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

[Nick V.]



What I said, if you read for content and understanding rather than points of divergence and contention, was that being someone who actually does the work, with his hands, is not necessarily better than being someone who simply supervises those who do the work.

But make no mistake, I think that the shoemaker's stitch is superior to a lockstitch (in so many ways)...esp. in the context of shoes and the inseam. I say that from long professional, hands on, experience with both stitches.

I don't understand why you think I'm lecturing you...I am trying to help you understand something--a process--that you do not really understand. If you feel like it's lecturing it's because you have a resistance to any perspective not your own.

I've tried most of the techniques that are known to man when it comes to shoemaking and leatherwork. Tried to master many of them. I've done lock stitches and I've done shoemaker's stitches. I have a real world basis for making an objective comparison. How about you?

You say you've seen many many shoemaker's stitches fail and never your lockstitches. How can that be? You don't do those stitches, you aren't even in the game. All you know is what your "people" tell you.

I've explained many times why the shoemaker's stitch is superior. Why it is the most reliable and long lasting. I am nothing if not willing to explain...in detail and even at some length. You don't want to hear it. You just complain about how I say these things, not what was said. The critical point there is that I wouldn't need to explain this stuff to you if you actually had any experience doing it...not just imagining it.

If you want to contribute something worthwhile...talk about what you know and stop pretending to know things you have no actual experience with.

You are wrong in so many ways I won't bother with it. I'm not from the "show me" state. If I recall you are. So you won't answer my questions. You just want me (us here in the forum) to accept things because you said so. Then you criticize and accuse people that except things only because someone else said it. The word is contradiction. I suspect the real reason you won't answer my questions is because you can't. You can't PROVE (I emphasize the word PROVE) any of what you have been claiming regarding our recent posts.

 

[DWFII]

Hell, Nick you can't even prove that your lockstitches have never failed...simply because you don't do the work. You only talk about it.

I don't ask people here to accept things because I said it--that's your game--I explain in detail and at length--why I think things are the way they are. I offer logic and illustration and photos and even excepts from other respected sources. I try other methods. I ask other shoemakers for explanations of why they take a different approach. And I listen.

It is only the people who won't listen and want to argue...usually because they don't have any experience...that I have problems with.

And for those who, like you, cannot accept that pretense is not as good as experience, here's another POV...

From the English translation of Art du Cordonnier (Art of the Shoemaker) by M. de Garsault, 1767, as translated by D.A. Saguto, Master Shoemaker and head of the shoemaking Faulty at Colonial Williamsburg and one of the foremost shoe historians in the world...

From the glossary:

"Shoemaker's Stitch--characteristic method of sewing or stitching using an awl to pierce the hole for the waxed end. the waxed end has two working ends (see taws), each with a bristle attached, that are passed athwart through the same hole from opposite sides of the work, then quickly pulled tight by extending both arms out to the sides, catching a turn of the thread on one side, around the knob on the end of the awl haft, and a urn around the left hand wearing the hand leather. this technique results in incredible force being applied to the thread and the seam at each stitch, forming the firm, tight seams characteristic to shoemaking." (emphasis mine)

There is more to it, of course. The wax is critical. And the way it interacts with and actually becomes one with the leather. And the fact that each side of the inseam is independent of the other, so a breakage or damage to one stitch does not threaten the whole seam or even the tightness of the seam.

No technique is perfect--there are factors such as the way a shoe is worn, where it is worn, how it is worn, etc.... as well as what the maker brings to the work that influence how good it is. But I seldom make claims such as "our lockstitches never fail." Or "I've never seen failed gemming."

I can be wrong about a lot of things but at least I'm not pretending to be right about things I don't know anything about and have no experience with.

 

[Nick V.]



Hell, Nick you can't even prove that your lockstitches have never failed...simply because you don't do the work. You only talk about it.

I don't ask people here to accept things because I said it--that's your game--I explain in detail and at length--why I think things are the way they are. I offer logic and illustration and photos and even excepts from other respected sources. I try other methods. I ask other shoemakers for explanations of why they take a different approach. And I listen.

It is only the people who won't listen and want to argue...usually because they don't have any experience...that I have problems with.

And for those who, like you, cannot accept that pretense is not as good as experience, here's another POV...

From the English translation of Art du Cordonnier (Art of the Shoemaker) by M. de Garsault, 1767, as translated by D.A. Saguto, Master Shoemaker and head of the shoemaking Faulty at Colonial Williamsburg and one of the foremost shoe historians in the world...

