shoe construction...behind the veil

[Nick V.]



,

Do we? From what evidence or experience? Almost all of your experience...and almost to a man, people here who make that claim...comes from RTW shoes or shoes that are sealed off with lavish amounts of neoprene between the insole and the outsole. The flesh side of the outsole is sealed off, for goodness sake! A point @ntempleman seemed to be making in his last post. So how in the world does moisture get into the shoe when the moisture hits that barrier? How does it get past that layer of rubber?

It can't.

If it can, it can also get past a layer of Topy or even a full rubber outsole, as well.

All of which suggest false assumptions somewhere...wishful or magical thinking. Suggesting someone has accepted as gospel what he wants to believe and not what science and / or direct hands-on experience shows.

There is a scientific principle at work here--something to do with moisture seeking to fill spaces where it is not moist--something you alluded to and the principle behind the idea of breathe-ability and wicking. And it also has something to do with hydrostatic pressure. The point being that there is no direct evidence a supersaturated outsole is the principle culprit for wet feet--if you stand in water for that long the moisture is going to get in around and past the welts and through the upper regardless any kind of rubber barrier.

I readily admit that a supersaturated outsole with no neoprene barrier is theoretically more prone to seepage...although the principle of hydrostatic pressure does involve gravity...but If you expose your shoes to water that deep or that long, you don't care about your shoes and are probably getting what you deserve.

And maybe more to the point, moisture...regardless of how little...can't get out, either. It's easy to say that breathe-ability is insignificant when every shoe you've ever been exposed to (or made) has a sealed off rubber bottom. It's also clueless to dismiss breathe-ability and the potential for moisture to wick to the outside through hydrostatic pressure and then turn around and wring your hands about moisture going the other way--against gravity.

It's leather. It's a luxury item. It requires something other than indifference and brain-dead willful ignorance.

edited for punctuation and clarity

You've missed my point....
Here in part is what Nicholas T. wrote:
"Much more important is that the filler forms a barrier to prevent water soaking through a saturated outsole and into the insole."
I agree with that. It's only logical.

Are you implying that felt by itself will resist or repel moisture without the use of either tar paper or cement or anything else of that nature?

 

[DWFII]



You've missed my point....
Here in part is what Nicholas T. wrote:
"Much more important is that the filler forms a barrier to prevent water soaking through a saturated outsole and into the insole."
I agree with that. It's only logical.

Are you implying that felt by itself will resist or repel moisture without the use of either tar paper or cement or anything else of that nature?

Not at all--just the contrary.

I said clearly that "it can't."(such a short sentence and all by itself in the post...how come you missed it?) Perhaps cement will prevent moisture from getting into the shoe. I will...if only for the sake of argument...concede it.

But if so, it will also prevent moisture from getting out.

Just as importantly, however, I don't think you've ever seen or dealt with a shoe that didn't have that barrier of cement. You have no experience with that situation. So how do you know moisture will bleed into a shoe that doesn't have a barrier? You don't. All you really know is that if a person wears a shoe in wet conditions long enough, moisture gets in.

But again, all your experience is with shoes that are made with cement. So the conclusion has to be that if a shoe made with cement will let moisture in, then a shoe with a rubber sole will let moisture in. If the cement and the filler isn't enough to block that moisture, neither will a rubber sole or a sole guard be enough. So the answer has to lie in some other factor. In how and where and under what circumstances a shoe is worn, for instance.

You know, I have never dissed your experience. I admire your ability to manage others and to keep a business running. I would never tell you how to run your business.

But the fact is that the view from the desk is different from the view from the bench. The truths of the desk are often diametrically opposed to the truths of the bench. Management has always sought to impose its perspectives on those who actually do the work. To the detriment of both and a great deal of misunderstanding.

You and I butt heads often. And the reason is that you've never sat at the bench. You've never experienced the truths of doing this work with your own hands. Yet you seem to think you're qualified to refute what the bench and direct hands-on experience teaches us. Has taught me.

I think it's arrogant and ignorant.

 

[Nick V.]



Not at all--just the contrary.

