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

[DWFII]



@Zapasman
 I think mentioning the maker is very important to these discussions. For us non-shoemakers, knowing which makers perform certain techniques and practices at a given price is extremely relevant, at least for me.

Until two days or so ago (whenever you discussed it), I had no idea what stitching aloft was or that it wasn't considered best practice. From what I can interpret, carving a holdfast is best practice, but I still don't understand what it's function is (maybe so that the welt leather sits more seamlessly along the insole, removing the need for a lot of cork?). I thought Bonafe, Vass, Meermin and other HW makers, were all more or less working with the same basic principles but varying things like quality of components, stitches per inch, etc. Then again, all that makes sense when you consider the price of a shoe. 

In summary, I think the maker should be identified. It's very pertinent to the discussion and provides insight to potential buyers (most of us reading this very thread). As long as we don't get into continually bashing cost-saving methods, we can hold insightful and meaningful discussion. 

All those are fair points. I would only observe that the name of the maker could be revealed in a PM or perhaps after the issues have already been aired. Again, why stir up defensiveness? I've seen too much of it here over the years from people who really don't know much about shoemaking but are diehard fans of a particular brand. It's almost like you were kicking their dog.

As for the holdfast...I have to reiterate...it's function is to hold the seam "fast" (securely). Whether the inseam is sewn aloft or in a channel the leather between one side of the inseam and the other--from the insole to the welt, IOW--is a holdfast.

And again...at risk of giving it a good name ...gemming functions as a holdfast.

 

[chogall]

Revealing makers is detrimental to those with commercial interests but highly beneficial to potential customers.

There are not many who is in the trade and wiling to dis or critique other makers in a public forums tho there are certainly bad bloods between them.

Besides, short-cuts and cost saving techniques are embedded in every craft and tradition.

Caveat emptor.

 

[rbhan12]

Well, identifying the maker might encourage the shoemaker/expert/critic to be less sharp-tongued (though I don't think either of the two prominent ones in this thread are)

 

[DWFII]



Well, identifying the maker might encourage the shoemaker/expert/critic to be less sharp-tongued (though I don't think either of the two prominent ones in this thread are)

Yes, I'm sure you're right. Of course, it would almost certainly mean that nothing of significance would be posted, either. Objective analysis, education...what there is of it...would come to a screeching halt--for fear of offending someone's else's unfounded opinions, choices, or being seen as critical or "sharp tongued."

I've already said...and done long since...that I would avoid / hesitate to critique the work of a specific maker.

Maybe we could make this thread a a "safe space" where people and ideas we didn't like or want to hear were driven off campus.

 

[DWFII]



Besides, short-cuts and cost saving techniques are embedded in every craft and tradition.

Caveat emptor.

I suspect that anyone with a real, in-depth knowledge of craft...and shoemaking in particular...would take issue with that.

Any objective study of the history and evolution of the Trade reveals that over the centuries the best work gets more intricate and that the best makers look for ways to make their work better, not quicker or cheaper. Over the course of those same centuries shoes evolve from foot bags to turnshoes to handwelting to 64 stitches to the inch. Anyone of those earlier iterations would suffice even today and yet shoemakers were constantly pushing the envelope.

Sure there will always be dabblers and folk desperate to avoid the commitment and the work; desperate to achieve expertise and recognition without having to earn it. Every field of human endeavor...even posting on an Internet forum...is rife with people like that.

But in the end, they don't make a difference. In fact, taking that course is the surest path to historical, big-picture mediocrity, anonymity and ineffectiveness (as in ineffectual) .

"Caveat emptor" indeed...I'm not sure as to what you mean by that esp. in the context of this discussion. Maybe it would just be better to say if you so incurious and so indifferent to how the world works, you don't get to whine. But that also applies to who you listen to and what you embrace by way of knowledge and even "first principles" (goes hand in hand with "best practices").

IOW, caveat emptor--if you love short cuts and cost saving techniques...you deserve them and nothing else.

 

[chogall]

On one hand, you claiming best makers are looking for ways to make their work better.
On the other hand, you claiming the shoes made 100 years ago have finer and better work, 64spi and the ilks.

These two claims of yours do not reconcile.

You can go on all day harping about best your shoemaking practices, but it benefits no customers without identifying, reviewing, or using other maker's work as examples.

 

[dopey]

So . . . is Ant Man worth renting?
I am not really excited about it, because "who cares" but the consensus is "it's great" then I don't mind renting it.

 

[DWFII]



On one hand, you claiming best makers are looking for ways to make their work better.
On the other hand, you claiming the shoes made 100 years ago have finer and better work, 64spi and the ilks.

These two claims of yours do not reconcile.

Of course they do. You just need a better, more informed, perspective. The best makers have always been a small small minority...but it is they who set the standards and create the Traditions and drive the evolution of the Trade forward. They are still with us...although with a limited perspective you never see or acknowledge them.

But that limited perspective...one that is mesmerized by "short cuts and cost saving techniques"(shiny objects, the "magpie eye")...cannot abide,and indeed dismisses, all such people and all techniques that require effort and years to master and that forward the Trade. And so they are lost...both the people and the techniques. And the materials that make "best practices' possible.

And among people who extol cost saving and short cuts in particular, but in the general population as well, the factory mentality reigns and factory work becomes the new gold standard. And good work and best practices devalued and lost to the ages.

