shoe construction...behind the veil

[DWFII]



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.

Well, that debunks the whole notion...long held...of breathe-ability, doesn't it? But having customers who, through genetics or exertion, sweat copiously, I have seen no evidence that we stand around in leather buckets of water until such time as we can take off our boots. To the contrary, and in point of fact, I have seen a number of boots and shoes that were literally sweat stained. Indicating an easy and natural migration of moisture to the atmosphere.

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,'

And yet I have seen (and posted on this forum some years ago) scientific studies that indicate that the shoe does become a petri dish and which (the studies) end up recommending that "occlusive" footwear be "avoided." I don't want to dig that information out again but it is here somewhere. And IIRC, it came from an internationally recognized organization of orthopedists.

What's more, I have personal experience with contracting foot diseases from used (vintage) shoes. This is such a prevalent problem, in fact, that special "potions" have been concocted, and devices that emit ultraviolet light manufactured, to counteract it....specifically in "vintage" shoes but also as an ongoing preventive measure for new shoes.

With all due respect, I don't dismiss logic quite as easily as you seem to be doing (correct me if I'm wrong) nor, given enough direct or even incidental evidence, dismiss it as supposition, but it only makes sense that when you have bodily fluids mixing with resident bacteria and a natural, organic food source and then add warmth, that something akin to a petri dish would arise.

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.

I have made all the same points...have acknowledged and conceded that rubber has its strengths. Just as leather has its own. Do I use rubber for toplifts? Yes, I do. Make no apologies, either. One of...maybe the greatest...strength of rubber is its traction attributes. I just don't think that given an adequate gait profile it is significantly better than leather except in certain places on the shoe and in certain environments. The heel being one of those.

And it is lots uglier, less responsive to Craftsmanship, and many times more damaging to personal as well as environmental health.

Beyond that I have nothing against naugahyde per se. Or corrected grain leather, for that matter. Or even rubber outsoles. But there is a disconnect between buying high end, expensive shoes, ostensibly made from a luxury commodity such as leather, and then desecrating them with adjuncts whose only true purpose is to let the customer avoid the necessities of owning luxury goods.

It is, in fact, the self-same disconnect that everyone here on SF would acknowledge (and decry) if putting leather elbow patches on a Saville Row suit were to be proposed.

If a person wants the extra-ordinary durability and water-resistance of plastic or rubber in their footwear, that's fine with me. Go for it. But don't try to justify or dismiss the logical implications of that impulse.

My purpose...my "raison d'etre" as I said in an earlier post...is making the best shoes I can. It is not to be an out-in-the-street activist against the unfairness or unseemliness of synthetics. My reason for starting this thread and for posting to this forum is to advocate for Craftsmanship (with a capital "C"), Traditional shoemaking, and the appreciation of it.

Trade-offs and "preferences" are fine...in their place and acknowledged. Justifications that are in stark contrast to what we say we want or the posture we present to the world are more problematic...for me at least. Doubly problematic for my ideas about what it means to be a Craftsman / shoemaker and to bear, accordingly, a certain responsibility.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[shoefan]



Well, that debunks the whole notion...long held...of breathe-ability, doesn't it? But having customers who, through genetics or exertion, sweat copiously, I have seen no evidence that we stand around in leather buckets of water until such time as we can take off our boots. To the contrary, and in point of fact, I have seen a number of boots and shoes that were literally sweat stained. Indicating an easy and natural migration of moisture to the atmosphere.


And yet I have seen (and posted on this forum some years ago) scientific studies that indicate that the shoe does become a petri dish and which (the studies) end up recommending that "occlusive" footwear be "avoided." I don't want to dig that information out again but it is here somewhere. And IIRC, it came from an internationally recognized organization of orthopedists.

What's more, I have personal experience with contracting foot diseases from used (vintage) shoes. This is such a prevalent problem, in fact, that special "potions" have been concocted, and devices that emit ultraviolet light manufactured, to counteract it....specifically in "vintage" shoes but also as an ongoing preventive measure for new shoes.

