Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."

[DWFII]



I have a question. I have been reading several blogs lately and certain bloggers highlighting leather board heel stiffeners as an upgrade over celastic heel stiffeners. We already know that leather heel stiffeners iare what we should be looking for.

However, I was wondering if there are any differences between leather board heel stiffeners and celatic heel stiffeners?
Some manufacturers has been highlighting this leatherboard heel stiffeners feature as an upgrade over celastic heel stiffeners.

Do you know what particle board is? It is sheeting made from sawdust or woodchips and a binder (glue). It has no real structural integrity.

Leatherboard is fundamentally the same thing--it is ground up leather, held together by some sort of binder and pressed into sheets. it is the modern equivalent of "shoddy"--a type of fabric made in the the mid 19th century from woolen mill scraps.

I don't believe it has much more structural integrity that particle board has. And, in my mind, it is no better than celastic...and maybe, in some circumstances a little worse.

An "upgrade"? I don't think so. Just another bit of cheap, expedient, no-brainer, ticky-tacky.

 

[chogall]

It costs more than celastic. But celastic is better in terms of rigidity.

 

[vmss]



Do you know what particle board is? It is sheeting made from sawdust or woodchips and a binder (glue). It has no real structural integrity.

Leatherboard is fundamentally the same thing--it is ground up leather, held together by some sort of binder and pressed into sheets. it is the modern equivalent of "shoddy"--a type of fabric made in the the mid 19th century from woolen mill scraps.

I don't believe it has much more structural integrity that particle board has. And, in my mind, it is no better than celastic...and maybe, in some circumstances a little worse.

An "upgrade"? I don't think so. Just another bit of cheap, expedient, no-brainer, ticky-tacky.

Makes sense thanks.

 

[DWFII]



Makes sense thanks.

The more I think about it the more I suspect I shouldn't have answered that question--I'm not exactly objective about either leatherboard or celastic.

IMO, they both represent a significant dumbing down of not only the shoe but shoemaking itself...maybe even the definition of what a shoe is or should be.

That said, both are cheap, expedient, no-brainer and ticky-tacky...esp. when compared to leather.

But they are the future, I'm afraid. I see way too many young, novice, and amateur shoemakers embracing their use simply because it takes too much time and energy to develop the skills to the same thing (but better) with leather.

When craftsmen and artisans embrace the factory mentality it's a bad sign.

 

[chogall]

That's quite pessimistic. I think a lot of the newly founded or aspiring shoemakers are learning to use the traditional materials. Online media helped tremendously in propagating useful information and generating significant interests from the younger crowd.

Those hand welting gemmed insoles or hand sewn inseaming with lock stitches you've observed are most probably from factory workshop settings.

 

[DWFII]



That's quite pessimistic. I think a lot of the newly founded or aspiring shoemakers are learning to use the traditional materials. Online media helped tremendously in propagating useful information and generating significant interests from the younger crowd.

Those hand welting gemmed insoles or hand sewn inseaming with lock stitches you've observed are most probably from factory workshop settings.

You might want to look in on the Facebook shoemaking forum...I suspect you'd find a home away from home there.

--

 

[emptym]

Vmss, are you sure the bloggers and manufacturers were recommending leatherboard and not regular leather? It would make sense that they doit for leather.

 

[vmss]



Vmss, are you sure the bloggers and manufacturers were recommending leatherboard and not regular leather?  It would make sense that they doit for leather.

I never said they recommended leather board over leather. They recommended or praised leather board as a superior alternative over celastic stiffener. I wondered if that leatherboard was superior than celastic as I find both of them cheap alternative.

 

[chogall]

You might want to look in on the Facebook shoemaking forum...I suspect you'd find a home away from home there.

--

Other than your Crispin Colloquy, where else do you find that many established Western shoemakers in one place? Just to name some, Mrsan, Gadd, Melkersson, Wegan, Sorrell, Ducker, all follow and comment in that group!! Hell that forum even got an apprentice Clogmaker from UK! On the not-so-DWFII-approved shoemaking front, there are also members trying to learn how to make sneakers, sandals, fashion shoes, industrialized shoes, etc.

Forums like those will definitely attract people with commercial interests such as dealers/suppliers/entrepreneurs trying supplies, machines, or even shoes. Or at the other end of the spectrum, you have makers/educators like Mrsan/Shanor/Ducker promoting their course, books, exam, and forum on there.

Pretty awesome group I would say.

 

[emptym]

I never said they recommended leather board over leather. They recommended or praised leather board as a superior alternative over celastic stiffener. I wondered if that leatherboard was superior than celastic as I find both of them cheap alternative.

Right. I didn't say you did. I agree that both leateherboard and celastic are cheap alternatives to leather, which I why I thought they may have recommended leather, not leatherboard, over celastic/plastic. Would you mind posting links to the blogs and manufacturers you were talking about? Or pm'ing them if you'd rather.

 

[ntempleman]

I had to unsubscribe to that Facebook forum thing.

It kept clogging up my feed and I'd miss important things, like LadBible or The Daily Mash updates, and what people I vaguely knew were eating for dinner.

 

[vmss]



Right. I didn't say you did.  I agree that both leateherboard and celastic are cheap alternatives to leather, which I why I thought they may have recommended leather, not leatherboard, over celastic/plastic.  Would you mind posting links to the blogs and manufacturers you were talking about?  Or pm'ing them if you'd rather.

