Unlined Grensons

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by HORNS

What is best used for that purpose - leather?
I think so. For one thing it is part of the "lexicon," if you will, of the shoemaker. For another thing, a leather toe puff can be, literally, scrap from the floor--it's not an extra expense. And just incidentally, it is a natural product and not petro-chemical based. On the other hand, for a leather toe puff to be effective, it almost certainly needs to be sandwiched between a lining and the vamp. It is perhaps wise to remind ourselves that shoemaking has been a Trade for a long time...some theories have it as old as ten thousand years old. Most of the techniques of the traditional, bespoke maker have evolved and been refined...and the unworkable or awkward discarded...over many centuries. Highly evolved and very functional, as well as beautiful, shoes were being produced before the Industrial Age and well before the Age of Carbon Offsets and Dying Corral Reefs. Most of the so-called "improvements" in shoemaking techniques, and more importantly, in shoemaking materials arose and exist for the sole purpose of making things faster and cheaper--expediency, in other words. And in my estimation, I can't think of a single technique or substance that, replacing traditional skills or sources, has been a significant or even noteworthy improvement. Not a one.

 

[emptym]

Originally Posted by DWFII

Almost without exception the lining of a shoe is grain side to the foot. The grain side is the most dense and the most impervious to grime and soil and so forth. When a shoe is unlined, the perspiration from the foot carries salt and dirt...yes, dirt... into the fibers of the flesh side of vamps or quarters---where it collects. The flesh side of the leather is a fibrous mat that is a perfect environment where bacteria, fungus, and all sorts of naturally occurring organisms find lodgment and thrive. Additionally, as the OP mentioned seams and seam allowances are exposed. It's not the same with the seam in the lining where the stitching is very close to the edge. Without lining you may have as much as a cm of loose leather that has also been thinned to the point of fragility, being pulled back and forth as the foot enters and exits. Finally, without a lining there is little or no opportunity to make a structured shoe--with side stiffeners and toe puff...the traditional and classic construction technique...and thus the she is less stable over its lifetime. Historically, many styles of shoe and boot were made unlined, but in such cases, the grainside of the leather was turned to the foot and the fleshside was invariably to the outside. And side stiffeners were whipstitched into the inside of the shoe so as to be invisible on the outside. I might add that such shoes and boots were, for the most part, fairly simple in their construction and often were round closed, meaning that the seam and seam allowances were not visible on the inside. Then too, the leathers used were 10 ounce or better (4mm thick). Once styles such as we see today evolved, linings became almost de rigour for everything but the cheapest shoes.
Interesting. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Dewey

All the Grenson models I saw at that Gilt sale were Rushden range. Gilt listed the model name and you could find the same shoes at Pediwear etc. Another tell is the Grenson logo on the back of the heel at the top. I have an unlined suede Grenson Salisbury. I guess that the point of being unlined is the comfort. Is the shoe less durable, and is it likely to suck up bacteria and breed flesh-eating viruses -- these are open questions. But how often are you going to wear a shoe like this anyway? An unlined suede shoe strikes me as a pretty specialized thing, as something for the man with five or more pairs in the closet. I wear mine in warm, dry weather, and not more than once a week in the busy season for them. They are as comfortable as any shoes I have. I am not concerned about wearing them out.
This makes sense to me too, D. Interesting how your DWFII mentioned that historically unlined shoes tended to be what yours are, reversed calf. Or are they just unlined suede w/o the grain facing the inside? I'm still wondering whether or not to get the loafers unlined. I'd probably wear them a lot. I can imagine myself using them for summer travel when they'd be worn every other day, or even as everyday house slippers during winter travel.

 

[apropos]

Originally Posted by DWFII

And in my estimation, I can't think of a single technique or substance that, replacing traditional skills or sources, has been a significant or even noteworthy improvement. Not a one.
Dainite soles?