With all due respect, I don't dismiss logic quite as easily as you seem to be doing (correct me if I'm wrong) nor, given enough direct or even incidental evidence, dismiss it as supposition, but it only makes sense that when you have bodily fluids mixing with resident bacteria and a natural, organic food source and then add warmth, that something akin to a petri dish would arise.
I have made all the same points...have acknowledged and conceded that rubber has its strengths. Just as leather has its own. Do I use rubber for toplifts? Yes, I do. Make no apologies, either. One of...maybe the greatest...strength of rubber is its traction attributes. I just don't think that given an adequate gait profile it is significantly better than leather except in certain places on the shoe and in certain environments. The heel being one of those.

And it is lots uglier, less responsive to Craftsmanship, and many times more damaging to personal as well as environmental health.

Beyond that I have nothing against naugahyde per se. Or corrected grain leather, for that matter. Or even rubber outsoles. But there is a disconnect between buying high end, expensive shoes, ostensibly made from a luxury commodity such as leather, and then desecrating them with adjuncts whose only true purpose is to let the customer avoid the necessities of owning luxury goods.

It is, in fact, the self-same disconnect that everyone here on SF would acknowledge (and decry) if putting leather elbow patches on a Saville Row suit were to be proposed.

If a person wants the extra-ordinary durability and water-resistance of plastic or rubber in their footwear, that's fine with me. Go for it. But don't try to justify or dismiss the logical implications of that impulse.

My purpose...my "raison d'etre" as I said in an earlier post...is making the best shoes I can. It is not to be an out-in-the-street activist against the unfairness or unseemliness of synthetics. My reason for starting this thread and for posting to this forum is to advocate for Craftsmanship (with a capital "C"), Traditional shoemaking, and the appreciation of it.

Trade-offs and "preferences" are fine...in their place and acknowledged. Justifications that are in stark contrast to what we say we want or the posture we present to the world are more problematic...for me at least. Doubly problematic for my ideas about what it means to be a Craftsman / shoemaker and to bear, accordingly, a certain responsibility.

edited for punctuation and clarity

I would love to see whatever articles you have about the use of non-occlusive footwear.

However, I again think you misunderstand me. Of course shoes are a petri-dish of all sorts of bacteria and fungi -- a warm, moist environment with organic food sources is going to be so. My question is whether having an occlusive barrier between the insole and outsole worsens the situation -- for this I've seen no data, though I'm not rejecting the validity of your blackened insoles observations. Furthermore, I am not as sanguine as you about the impact of the wool felt between the two soles. Wool is great at wicking and helping water evaporate, in an open environment. I pretty much stick to wool sock, because I find their behavior far superior to cotton. I just wonder whether a material that will absorb water, sandwiched between the two organic surfaces (insole and outsole) might not cause more problems than having an occlusive barrier there. Note -- I wonder, not that I conclude that it is. To reiterate, I am not saying anything you've said is wrong, I just don't know enough to conclude (nor have I seen sufficient evidence to agree) that you are right. Finally, I don't think I am rejecting the value of logic. The issue with logic is that one can often come up with alternative, logical arguments that lead to the exact opposite conclusion. (as an example, look at any argument about stock prices -- there are always logical arguments which say that stocks are over-priced, whilst simultaneous alternative arguments very logically argue they are underpriced. The question to me is not whether the assertions can be logically supported, but rather whether they are correct. A story -- I have a brother-in-law who would make incredibly complicated logical arguments/explanations about some medical condition or other. His logic was generally very coherent, but he was always totally off base and wrong, per my father-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, all of whom are doctors. So, logic is important, but it is not proof.)

Regarding your thoughts about my London experience; I guess my question is, if the various materials and substances in my shoe, ostensibly occlusive, allow water in, then why wouldn't they allow water out? IOW, maybe the 'occlusive' materials you worry about aren't, in real world applications, so occlusive after all?

Finally, I think your statement that your aim is to 'make the best shoes I can' needs the caveat that they will be traditional, leather shoes. Otherwise, your (implicit) assumption is that leather is the best possible material for shoes; an assumption which, IMO, one cannot necessarily make without doing the analysis (per my discussion of Nike upper materials earlier). Look, I have no beef with your objectives or raison d'etre. I aspire to the same things as you. I guess I am just a bit more inclined to want proof, or to want more proof, regarding some assertions that folks make, however logical they might be.

 

[MoneyWellSpent]

@Nick V.
@DWFII

Sorry for interjection on part of the conversation that is several days old, but I just got here and had some thoughts on the initially posed question regarding why RTW factories would use cement/cork instead of paste/felt.

