Shoe prices

[miurasv]

If DWF11 isn't prepared to give the whole story then he shouldn't give half stories. Stating which manufacturers use leatherboard is only stating the facts and not dissing them. All the facts should be given by a proper reviewer otherwise the review is not proper. As I've said before, we'd like to know so we can make informed buying decisions. I am not doubting his great shoe knowledge or expertise, which is obvious, but his refusal to name the manufacturers or shoe models with leatherboard insoles does make me wonder if it's due to his actual inability to do so because the information is incorrect.

 

[DWFII]

I might add that one of the reasons I don't diss other makers by name is that i have no desire to make people like yourself feel bad about their latest pair of shoes.

I don't seek business or attention from this forum, I seek to raise awareness of, and more importantly to preserve respect for, Traditional standards of quality.

And perhaps, in some small way, to hold the manufacturers feet to the fire--to suggest that expediency is never a standard worth aspiring to and suggest deception,even by omission, is always to be abhored.

 

[indesertum]

post the link to the english translation please as i dont really frequent mc


also feelings aside, i think one of the function of fora like this is kinda like what journalism is supposed to be: consumer watchdog/informed third party observer.

it might suck for ppl who already bought the pair but the information would be tremendously useful for people who are considering buying the pair.

for example I really like that one blog run by a member tailor who's name i cannot remember, where he deconstructs the suits of well known suit makers like kiton and brioni. in essence this makes sure that our perception of the quality of these brands actually hold up to the quality that they claim to be.

exposing the actual quality does not diss or insult the manufacture if they are all that they claim to be.

traditionally a lack of information rewarded companies with corrupt business practices as consumers had no way of discerning if they were getting screwed. however with the advent of the internet, fora like these and blogs allow the spread of information so that businesses with honest standards of quality are rewarded rightly so and vice versa.


by revealing this information i would argue you're letting the status quo stay. if john lobb or edward green or C&J handmade were putting leatherboard insoles and gemming, shouldnt the customer paying 700 to 2k have the right to know that these aren't industry standards (at least standards that used to be)?


if a customer is paying 140 quid for a pair of shoes and they're not even getting a semblance of what a good shoe should be, shouldnt he have the right to know?

there's so much marketing bullshit out there it's difficult to understand what to even look for if the information is even available



also i'm not trying to justify anything. i'm just trying to learn about shoemaking so i can make an informed decision. i cant make an informed decision unless i know which companies hold what kind of business practices, which is information that is not readily available

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by miurasv

If DWF11 isn't prepared to give the whole story then he shouldn't give half stories. Stating which manufacturers use leatherboard is only stating the facts and not dissing them.
No disrespect intended, but if you're not prepared to take responsibility for your own actions...ie. buying shoes without knowing what goes into them...or your own ignorance, by asking the manufacturer, or even just reading posts on this forum that have stated unequivocally how (and which) shoes are made, then nothing I say to you will make a difference. Again, no offense but simply stated, you're not ready for a better grade of shoe. At some point, it seems as if there's a huge number of folks here who want someone to do more than educate them...who want someone to hand them a fully formed set of sensibilities; to take all the work and the uncertainty out of developing a sense of style and discrimination. I'm not so foolish as to think I can or should do that for you. That's why brand name cachet is near-as-nevermind the same thing as "style" in the minds of many people here and far more important than substance. I can tell you about the mountain but I cannot climb it for you. Even if people want to consider me an "expert" what I say is still an opinion. A privileged opinion perhaps but still one man's view.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by indesertum

