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

[chogall]

Problem is I'm leery of the British approach because I worry about the puckering that is created. I suspect that's all down to leatehr thicknesses and technique but i haven't yet tried it so I don't know. I also worry that making a "line" of stitches so close tot eh edge of the insole makes them vulnerable to the nails that hold the heel seat and the outsole on. Again probably just a matter of experience.

Beyond that, the inseam is a whole 'nuther ball game--from the type of stitch to the way it sucks the upper, upperlining and welt into the rebate at the feather. IMO none of that is needed or even possible in the heelseat. It's not needed because the nails or pegs hold everything together not possible because if you include the heel stiffener you get heavy puckering on top of the insole. and did I mention vulnerability to nails?...same reason I don't particularly favour flush mounted toe plates.

In the photo above (mine) the surface of the upper in the heel area is very little more than the the thickness of the upper above the surface of the insole. That leaves a flat smooth arena to mount the outsole an heel with no potential gaps underneath. I like that.

And it is what I learned and am comfortable with...just as others learned and are comfortable with the the British technique.

So there you have it (or some of it)...again. I did this once before at the beginning of this particular strand of the discussion. I didn't want to do it again because in this context it sounds too much like a comparison. And I do not wish, or have any direct intention, to criticize any other maker or techniques that I have no real or more particularly, extensive experience with.

And again, you could have gotten all this (my take) on your own, if you simply exercised enough real curiosity to read my original remarks.

But you asked. And I'm nothing if not responsive...if approached with a modicum of respect.

That's actually a good reason to use whip stitching/"French" style vs the "British" style. On the flip side decent shoemakers would avoid nailing onto the "British" style stitching. Don't think there's much chance of puckering at least from the pictures shared by dozens of shoemakers online.

The reason I asked is that for the inseaming space around the toe tip area is narrow/small/curved, not too dissimilar to the heel seat area.

Both style can be done beautifully as shown in the above pictures and I initially raised the question in an effort to understand the rationale behind the choices. Seems like both are traditional and some makers prefer one to another.

That said, I've seen an variation of "French" style of heel stitching; upper to insole stitches were there but insole to insole/horizontal stitching were omitted. Stitching came loose and the worksmanship is sub par.

 

[DWFII]



Maybe you didn't get the answer you were looking for....

Maybe but I almost certainly got the answer I expected.

Maybe I obsess. I freely admit it. That's why I am a craftsman and a shoemaker. I even used that word about myself. Admittedly, it was to reinforce a point about engagement and the value of first-hand experience vs. second-hand hearsay...and the value of never saying "good enuf."

This is shoe-making and repair, not rocket science or brain surgery.

That doesn't mean we have to turn our brains off.

 

[chogall]

The thing is that we see what we want to see...esp. in the absence of first hand experience. and after we've done that, we interpret what we think we're seeing according to what supports what we want to believe.

And if we only rely on things told to us or what we see from a distance--without real, intimate, first hand engagement, IOW--it is almost impossible to understand or "get it right." It is and forever will be someone else's knowledge.

Beyond that, someone once said (and I ran across the same notion on Science Daily, IIRC) that, for most of us, every time we take a memory out and examine it, it changes. Only engagement and repeated first hand experience can reinforce true memory.

Or in my case, that's the only one I've seen. I am just a shoe nerd and don't see that many pairs of shoes thus I rely on your experiences and @Nick V. 's to make proper judgment.

 

[DWFII]



Or in my case, that's the only one I've seen.  I am just a shoe nerd and don't see that many pairs of shoes thus I rely on your experiences and @Nick V.
's to make proper judgment. 

Well, I am not so sure. It seems to me that you're not paying attention.

For instance, IIRC, Nick V has said publically that he has never...never...repaired even one shoe. (sorry Nick).

In fact, I kind of admire him for making that confession. But it's not a legitimate basis for expressing opinions on subjects which one has no direct experience with.

 

[Nick V.]



Every man should try to do the very best work he can, whether he picks up garbage or performs brain surgery. We need people to do both and want them to do their work as well as possible. In fact, I would have far more respect for the garbage man who does his job to the highest standards than I would for the brain surgeon who did his job to an "acceptable" standard and didn't aspire to doing any better.

"Good enough in most cases" makes perfect business sense...can't really fault it from that perspective. So, if you're only goal is to maximize the value of your business over the long term, going the extra mile to handle the details in the difficult cases wouldn't make sense. Of course, you will have to accept the consequences when somebody is left displeased with your work. As I mentioned above, it's far easier to say one is doing the best possible work and then cut a few corners, with the hope they won't be noticed, or not noticed too frequently, than it is to do the best possible work and be very open about the limitation in even the best possible work.

