# Shoe Construction



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

There is frequent mention on the forums about the different methods of shoe construction, but there isn't always a whole lot of explanation about what is actually going on with the different methods and what their benefits and drawbacks are. I thought that I would do a series of posts exploring this. I'm going to break it up into a series of replies to this post for the sake of convenience.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

*Goodyear*

https://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=goodyearcroquisuswy4.gif

First up is Goodyear welting.

The diagram above (lifted from La Botte Chantilly a French online shoe store) shows the basics of Goodyear welting. With this method, there are four major parts of the shoe: the upper (the portion of the shoe that forms the parts normally observed when a shoe is being worn, including the basic design of the shoe and the lacing), the insole (the piece of leather at the bottom of the shoe that the foot comes into contact with when the shoe is being worn), the outsole (the piece of leather that forms the bottom of the shoe and that comes into contact with the ground while the shoe is being worn), and the welt (a thin strip of leather that runs around the perimeter of the outsole.

The first step in Goodyear welting is to prepare the insole for stitching. This is done by creating a rib perpendicular to the face of the insole through which shoemaker's twine can be stitched. There are three major methods for doing this. First, the rib can be carved out by hand from the face of the insole using specialized shoemaker's cutting tools. To the best of my knowledge, only makers who welt their shoes by hand use this method anymore, and I'm not even sure if it's possible to machine-welt a shoe with a carved insole. Second, a cut can be made into the edge of the insole and the rib turned back and stabilized with linen tape or other mechanisms. I believe that this was the original method for rib creation used in machine-welted shoes; but today, the only manufacturer that I know of that still uses it is JM Weston. Third, a rib made of stiffened linen tape can be glued (gemmed) onto the insole. This sounds like a shoddy procedure unlikely to produce a quality shoe, but this is not the case. When done properly, the gemming is extremely secure and long-lived, and the linen rib can take as many reweltings as a cut-and-turned rib.

The second step is in lasting the shoe. This means that the upper (with its lining) is pulled tightly over the last and secured to it, along with the insole. Lasting can either be done by hand using shoemaker's pliers and elbow grease, or it can be done by a machine. Most ready-made welted shoes use the machine. The third step is the actual welting. Here, shoemaker's twine is sewn through the welt strip, the upper, and the rib of the insole. This is done with a lockstitch, which means that all of the stitching won't unravel if one stitch becomes abraded or comes undone. Finally, another row of lockstitching connects the other side of the welt to the outsole. Both rows of lockstitching can be either done by hand or by machine. The machine is called a Goodyear welting machine and was invented by Charles Goodyear, son of the man who invented the process for vulcanizing rubber, in the 19th Century. His invention revolutionized shoe construction because it made mass manufacturing of shoes possible. Hand welting shoes is time-consuming, back-breaking process that can take more than 20 hours per pair of shoes [edit: shoefan points out below that the actual welting only takes 1 to 2 hours. Attaching the welt to the sole takes more time, of course. I stand by the description of the labor as "back-breaking"]. Operating a Goodyear welting machine takes skill, but a pair of shoes can be welted in minutes.

Today, very few ready-made shoes are still hand-welted (Vass is one of these). Are hand-welted shoes superior to machine-welted ones? Well, it depends on what you mean by superior. It is possible to have a more sculpted, beveled, narrow waist with hand-welting than it is with machine-welting. Waist appearance is important in shoes, but it is only an aesthetic consideration, not functional. It's doubtful that machine-welted shoes are any less durable than hand-welted ones, and it is possible that the converse is true.

I see two principal advantages for Goodyear-welted shoes, both emanating from the same aspect of construction. First, they are relatively water-resistant. Because nothing goes through the face of the insole of the shoe, groundwater doesn't have an easy path into the interior of the shoe. In contrast, with Blake construction, there is a row of stitching through the face of the insole connecting it to the outsole, which allows groundwater to wick into the interior of the shoe. Second, they are relatively comfortable (assuming that the last fits the wearer's foot well) because there isn't a row of stitching on the face of the insole to irritate the bottom of the wearer's foot. In addition, most makers of ready-made shoes put a layer of cork amalgam in the void between the ribs on either side of the insole; and this cork amalgam molds to the bottom of the foot, which sometimes enhances comfort.

Prominent makers of Goodyear-welted shoes include Alden, Allen-Edmonds, Edward Green, Gaziano & Girling, Vass, Grenson, Tricker's, JM Weston, and Alfred Sargent. In addition, many Italian manufacturers can do Goodyear-welted shoes, although they can also use many other construction techniques.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

*Blake*

https://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=blakecroquis21usfe6.gif

Next up is Blake construction.