post the link to the english translation please as i dont really frequent mc also feelings aside, i think one of the function of fora like this is kinda like what journalism is supposed to be: consumer watchdog/informed third party observer. there's so much marketing bullshit out there it's difficult to understand what to even look for if the information is even available also i'm not trying to justify anything. i'm just trying to learn about shoemaking so i can make an informed decision. i cant make an informed decision unless i know which companies hold what kind of business practices, which is information that is not readily available
Journalism, once upon a time was all about objective fact...or at least that was the ideal. Calling out makers who do this or that is about commentary, not journalism. But that's neither here nor there, the real issue is not who does what but recognizing that there is a qualitative difference between leatherboard and leather, as an example. That's where an informed decision is made. It's a whole way of looking at things--a gestalt, as who should say. A world-view. There is not one RTW shoe being made in the USA or in western Europe (and too many bespoke shoes made by the same companies) that does not resort to expediencies such as gemming. It is my contention that as time goes by each of these companies will, by dint of scarcity of skill or expense of materials, make further compromises in Traditional standards of quality. Some of those same high-end companies are already introducing "lines" that use "cardboard" for insoles. As for the English translation discussion, someone else will have to point that out for you, I don't remember the thread title. But it was very recent...within the last 30 days, as i recall.

 

[miurasv]

Originally Posted by DWFII

No disrespect intended, but if you're not prepared to take responsibility for your own actions...ie. buying shoes without knowing what goes into them...or your own ignorance, by asking the manufacturer, or even just reading posts on this forum that have stated unequivocally how (and which) shoes are made, then nothing I say to you will make a difference.

Again, no offense but simply stated, you're not ready for a better grade of shoe.

At some point, it seems as if there's a huge number of folks here who want someone to do more than educate them...who want someone to hand them a fully formed set of sensibilities; to take all the work and the uncertainty out of developing a sense of style and discrimination.

I'm not so foolish as to think I can or should do that for you. That's why brand name cachet is near-as-nevermind the same thing as "style" in the minds of many people here and far more important than substance. I can tell you about the mountain but I cannot climb it for you.

Even if people want to consider me an "expert" what I say is still an opinion. A privileged opinion perhaps but still one man's view.

Nobody's asking you to climb the mountain for them but you are not telling us where the mountain is.

Because you won't say which manufacturer is using leatherboard it's not fair on the ones that do use leather insoles as the 'not knowing who casts suspcion on all'.

 

[DWFII]

Ah! it was this thread: http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=236162&page=33&highlight=japanese+translation somewhere around page 33, as I recall. Ther were several pages of these deconstructions. But see...here's the thing. I simply did a search for "Japanese translation" and it was the third or fourth result. Now, why should I have to do that for you? It suggests that you are not really interested after all. If you want to become informed, if you want to understand, if you want the truth, you can't rely on other people's blood, sweat, and tears to provide it for you. I am not trying to be rude, I am simply stating a fact of life. Or at least a honourable way of approaching life. What is offered freely is a gift, all the rest must be earned. Really. PS no manufacturer is going to admit that they use inferior materials in their products. But here's a hint...insole leather is not blue. Or gray. or pink. One other thing...on edit...don't expect the information you're looking for to jump out at you or to be handed to you on a plate. You will have to study these pages and read them top to bottom and even then you may have to consult "experts" to understand some of it.

 

[indesertum]

I tried google as the vbulletin search generally sucks, but thanks for the link

i tried japanese shoe deconstruction and it hadnt turned up anything

 

[Redwoood]

Originally Posted by DWFII

[...]
There is not one RTW shoe being made in the USA or in western Europe (and too many bespoke shoes made by the same companies) that does not resort to expediencies such as gemming. [...]

I was under the impression that J.M. Weston--a French company--uses a machine-cut holdfast construction.
This would imply there is no need for gemming in this Western-European make.

And then there are those RTW makers that don't use Goodyear-welted construction methods altogether...

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by Redwoood

I was under the impression that J.M. Weston--a French company--uses a machine-cut holdfast construction. This would imply there is no need for gemming in this Western-European make. And then there are those RTW makers that don't use Goodyear-welted construction methods altogether...
Well, you're correct but I did say "expediencies such as gemming." There is something that the last several posts have made me think about... There is no significant difference between the world-view that you can (or should) make something faster and easier and more inexpensively...nevermind structural or longevity or aesthetic considerations...and it will be 'just as good" or "good enough"; no difference between that philosophy and the idea that information and understanding can or should be handed to you on a plate. Spoon fed. It is all the same. We're addicted to looking for easy answers nevermind what is lost in the translation/transition.

