shoe construction...behind the veil

[DWFII]



Yeah Italians call HW as GY by hand. But I guess they, in addition to the Japanese, need a few lectures from our terminology police.

Goodyear refers to a machine process because the machine was invented / perfected by a man named Goodyear.

Yeah, you can slough it off and call it what you want but there is reason behind it and there is a reason behind insisting on the correct terminology.

I won't go into the concept of facilitating communications because it seems apparent to me you're not into that.

But being indifferent to correct terminology is a sign of a disorganized mind--sloppy thinking, in other words. That's why you and I butt heads all the time. That's why you can't understand what it means to be a shoemaker or a craftsman. That's why you confuse knowing about something with actually knowing it...heart and soul, in your hands, tested and confirmed every day.

For good or bad, I am a logical, linear thinker and rigourous in my thinking. I have to be. My lifetime work, career, who I am and every aspiration, depends on it.

You're a magical thinker. Nothing sticks, nothing matters, wave a wand or create a new hypothesis...or just pretend...and all the confusion goes away.

Not gonna happen.

 

[Testudo_Aubreii]



Yeah, I guess that's hand welting but it is really just the same kind of inseaming as the original GY. There's a strip of canvas added to reinforce and outside and inside channel tuned on edge. It shares some of the strengths of HW and some of the weaknesses of GY. With little of the full benefit of either.

Interesting, DWF. You're saying this is gemmed hand-welting? Could you tell us how you rate this vs. machine Goodyear cut-and-turn a la Weston? Or vs. Blake-Rapid?

For everyone else as well: I wonder whether this could be the kind of hand-welting used by Meermin in their Linea Maestro? That might explain Meermin's stunningly low prices, which I've always thought low for true hand-welting, even if done in China. I wonder if this is the kind of hand-welting used by Enzo Bonafe as well. It is hand-welting, after all. Just not what we tend to think of by that term.

EDIT for link to Tramezza video.

 

[DWFII]

I've lost the letters on my keyboard and I always was a two finger hunt and seek typist. I went back and corrected my post ...nothing major but to me almost incomprehensible. Hope you got the idea.

The video that MTM posted a link to looks to me like the inseam is much the same as Weston (?)--channels and "gemming."

When you cut the channels and turn the resulting flaps on edge, you weaken the "holdfast" significantly. I would guess as much as 50-75%, depending on the tannage and quality of the leather. Adding the canvas strips reinforces it some but ultimately it's a kludge (see wikipedia for excellent definition), pure and simple. As is standard GY relative to HW, of course.

I have never understood the rationale behind handsewing to gemming. it takes nearly the same amount of effort as handsewing to a proper holdfast. What's gained? Nothing! Not even the "efficiency" and time savings that a machine sewn inseam would bring to the game. Maybe you can use a better hand wax and a shoemakers stitch...and all that's good..but it doesn't balance what is lost.

Like I said...the benefits of neither.

If HW is a 10, Blake-Rapid (with a decent leather insole) is an 8 or maybe a 9; GY is a 4 and cut and turn GY a 4-1/2 or 5. Cement construction a 2 and injected molded a 1.

That's my professional opinion...I wonder how many pseudo-professional, E-experts are even now gritting their teeth?

 

[yanagi]



Interesting, DWF. You're saying this is gemmed hand-welting? Could you tell us how you rate this vs. machine Goodyear cut-and-turn a la Weston? Or vs. Blake-Rapid?

For everyone else as well: I wonder whether this could be the kind of hand-welting used by Meermin in their Linea Maestro? That might explain Meermin's stunningly low prices, which I've always thought low for true hand-welting, even if done in China. I wonder if this is the kind of hand-welting used by Enzo Bonafe as well. It is hand-welting, after all. Just not what we tend to think of by that term.

EDIT for link to Tramezza video.

Here's a video of Enzo Bonafe showing their handwelting, from Skoak.

 

[Testudo_Aubreii]



I've lost the letters on my keyboard and I always was a two finger hunt and seek typist. I went back and corrected my post ...nothing major but to me almost incomprehensible. Hope you got the idea.

The video that MTM posted a link to looks to me like the inseam is much the same as Weston (?)--channels and "gemming."

When you cut the channels and turn the resulting flaps on edge, you weaken the "holdfast" significantly. I would guess as much as 50-75%, depending on the tannage and quality of the leather. Adding the canvas strips reinforces it some but ultimately it's a kludge (see wikipedia for excellent definition), pure and simple. As is standard GY relative to HW, of course.

I have never understood the rationale behind handsewing to gemming. it takes nearly the same amount of effort as handsewing to a proper holdfast. What's gained? Nothing! Not even the "efficiency" and time savings that a machine sewn inseam would bring to the game. Maybe you can use a better hand wax and a shoemakers stitch...and all that's good..but it doesn't balance what is lost.

Like I said...the benefits of neither.

If HW is a 10, Blake-Rapid (with a decent leather insole) is an 8 or maybe a 9; GY is a 4 and cut and turn GY a 5. Cement construction a 2 and injected molded a 1.

That's my professional opinion...I wonder how many pseudo-professional, E-experts are even now gritting their teeth?