Blake construction is the bread and butter of the Italian shoe industry. Although Italian shoe manufacturers use a dizzying array of construction techniques, probably more good-quality shoes are made using Blake construction than all of the other methods combined.

The diagram above (again lifted from the La Botte Chantilly website) shows what is involved with Blake construction, and it should be immediately clear why it is so popular: it's a lot simpler than Goodyear welting. There is a single row of stitching that attaches the insole to the upper (turned under the insole) and the outsole. Obviously, since the stitching runs inside of the shoe, it's not possible for a Blake-constructed shoe to be stitched together by hand; so this construction technique is a child of the Industrial Revolution. It's named for Lyman Reed Blake, and American inventor who patented the machine to accomplish this in 1856. He later sold the patent to a man named Gordon McKay, and one consequently sees this construction method referred to as McKay construction.

Blake construction has two principal advantages. First, because it requires no stitching on the sole edges outside the shoe, it is possible to get extremely close-cut soles with it, much more closely cut than would ever be possible with a Goodyear-welted shoe. Second, because Blake-constructed shoes have fewer layers in the sole, they tend to be more flexible than Goodyear -welted shoes. The principal disadvantages are all outgrowths of the stitching along the insole. This row of stitching can irritate some feet, especially when it is not covered by a sock liner. More seriously, it can wick moisture from the ground into the inside of the shoe. Unless they have rubber soles, Blake-constructed shoes will always be less waterproof than Goodyear-welted shoes, all other things being equal.

Shoe snobs tend to disparage Blake-constructed shoes, and I think that this tendency is unfortunate. It is true that Italy turns out a lot of cheap, junky Blake-constructed shoes, but I would put a Blake-constructed shoe from an excellent maker like Gravati up against any comparably-priced footwear, regardless of construction. They're better-made and better-finished than any of the English-made Goodyear-welted shoes that I have seen at a similar price point. And, despite what you might hear from salesmen pushing Allen-Edmonds or other Goodyear-welted shoes, Blake shoes can be resoled. The cobbler just needs a Blake soling machine, which are admittedly less common than Goodyear welting machines, at least in the United States.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

*Blake/Rapid*

https://img144.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rmconstructionnv4.jpg

Next is Blake/Rapid.

As the name suggests, Blake/Rapid construction is a whole lot like Blake construction. There is a row of Blake stitching along the insole; but instead of attaching the insole to the outsole, it attaches the insole to a midsole. The midsole is attached to the outsole by a row of stitching (that's the Rapid part of the combination) running outside the shoe. Conceptually, it's a bit like a combination of Goodyear welting and Blake construction. Because the row of Blake stitching doesn't go all the way from the interior of the sole to the outsole, it doesn't have the problem with ground moisture that Blake-constructed shoes; but this increased degree of waterproofing comes at a price. The presence of the midsole and the necessity for a row of stitching on the outside of the shoe attaching the midsole to the outsole mean that Blake/Rapid shoes can neither be as flexible nor have soles that are as close-cut as Blake-constructed shoes. In addition, all other things being equal, Blake/Rapid shoes will have a more rugged appearance than equivalent shoes made with Blake construction. This can either be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the look that you're seeking.

Like Blake construction, Blake/Rapid construction is a mainstay for most Italian manufacturers. Most manufacturers who do Blake also do Blake/Rapid and will switch between the two depending on the shoes that they are making. The diagram above is courtesy of Ron Rider, who is the US agent for Romano Martegani, a prominent manufacturer in Tradate in Italy that is something of a Blake/Rapid specialist.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

*Bologna*

https://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bolognascreensw9.jpg

Now we move on to Bologna.

Bologna construction is another Italian specialty; and on initial examination, it may look somewhat similar to Blake construction because of the row of stitching going from the inside of the shoe through to the outsole. However, the two construction methods really are very different. Bologna construction is sometimes called bag construction or tubular construction because the leather forming the upper goes all the way around the shoe, being sewn into a bag or a tube. The upper part of this leather is lined with normal lining leather. The lower part of this leather, where the foot will rest in the finished shoe, is lined with a soft leather insole much less stout than the kind of insole that you would find in a Goodyear or a Blake shoe. The upper lining is connected to the soft insole via a row of stitching on the underside of the both, so that you'll see a trench on the inside of a Bologna shoe. The row of stitching connecting the upper to the outsole is closer to the wall of the upper than it is on a Blake shoe, and its much less likely to come into contact with the wearer's toes.