I said clearly that "it can't."(such a short sentence and all by itself in the post...how come you missed it?) Perhaps cement will prevent moisture from getting into the shoe. I will...if only for the sake of argument...concede it.

But if so, it will also prevent moisture from getting out.

Just as importantly, however, I don't think you've ever seen or dealt with a shoe that didn't have that barrier of cement. You have no experience with that situation. So how do you know moisture will bleed into a shoe that doesn't have a barrier? You don't. All you really know is that if a person wears a shoe in wet conditions long enough, moisture gets in.

But again, all your experience is with shoes that are made with cement. So the conclusion has to be that if a shoe made with cement will let moisture in, then a shoe with a rubber sole will let moisture in. If the cement and the filler isn't enough to block that moisture, neither will a rubber sole or a sole guard be enough. So the answer has to lie in some other factor. In how and where and under what circumstances a shoe is worn, for instance.

You know, I have never dissed your experience. I admire your ability to manage others and to keep a business running. I would never tell you how to run your business.

But the fact is that the view from the desk is different from the view from the bench. The truths of the desk are often diametrically opposed to the truths of the bench. Management has always sought to impose its perspectives on those who actually do the work. To the detriment of both and a great deal of misunderstanding.

You and I butt heads often. And the reason is that you've never sat at the bench. You've never experienced the truths of doing this work with your own hands. Yet you seem to think you're qualified to refute what the bench and direct hands-on experience teaches us. Has taught me.

I think it's arrogant and ignorant.

Well, thank you for the complement.

However your accusations of my lack of experience and lack of knowledge has been and always been wrong.
But, by now I've accepted you're bone-headed POV regarding me. It's actually entertaining to me.
I've been chased from SF on more than one occasion for defending myself against you.
It may happen again. If anybody is interested, stay tuned....

So my question to you DW is this. As I understand you use a felt foot-bed without any barriers to prevent moisture. What prevents excessive moisture from eventually penetrating the out-sole into the unprotected foot-bed and eventually the in-sole?

To bring it a step further. I prefer my Goodyear welted high-grades (for my own wear) over my Blake-rapids. I just like the way the cork foot-beds migrate and form the insole over Blakes. Flat as a pancake. Never changes.

 

[emptym]

Fine by me. Prove it. Use numbers and times, whatever, to make your case. I'm starting to think that using paste is just less expensive for a bespoke maker. It may not be economical for the one-off maker to use rubber cement. Shelf life to be considered. Other than that, I see no advantage to the customer in any way, having a shoe built with an un-backed felt foot-bed vs. cement-cork. Rather, I see it as a determent.

What would you like me to prove? I'm simply letting you that DW did not say what you said he said. You said DW said it would be cheaper for RTW makers to use felt and cement. I'm just saying that DW never said that.

 

[DWFII]



However your accusations of my lack of experience and lack of knowledge has been and always been wrong.

How's that? You've said a number of times, quite explicitly (bragged actually), that you have never even repaired a shoe. And you don't make shoes. Bottom line, that means you don't have any practical, personal, hands-on experience doing the work (even though you'd like people to think otherwise). Now you want to retract that...pretend it was all a joke?

I'm not accusing you of anything. If I restate what you have admitted, it's not an accusation. Only "keeping things real."

So my question to you DW is this. As I understand you use a felt foot-bed without any barriers to prevent moisture. What prevents excessive moisture from eventually penetrating the out-sole into the unprotected foot-bed and eventually the in-sole?

Only me, myself. I don't make waders. I don't stand in water until I feel it coming in. I wear my shoes in rain often...was up in Portland several weeks ago where it rained 48 hours straight. Did a lot of walking. No problem.

Hell's bells, shoes were made without cement or any moisture barrier for centuries. Maybe people were just tougher back then...or less pretentious. Or maybe they were magic.

[Parenthetically, my friend at CWF who makes historically accurate 18th century footwear has gone wading in the ocean in his shoes and not gotten wet feet. Go figure. Someone's assumptions are skewed. ]

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[duncanbootmaker]

I'm not using a Vibram tread to save on quality materials on the other side of it (the leather sole), as I will use the best I can for the purpose, but because some of my shoes aren't dress shoes only. They get used hard, and in all environments. At times I'm running on slippery surfaces, and I have a coarse rubber tread on my cycling shoes to keep my feet on the pedals of my 28" and 46" wheeled unicycles (I think you will understand why I don't want my feet clipped to the pedals

).