I think the history behind Goodyear-welting is crucial here.

Let's remember that Goodyear-welting is a mechanized imitation of what was a previously perfected shoe construction method. The only "fault" that Goodyear was seeking to improve upon was cost, manufacturing time, and quantity.

One of the reasons that Goodyear-welting prevailed over Blake construction processes is that the feel of the shoe more successfully mimics the desirable traits of a traditionally welted shoe during wear. This is supported by texts dealing with the history of shoe mechanization. Nick supported this when he pointed that out a couple of pages back when he said he prefers the comfort of Goodyear over Blake-rapid. Blake-rapid may have some pros in the strength department, but their inability to form a footbed overshadows this to a large extent.

Now, in hand-welted shoes with a proper insole, the footbed is created in the leather itself. However, in Goodyear-welting, the cork is where the footbed truly forms. The leather isn't thick or long-fibered enough to do it alone. Once the leather insole ages a bit on a Goodyear-welted shoe, it does harden to the shape of the indention in the cork. This process wouldn't happen the same way if the cork/cement was replaced with felt. I think that the shoe would behave more like a Blake-rapid.

In addition, I don't think it should be overlooked that the cork/cement plays a larger role in outsole attachment in Goodyear's case. Where a hand-welted shoe's sole is securely sewn with waxed thread and a stronger shoemaker's stitch, Goodyear uses a lock stitch. The lock stitch will more readily give way when it isn't supported by the cement backing it up, especially after abrasion. Clearly the welt can be cemented, but that thin perimeter isn't going to keep the outsole attached for long-term wear. So, the cork/cement filler is really dual purposed. It is integral to allowing the shoe to form a footbed, and it is also integral in keeping the outsole securely attached.

 

[Nick V.]



@Nick V.
@DWFII

Sorry for interjection on part of the conversation that is several days old, but I just got here and had some thoughts on the initially posed question regarding why RTW factories would use cement/cork instead of paste/felt.

I think the history behind Goodyear-welting is crucial here.

Let's remember that Goodyear-welting is a mechanized imitation of what was a previously perfected shoe construction method. The only "fault" that Goodyear was seeking to improve upon was cost, manufacturing time, and quantity.

One of the reasons that Goodyear-welting prevailed over Blake construction processes is that the feel of the shoe more successfully mimics the desirable traits of a traditionally welted shoe during wear. This is supported by texts dealing with the history of shoe mechanization. Nick supported this when he pointed that out a couple of pages back when he said he prefers the comfort of Goodyear over Blake-rapid. Blake-rapid may have some pros in the strength department, but their inability to form a footbed overshadows this to a large extent.

Now, in hand-welted shoes with a proper insole, the footbed is created in the leather itself. However, in Goodyear-welting, the cork is where the footbed truly forms. The leather isn't thick or long-fibered enough to do it alone. Once the leather insole ages a bit on a Goodyear-welted shoe, it does harden to the shape of the indention in the cork. This process wouldn't happen the same way if the cork/cement was replaced with felt. I think that the shoe would behave more like a Blake-rapid.

In addition, I don't think it should be overlooked that the cork/cement plays a larger role in outsole attachment in Goodyear's case. Where a hand-welted shoe's sole is securely sewn with waxed thread and a stronger shoemaker's stitch, Goodyear uses a lock stitch. The lock stitch will more readily give way when it isn't supported by the cement backing it up, especially after abrasion. Clearly the welt can be cemented, but that thin perimeter isn't going to keep the outsole attached for long-term wear. So, the cork/cement filler is really dual purposed. It is integral to allowing the shoe to form a footbed, and it is also integral in keeping the outsole securely attached.

No need to apologize at all.
Thank you for your contribution.

 

[DWFII]



I would love to see whatever articles you have about the use of non-occlusive footwear.

The articles I mentioned weren't specifically about "non-occlusive" footwear--they were about foot diseases. Much was said about where and how such diseases originate, but one of the conclusions was...almost verbatim (despite the passing of time and faulty memory) ...to "avoid occlusive footwear." In fact, that's where I first ran across the term "occlusive."