As with Blake construction, one of the benefits of Bologna construction is that it's possible for the sole to be extremely close-cut, if that's aesthetically important. Bologna construction also makes for an extremely flexible shoe. Blake shoes are usually flexible, but they can't compare to the flexibility of Bologna shoes, all other things being equal, because of the thinness and pliability of the soft insole in Bologna shoes. The principal reason that Bologna construction exists is to produce extremely soft, slipper-comfortable shoes. That, of course, is one of the limitations of the construction method, too. Bologna constructed shoes aren't the most durable, and they don't provide the same degree of support to the foot while walking that Goodyear, Blake, or Blake/Rapid shoes do. Because Bologna construction has that row of stitching going from the inside of the shoe all the way through the outsole, Bologna shoes have the same moisture-wicking problem that Blake shoes do. And, for some reason, the outsoles of Bologna constructed shoes tend to be slightly convex, meaning that they wear more rapidly at the center of the sole than toward the edges.

The two most prominent practitioners of Bologna construction in Italy are A. Testoni and Artioli, although there are many other manufacturers who use it for at least some of their shoes. Gravati and Santoni both make excellent Bologna constructed shoes, and the diagram above was taken from the .


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

*Norwegian*

https://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?image=norvegiencroquis21usqt5.gif

Finally, there's Norwegian (also called Norvegese). Despite the name, it's a specialty of a relatively small number of Italian shoemakers. It was originally conceived as a way to make shoes more waterproof, but the Italians who specialize it today do it mostly for aesthetics and to illustrate their shoemaking virtuosity.

The diagram above (again from La Botte Chantilly) shows the basics. With Goodyear construction, the leather for the upper runs parallel to the feather (the ridge in the insole); and it, the feather, and the welt are stitched together. With Norwegian construction, the upper is turned outward to sit on top of and parallel to the outsole. Two rows of stitching connect it to the feather of the insole and the outsole, respectively. Although the diagram above shows a welt, most Norwegian-constructed shoes don't have one. Goodyear welted shoes are water resistant because this channel doesn't lead to the inside of the shoe, but Norwegian construction takes this one step further by turning out the upper. Doing that instead of running it parallel to the feather denies a channel for water to get into the shoe at all, not just to get to the inside of the shoe. Technically, only a single row of stitching connecting the upper to the feather is required, but many shoemakers choose to have two or more braided rows of stitching to decorate the shoe.

Sutor Mantellassi is the maker of the mostly widely-distributed Norwegian-constructed shoes in the United States (they use a single row of stitching, not a braided double row), but they're hardly the only one. Santoni, A. Testoni, Lattanzi, and others all produce some Norwegian shoes, many of them simply superlative. If you can find them, Norwegian shoes made by Borgioli represent an excellent value. Beware of Blake-constructed shoes that have the same braided stitching at the base of the uppers -- if the shoe is Blake-constructed, that braiding is completely decorative. It doesn't hurt anything, but manufacturers and retailers often think that its presence justifies a much higher price. If it's not a legitimate Norwegian-constructed shoe, then it doesn't.


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

In the former Habsburg empire they call a Nowegian welt “Goiserer” (comes up with Vass shoes and with fritzl’s postings frequently).

“Goiserer” named after the town of Bad Goisern in Austria, is exactly the same thing as Norwegian construction: distinguishing feature is the L-shaped welt stitched on the outside of the shoe and not flat underneath as in standard welt construction.

P.S. I have no idea, who was the first to invent this method , Norway or Austria.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Great stuff, Jcusey. There is a Dutch clothing and style forum (https://www.stijlforum.nl/SMF/index.php?) that used to have excellent diagrams of all of these construction methods, but it has, alas, disappeared. I hesitate to call up the Norwegian-Norvegese distinction that has been discussed in the past, but perhaps you could provide a little more detail on these and the reasons for not distinguishing between them. As I have understood your earlier posts, you define Norvegese as the Italian cordwainers would--meaning no welt. In fact, I recall your saying that if a shoe has a welt, it is neither Norwegian nor Norvegese (by your definition). A little more clarification here would really be helpful.

_Edit:_ A point or two re Blake-Rapid. You didn't mention that one disadvantage--one that you give for Blake--is the possible foot irritation from the interior stitching. The reduced flexibility, relative to Goodyear welting, comes from the fact that the midsole extends over the entire surface of the sole, rather than only at the edges. Theoretically, therefore, the shoe should be less flexible, and yet a number of people have said that they have noticed no difference in actual wear.


----------



## shoefan (Oct 30, 2003)

One correction re: hand welting. A good 'maker' can hand-welt a pair of shoes in 1 to 2 hours. 20 hours is more like what it takes a 'maker' to complete the entire making process, including lasting, refining the toe box, welting, sewing the outsole, building the heels, and finishing the sole edges and bottoms.


----------



## fritzl (Jun 5, 2006)

bengal-stripe said:


> P.S. I have no idea, who was the first to invent this method , Norway or Austria.


Could have happened at the same time. They had no interwebz, back then.