If the owner one of my shoes has a number of other pairs that they rotate, and are used, as DW commented above, in a city, office, dress context, then a plain leather sole will be quite some years before needing replacing (at one day a week, it might be about 7 - 14 years).
I don't use a cork and latex filler, but instead have a layer of pure wool felt, only bonding the sole, with latex, around the edge of the welt to keep it in place while stitching down.
Having said that, I am in the process of making a pair of dress loafers for a gentleman, who does want a plain leather sole, probably more for special occasions.
Cheers

 

[duncanbootmaker]

Sorry, didn't realise that there were two more pages of comments after page 105, close to the start of discussion about rubber treads on leather soles. I'm going back to read all the stuff following now; hope it's still relevant.
Cheers

 

[Nick V.]



How's that? You've said a number of times, quite explicitly (bragged actually), that you have never even repaired a shoe. And you don't make shoes. Bottom line, that means you don't have any practical, personal, hands-on experience doing the work (even though you'd like people to think otherwise). Now you want to retract that...pretend it was all a joke?

I'm not accusing you of anything. If I restate what you have admitted, it's not an accusation. Only "keeping things real."
Only me, myself. I don't make waders. I don't stand in water until I feel it coming in. I wear my shoes in rain often...was up in Portland several weeks ago where it rained 48 hours straight. Did a lot of walking. No problem.

Hell's bells, shoes were made without cement or any moisture barrier for centuries. Maybe people were just tougher back then...or less pretentious. Or maybe they were magic.

[Parenthetically, my friend at CWF who makes historically accurate 18th century footwear has gone wading in the ocean in his shoes and not gotten wet. Go figure. Someone's assumptions are skewed. ]

edited for punctuation and clarity

https://www.google.com/#q=insane&*

Curious to read what Duncan has to write. I'm sure it will only be relevant. But, I will assume it will compare hand-made to factory.

 

[duncanbootmaker]

I'll try to keep away from directly comparing 'handmade to factory'

A comment about creaking: In Paul Hasluck's 1896 book it's recommended to sprinkle a little French Chalk (Talc) on the felt filler before putting on the sole, to prevent this.
When I stack my heels I tend to put a small spot of latex in the middle of each lift, for instant bond, but use paste over the rest of the surface. The pasted area is kept damp while building up the heel and trimming, and it is so much easier hand sewing through the stack when in this state, and doing the hammering up to cover the stitches afterwards, than in earlier times when I latexed across the whole surface of each lift, at which point each layer resisted movement both for the sewing and the hammering up. And the pasted layers do finish and polish up better than layers with cement or latex, where the cement melts under the heat of the finishing tools and smears around. Photos of some of the processes are back on page 95 of this thread
Cheers

 

[shoefan]

Wow, lots of supposition here, to which I will add.

It seems to me there are two separate but related topics being discussed here: the best way for a shoe to handle the internally-generated moisture (i.e. sweat); and the best way for a shoe to prevent infiltration of water from external sources (puddles, damp soil or walkways, etc). The answer to these questions may be mutually inconsistent, i.e. improving one may negatively affect the other (think rubber boots). Moreover, there are likely to be multiple dimension relating to these issues, which again may be negatively correlated -- e.g. perhaps improving short term moisture management from inside the shoe will negatively affect the long-term durability of the shoe.