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by apropos

Dainite soles?
I am not sure what that is...but if it is, as I suspect, some sort of rubber soling (Dainite is almost certainly a brand name), it is almost emblematic of what I'm talking about. All these rubber soles are environmentally a disaster--they are all petro-chemically based and are destructive both in their manufacturing and in the residue of wearing. We don't see it because it is in the form of abraded dust but it's there...and it's not going anywhere, ever. Additionally, from a makers point of view it is harder to incorporate into the finished shoe (sometimes beyond the capabilities of a shoemaker...needing huge and hugely expensive machines and chemicals), can be actually more expensive, and in the long term is seldom foot friendly. More importantly, from my personal point of view, it is unnecessary. Leather makes a good sole...Dainite is an answer to a question that wasn't ever asked--by shoemakers, at least. Don't get me wrong, I use rubber products...even soling such as Topy, on occasion. But going back to my original formulation it's not a "significant or noteworthy improvement."

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by emptym

Interesting. Thank you. This makes sense to me too, D. Interesting how your DWFII mentioned that historically unlined shoes tended to be what yours are, reversed calf. Or are they just unlined suede w/o the grain facing the inside? I'm still wondering whether or not to get the loafers unlined. I'd probably wear them a lot. I can imagine myself using them for summer travel when they'd be worn every other day, or even as everyday house slippers during winter travel.
Just for clarity: originally "suede" was...technically...the grainside of horsehide that was brushed or abraded to form a short and very refined nap. Today, "suede" has come to mean the flesh side of a whole grain leather. This mis-use of the term has entered the lexicon and is so prevalent the original meaning is almost forgotten. Worse, the word has come to encompass any visible fleshside manifestation even if the grain has gone missing. A piece of leather that has no grain is a "split." It has been split from the substance of the hide and the best part of the leather--the part with any real integrity--has gone to make another, better quality, pair of shoes leaving the split to either be resurfaced or sold as "suede." I might add, just to make sure that we are on the same page, the historical footwear I was speaking about was made from vegetable tanned leather which was at least as thick by itself as the thickest combination of lining and upper in modern footwear. And in general, it was denser and firmer in all respects. Shoes were not sewn except by hand. Sewing machines weren't invented until the mid 19th century. The topline edges, were cut raw and left that way...no attempt was made to bevel or skive or fold the edge. The point I'm making is that such shoes were, in substance and in construction, a very different beast than the unlined shoes we think of today.

 

[HORNS]

Originally Posted by DWFII

I am not sure what that is...but if it is, as I suspect, some sort of rubber soling (Dainite is almost certainly a brand name), it is almost emblematic of what I'm talking about.

All these rubber soles are environmentally a disaster--they are all petro-chemically based and are destructive both in their manufacturing and in the residue of wearing. We don't see it because it is in the form of abraded dust but it's there...and it's not going anywhere, ever.

Additionally, from a makers point of view it is harder to incorporate into the finished shoe (sometime beyond the capabilities of a shoemaker...needing huge and hugely expensive machines and chemicals), can be actually more expensive, and in the long term is seldom foot friendly. More importantly, from my personal point of view, it is unnecessary. Leather makes a good sole...Dainite is an answer to a question that wasn't ever asked--by shoemakers, at least.

Don't get me wrong, I use rubber products...even soling such as Topy, on occasion. But going back to my original formulation it's not a "significant or noteworthy improvement."

Alright DWFII, take a step back and Google "Dainite" before you talk about this. I doubt that it will change your overall philosophy about shoe construction - of which I appreciate your contribution to this thread I started; but there are some synthetic contributions that are, for practical and utilitarian reasons, better to many than leather soles. It's not to me a compromise of the cobbler's art, unless you have a natural alternative that I'm not aware of - and this may certainly be the case.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by HORNS