Here is the close up of Goyserer welt on a "summer" shoe - the "Slatin Pasha"(executed in the Maftei workshop, Vienna). So this is(as mentioned by jcusey) purely for aesthetics and an expertise of excellent craftmanship.

The length of the stitches, *in general*, depends on the purpose of the shoes and is followed, of course, by the aesthetic appeal.

Longer stitches, means more durability. It is used for work boots, hiking boots and the typical footgear of "our" national costume - the Haferlschuh.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

fritzl said:


> Could have happened at the same time. They had no interwebz, back then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's not what Jcusey said. He was alluding to _Blake-stitched_ shoes that had a row of stitching into the uppers for purely decorative purposes. The shoes you have displayed appear to be Norwegian-welted ("Goiserer" or "Goyser-stitched" as it is termed in the Vass catalog), in which the stitching is functional and absolutely necessary to attach (a) the upper to the feather and (b) the upper/welt assembly to the outsole.


----------



## fritzl (Jun 5, 2006)

jcusey said:


> https://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?image=norvegiencroquis21usqt5.gif
> 
> * Finally, there's Norwegian (also called Norvegese)*. Despite the name, it's a specialty of a relatively small number of Italian shoemakers. It was originally conceived as a way to make shoes more waterproof, but *the Italians who specialize it today do it mostly for aesthetics and to illustrate their shoemaking virtuosity.*





bengal-stripe said:


> *In the former Habsburg empire they call a Nowegian welt "Goiserer" *(comes up with Vass shoes and with *fritzl's postings frequently*).
> 
> * "Goiserer" named after the town of Bad Goisern in Austria, is exactly the same thing as Norwegian construction*: distinguishing feature is the L-shaped welt stitched on the outside of the shoe and not flat underneath as in standard welt construction.
> 
> P.S. I have no idea, who was the first to invent this method , Norway or Austria.


_______________________________________________________________


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

The diagram of the Goodyear welting method from La Botte Chantilly is not really the best illustration of this method or of welting of any kind. It shows what looks like a double-soled shoe with the welt-sole stitching running through only the inside (or "leather") sole and not connecting to the outsole, and no indication of what connects the two soles. In practice, most welted (Goodyear or otherwise) shoe are single-soled, with the welt/outsole stitching extending all the way through the outsole which may or may not have a closed channel. (With a double-soled shoe, the stitching from the welt would, I believe, generally go all the way through both soles.) I rummaged around and found this illustration that might be helpful (with the cross-sectional diagram about halfway down the webpage giving the more typical welted-shoe layout):

https://www.sebata.com/c-goodyear.php

Also, the side view of Blake/Rapid construction makes it hard to see--in the same way we do with the other methods (i.e., a head-on cross-section)--how the various components go together. Here's a nice diagram from the Santoni website (the same one that Jcusey got the Bologna diagram from). After clicking on to the link, click "About Santoni," then "Construction," and then go to "Blake-Rapid." FYI, what is labeled "midsole" in this diagram is really the insole, and what is labeled "innersole" is what's usually referred to as the midsole.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Fritzl, I didn't say that there is no functional purpose for Norwegian construction, just that most Italian makers don't chose to use Norwegian construction because of that functionality. They do it to show off. There probably aren't too many people who use their Norwegian-constructed Lattanzis as their go-to wet weather shoes.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

shoefan said:


> One correction re: hand welting. A good 'maker' can hand-welt a pair of shoes in 1 to 2 hours. 20 hours is more like what it takes a 'maker' to complete the entire making process, including lasting, refining the toe box, welting, sewing the outsole, building the heels, and finishing the sole edges and bottoms.


I stand corrected. Thank you, shoefan.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Roger said:


> I hesitate to call up the Norwegian-Norvegese distinction that has been discussed in the past, but perhaps you could provide a little more detail on these and the reasons for not distinguishing between them. As I have understood your earlier posts, you define Norvegese as the Italian cordwainers would--meaning no welt. In fact, I recall your saying that if a shoe has a welt, it is neither Norwegian nor Norvegese (by your definition). A little more clarification here would really be helpful.


You know, I really don't know what to do about the terminology here. Suffice it to say that there are two variants (with a welt and without a welt). Not knowing any Italian cordwainers, I don't know how they use the terms, although I suspect that there are about fifteen different terms for the same type of construction.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

jcusey said:


> You know, I really don't know what to do about the terminology here. Suffice it to say that there are two variants (with a welt and without a welt). Not knowing any Italian cordwainers, I don't know how they use the terms, although I suspect that there are about fifteen different terms for the same type of construction.