You can go on all day harping about best your shoemaking practices, but it benefits no customers without identifying, reviewing, or using other maker's work as examples.

That's just another way of instigating and provoking conflict and confrontation.

I myself have talked endlessly about the strengths and the reasons to do specific techniques. That's the positive side--leadership by example. I've also been forced to discuss the weaknesses of other techniques simply because some people refuse to accept the fundamental mechanics and the logic behind those techniques. But unlike a lot of people here, either way I have laid out the logic, in detail. That right there is more than any ten of my critics have done. More, I have posted photos and drawings--both my own and drawn from historical documents written by recognized masters. I've even sallied forth into the philosophical foundations and principles that inform the craftsman's perspective.

Most of what I have set out has been rejected by people who are not craftsmen or shoemakers; people who want their un-informed opinions validated and need to be "stroked" constantly; people who feel like they are entitled to opinions and recognition that they have not earned. People, IMO, like yourself.

As you say "caveat emptor."

--

 

[bdavro23]

So . . . is Ant Man worth renting?
I am not really excited about it, because "who cares" but the consensus is "it's great" then I don't mind renting it.

Haven't seen it and cant say I am hugely compelled to, but who doesnt love Paul Rudd?

(Furthering this off topic conversation in the hopes Chogall will stfu and forget about this thread)

 

[ThunderMarch]

Haven't seen it and cant say I am hugely compelled to, but who doesnt love Paul Rudd?

(Furthering this off topic conversation in the hopes Chogall will stfu and forget about this thread)

I found that after I discovered the "block user" function, the threads became much more enjoyable. You should try it, it's good.

 

[DWFII]



(Furthering this off topic conversation in the hopes Chogall will stfu and forget about this thread)

I thought he said he would (post # 1272, last sentence). But like so much else he posts...

 

[rbhan12]

I'm standing firm that the maker should be posted along with questions/critique. Most of us are consumers seeking the advice of a few experts. We can stretch this idea to natural selection where best makers with best practices survive. Only reason I can think of not wanting to critique is not wanting to be critiqued.

DWF, you share a ton of information here that we otherwise likely wouldn't have, or at least as frequently. I'm confident everyone is grateful in that regard. With that in mind, I think where you butt heads or rub people the wrong way is your approach.

To us consumers, money is an object. From your approach, money isn't an object, with quality above everything else. Most can't afford or choose not to spend the entry-level bespoke price of ~$2000 (conservative estimate). Most of the GYW shoes we love and buy will last, if not our lifetime, damn long enough to fulfill the value prop.

 

[rbhan12]



So . . . is Ant Man worth renting?
I am not really excited about it, because "who cares" but the consensus is "it's great" then I don't mind renting it.

Check out Stremio. 21st century, brah

 

[ThunderMarch]

With regards to this, I must say that I certainly wouldn't mind the maker being revealed. Since I'm a customer. And yes, it MIGHT make a difference to what I choose to do with my money.
At the same time, I also certainly wouldn't mind the maker NOT being revealed. Since this is essentially a thread about shoe making, and I'm happy if the discussion just moves along talking about shoe making techniques. Equally enjoyable.
DW (creator of this thread) has already made it clear from very early on in this thread that he is not interested in who the makers are, and has no interest in criticising specific makers, and that's great. But actually I think, DW, you shouldn't be afraid that when makers are named, that you would be accused of attacking anyone in particular. Most of us appreciate your explanations on why one techniqie is better than another. These are things that lay folk would probably never be able to understand otherwise.
I feel the onus is on us, the readers, to recognise that even if his, or any of the other contributors say or imply, that any method or technique is inferior to another, that it's nothing else but consturctive criticism, in the spirit of this thread.

 

[DWFII]



I'm standing firm that the maker should be posted along with questions/critique. Most of us are consumers seeking the advice of a few experts. We can stretch this idea to natural selection where best makers with best practices survive. Only reason I can think of not wanting to critique is not wanting to be critiqued.

No offense, but that strikes me as a pretty piece of sophistry but not borne out. I have made it policy since I came on SF not to critique other makers specifically. I do critique work (when asked about the work)... and it has to be made by someone doesn't it.? I have also posted photos of my work--both specific techniques and finished work--for critiquing. And certainly my perspectives and philosophies are open to critique...unfortunately all too often by people who haven't the knowledge, experience or background to do so.

DWF, you share a ton of information here that we otherwise likely wouldn't have, or at least as frequently. I'm confident everyone is grateful in that regard. With that in mind, I think where you butt heads or rub people the wrong way is your approach.

Oh well. I think that's their problem not mine. Again, it's a matter of how versus what...and IMO that's the problem all the way around--the allure of style versus substance.

On the other hand, I get a lot more PM's applauding my posts than those that deplore them...by a wide, wide margin--certainly more than I think I am worthy of. I am even "Dubiously Honoured"--the highest distinction one can earn on this forum (if I understand correctly) and one that is based on "reputation." Maybe I'm doing something right esp. if popular consensus is to be taken into account.

Bottom line it's just who I am...after decades of having to deal with entitled, belligerent, argumentative, "know-nothings."

Beyond that, I have made my perspectives clear from the beginning...I am a shoemaker. My concerns are that of a shoemaker. Someone else can argue the merits of "cost saving techniques" "short cuts" and other expediencies...ideally in another thread devoted to short cuts and expediencies.

edited for punctuation and clarity

--