Alright DWFII, take a step back and Google "Dainite" before you talk about this. I doubt that it will change your overall philosophy about shoe construction - of which I appreciate your contribution to this thread I started; but there are some synthetic contributions that are, for practical and utilitarian reasons, better to many than leather soles. It's not to me a compromise of the cobbler's art, unless you have a natural alternative that I'm not aware of - and this may certainly be the case.
Well, I took your advice and did google Dainite and it is exactly as I suspected (I'm not exactly clueless when it comes to the world of shoemaking). Dainite is a "brand name" for a high tech rubber compound on the order of Vibram--another brand name. So I guess I could go back and reiterate my objections...from the environmental concerns to the fact that rubber doesn't really add much of significance either in wear or in traction (if you know how to walk) to the problems it presents the maker. But that would just be being contrary. Suffice it to say that many people don't know how to walk (just as many people don't know how to breathe properly) and for them rubber seems a godsend when traction is problematic. I won't deny it. In that context there very probably is a place for Dainite...and we damn sure can't go back despite cap and trade and carbon sequestration and...or at least, it seems highly unlikely. But consider the context...shoemaking and shoemakers--that is, in fact, the premise of my original remarks. Whether Dainite is a boon to customers is not the question I addressed. Whether the world would be a better place with or without it is only peripheral to my thesis. Which is...to a shoemaker, it is not a significant or noteworthy improvement in long established techniques or materials. Thinking about it (perhaps more than I intended) I still find myself in agreement with myself.

 

[T-Lama]

Just curious, how much did Gilt sell them for? I just my Gilt invite and I'm sorry I missed this sale.

 

[intent]

Originally Posted by T-Lama

Just curious, how much did Gilt sell them for? I just my Gilt invite and I'm sorry I missed this sale.
$118 + $10 shipping.

 

[HORNS]

Originally Posted by DWFII

Well, I took your advice and did google Dainite and it is exactly as I suspected (I'm not exactly clueless when it comes to the world of shoemaking). Dainite is a "brand name" for a high tech rubber compound on the order of Vibram--another brand name.

So I guess I could go back and reiterate my objections...from the environmental concerns to the fact that rubber doesn't really add much of significance either in wear or in traction (if you know how to walk) to the problems it presents the maker. But that would just be being contrary.

Suffice it to say that many people don't know how to walk (just as many people don't know how to breathe properly) and for them rubber seems a godsend when traction is problematic. I won't deny it. In that context there very probably is a place for Dainite...and we damn sure can't go back despite cap and trade and carbon sequestration and...or at least, it seems highly unlikely.

But consider the context...shoemaking and shoemakers--that is, in fact, the premise of my original remarks. Whether Dainite is a boon to customers is not the question I addressed. Whether the world would be a better place with or without it is only peripheral to my thesis.

Which is...to a shoemaker, it is not a significant or noteworthy improvement in long established techniques or materials.

Thinking about it (perhaps more than I intended) I still find myself in agreement with myself.

Well, you DID say you might sound curmudgeonly earlier. I sincerely appreciate your philosophy of natural materials and the shoemaker's art, but I do believe that the shoe wearer's interests are paramount. Also, I think you are incorrect that a textured sole like Dainite compensates for a person's inability to walk correctly. I believe that they, instead, allow a person to walk more like they usually do in slippery environments.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by HORNS

Well, you DID say you might sound curmudgeonly earlier. I sincerely appreciate your philosophy of natural materials and the shoemaker's art, but I do believe that the shoe wearer's interests are paramount. Also, I think you are incorrect that a textured sole like Dainite compensates for a person's inability to walk correctly. I believe that they, instead, allow a person to walk more like they usually do in slippery environments.
I think you have missed the point which I tried to make...several times. I do use rubber. I do honour my customer's requests--if I can't educate them out of it

. I always put a rubber heel plug on my shoes. That said, I don't automatically assume that any "wearer's interests" are served by having a rubber sole on their shoes. As a point of interest, I have worn boots...high heeled boots...for over forty years. I live in Central Oregon where we get snow and ice and we are a stone's throw close to the mountains. During those forty some years, I have never worn any kind of rubber sole. I have walked on ice, walked up mountain trails, etc., etc.. I have never even been tempted to put rubber soles...no, not even Vibram...on my boots. Rubber soles are like studless snow tires--they are worse than useless on ice and only a benefit in soft snow, and only when the soles in question have a pronounced "tread." It is worth remembering that Dainite is not a natural resource that one mines out of the ground in Denmark or harvests from tropical tubers in Indainesia. Somehow our poor benighted ancestors got by just fine without it. One wonders, for instance, what Otzi was thinking when he set out to cross that Alpine pass in the dead of winter? Presumably he thought he could make it. And while I couldn't say for sure, I doubt that Hillary had Dainite soles when he climbed Mt. Everest. More likely they were leather with iron hobnails. Again...and given the way this conversation is tacking, I think I need to re-emphasize...Dainite might very well be God's greatest gift to sinners below [I don't have enough information to make that call nor experience enough for a definitive opinion--I try to stick to subjects I know] but from a bespoke shoemaker's perspective, it is not a significant or noteworthy improvement in traditional techniques or materials.