If you go to shoegazing.se you would read him mentioning some brands mentioning leatherboard heel stiffeners.

 

[DWFII]



Other than your Crispin Colloquy, where else do you find that many established Western shoemakers in one place? Just to name some, Mrsan, Gadd, Melkersson, Wegan, Sorrell, Ducker, all follow and comment in that group!! Hell that forum even got an apprentice Clogmaker from UK!  On the not-so-DWFII-approved shoemaking front, there are also members trying to learn how to make sneakers, sandals, fashion shoes, industrialized shoes, etc. 

Forums like those will definitely attract people with commercial interests such as dealers/suppliers/entrepreneurs trying supplies, machines, or even shoes.  Or at the other end of the spectrum, you have makers/educators like Mrsan/Shanor/Ducker promoting their course, books, exam, and forum on there. 

Pretty awesome group I would say.

The Crispin Colloquy has never been very active but when it became clear that government laws regarding tax-exempt organizations precluded those "commercial interests" promoting and specifically self-promoting involving the quoting of prices, etc., many of the more ambitious moved over to FB.

And there are some good makers over there. But of those you mention, many are not only old in the Trade but came up in the Trade using and respecting the Traditions and Traditional techniques. (Point of fact, the owner of the forum said quite explicitly, in one of his blogs, that using a outsole stitching machine wasn't shoemaking.)

Most of the rest are new to the Trade and / or promoting manufacturing enterprises. And fit my characterizations as if they themselves were the basis for the definition of "factory mentality" and "unwilling take the time to master the skills."

And for that very reason I think you'd be more at home there than in a thread that is dedicated to Traditional techniques. And exploring "quality" and "excellence" for their own sake.

And FWIW, it doesn't matter whether I approve or not...in truth, I don't care much one way or the other on the face of it. There is room enough...and maybe even reason enough...in this world for factories...and expediency...and cheap.

But they aren't morally, qualitatively or functionally equivalent to Traditional shoemaking.

That's always been my focus--Traditional shoemaking and quality---hence the name of the thread...your inability to see the difference notwithstanding.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[tharkun]

Oh I'm sure there's "reason" enough for cheap. How could ordinary people afford different shoe styles every half year if the shoes weren't so cheap that they fall apart after 6 months anyway? (please adjust sarcasm detectors now )

Seriously though I think that yes there are even proper reasons for it. I think there can be a proper balance between price and quality where the price is affordable enough for most people and the product is made well enough to last a reasonable amount of time. I make this trade off in my day job regularly (I'm a software developer). To compare: building software to the equivalent of HW shoe quality in finest leather is something reserved for things like aircraft control systems and such. Most (I would hope) software is rather the equivalent of a GY RTW and unfortunately there are all too many cheapo $10 Walmart shoe equivalents out there. What I try to do every day is to persuade my customers to at least go for the GYW instead of $10 plastic shoe and I understand that they don't want to pay for or really need the HW "shoe" in many situations.

Personally I think I've been "in between" so far. E.g. what's wrong with a 60EUR shoe that lasted 3 years and really its just the sole that's done for? I have since switched to AE as you can see from my previous posts on SF but that experiment is still running as to whether I actually "save" in the long run.

The upper was still good actually. I think I'm gonna use it to make my own shoemaking experiments. I made my own last already (for one foot - just to experiment) and I'll welcome the shortcut to upper sewing and pattern making. I've read some (most?) of the books on the CC but pattern making so far hasn't been a good experience for me. I seem to always make some mistake or another and things just don't look right after I've done them I'm excited to see if I ever make it to actually sewing on a sole and a welt.

 

[Whirling]



Oh I'm sure there's "reason" enough for cheap. How could ordinary people afford different shoe styles every half year if the shoes weren't so cheap that they fall apart after 6 months anyway? (please adjust sarcasm detectors now )

Seriously though I think that yes there are even proper reasons for it. I think there can be a proper balance between price and quality where the price is affordable enough for most people and the product is made well enough to last a reasonable amount of time. I make this trade off in my day job regularly (I'm a software developer). To compare: building software to the equivalent of HW shoe quality in finest leather is something reserved for things like aircraft control systems and such. Most (I would hope) software is rather the equivalent of a GY RTW and unfortunately there are all too many cheapo $10 Walmart shoe equivalents out there. What I try to do every day is to persuade my customers to at least go for the GYW instead of $10 plastic shoe and I understand that they don't want to pay for or really need the HW "shoe" in many situations.

I used to write software. My experience was rather similar to yours. It is just a bit sad that consumers and end-users often don't understand that better quality is very possible if they demand it and are willing to pay more. I think a certain number of consumers really are willing to pay more to get better quality software. With software, especially for popular software from large companies, the expense can be divided between so many consumers that it becomes trivial, but the added time to develop better software becomes the "prohibitive expense."

Just as many software users are unaware of the possibilties for quality, so too was I unaware of the possibilities for footwear quality before I stumbled upon SF and starting reading posts by @DWFII. I thought my RTW GYW John Lobbs were about the same as the bespoke John Lobbs, except that they weren't customized to fit me perfectly. I even thought GYW meant a high quality product, just as a certain Reddit group's name declares. I remember buying some high-end Santonis that included specific literature describing how great they were because they had GYW construction. I am mentioning this because I want to attest that my personal experience confirms that DW is making a difference.