delos (or is that what you mean by custom work)? My #s and comments above reflect hand sewing the sole....

 

[DWFII]



But now practical questions. Say on my GY welted shoes on their nth resole the cobbler notices that part of the cement has come undone and has to make a guess as to where to recement. Say that guess is off.

Structurally what is the disadvantage of this? Say worse case scenario.

If the section of failed gemming is short--1" -1-1/2", the cobbler can probably make a good guess. many times if one section is loose however it is an indication that the cement is stale or the bond is loosening throughout the entire shoe. Why would only one patch come loose? Whatever is causing it to come loose, is most likely affecting the entire insole. The upshot is that best practices checks the rest of the ribbing, and re-cements any other areas that are loose or in danger of coming loose.

If the failed gemming is loose for a longer section esp. in areas such as the joints, the odds of getting it correct are increasingly poor. Wear and the flexing of the shoe will often obscure the original placement. The cobbler is, as chogall suggests, using his best judgement...based on experience . But it is still a guess, by definition.

As far as "structural disadvantage" is concerned, again that's dependent on how extensive the failed gemming is. Short sections probably none, although that's not guaranteed.. Nothing significant in most cases. Longer sections, sometimes the fit or shape can be changed . Since the foot (the generic foot) can feel differences as small as one-sixteenth of an inch in circumference, there is a real possibility that comfort can be affected. and if you like the shape of that last...well, don't hold your breath. Although the reality is that the shoe is already distorted from wear.

But it must be said, whether such problems manifest themselves or not is immaterial because what we're talking about is the potential for problems in an inherently flawed system. If you see a "bubble" in your tire are you gonna get it fixed or continue to drive on it? From the gemming to the cement to the thread to the dumbing down of quality, GY is inherently flawed. Built-in obsolescence if nothing else.

As has been mentioned by myself as well as others, the real economy is cemented, or heat injection molded rubber soled shoes. No failed gemming, no loss of fit, no uncertainty about brand names or fashion police, no worries about having to send them overseas for recrafting, no continuing Topy expenses, you don't even have to worry about resoling them period. Just wear them...in good health (sic)...and toss them away.

How does the factory know the precise location of the ribbing when recrafting?

I don't make Goodyear shoes...although I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night....but I am familiar with many of the machines and I have a good friend that owns a Goodyear manufacturing company. I suspect, like a lot of these machines, there is a roller or some sort of guide that keeps the feed a specified distance from the edge of the insole. Understand that the insoles are often pre-cut to size (last makers supply their customers with "bottom papers"--templates for the last so that clicking dies can be made for that particular model of last) and the gemming applied even before the insole is mounted on the last.

 

[LS7]



That's the one. And if you read it he suggests that the gemming has failed so extensively that the whole welt needed to be replaced. He stipulates that he doesn't want the insole replaced for fear he will lose the footbed. A valid and reasonable fear.

Hopefully I don't get into copyright trouble by quoting from the blog post as follows:

[COLOR=0080ff]"Once that is all removed, the cork filling is chiselled out, taking care not to damage the ribbing that runs around the inside (the white serrated canvas you can see at the edge). A little bit of damage to the ribbing, such as the part lifted away on my shoes in the image below this one, can be glued back down or patched with a small length of the stuff."[/COLOR]

I interpreted that to mean that chiselling out the cork filling is a task which has to be undertaken with due care and attention, else the canvas rib be damaged by the act of chiselling. He then implies that the damage to the ribbing in the 6th image has been caused by the chiselling itself, since it has been "lifted away" from the insole. Examining the 5th and 6th images from the blog post in more detail, it appears that image #5 is of the left shoe, while image #6 is of the right shoe, hence comparisons cannot be drawn between the two.

I've seen Simon around London at a few events related to tailored clothing. I will attempt to clarify exactly what he means here and report back.

It's not like that at all. The heel pry or a screwdriver or some similar tool is just an easy, handy implement to do the job. What else would you use? Your fingernails?

The cork is soft. It is more cohesive if it is purchased in pre-made sheets which are made from cork granules in a neoprene matrix--essentially the same cement as is used to hold the gemming in place. That same cement is painted on the insole and the cork sheet is stuck to it. It forms a very occlusive film on the leather insole...if it is indeed even leather..obstructing, if not preventing the insole from breathing--wicking moisture away from the foot. If it is not in sheets, it comes as a paste, which is hardly cohesive at all--it will often break up and disappear from under the foot long before the outsole need to be replaced.

Removing cork...regardless of its make-up...is no more onerous or difficult than rolling the label off a bottle of Black Butte Porter. You can do that with nervous or preoccupied fingers.

--

Removing the cork appears to take a moderate degree of force. See the Allen Edmonds video below. At around the 35s mark a chisel like tool is used to pry the filler away:


[VIDEO][/VIDEO]

 

[Nick V.]



Do you also hand stitch the sole to the welt, say like Anthony Delos (or is that what you mean by custom work)? My #s and comments above reflect hand sewing the sole....

No, they are stitched on with very reliable Landis machines. It's a lock stitch.
Custom work is for example, changing a 270 GY welt to a 360 storm, adding a mid-sole, changing the welt color/finish, converting to Dainite, Itshide Commando it goes on and on.....

 

[TweedyProf]

DWFII

Thanks. What I take from the gemming is that I should understand GY welting to have drawbacks that are not always noted online among shoe enthusiasts. There is still the empirical questions about how likely the gemming will fail to which many factors contribute. At this point the consumer has to make a best guess based on the values he places on various factors.