As for the wool...well, I'm not dismissing your logic either. But my basic premise is that, first and foremost, we need to resolutely avoid long term exposure to moisture unless we are wearing waders. Given that starting point, I don't think the wool itself will ever be in any danger of being saturated, even under the worst case scenario. Again, my own experiences in Portland recently didn't result in wet feet despite 48 hours of constant rain. Maybe I'm just light on my feet. I take my cues from Fred Astaire--dancing in the rain.

I suspect that, even with occlusive barriers, shoes will get supersaturated if exposed long enough. Water splashes over and around the welt, into the inseam, and up on the uppers--all the places that the theory of upper-wicking-is-sufficient says should be amenable to water transfer. But bottom line...and the point...(and bringing us back to the origins of this discussion) is that if the occlusive barrier of filler and cement doesn't prevent water seeping into the interior of the shoe, there is no guarantee that rubber outsoles or sole guards will either. And, IMO, that debunks one of the major rationales for supplanting leather outsoles.

And in the end, I'm just saying you can't have it both ways...either it wicks (breathes), or it doesn't. Functionally, that means that I consider it the better part of caution, if not wisdom, to assume (1) breathe-ability is one of leather's most compelling attributes; (2) a moisture barrier doesn't breathe or wick; (3) encouraging breathe-ability (even if it is...in some minds...only theoretical) is a good thing; and (4) ignoring or dismissing it to the extent that we deliberately choose materials that are occlusive, is not.

Finally, I am not a maker (or defender) of "non-traditional" shoes--running shoes, climbing shoes, etc.. They already have their own advocates and, presumably, their own forums. Nor, from what I've seen, is this forum--StyleForum--focused on or concerned with those kinds of shoes. In point of fact, I don't think it should be. It's dress shoes, primarily, we talk about and leather dress shoes at that--luxury goods, elements of Style. I, frankly, don't care about Nike or any of the ancillary aspects of injection molded shoes or synthetic materials. I can't ...nor do I want to...speak to the attractions of any of those issues. It's not my remit...nor, again IMO, appropriate to these discussions.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[DWFII]

@MoneyWellSpent

Good post. Spot on.

I would only say that, IMO, there is nothing to prevent a well made Blake Rapid from making a footbed. The real problem there is the same as with GY--the insole is too thin, too short fibered and often not even leather.

IIRC, there was a deconstructed B-R shoe posted on SF some time ago that had a foam rubber insole, if that.

I think a well made B-R is superior to GYW. But just as with anything...when the manufacturers start looking for places to cut costs those components that are not seen are the first to suffer.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

I haven't read every post in this thread recently, but I will provide an anecdote, fwiw. My feet sweat a ton. For whatever reason, I don't know if it was the leather, or what but my pairs of Crocket & Jones shoes (long gone by now) would actually get salt stains on the outside when I was wearing them on hot summer days for long stretches of time. The same salt stains that you might see on the baseball cap of somebody who sweats into their hat during sports, or whatever. What I made of it was it was either the sweat of my feet making its way through the lining and upper and drying on the surface, and/or the salts from my sweaty feet making their way to the uppers and causing a leeching of the tanning agents in the uppers due to some pH shifting (the same thing happens to leather exposed to salt water from melting snow). People will often find that those "salt stains" are difficult to remove. It isn't that the salt is difficult to remove, more that it is hard to revert the leather back to an acidic state. The "salt" most people see is just tanning agent spewing out.

 

[DWFII]

Perhaps suggesting that as a general rule, at least, the less occlusive a shoe is the better. Theoretically and ideally a shoe should (and can) breathe in three dimensions. But if the insole will breathe and wick moisture away from the foot...it is thicker and potentially more absorbent than the upper. And maybe...at least according to the science...gravity would tend to prevent much of that moisture from migrating upward.

Or you could just take them off every ten minutes and let them air for a half hour or so, before wearing them for another ten minutes....

 

[duncanbootmaker]

Here's a snippet, Patrick, from a reprinted shoemaker's book that was originally published in the mid 1800's, about sweating feet and a solution.







A few years ago, in preparing to go to a camp at the beach, I bought a pair of canvas 'sand shoes', with rubber soles. Instead of them being cool and airy, it turned out that the manufacturer had rubberised the inside of the canvas and this, coupled with the synthetic insoles, meant that my socks would be wet (almost to the point of being able to wring them out) when I took the shoes off, even though I'd not been near the water.