Yeah...you're right. I've been doing a little digging around today and now better appreciate your point here, making me a little sorry I brought it up at all. You're absolutely right about the two variants, and so maybe that's the way to define Norwegian (or Norvegese) construction--either having or not having a welt. In the old webpage on the "stijlforum" website, I recall that they gave a diagram for Norwegian construction and a second for what they termed "Welted Norwegian" construction. If resistance to the elements is the primary motivation for this kind of construction, then I'd definitely prefer the welted variation.


----------



## fritzl (Jun 5, 2006)

jcusey said:


> Fritzl, I didn't say that there is no functional purpose for Norwegian construction, just that most Italian makers don't chose to use Norwegian construction because of that functionality. They do it to show off. There probably aren't too many people who use their Norwegian-constructed Lattanzis as their go-to wet weather shoes.


I'm fine. I just showed a typical pair of summer shoes spotting the feature. Though you can wear them in slightly wet conditions, cause there is a vylene between the upper leather and the lining. :icon_smile:


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

The Bologna method appears to be simply the classic moccasin construction but with a bit of a fiddle to the insole (the "first stitch") which probably does nothing more than tidy up the lining.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> The Bologna method appears to be simply the classic moccasin construction but with a bit of a fiddle to the insole (the "first stitch") which probably does nothing more than tidy up the lining.


I'm not sure that there is one "classic moccasin construction" method, as the term "moccasin" is applied to a large number of different forms. Many--the most primitive--have only the one layer of leather wrapped around with a seam at the bottom where the sides come together, and may or may not also include a (usually cemented) sole. Most, if not all, moccasin-constructed shoes that I've seen also have the upper with a stitched apron--to maintain a shaped toe box without the addition of a toe puff. A Bologna-constructed shoe would not necessarily have the apron form (it's missing from the diagram above) and might have a light toe puff. In such a case, I don't think anyone would label the shoe as having moccasin construction. In the diagram above of Bologna construction, my guess is that the part labeled "lining" running along the bottom of the upper structure will more generally be an insole, made of stiffer material than the "lining" material on the rest of the inside of the upper. It's hard to see the need for the first stitch otherwise; the lining could just be continued around the bottom and stitched in the center. This fact--that the material changes at the first stitch (although admittedly this is not indicated in the above diagram) would, if true, make a Bologna-constructed shoe different from most moccasin-constructed shoes I've seen.

I've found, when looking at cross-sectional diagrams of the different construction methods, that there is considerable variation from one presentation of a particular method to the next. For this reason, I suspect that there are shoes by a number other manufacturers (than Santoni, from whose catalog the diagram of Bologna construction was taken) in which the construction is described as Bologna, but whose details differ from those in the Santoni diagram. And similarly, there will be countless shoes described as having moccasin construction that differ widely in the details.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

*Can we add Bentivegna?*

_Bentivegna_ construction--at least as Santoni illustrate it--would appear to produce a very sturdy and watertight shoe.

As before, once you have clicked onto the website, click "About Santoni," skip down to "Construction," and then to "Bentivegna." Again, the labeling is, I believe, a little mixed up. What's labeled "midsole" is really the insole, and what's labeled "innersole" is what we'd normally call the midsole. Here we have a construction method that has no seam running from the outsole into the insole--like Blake and Bologna--and thus no way for water to be wicked into the shoe. It differs from Norwegian/Norvegese construction by not having the upper turned out, but achieves almost the same water-tightness with the reverse welt. This construction method--at least as illustrated by Santoni--would seem to produce a very solid shoe--with the full midsole--and would never, I imagine, be wanted in double-sole form.

Again, though, I suspect that other construction details are used by other makers who refer to their shoes as of Bentivegna construction.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

The word moccasin gets misused by the industry almost as much as the words "liberal" and "conservative" are misused by Americans. But when it comes down to the nut of the thing, moccasin construction is just a single piece of leather that wraps upwards over the foot and is attached to a plug that sits on the top of the foot. Everything else is fluff and details. The differences are not 1, 2, 3 but rather 1a, 1b, 1c.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> The word moccasin gets misused by the industry almost as much as the words "liberal" and "conservative" are misused by Americans. But when it comes down to the nut of the thing, moccasin construction is just a single piece of leather that wraps upwards over the foot and is attached to a plug that sits on the top of the foot. Everything else is fluff and details. The differences are not 1, 2, 3 but rather 1a, 1b, 1c.


Would you consider a shoe lacking a stitched apron, and having a toe puff instead, a moccasin?


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Roger said:


> I'm not sure that there is one "classic moccasin construction" method, as the term "moccasin" is applied to a large number of different forms.


There is a thing like "Classic Moccasin Construction".

A classic moccasin of native Americans has one layer of leather, forming the sole and the sides. On top comes the apron and a structural seam connects lower with upper section. Compared to a conventional shoe it is like a 'Tarte Tartin' (upside-down cake). Normally the structural seam is the one that joins upper and sole and is at the bottom, in a moccasin it's on top.