If you would indulge my desire to learn, can you explain why, forgetting other factors, that recementing the hemming in a different place would lead to a different fit and possibly alter the structure of the shoe? Does the location put different pressure points on the sole of the shoe? When a sole is replaced is the welt also replaced too? Doesn't the position of the welt imply the position of the ribbing/gemming (am I using the terms correctly?). I have so many questions, so thanks in advance.

 

[DWFII]



Hopefully I don't get into copyright trouble by quoting from the blog post as follows:

[COLOR=0080ff]"Once that is all removed, the cork filling is chiselled out, taking care not to damage the ribbing that runs around the inside (the white serrated canvas you can see at the edge). A little bit of damage to the ribbing, such as the part lifted away on my shoes in the image below this one, can be glued back down or patched with a small length of the stuff."[/COLOR]

I interpreted that to mean that chiselling out the cork filling is a task which has to be undertaken with due care and attention, else the canvas rib be damaged by the act of chiselling. He then implies that the damage to the ribbing in the 6th image has been caused by the chiselling itself, since it has been "lifted away" from the insole. Examining the 5th and 6th images from the blog post in more detail, it appears that image #5 is of the left shoe, while image #6 is of the right shoe, hence comparisons cannot be drawn between the two.

Yes, of course it has to be done with care and yes, of course there is a possibility of damaging the gemming while removing the cork (although that begs the question, doesn't it? If the gemming bond is so delicate you can't remove the cork without damaging it, how can it it stand up to wear?)

But what other word would you use to describe how the cork is removed? Isn't "chisel," regardless of how little force is used, a very appropriate word? Perhaps "scrape" would be better, although I associate "scrape" with a pulling and/or sidewise motion...on edge...maybe because we are "scraping" leather when we "glass" it.

Beyond that, I suppose it depends on how you define "force." I would not consider it hard to remove cork, but I've done this for a living..every day, for years. Maybe my perceptions are skewed by that experience. That said, I have removed it with my fingers.

Perhaps it would only make sense if you had actually done it yourself. It's easy to watch a video or read a blog and not really and truly know what you're looking at. In the Allen Edmonds video, for instance...at the same mark (31s-36s +/-)...as the outsole is pulled away from the shoe, much of the cork comes right up out of the shank cavity and the forepart cavity. All by itself. Look at it again, does it piling up there ahead of his heel pry look like it takes that much force? Really? He's even using his fingers to removes remnants,

Oh!! And surprise! He doesn't use the word "chisel," he simply says "scrape."

Parenthetically, at the roughly 46s mark you can briefly see about three-four inches of loose gemming in the waist. Perhaps he was just too rough, but if I put myself in his body momentarily (and since I actually have been there, and actually do have the "eye of the craftsman," I can do that), I don't think so.

Also, remember that the guy writing the blog, while very professional and obviously intelligent, doesn't have any long term exposure to the terminology or the techniques. He may have used "chisel" for lack of a better word coming to fore. And "lifted away" as another way of saying "came loose" or "failed" or "slipped." I suspect it's just laymen's language and you should not "interpret" it.

As an aside of no real import, I often use words interchangeably to make my writing more clear or more interesting. I don't claim to be a professional writer but I do own (and use) a thesaurus and a dictionary. I try not to repeat the same critical word twice in the same sentence.

--

 

[mjvoce]

I hope this is the right place to ask my question. I've done multiple forum searches already and all I've really found is conflicting information.

I recently purchased two pairs of shoes that and I'm trying to find a cleaner and/or conditioner that will cause the least amount of darkening. No darkening being preferable.



I've seen the lexol neatsfoot dressing mentioned, but then I've read posts saying not to use neatsfoot oil on dress shoes. I also thought about buying the saphir reno but I've read posts saying mink oil is bad for dress shoes.

I've been searching for days and I only feel more confused than when I started.

 

[DWFII]



DWFII

If you would indulge my desire to learn, can you explain why, forgetting other factors, that recementing the hemming in a different place would lead to a different fit and possibly alter the structure of the shoe? Does the location put different pressure points on the sole of the shoe? When a sole is replaced is the welt also replaced too? Doesn't the position of the welt imply the position of the ribbing/gemming (am I using the terms correctly?). I have so many questions, so thanks in advance.

No problem...since the gemming is attached (or should be) to the upper, if the gemming is repositioned inward on the insole from where it was originally...when the last was in the shoe, that's effectively the same thing as lasting the shoe over a smaller last. More of the upper is under the shoe. The shoe will be tighter.

And vice versa. If the gemming is repositioned closer to the edge, the effective girth inside the shoe is larger.

In small sections, either can lead to distortions. One of the photos I posted that showed a shoe that exhibited failed gemming in the waist was in danger of walking over to the medial side...simply because the support for the arch had been loosened up...probably by over a half inch.

Also, the insole controls the shape of the shoe to some extent esp. when the last is removed. But it can only do that if the upper is secure to the insole. If the gemming slips in a longer section, it cannot be said to be secure to the insole by any stretch of the imagination. And loss of the much touted "last shape" is a real possibility.

 

[DWFII]



I hope this is the right place to ask my question. I've done multiple forum searches already and all I've really found is conflicting information.

I've been searching for days and I only feel more confused than when I started. 

Bick4 made by Bickmore, is safe...and good.