 

[Tangfastic]

Originally Posted by DWFII

Suffice it to say that many people don't know how to walk (just as many people don't know how to breathe properly) and for them rubber seems a godsend when traction is problematic.

Can you expand on this? I live on a steep hill (paved and tarmacced) and would not wear leather soled shoes walking down it because of loss of traction. I don't mean this to sound a stupid question, but I genuinely want to know what is the correct way of walking down a steep icy pavement in leather soled shoes? I don't remeber being taught to walk. I'm tall and slim so have a relatively high centre of gravity, but am otherwise fully mobile. I'd also naturally assumed wearing leather soled boots or shoes in snow and ice would damage them, but it sounds like this may not be so. Is a double leather sole with a storm or reverse welt as durable as a dainite sole then? I'd assumed not, but I suppose if they were left to dry after each wearing (which may take a good few days) it may not be so surprising, just something I'd not considered. I prefer the look and feel of leather but have always sought out dainite for what I had thought were practical reasons. Perhaps I should reconsider.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by Tangfastic

Can you expand on this? I live on a steep hill (paved and tarmacced) and would not wear leather soled shoes walking down it because of loss of traction. I don't mean this to sound a stupid question, but I genuinely want to know what is the correct way of walking down a steep icy pavement in leather soled shoes? I don't remeber being taught to walk. I'm tall and slim so have a relatively high centre of gravity, but am otherwise fully mobile. I'd also naturally assumed wearing leather soled boots or shoes in snow and ice would damage them, but it sounds like this may not be so. Is a double leather sole with a storm or reverse welt as durable as a dainite sole then? I'd assumed not, but I suppose if they were left to dry after each wearing (which may take a good few days) it may not be so surprising, just something I'd not considered. I prefer the look and feel of leather but have always sought out dainite for what I had thought were practical reasons. Perhaps I should reconsider.
Probably not. I'm not really sure how to explain it. I could probably explain how to breathe correctly sooner than how to walk correctly...just because I once read a description of how to breathe. As for walking, I think it involves slowing down and making sure the heel is firmly grounded before shifting the weight to it. I can do it. A lot of people around me cannot. But don't misunderstand, I don't think there's any easy answer to walking down a icy slope regardless of whether you're wearing leather or Dainite. As I said above Dainite is like a snow tire without studs on ice. Leather is not all that much better. Leather soles are not a magic bullet. On the other hand, if Dainite was, I'd have to eat my words...or re-think my opinion, at any rate. If I were faced with a icy slope, I'd probably skate down.

And you are 100% correct, wearing leather on ice or in snow or rain will not help it . All things being otherwise equal the water by itself is not really the culprit, however. It's the softening and the subsequent accelerated abrasion that comes after. And the lack of remedial care that is often missing when a pair of shoes gets wet. Shoes have become an ornament for many of us. And no reason why not. But fundamentally they are an interface with an often hostile environment. They protect our feet from cold and heat and wet and sharp pointy objects. That's their function. Leather can get wet...no harm, no foul. If it cannot then it's not doing its job.

 

[DWFII]

Thinking more about this, it might also have something to do with where your center of balance is and where your weight is. I tend to have my balance shifted more over the balls of my feet (my wife and I have danced for many years) and as a consequence, my heels aren't as apt to fly out from under me.

 

[KlezmerBlues]

Originally Posted by DWFII

All these rubber soles are environmentally a disaster--they are all petro-chemically based.
Based on raw rubber I think.