From the glossary:

"Shoemaker's Stitch--characteristic method of sewing or stitching using an awl to pierce the hole for the waxed end. the waxed end has two working ends (see taws), each with a bristle attached, that are passed athwart through the same hole from opposite sides of the work, then quickly pulled tight by extending both arms out to the sides, catching a turn of the thread on one side, around the knob on the end of the awl haft, and a urn around the left hand wearing the hand leather. this technique results in incredible force being applied to the thread and the seam at each stitch, forming the firm, tight seams characteristic to shoemaking." (emphasis mine)

There is more to it, of course. The wax is critical. And the way it interacts with and actually becomes one with the leather. And the fact that each side of the inseam is independent of the other, so a breakage or damage to one stitch does not threaten the whole seam or even the tightness of the seam.

No technique is perfect--there are factors such as the way a shoe is worn, where it is worn, how it is worn, etc.... as well as what the maker brings to the work that influence how good it is. But I seldom make claims such as "our lockstitches never fail." Or "I've never seen failed gemming."

I can be wrong about a lot of things but at least I'm not pretending to be right about things I don't know anything about and have no experience with.

Oh....I see. As I predicted you didn't, couldn't PROVE anything. You just want people to believe something merely because you said it. And those that challenge you, you try to berate .HMMMM..... Get a new modus operandi this one has been old a long time now.....

 

[ecwy]

Is the shoe maker stitch same as a saddle stitch? AFAIK, a saddle stitch is superior to a lock stitch as even if it breaks, it doesn't unravel.

Just google saddle stitch vs lock stitch.

 

[DWFII]

While I'm doing Garsault, I thought some might find this interesting...apropos to an earlier conversation.

"sew, sewing--In English, shoemakers distinguish carefully between sewing and stitching. Sewing usually means seams or stitches pierced following curved, oblique or angled paths through the pieces being joined so so that the holes pierce only partway through the leather's substance and no stitches are visible on the other side of the work. This kind of sewing may alternatively be called taking a split hold on one or both pieces. Sewing is usually done with a round or oval-section awl."

"stitch, stitching--1) verb: as opposed to sewing, stitching means piercing straight through two pieces being joined, showing a row of corresponding stitches on either side of the work. 2) noun: When used as a noun, the stitching means the outer sole-to-welt or welt-to-rand seam. Ot os made with a square-pointed or fine rectangular-0section awl, which makes holes in the form of narrow slits."

 

[DWFII]



Oh....I see. As I predicted you didn't, couldn't PROVE anything. You just want people to believe something merely because you said it. And those that challenge you, you try to berate .HMMMM..... Get a new modus operandi this one has been old a long time now.....

As opposed to your unsubstantiated, inexperienced hearsay...all from third party sources...you mean? You heard it on the grapevine.

We just take your word for claims you have no first hand knowledge of, rather than photos, illustrations, detailed explanations, Traditions passed from generation to generation, and references from other Internationally recognized sources.

Sounds like a plan...a plan for unremitting ignorance.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[DWFII]



Is the shoe maker stitch same as a saddle stitch?

Probably, sometimes terminology gets twisted and dumbed down by people who are more observers than doers.

Check out [COLOR=FF0000]this[/COLOR] post. At the end is a drawing comparing the thread path for a shoemaker's stitch and a lock stitch.

AFAIK, a saddle stitch is superior to a lock stitch as even if it breaks, it doesn't unravel.

 

[Nick V.]



As opposed to your unsubstantiated, inexperienced hearsay...all from third party sources...you mean? You heard it on the grapevine.

We just take your word for claims you have no first hand knowledge of, rather than photos, illustrations, detailed explanations, Traditions passed from generation to generation, and references from other Internationally recognized sources.

Sounds like a plan...a plan for unremitting ignorance.

edited for punctuation and clarity

Oh...I wasn't going to bother but. I never said "our lock-stitches never fail" or "I've never seen gemming fail". The fact that you quoted me makes you a bold-faced liar. There again, your all to predictable modus operandi.....putting words in my mouth. Pathetically desperate. But since I'm a Gentleman I'll give you the opportunity to PROVE me wrong. All you ave to do is show me the statements you quoted me on. Should be simple, unless you are lying. Then it's bullshit.

 

[DWFII]

No? Post #1334, first paragraph.

Explain how is the shoemakers stitch is "the most reliable"? I've seen many, many fail. Our lock stitches don't.

 

[Nick V.]



No? Post #1334, first paragraph.

You mean this:
FWIW our lock-stitching shows no grinning what-so-ever. It's plenty tight.
Explain how is the shoemakers stitch is "the most reliable"? I've seen many, many fail. Our lock stitches don't.
I also said it's such a rare occasion that I don't recall the last time I saw it happen.
And the gemming quote?
Surly if it was quoted you no where it is.

 

[DWFII]



You mean this:
FWIW our lock-stitching shows no grinning what-so-ever. It's plenty tight.
Explain how is the shoemakers stitch is "the most reliable"? I've seen many, many fail. Our lock stitches don't.
I also said it's such a rare occasion that I don't recall the last time I saw it happen.
And the gemming quote?
Surly if it was quoted you no where it is.