 

[Redwoood]

^I don't see the connection: if you teach me something that you understand, and "something is lost in the translation", then either you are a bad teacher or I a bad student.

In general, the world is driven by compromise.
Trying to reach the ideal, as nice as it may be, is quite futile. Thinking one has reached the ideal is foolish.

Everybody takes short-cuts. Everybody.
Do you always buy the best possible leather for a job? What if the minimum order size is 100 times too large. Would you still buy it? How about raising your own cattle and doing your own tanning, too much to ask?
Could you not reasonably produce tighter stitching if you really tried much harder? More regular stitching?
Can you build a heel stack that is precisely 1 inch high?
Wouldn't it help to x-ray a customer's foot inside a shoe in order to determine perfect fit?

Life is about compromises and about when something is good enough. Be it in the shoes you buy/create or in anything else. "Good enough" is based on an individual assessment, which depends on a multitude of factors. In the end, only the individual can decide.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by Redwoood

^I don't see the connection: if you teach me something that you understand, and "something is lost in the translation", then either you are a bad teacher or I a bad student.
Well, I've been teaching bootmaking for 30 years, near-as-nevermind...and still getting students (more than I can or wish to handle, actually) despite not actively pursuing them. Word of mouth mostly. Beyond that, what I meant when I said something was "lost in the translation" (a tactful way of toning down overt criticism) was actually in reference to how much is disregarded, left behind, denigrated--people really don't want to know. It's too much work. No matter how good a teacher is, it's always and ultimately in the hands of the student. You cannot undo the pin, open up the top of their heads, and pour understanding in. Even if it's all empty in there to begin with. And no, I don't compromise unless I absolutely have to. But there's a world of difference in compromising because a compromise is the only way forward and compromising because you're looking for easy. "Good enough" is all too often the latter.

 

[ktrp]

With regards to the OP:

I have ordered from Herring relatively recently. It looks to me like 140 GBP would not get you into a herring classic or a loake 1880. You'd be looking at loake 'shoemakers' or herring graduates. You're looking at a lot of corrected leather in that range, though not always. Moving up to 155-185 GBP seems to make quite a difference on average. That's at full price mind you. My last herring order, I ordered a 175 GBP pair (Barker for Herring) and a 110 GBP clearance pair(Loake for Herring). I've been happy with both.

There are a lot more calf leather offerings at 155-185 then 140 down on the herring site - at least at full price.

 

[LanceW]

Misunderstanding of heel pads vs insoles. Carry on.

 

[DWFII]

With all due respect, none of these are insoles. At least two of these photos show nothing other than "heel pads" and the slipper may have a "sockliner." Or, it may not have a real insole per se...depending on the construction techniques used to make it. The John Lobbs may look like they have a leather insole but I doubt if that is what is being seen in the heel seat area, even on the lighter coloured shoe. Heel pads and sockliners are thin pieces of leather that cover whatever is being used as an insole (and the nails that are often used to hold the heel on). In some cases there may be a real leather insole underneath, albeit thin and of poor quality, or there may be a "leatherboard or fiberboard" insole. Or, in the case of the tan Lobbs, it may cover or actually be, a real traditional bark tanned leather insole. But it's neither blue or gray or pink, is it? The only way to tell for sure is to pry up the heel pad and look. Judging from this post and the fact that you apparently did not know that these were heel pads, I wonder if you would not know the difference between bark tanned leather and leatherboard (which is at bottom a glorified cardboard). Or are you trying to make some other point, that I'm missing? PS: I particularly admire the blue split-toes...but it's still a heel pad.