Moccasins without an additional sole are only useful as slippers round the house. The simplest way to add an outer sole lay the sole/side piece on top of the additional sole and stitch both pieces together, while still flat. Then lay the last on top. Pull the sides up over the last, lay on the apron on and hand-stitch on the last. Characteristics of true moccasin construction is the leather going all the way underneath the foot.

All the classic Bass, Sebago, etc are true moccasin construction. Check it, they are usually unlined, the leather that forms the sides run all the way under the foot. But Alden's "Leisure Hand-sewn" is not a classic moccasin. It is a conventional welted shoe and the seam on top forms no functional purpose and is solely decorative.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

bengal-stripe said:


> There is a thing like "Classic Moccasin Construction".
> 
> A classic moccasin of native Americans has one layer of leather, forming the sole and the sides. On top comes the apron and a structural seam connects lower with upper section. Compared to a conventional shoe it is like a 'Tarte Tartin' (upside-down cake). Normally the structural seam is the one that joins upper and sole and is at the bottom, in a moccasin it's on top.
> 
> ...


Yes, I guess one could consider the original Native American moccasin as the classic form, probably the original form at least (or is it?). In any case, as I understand it, you're saying that the apron seams connecting the upper and lower pieces are necessary for a shoe to be considered of moccasin construction. If true, this would put Bologna and Moccasin construction into different categories.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Roger said:


> Would you consider a shoe lacking a stitched apron, and having a toe puff instead, a moccasin?


Please be more specific on stitched apron (photo?). I do know that toe puffs are a piece of leather or plastic (uuggh) inserted between the lining, if present, and the upper leather in the toe area. Although they may have roughly a similar purpose or goal as stitched aprons, I suspect they are completely different things.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Roger said:


> bengal-stripe said:
> 
> 
> > There is a thing like "Classic Moccasin Construction".
> ...


Bengal's description is marvelous. I think this issue popped up because I may have misinterpreted the diagram for the Bologna construction posted by Jcusey. Maybe the diagram is inaccurate, but it appears that the upper wraps around the bottom of the foot, like in a moccasin construction shoe. In fact, looking again, that diagram suggests that there is no plug and the upper is a continuous tube, which is quite impossible!


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Please be more specific on stitched apron (photo?). I do know that toe puffs are a piece of leather or plastic (uuggh) inserted between the lining, if present, and the upper leather in the toe area. Although they may have roughly a similar purpose or goal as stitched aprons, I suspect they are completely different things.


Here's a picture of moccasin construction:

https://www.barker-shoes.co.uk/(0mdfu045nw4tov4552quakut)/Construction.aspx

Scroll down to Moccasin. There you'll see a cutaway, showing two seams at the side-top connecting the sides to what is often called the apron (sometimes called the "lake"). All the shoes I've seen described with the term "moccasin" have this structure, not the smooth vamp (on top) shown for Bologna construction. The main purpose of the stitched sides/top is to provide something of a toe box. The toe puff (of hardened leather or thermoplastic) serves the same purpose with a vamp that is not seamed the way a moccasin (or any Norwegian-toe shoe) is. My point was only that Bologna construction does not appear to require this double-seamed vamp (allowing for a toe puff to achieve the same effect), and in this way is qualitatively different from Moccasin construction.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Bengal's description is marvelous. I think this issue popped up because I may have misinterpreted the diagram for the Bologna construction posted by Jcusey. Maybe the diagram is inaccurate, but it appears that the upper wraps around the bottom of the foot, like in a moccasin construction shoe. In fact, looking again, that diagram suggests that there is no plug and the upper is a continuous tube, which is quite impossible!


Yes, I see what you mean. It does appear that way in the diagram, but I guess we have to assume that there is a seam there somewhere, perhaps in the middle--at the edge of the diagram. It wouldn't surprise me greatly to discover that with some Bologna-constructed shoes, the "outside leather" in the diagram stops just inside of the "second stitch, with a thicker insole filling the space between the two "first stitches" (there also being one of the right side).


----------



## fritzl (Jun 5, 2006)

Roger, IMO you have a serious lack of first hand experience. No problem. But, you take part in discussions with such a energy... It seems obvious, that the majority of members is not interested in details about their i.e. shoes. My blue eyed attitude brought me more beating than listeners..., anyway. Think about it. Regards


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

fritzl said:


> Roger, IMO you have a serious lack of first hand experience. No problem.