Moisture from the foot will escape from the shoe in at least 3 ways: wicking and evaporation via the socks; absorption by the leather insole and upper lining, with subsequent evaporation via the top surface of the insole and lining; and absorption by the leather insole and subsequent evaporation via the outsole. First, I tend to agree with Nicholas that most evaporation from the insole is likely to be from its top surface when the shoe is off the foot, plus of course evaporation from the open surface of the lining of whatever moisture the lining has absorbed. It just seems very unlikely to me that much water from the foot is going to make its way all the way through the insole, through whatever 'filler' is in the shoe (be it felt or some occlusive material, although in the latter case clearly the likelihood and amount will be much lower), and the through the outsole. Given the existence of 250,000 sweat glands on the foot, I would imagine the insole will be fairly consistently exposed to moisture over its surface; thus, a first question is how much water can an insole absorb and handle? (When I get a chance to get back to shoemaking, I will test this by saturating an insole.) I doubt that many of us have experienced a bespoke leather insole that has been saturated with sweat. So, I just don't see much moisture evaporating via the outsole. To me, this is a very different scenario than water infiltrating the shoe from rain puddles, etc.

Also, I wonder about the impact of the wool felt or other absorbent filler: while clearly increasing the water-holding capacity of the shoe, does having a moist material sitting between the insole and outsole increase the likelihood of bacterial growth or other issues on the interior surfaces of the insole and outsole? Given wool's inherent 'desire' to reject and spread moisture, I doubt that this would be too much of a problem, but that is assumption. In any event, an interesting question to me.

Of course, having an occlusive filler will significantly reduce infiltration of water into the shoe; I think, if you care about keeping your feet dry and avoiding infiltration of rainwater, an occlusive material will help -- or, you can wear rubber boots, rubber soles, or whatever.

Last week, I wandered about London in some C&J GY welted 'hand-grade' shoes in the light rain and damp. After being out and about for 9 hours, my insoles were indeed wet, under the center of my forefoot. This would lead me to conclude that the water did in fact soak through the outsoles, filler, and insoles, since the perimeter of the insoles remained dry. Perhaps the dampness in this area was also caused by a 'pumping' effect of the repeated compression/de-compression of the leather under my joints from the gait cycle. This wetness arose despite the factory-use of cement and a cork-cement slurry as filler. Of course, these insoles are likely to be thinner than a hand-welted insole. Plus, one more difference in these vs. a hand-welted shoe is the presence of a cemented gemming around the perimeter if the insole (and the gymming itself my nowadays be waterproof), so that may explain the dry insole perimeter.

I have never seen that much reason to worry about or question the use of a Topy or other rubber topping on the outsole; it just doesn't make much logical sense to me that it would cause problems, particularly if there is an occlusive filler. However, it is also hard to reject DW's observation of blackened insoles. Maybe it is a matter of heat dissipation via the outsole, rather than moisture? Another interesting question.

BTW, Edward Green build their heels layer by layer, or at least they did when I toured their plant.

 

[DWFII]

Much of what you say I understand and agree with...up to a point. Most of it I have considered and struggled with.

However, I am less sanguine about water evaporation from the top surface of the upper. There certainly will be some. But again, if I understand correctly, hydrostatic pressure involves gravity. Moisture being generated from the foot is going to tend towards the bottom of the shoe and the insole. At that point, evaporation from the top surface becomes additionally problematic esp. if there is an occlusive backing between the vamp liner and the vamp itself...as was suggested with kangaroo (?).

The main point however (going back to the beginning of this discussion), is twofold: In my experience (blackened insoles and personal observations), making a pair of shoes without an occlusive barrier incurs no harm and may make the shoe more comfortable and healthy...both for the foot and for the shoe itself. No harm, no foul, IOW. And I believe the case can be made esp. when you consider the alternatives.

On the other hand, (as I said previously) using cement may add something in terms of adhesion and, if you want, inhibiting moisture when wading for trout.

However, if it makes the interior of the shoe a stew and a petri dish for bacteria and fungi and causes the insole to give up the ghost long before it should, then using cement cannot be considered to be free of adverse effects--effects that the shoemaker has deliberately, knowingly, built into the shoe.

And returning to the origins of this discussion...every argument for rubber outsoles...and by extension, using cement as a moisture barrier ...is an equally valid argument for corrected grain leather and/or naugahyde uppers. Not to mention, celastic stiffeners and plastic heel bases.

--

 

[DWFII]



Prove it....Just as I have asked you in the past.