Awesome post, DWF. Thanks. So the makers of that SF Tramezza are doing cut-and-turned insole, supported with gemming, and then hand-welting it. You say, though, that this gemmed cut-turn hand-welting is probably a bit better than Weston's machine cut-and-turn supported by gemming, though. So would this be a 6 if Weston's is a 5?

Yanagi, thanks for the Bonafe video. That looks like hand-welting to a true leather holdfast, so I guess Bonafe are in the clear. They do use the term "hand-welted cucitura a mano" instead of Tramezza's "Goodyear a mano," so that would make sense. Now what about Meermin LM? They call it "Goodyear cosido a mano" after all.

 

[chogall]



Goodyear refers to a machine process because the machine was invented / perfected by a man named Goodyear.

Yeah, you can slough it off and call it what you want but there is reason behind it and there is a reason behind insisting on the correct terminology.

I won't go into the concept of facilitating communications because it seems apparent to me you're not into that.

But being indifferent to correct terminology is a sign of a disorganized mind--sloppy thinking, in other words. That's why you and I butt heads all the time. That's why you can't understand what it means to be a shoemaker or a craftsman. That's why you confuse knowing about something with actually knowing it...heart and soul, in your hands, tested and confirmed every day.

For good or bad, I am a logical, linear thinker and rigourous in my thinking. I have to be. My lifetime work, career, who I am and every aspiration, depends on it.

You're a magical thinker. Nothing sticks, nothing matters, wave a wand or create a new hypothesis...or just pretend...and all the confusion goes away.

Not gonna happen.

I suspect you speak no more than 2 languages with native fluency.

On one hand you are correct. On the other it's better to understand and to respect other cultures.

 

[thelonius]

It is a shame that the preceding discussion about the costs and skills of shoe making by BR versus GY is completely devoid of any factual, objective information that could inform on this question. The only source of such information would be some impartial shoe maker who has experience of both techniques who could contribute something concrete.

Well, why don't you add some? Because all your comments to date have been as devoid of substance...moreso, IMO, as any other.

Kind of begs the question ..."compared to what?"

I have sewn shoes with a McKay--the machine that does Blake and Blake-Rapid. How about you? And I have even done a variation of B-R. This was years and years ago.

Currently, I do not own a McKay machine and feel no compulsion to. But I do "channel stitching" which is Blake by hand. I like it and I do it well. And I understand the principles involved.

Thing that kills me about posts such as these is that while I have never claimed to be a master shoemaker or even to know everything that there is to know about shoemaking...maybe, as the old saying goes "I'll have to do til a real one comes along."

Waiting....waiting...waiting....

--

Taking it personally again! Odd, seeing that on this occasion the subject was raised by another and contributed to largely by others. First, as far as I can tell concerning the intersting discussion on the cost and skills necessary to make BR as opposed to GY, no-one has added any objective information at all, including you. No-one taking part seems to have any real information on the subject. You have used it to once more lance shots against GYW in general, but that is off the point in this case. I read this forum to learn and ask questions. If you expect from such a forum as this to have discussions with professionals, you're clearly in the wrong place - there is a distinct dearth of such people here, and one such person who does contribute regularly recieves fairly agressive responses from you, mainly because he disagrees with you on certain points. Any way, to repeat - the question on the cost and skills necessary to manufacture BR compared to GY remains unanswered. It would be interesting to find out - from someone who knows.

 

[globobock]

I actually learn a lot from this thread (the trick is to filter out the personal animosities while reading). Being an industry practicioner (though not in the shoe/textil industry) makes me relate to the CAPEX/OPEX discussions on production cost.

My take/question on the Topic that started it all, HW vs GYW -

Quality-wise, it seems a given that HW is more robust, allows more individual Adaptation to the lasts which is a must in bespoke, AND requires more skill and manhours.

Which doesn't stop the hi-class RTW Producers in Northampton to exclusively using GYW technique, even for their High-end, high-priced products. Observing the retail prices, it does stand out that the even the prices for handgrade C&J, JLP or EG are still below the Basic bespoke Price (I assume here the 1800$ base line offered by DFW).

For the informed customer considering plunging some cash for GYW RTW, having already accepted the disadvantages of RTW related to Fitting, the question is the durability. Will the gemming prove top be a significant weak link? Will it irreparably (is it? I missed that discussion some how) broke down before the upper leather? Or will it be ultimately just be an insignificant weak link, in Terms that although it will break down at some point, that point becomes irrelevant because off the far off Timing?


Regarding Blake/Blake-Rapid... are there some comparable techniques in B/R to Storm Welt/Veldtshoen to make the B/R-Shoes waterproof? My Literatur studies tell me that the blake stitching channels allows water to enter the insole thus causing wet feet.

 

[chogall]

1. GYW is a more complicated process vs BLake/BR as I've stated previously.

2. Even the large HW operations churns out much less pairs of shoes compare to small GYW. GYW is necessary for scale. Vass produces like what, 1k per month? And JLP bespoke produces like 1k per year? And C&J makes like what, 100k per year? BStripe probably knows better about the numbers.