This is just weasel-words. But I don't throw around the word "lying" or "liar" as easily as you do. It seems to me that this is the third or fourth time--it's an easy cop out from taking responsibility.

i have no desire to scour this forum for what you have said or not said...most of it is bogus and off-base simply because you encourage people to think you are an authority and a trusted source when in fact, you've never done any of it. In all likelihood, you've never even done a simple lockstitch. Yet now you're an authority on multiple shoemaking stitches.

The fact is that most of what I remember you saying is "I've never seen..." gemming failure, toe plate screws penetrating the insole/inseam. fugitive cork, etc., etc.. It's seems all of a piece and always contradiction...at least in threads where I post.

"Never, seen, never seen, never seen."

When what you really mean is "never done, never done, never done."

In passing, I'm not one of your employees. I don't do anything just because you demand it. So sorry, it must be frustrating.

 

[Nick V.]



This is just weasel-words. But I don't throw around the word "lying" or "liar" as easily as you do. It seems to me that this is the third or fourth time--it's an easy cop out from taking responsibility.

i have no desire to scour this forum for what you have said or not said...most of it is bogus and off-base simply because you encourage people to think you are an authority and a trusted source when in fact, you've never done any of it. In all likelihood, you've never even done a simple lockstitch. Yet now you're an authority on multiple shoemaking stitches.

The fact is that most of what I remember you saying is "I've never seen..." gemming failure, toe plate screws penetrating the insole/inseam. fugitive cork, etc., etc.. It's seems all of a piece and always contradiction...at least in threads where I post.

"Never, seen, never seen, never seen."

When what you really mean is "never done, never done, never done."

In passing, I'm not one of your employees. I don't do anything just because you demand it. So sorry, it must be frustrating.

Well in all honesty I should have said I don't remember the last one we did that failed as I stated earlier and I'm sure you recall. My sincere apologies for that. Regarding gemming....I always stood by it happens rarely and in most cases we just cement it back without even telling the customer because it's not that big of a deal. I asked the forum if anyone had had there shoes damaged following us installing them. Not one person stepped up. I volunteered several times (no, it was not an admission) as I said I VOLUNTEERED that I do not do the work. So yes I agree I "never done". I also I'm not ashamed of that regardless of how you try to belittle me. And no, not frustrated in the least. Your opinion of me is not important to me to have close to that impact on me.

 

[Anm1984]

I have used Nick before and find the service to be first rate. I think part of the issue here is the experiences and ability of the maker cannot be compared. Even amongst the high grade shoes Nick receives how many can compare to yours? Every aspect of your work is making the best shoe possible. It's been pointed out (correctly, by you and I'm grateful) that many rtw factory made shoes have flaws. How many of these are made with a shoe makers stitch executed to your ability? After reading about the effort you put forth in the wax alone, hardly any would be my guess. If nicks cobblers are capable of performing an excellent lock stitch wouldn't that be better than a flawed poorly executed shoemakers stitch especially without the proper wax? That is the real question and I would be curious as to your thoughts as I have sincerely appreciated and enjoyed learning from your posts.

 

[rbhan12]

Nick and DWF back at it again...come on guys

 

[DWFII]



. So yes I agree I "never done". I also I'm not ashamed of that regardless of how you try to belittle me. And no, not frustrated in the least. Your opinion of me is not important to me to have close to that impact on me.

There is no belittling in it. But it is a critical issue where people spend years of their lives trying to master skills and do high quality work. It is a critical factor when people ask questions seeking legitimate objective answers. And then you (or chogal and/or a very few others) come along, and with your sense of self-importance and entitlement, contradict and instigate arguments with people who have actually earned the right to the respect and the authority that comes with experience. Even if that only means listening instead of arguing about things you don't know anything about.

I have used Nick before and find the service to be first rate. I think part of the issue here is the experiences and ability of the maker cannot be compared. Even amongst the high grade shoes Nick receives how many can compare to yours? Every aspect of your work is making the best shoe possible. It's been pointed out (correctly, by you and I'm grateful) that many rtw factory made shoes have flaws. How many of these are made with a shoe makers stitch executed to your ability? After reading about the effort you put forth in the wax alone, hardly any would be my guess. If nicks cobblers are capable of performing an excellent lock stitch wouldn't that be better than a flawed poorly executed shoemakers stitch especially without the proper wax? That is the real question and I would be curious as to your thoughts as I have sincerely appreciated and enjoyed learning from your posts.

I'm sure Nick's guys are good. Everyone on the forum who has ever used B.nelson has had good words to say about it.

But that's not the issue--you hit the nail on the head when you speak about the effort that goes into just the wax. Nick has never done that. Never even come close. How can he possibly appreciate that effort? And that's just one small, tiny, part of the whole process.

It takes a lot of arrogant, entitled gall to compare two processes, neither of which you have actually done and then argue with someone who has been doing them for most of their adult lives.

It's Corporal Upham all over again.