That said, if a person leaves even 1 in a 1000 people feeling as though they received bad service or as though he misled them in some way, a few of those 1 in a 1000 people will post about their experiences on review websites.

I would like to further that by saying......I get complements on our work on a daily basis. Every time a customer tells me "you guys do great work" my response is always ALWAYS "thank you for the compliment however, that was yesterday and doesn't count for today. It's today's work that matters to me". That has always been my attitude.
The only people I can compete with are the people in my industry and striving to be the best is what drives me.
So, when I get a person that professes to know what actually drives me -or- professes to know my motives better than I do I can only chalk it up to amusement and enjoy the comedy of it.

 

[Nick V.]



Well, I am not so sure. It seems to me that you're not paying attention.

For instance, IIRC, Nick V has said publically that he has never...never...repaired even one shoe. (sorry Nick).

In fact, I kind of admire him for making that confession. But it's not a legitimate basis for expressing opinions on subjects which one has no direct experience with.

Then you should admire me even more when I stated in the past it's not a confession, it's a statement of fact that I in no way are ashamed of.

 

[Whirling]



I would like to further that by saying......I get complements on our work on a daily basis. Every time a customer tells me "you guys do great work" my response is always ALWAYS "thank you for the compliment however, that was yesterday and doesn't count for today. It's today's work that matters to me". That has always been my attitude.
The only people I can compete with are the people in my industry and striving to be the best is what drives me.
So, when I get a person that professes to know what actually drives me -or- professes to know my motives better than I do I can only chalk it up to amusement and enjoy the comedy of it.

I should have emphasized the "if" more strongly in my post when talking about the only goal being to make money. I also should have more consistently used "one" instead of the colloquial "you" to refer to a generic third person.

I was responding to you, but I wasn't specifically talking about you, your drives, or your work. I apologize for implying this. Other than your posts here, which are public, I don't know anything about you, of course.

 

[Nick V.]



I should have emphasized the "if" more strongly in my post when talking about the only goal being to make money. I also should have more consistently used "one" instead of the colloquial "you" to refer to a generic third person.

I was responding to you, but I wasn't specifically talking about you, your drives, or your work. I apologize for implying this. Other than your posts here, which are public, I don't know anything about you, of course.

No apology necessary. Sorry if you thought I was implying you, I wasn't. The person I was implying knows very well who he is.

 

[DWFII]



The person I was implying knows very well who he is.

That's at the heart of our conflict--your fundamental misunderstanding of what I think about you.

I don't seek you out, neither to chivvy nor correct you...as you do me. Why? Because fundamentally I don't care what motivates or drives you except when you presume to correct me or qualify my remarks. If you were someone who actually does the work and actually has first hand experience and actually knows something about it, it would be a different story .

But you don't.

Let me put it this way for you and chogal and anyone else who might feel entitled to an opinion that they haven't earned ("Lead by example"--that's my motto): If I am really interested, or really and truly curious, I ask for an explanation or insight into the thinking of the person I want to learn from...as I asked j-mac. And then I pay respectful attention to the answer.

On the off chance I don't respect the knowledge of the person I am about to ask and/or don't want to hear the answer, I don't ask the question. Simple.

I seek knowledge. If I admit...even if only to myself, much less publicly...that I don't know as much as the person I am talking to (or even anything first hand about a subject), the last thing I want to do is try to tell my old granny how to suck eggs. Or what to do about "mildew" stains around iron nails.

There are times...esp. when asked...when I will explain what I do. There are even times when I will express a strong opinion about certain techniques and the value of them. My opinion--which...whatever else you want to say about me...I have earned. But, through it all, I seek knowledge.

You seek confrontation.

I don't know how you can explain it any other way. You don't know what you are talking about as it relates to shoemaking. Yet like a teenager you want...seem eager...to argue with people who do know what they are talking about.

If I explain why I do something a certain way, esp. if it is in response to a question directed at me and most esp. if it is a subject I know something about (again from first-hand experience), what's the point of jumping in and contradicting me? You're not adding anything positive. At best...best...you're pretending to knowledge that you haven't earned and don't own.

Unless it's just argument for the sake of argument? In which case it's teenage snottiness...and I don't care how old you are.

Beyond that, there is nothing coercive about my remarks. Accept them ...and possibly (?) learn from them...or don't. Your choice. There are no shoe police.