3. Gemming is replaced at factory recrafting with some manufacturers so that's not even an issue.

4. BR/B/GYW/HW all are poor water proofed. Need at the very least double leather sole or rubber sole. And either turn-out construction or Storm welt to prevent water seeping in from the welt/upper joint

 

[globobock]

...

4. BR/B/GYW/HW all are poor water proofed. Need at the very least double leather sole or rubber sole. And either turn-out construction or Storm welt to prevent water seeping in from the welt/upper joint

This is an interesting point that I have risen also in the "Boots"-Thread.

I'm kind of looking aroung for a classic looking, classic made, hiking boot. You know, optically looking like the likes of C&J Coniston with the intent for some alps Outings.

I do not want the Lowa types as I already got those in the lot. GYW/HW/B-B/R seems to be out of question, based on your above Statement.

Hanwag was suggested, but they do not look traditional - their double-stitching technique Sound promising though. Any thoughts on that?

 

[thelonius]

This is an interesting point that I have risen also in the "Boots"-Thread.

I'm kind of looking aroung for a classic looking, classic made, hiking boot. You know, optically looking like the likes of C&J Coniston with the intent for some alps Outings.

I do not want the Lowa types as I already got those in the lot. GYW/HW/B-B/R seems to be out of question, based on your above Statement.

Hanwag was suggested, but they do not look traditional - their double-stitching technique Sound promising though. Any thoughts on that?

Hanwag double-stitching is GYW, as shown in the website video. They look nice, but are they going to really keep your feet dry? It depends on what type of hiking you do, but in any case, leather is not impermeable - doesn't matter how good the stitching is. If you're going to be mountain/hill hiking, possibly in marshy, wet or snowy conditions, you might as well accept that it has to be a moulded-sole hiking boot. Parachoc (subsidary of Paraboot) make some excellent models. Boots like this rarely get considered on this forum.

 

[globobock]

Which means, in this case, optics has to be sacrificed.

Which also explains why those dressy boots are usually labeled as "Country Boots". Serves well for the walk in the Woods, with the occasional poodle and mud to wad trough, but not really recommended for the 3-day-or-more hike.

Well, so it is then.

P.S.: Tierowa Leather Care Claims that they have been "used by expeditions since the last century to impregnate their boots", which triggered my search for the classic hiking boot.

 

[DWFII]



I suspect you speak no more than 2 languages with native fluency.

On one hand you are correct. On the other it's better to understand and to respect other cultures.

You're absolutely right for once. I speak English and shoemaking. Period. It is what it is. I'm not going to cry or brood about it.

I don't know how many languages you speak with fluency, much less native fluency...but English apparently isn't one of them.

As for respecting...and more importantly understanding...other cultures, I've always been of the opinion that you have to respect and understand your own, first and foremost or you'll never be able to respect any other.

And the one you live in close behind that.

--

 

[DWFII]



GYW is a more complicated process vs BLake/BR as I've stated previously.

Every shoe, bespoke or RTW has a minimum number of necessary operations to completion. More machines doesn't make it more complicated as I illustrated in a previous post. And I can't think of but one or two operations in a GY facility that are additional to what is required in a B-R operation.

2. Even the large HW operations churns out much less pairs of shoes compare to small GYW. GYW is necessary for scale. Vass produces like what, 1k per month? And JLP bespoke produces like 1k per year? And C&J makes like what, 100k per year? BStripe probably knows better about the numbers.

Is that because HW is more complicated? If you really understood HW you'd realize that just the opposite is true---one man working with his hands and fairly uncomplicated, even primitive tools is not a complicated business. Tedious, Precise, fully engaged but not complicated.

It's a variation of the shine vs. substance meme. You think complicated, new, and shiny are always better. I know from long years in the Trade and engagement with creative processes, every day, that the old saw about "more is less" is generally true. Sometimes I suspect it is because 'more' is distracting and keeps us from focusing on the basics, the fundamentals...even the spirit of the thing.

"What is the sound of one hand clapping"...who can know when two much less six make such a racket?

BR/B/GYW/HW all are poor water proofed. Need at the very least double leather sole or rubber sole. And either turn-out construction or Storm welt to prevent water seeping in from the welt/upper joint

That's the easy, lazy brain conclusion. But it isn't necessarily true. Anytime you have a leather upper, regardless of construction methods, it is not ever going to be waterproof.

Blake, can, if not done into a closed channel, wick water up into the insole.

Blake-Rapid cannot.

GY is more vulnerable, because of the materials and construction techniques combine to make a product that is less than the sum of its parts.

HW, done well, is maybe the most waterproof / water resistant (factoring out the absorbent characteristics of leather itself) because it is a gestalt--greater than the sum of its part. A tight inseam at a relatively tight SPI, each stitch sealed with pine pitch, is near-as-nevermind the same as no seam at all.

Whatever weaknesses or vulnerabilities any particular method of construction has, adding a second outsole or a rubber outsole, isn't going to cure them. The fundamental weaknesses will still be there.

--

 

[diadem]

I keep hearing about Veldtschoen construction for waterproofing. I know that it is a form of GYW, but what exactly makes it better for adverse weather conditions? And is it truly better?