Yes, you have, although "demanded" is probably more accurate. And frankly, I'm sick of it. Not the least being because your asking / demanding invariably comes immediately after I have just offered a detailed and comprehensive explanation (something many people here and elsewhere have complimented me on) of why and how and what I have seen actually doing the work over a lifetime of making shoes and boots. With, I might add, no ulterior motives--such as garnering more business.

But almost as much or more because it's a lame cop-out when a person has been exposed for not knowing what they're talking about or not having read what they're responding to--trolling, IOW.

I believe that it's results that count--you have to walk the walk...the long walk. Pretending doesn't count for anything. Relying on...and parroting... the hype, advertising, BS, and perhaps even valid opinions of others, doesn't count for anything.

The proof is in the doing.

My work speaks for itself. It is proof enough that I know what I am talking about and not just relying on what I have heard or what someone else has done.

So...proof? You want proof? Here's my proof:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Just a small sample of the work I have done over a lifetime...done with my own hands, personally...not just commanded someone else to do. Not photos of what one of my employees has done (don't have any) and for which I am pretentiously (and disrespectfully) taking credit..

I'd like to see something similar from you--something that indicates you have the experience and knowledge and legitimacy you pretend to have and want everyone to believe you have.

Show us your proof that you have the right to demand other people "prove it."

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[shoefan]



Much of what you say I understand and agree with...up to a point. Most of it I have considered and struggled with.

However, I am less sanguine about water evaporation from the top surface of the upper. There certainly will be some. But again, if I understand correctly, hydrostatic pressure involves gravity. Moisture being generated from the foot is going to tend towards the bottom of the shoe and the insole. At that point, evaporation from the top surface becomes additionally problematic esp. if there is an occlusive backing between the vamp liner and the vamp itself...as was suggested with kangaroo (?).

The main point however (going back to the beginning of this discussion), is twofold: In my experience (blackened insoles and personal observations), making a pair of shoes without an occlusive barrier incurs no harm and may make the shoe more comfortable and healthy...both for the foot and for the shoe itself. No harm, no foul, IOW. And I believe the case can be made esp. when you consider the alternatives.

On the other hand, (as I said previously) using cement may add something in terms of adhesion and, if you want, inhibiting moisture when wading for trout.

However, if it makes the interior of the shoe a stew and a petri dish for bacteria and fungi and causes the insole to give up the ghost long before it should, then using cement cannot be considered to be free of adverse effects--effects that the shoemaker has deliberately, knowingly, built into the shoe.

And returning to the origins of this discussion...every argument for rubber outsoles...and by extension, using cement as a moisture barrier ...is an equally valid argument for corrected grain leather and/or naugahyde uppers. Not to mention, celastic stiffeners and plastic heel bases.

--

I think in part you misunderstood me -- I believe what happens to sweat is that it is absorbed into the shoe insole and lining (and of course the socks); a bit of it may manage to evaporate while the shoe is in wear, due to air moving around inside the shoe as one walks or being wicked to a more evaporation-friendly location by socks, but most is absorbed and retained by those veg-tanned leathers (lining and insole). That water then evaporates after the shoe is taken off, via the exposure of the surface of the insole and the lining. I don't think much moisture will evaporate through the upper or the outsole, though I would guess more would go through the former than the latter, due to thickness and surface area.

I think you also make an assumption, which is that using the cement/occlusive material on the bottom of the insole makes the shoe a 'petri dish,' whereas using a non-occlusive materials lessens or eliminates this problem. I'm not sure I agree -- not saying I don't agree, just that you are making an assertion without proof (a logical explanation, yes, but proof, no). If the water absorbed from the foot doesn't end up migrating through the thickness of the insole to the next surface (into which it can be absorbed if non-occlusive, or where it will be blocked if occlusive), then it is not clear to me that there is a difference (Note: I say 'if,' since I don't know whether that happens). Moreover, we don't know if or to what extent an occlusive vs. non-occlusive material in any way accelerates moisture-elimination from the insole. So, I am not ready to conclude whether you are right or not. However, I agree that, all things being equal and without more data, in a worst-case basis, a non-occluded filler will be no worse than an occluding filler in terms of water elimination (and I do note that you write "may," not "will"). But, there might be downsides as well -- e.g. allowing ground/surface water to get into the insole more often, which could lead to more rapid deterioration; holding water in the filler material, which could be even more of a breeding zone for bacteria/fungi and consequent insole and/or outsole failure. (again, 'could,' not will; I don't know if this will happen, but I consider the possibility).