Again, I invite you to start your own thread and express your undoubtedly profound opinions about how to manage workers doing work that you, yourself, have never done. And I will do my best to stay out of it--let you have your say without the second guessing and the qualification and the belligerence and the conflict that you bring to this thread. Never mind the reminder that you don't have a legitimate basis for an opinion.

Every time the discussion in this thread is rolling along nicely and graciously, you or chogal jump in and it all goes south. And when I see you lurking I know it won't be long.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[ecwy]

I was having a chat with someone when we were discussing different house styles and different countries makers styles. I am under the impression the classic round toe is an English style whereas my friend had the opinion the English style is more chisel toe.

Are there any "traditional" last shapes attributable to different makers or countries? For example, I associate elongated chisel toes with Italian style, classic round with English, "Budapester" round toe with high toe box wall with Austria-Hungarian style, Banana lasts with AH and so on...

Thanks in advance!

 

[DWFII]



  Don't think there's much chance of puckering at least from the pictures shared by dozens of shoemakers online.

The reason I asked is that for the inseaming space around the toe tip area is narrow/small/curved, not too dissimilar to the heel seat area.

If you define "puckering" as the gathering of excess material into "folds" (as I do...and the dictionary does), I have yet to see an example of the so-called British technique that wasn't puckered...considerably...in the heel. And sometime even in the toe. I'm not sure it can be avoided---there is excess, it has to be dealt with...one way or another.

Whether there is a drawback to such puckering is another question. But it makes me uncomfortable and stirs up enough uncertainties and reservations (again, for me) that I feel no pressing impulse to change. That's why I continue to use the so-called French/Hasluck method.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[chogall]

If you define "puckering" as the gathering of excess material into "folds" (as I do...and the dictionary does), I have yet to see an example of the so-called British technique that wasn't puckered...considerably...in the heel. And sometime even in the toe. I'm not sure it can be avoided.

Whether there is a drawback to such puckering is another question. But it makes me uncomfortable and stirs up enough uncertainties and reservations (again, for me) that feel no impulse to change. That's why I continue to use the so-called French/Hasluck method.

Can't yet comment on if those puckering from "British" style heel seat stitching will actually creates discomfort for the customer. But I've not heard any complaints about it.

I've seen some makers make crisscross around the heel seat stitching to hold shanks in place. Would that be necessary?

 

[chogall]

I was having a chat with someone when we were discussing different house styles and different countries makers styles. I am under the impression the classic round toe is an English style whereas my friend had the opinion the English style is more chisel toe.

Are there any "traditional" last shapes attributable to different makers or countries? For example, I associate elongated chisel toes with Italian style, classic round with English, "Budapester" round toe with high toe box wall with Austria-Hungarian style, Banana lasts with AH and so on...

Thanks in advance!

I think different shoemaker/house has different house styles, similar to bespoke suit makers. Generally speaking, IMO, English style is either conservative round toe or chisel toe. Italian style leans more towards pointed/narrow toe. Eastern EU has that traditional banana/budapester style. French is slightly narrower round toe. However there are a lot of cross pollination today especially after Internet/iPhone broke down a lot of the barrier of sharing information.

Offspring makers from different houses tend to retain some of their former workshops aesthetics; i.e., G&G/Fukuda from Cleverley, Delos/Rock from JLP, etc. Of course there are exceptions as well, e.g., @ntempleman 's shoes are sleeker and more elegant than John (B)Lobb St James creations.

 

[DWFII]



Can't yet comment on if those puckering from "British" style heel seat stitching will actually creates discomfort for the customer.  But I've not heard any complaints about it.

I don't see how it could possibly cause any discomfort for the customer.

I said I wasn't comfortable...what I meant was that I didn't like the way it looked. I think such puckering works against a tight seam. But again, it is a technique that I don't have a lot of experience with. It may just be a matter of how you define "tight."

I've seen some makers make crisscross around the heel seat stitching to hold shanks in place.  Would that be necessary?

I like to do that, but it has nothing to do with how the heel seat is handled.

--

 

[dan'l]



This looks really beautiful. The examples of pegged soles I've seen were always with a single row of pegs.

For my first pair of bespoke shoes, I was deliberating between welted vs. pegged soles. According to my shoemaker, pegged soles are faster to make. Any truth to this? He also said hand-welted soles feel a bit more comfortable while wearing. Not sure if I really understood him on that last point, though.

Anyways, I went with the hand-welted soles - perhaps next time I will try pegged ones.