Not sure what this means, fritzl! I don't see how vast experience is necessary to study and understand the details--even in the abstract--of shoe construction. All that is taking place in this thread is a discussion of some details laid out in diagrams. Does one need to have visited factories and been fitted for bespoke shoes to have valid input to such a discussion? :icon_smile_wink:



fritzl said:


> But, you take part in discussions with such a energy... It seems obvious, that the majority of members is not interested in details about their i.e. shoes. My blue eyed attitude brought me more beating than listeners..., anyway. Think about it. Regards


This forum is made up of literally thousands of members, and their interests vary widely. There are some who are very analytical and to whom construction details matter. Those to whom these things are uninteresting will simply pass by the thread. That's the way it should be. Those who are interested will peruse the thread and perhaps add to it. The fact that 95% of the forum membership couldn't care less about construction details is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. There have, by the way, been, at this point, 663 views of this thread, so at least some interest exists!


----------



## fritzl (Jun 5, 2006)

Roger said:


> Does one need to have visited factories and been fitted for bespoke shoes to have valid input to such a discussion?


 You already know my answer.  Please, do not take offense, but there is more than theory. Quoted from Mr. Bengal Stripe: "The right fit" is not something like a mathematical formula (only one correct answer possible). Whether it's a shoe, a suit, a shirt, the "right fit" is something very personal, you might wear those things tighter or looser than what the craftsman feels is correct. Even if you are happy with the fit, having worn the item several times, you might prefer little changes somewhere (take off a smidgen on the heel and add a bit over the toe). In a bespoke garment/shoe everything can be adjusted individually. Having worn a particular item for a while, will give you a better understanding what you want to get altered before you commission the next suit, shoes, whatever. Perfection, if it ever exists, is usually not achieved instantly. Thread: https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=74264


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

fritzl said:


> You already know my answer.  Please, do not take offense, but there is more than theory. Quoted from Mr. Bengal Stripe: "The right fit" is not something like a mathematical formula (only one correct answer possible). Whether it's a shoe, a suit, a shirt, the "right fit" is something very personal, you might wear those things tighter or looser than what the craftsman feels is correct. Even if you are happy with the fit, having worn the item several times, you might prefer little changes somewhere (take off a smidgen on the heel and add a bit over the toe). In a bespoke garment/shoe everything can be adjusted individually. Having worn a particular item for a while, will give you a better understanding what you want to get altered before you commission the next suit, shoes, whatever. Perfection, if it ever exists, is usually not achieved instantly. Thread: https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=74264


I fully agree with Bengal-stripe's assertion re fit and the benefits of bespoke shoes, but am having trouble connecting it with the subject of this thread.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

This wisdom is now in the perminent collection of Tutorials linked from the Home Page! THANKS Jcusey!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Does anyone have any diagrams or info on the "Littleway" construction method?


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

*"Littleway"* is the English name for what is known elsewhere as "Blake". There might be minute differences between the two methods, 
but nothing major. Both methods have a row of stitching, inside the shoe, running around the insole

Church's does (or at least used to) offer a few styles (with thin soles) in "Littlewood construction".


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Goodyear welted shoes confuse me a bit. On some of my goodyear welted shoes I see a row of stitching around the edge of the sole, while others have a clean sole with no stitching visible. Can someone explain how the outer sole is attached in this case?


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Matt S said:


> Goodyear welted shoes confuse me a bit. On some of my goodyear welted shoes I see a row of stitching around the edge of the sole, while others have a clean sole with no stitching visible. Can someone explain how the outer sole is attached in this case?


Do you mean on the top of the sole or on the bottom? If on the bottom, the shoes are close-channeled, meaning that a diagonal slit has been cut into the sole starting very close to the edge. This slit is peeled back, the welt is stitched through the sole in the trench thereby revealed, and the flap folded back in place and glued down. The same thing can be done with other construction methods.

If on the top of the sole, the stitching is probably there; it's just camouflaged by the notches (called wheeling in shoe-speak).


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

@ jcusey 
Thank you for the education about shoe construction - a topic that I expect most of us don't know much about.

Thanks to others for adding to the discussion.

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Matt S said:


> Goodyear welted shoes confuse me a bit. On some of my goodyear welted shoes I see a row of stitching around the edge of the sole, while others have a clean sole with no stitching visible. Can someone explain how the outer sole is attached in this case?


Here is a photograph of the production process for channelled soles:










https://www.carminashoemaker.com/


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

A fascinating discussion.

As an observation, initiated by this thread, I now feel a little less confident in being able to spot Goodyear welted shoes when shopping for shoes. I had previously always looked for the stitches. If there were no stitches, I'd assumed they were cemented rather than welted shoes. The discussion on the Blake method is very informative too. I now know how to feel inside for the stitches.