 

[duncanbootmaker]

Further thoughts, DW, on the movement of perspiration.
Moisture's movement isn't entirely dependent on gravity, but more of which direction is the driest environment. As moisture evaporates, it will move towards a relatively less humid area, a bit like air pressure moves towards a relative low pressure. For example: you can dry out the innards of an electronic device that has met with an unfortunate encounter with liquid, by putting it in a container of rice. The rice is a highly absorbent material and therefore creates a very dry environment that the moisture inside the electronics moves towards through evaporation (humidity expands to fill the dry space provided) .
Also in the mix is capillary action through contact; a very powerful force as demonstrated by the astronauts cup that has a crease up one side that the drink adheres to and follows..




...so the moisture in the area trapped between the sole of the foot and the insole, or the top of the foot and the upper, will be, I think, largely under the control of capillary action with the moisture moving towards the driest area. Sweat that can move freely, without bumping into the upper, will be under gravity.
Just musings

 

[DWFII]



Further thoughts, DW, on the movement of perspiration.
Moisture's movement isn't entirely dependent on gravity, but more of which direction is the driest environment. As moisture evaporates, it will move towards a relatively less humid area, a bit like air pressure moves towards a relative low pressure. For example: you can dry out the innards of an electronic device that has met with an unfortunate encounter with liquid, by putting it in a container of rice. The rice is a highly absorbent material and therefore creates a very dry environment that the moisture inside the electronics moves towards through evaporation (humidity expands to fill the dry space provided) .  
Also in the mix is capillary action through contact; a very powerful force as demonstrated by the astronauts cup that has a crease up one side that the drink adheres to and follows..

...so the moisture in the area trapped between the sole of the foot and the insole, or the top of the foot and the upper, will be, I think, largely under the control of capillary action with the moisture moving towards the driest area. Sweat that can move freely, without bumping into the upper, will be under gravity.
Just musings   

Duncan,

Great post. Love the bit about the astronaut's cup. Never seen that before...makes perfect sense.

Yes, I know gravity is only part of the equation (I alluded to that in a previous post) but it is part. And if you seal off the insole and the bottom of the foot, you not only prevent hydrostatic transfer (which seems to be at least partly dependent on gravity) you force moisture to exit solely through the vamp...or not at all, depending on how freely the feet perspire and / or how quickly the moisture can evaporate off the surface of the vamp.. Since a goodly part of that moisture is transferred through osmosis and the tendency of water to actively seek areas with a lower coefficient of moisture, the vamp may, as in patrick's case, quickly become supersaturated, and the breathe-ability constrained at the very least. The feet may never be wholly dry.

I suspect this is the case more often than not ...even among those who don't perspire heavily. In fact, shoemakers have more or less depended on that fact for centuries--making a footbed in a shoe depends on moisture and heat to make the insole malleable.

I don't have the expertise or the vocabulary to speak to these issues cogently. In regards to articulating these concepts, much of this is new territory to me despite it having been part of what I was taught, what I have read, what I do and what I instinctively have known these past @50 years.

That said, and coming back around to a central point in all this...it bears repeating: Why would a shoemaker want to constrain breathe-ability at all? Even in part? Why would a mindful shoemaker not consider it an essential element...a critical component...of a well made shoe?

Presented with the choice to constrain breathe-ability or to implement it...there is no choice, at least not as far as I can see.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[patrickBOOTH]

What are your thoughts on goatskin lining rather than calf for sweaty feet?

 

[DWFII]



What are your thoughts on goatskin lining rather than calf for sweaty feet?

Most chrome goat is heavily finished and unlikely to breathe well. I've never seen a veg goat (although I'm sure it is out there).

More importantly, all the goat I've seen is very fragile. It peels worse than anything but sheep.

Naked, veg calf (lining kip) is, IMO, the best leather for lining.

--

 

[vmss]

What about lambskin lining? I have seen some makers market it as an upgrade vs calf lining.

 

[DWFII]



What about lambskin lining? I have seen some makers market it as an upgrade vs calf lining.

Lamb is sheep. I dunno...I've just never seen any sheep or goat that was suitable for the wear and tear that a shoe gets...inside or out.