Next, as to this point: "And returning to the origins of this discussion...every argument for rubber outsoles...and by extension, using cement as a moisture barrier ...is an equally valid argument for corrected grain leather and/or naugahyde uppers. Not to mention, celastic stiffeners and plastic heel bases." I think this is not entirely correct. I can make a good argument that a Topy or other rubber outsole has advantages over naked leather in some instances, in terms of perhaps reducing or minimizing both wear and the exposure of the insole to external moisture. Depending on ones use and environment, they may render a more durable and/or safer shoe. I don't see that same logic applying to celastic toe puffs or plastic heel bases. And you also made a point earlier about why not just do away with leather, if it is not adequate? Yet, you use a synthetic heel tip but maintain the balance of the heel lifts of leather. Doesn't that contradict your earlier comment? It is, IMO, a matter of suitability for purpose -- a leather heel lift is very adequate to act as a lift, but not so great as the part of the heel that contacts the ground on a repeated basis. It needs to be aided by something more durable in this instance, be it a rubber tip, nails/slugs, or a metal tip.

Logical supposition (on both sides) is great, but in the absence of actual data we're all just arguing based on theory and logic.

One more thought: there are all sorts of possible upper materials, some of which may outperform leather. Just because leather was the historical choice (with a limited set of alternative choices) doesn't mean newer materials might not be better suited. For example, some of the upper material used by Nike in their athletic shoes. So, why aren't we bespoke makers using those? Clearly, aesthetics and tradition play a role here. So, presuming or arguing that the only reason we use a material is performance is simply incorrect. You might argue that it is about lower cost, not higher performance (factory mentality). However, look at the track shoes that Nike makes for its elite track athletes. IMO, that is all about performance, cost be damned -- Usain Bolt winning the gold medal is worth far more than a few dollars of savings on materials for his shoes. Yet, his shoes are not leather.

Also, of course, any material has multiple dimensions of performance -- weight, air/moisture permeability, durability, elasticity are a few that come to mind. Hence, any choice of material is likely to involve a tradeoff amongst the various dimensions and must reflect the application for which they are intended.

 

[DWFII]

shoefan,

Reading through your post again (something I am wont to do repeatedly) I am struck again by your remarks regarding your movements in London. Most notably the fact that even wearing a shoe that had an occlusive filler and was made using cement, the water still got through. It begs the question that I asked several times previously: If the moisture barrier is no barrier to moisture coming in...against gravity...then what good is it? And if that same moisture barrier prevents wicking and/or stifles breathe-ability...no matter how minimal...then how can we countenance it?

In my estimation you touched upon two other points that I made but are worth reiterating: First, staying out of trout streams with your good shoes is the most surefire way to avoid wet insoles. Abstinence is the watchword here. And in the absence of abstinence, wearing a condom of some sort the only somewhat reliable alternative. As who should say.

The other point is that a wool filler is really no different than a wool sock...at least that's the way I see it. We expect a sock (and esp. wool) to wick water away from the foot. Similarly the wool filler will wick water away from the bottom (flesh side) of the insole, thus facilitating water transference to the outsole and hence to the outside.

In my mind, and bottom line, it all comes down to what techniques, what materials, result in the best outcome...albeit only theoretical...esp. long term. Because that's what we as Craftsmen, if not shoemakers, are charged with. I see problems with cement and occlusive barriers. I suspect the old guys did as well. I see no problems with a well considered absence of occlusive materials. I believe...as I have said before...that is the genius of a well-made shoe and the way it deliberately evolved.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[DWFII]



Logical supposition (on both sides) is great, but in the absence of actual data we're all just arguing based on theory and logic.

.

It's not supposition if it is informed by actual hands-on experience...and the mindful observation of the results of that work...over a long period of time. Such a body of experience is nothing short of deliberative, implacable study, analysis, and collection of "actual data."

edited for punctuation and clarity