On shoe construction: Can anyone explain what a Barker Welt is?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

bengal-stripe said:


> *"Littleway"* is the English name for what is known elsewhere as "Blake". There might be minute differences between the two methods,
> but nothing major. Both methods have a row of stitching, inside the shoe, running around the insole.


Thanks, I had no idea these were the same. Makes me wonder if there are 50 different names for 10 different construction methods.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Hector Freemantle said:


> On shoe construction: Can anyone explain what a Barker Welt is?


It appears that it's something proprietary to Barker (at least the name is -- there's nothing particularly unusual about the construction) and that the sole is cemented instead of stitched. I'm not sure from the picture if the welt that they shoe is functional at all (I doubt it) or how this method of construction differs from plain old cemented construction.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Thanks. I was aware of the Barker diagram. But I had no idea what it really showed. But surely there must be some way in which this process differs from simple gluing. By the way, isn't gluing ( or even 'pasting' as my shoe repairer calls it) a more honest term than 'cementing'?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Hector Freemantle said:


> Thanks. I was aware of the Barker diagram. But I had no idea what it really showed. But surely there must be some way in which this process differs from simple gluing. By the way, isn't gluing ( or even 'pasting' as my shoe repairer calls it) a more honest term than 'cementing'?


Whether Barker does it or not, cementing shoes _can_ involve special heat-activated glues and pressure applied over time. So it can be a lot more high-tech than just "pasting" and waiting for the glue to set.


----------



## Hector Freemantle (Aug 2, 2008)

Doctor Damage said:


> Whether Barker does it or not, cementing shoes _can_ involve special heat-activated glues and pressure applied over time. So it can be a lot more high-tech than just "pasting" and waiting for the glue to set.


But it is glue at the end of the day. Heat can be applied to two-part glues that can be used for a variety of purposes. And as to pressure this will only differ in degree from what one would apply when sticking anything. I take your point though!


----------



## Manasdirge (May 30, 2015)

Registered just to say thanks to OP, Nice post :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Manasdirge said:


> Registered just to say thanks to OP, Nice post :icon_hailthee:


One of the best. But sadly, John Cusey hasn't been active in about 5 years.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Registered just to necro-bump a 7 year old thread??


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

This is a subject that was of much debate over on TOF.

What I find fascinating is this Blake/Rapid construction.

My understanding is that this is the best manner in which to construct shoes short of hand welting.

And I also am aware of the recent advances in gemming that have made Goodyear shoes much better in recent years.

Due to the superior nature of genuinely hand welted shoes such as Vass, Enzo B., STC and others like them, I have found myself drawn that direction.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

What happens when you want to get your Blake Rapid shoes resoled?

That hand welting is superior to goodyear welting is a given. That said, OTOF the anti-GYW jihadists have completely lost touch with reality in shrieking endlessly about the supposed pitfalls of that construction method. Those who are actually informed on the subject - such as those in the business of repairing GYW shoes on a large scale - report that gemming failure is so rare as to be a non-issue. But the fanatics would have you believe that all GYW shoes are doomed to iminent failure. Many have been misled by the tireless beating of this particular drum. Quality GYW shoes can (and often do) last for a couple decades. That's quite enough for me.

There is MUCH more to the assessment of shoe quality - and value - than the manner in which the sole is affixed. I know that I would rather have one pair GYW EG or G&G than three pairs of hand welted Meermin.

Of course, there is nothing wrong in having a preference for hand welted shoes. It's your money and you should spend it as you see fit. I have plenty of both HW and GYW and I am very happy with both.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Okay. It's all good.

Of the 20 shoes on my rotation (Give or take ) all of them shell cordovan, they are preeminently GYW.

Its not that I think they are inferior, I am just getting to the point to where I appreciate the superior craftsmanship that goes into hand welting. That's all.

I will continue to buy gemmed GYW shoes. And gladly wear them.

At this point in my footwear journey these things interest me. No way Meermin even come close to EG.

Matter of fact, I am agonizing at this moment over my first ever pair of EG Nevis boots in dark oak calf.

Again, this is a cool thread, I hope that I never belittled GYW construction in any of my posts.

Thanks.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Watchman said:


> I hope that I never belittled GYW construction in any of my posts.


No sir - and I was certainly not including you among the ranks of the jihadists. :loveyou:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

RogerP said:


> What happens when you want to get your Blake Rapid shoes resoled?


In discussions here with John Cusey who is knowledgeable beyond reproach on this topic, I remember him assuring that Blake-Rapid construction is re-soleable, unlike Blake. But I don't recall the details.

In seven decades of Goodyear shoe wear, I can recall perhaps 1 or 2 gemming failures of a sort. As a boy, my second pair of shoes which were relegated to play where worn until they literally fell apart. I can recall perhaps 2 occasions where the gemming separated. But this only occurred after one or two maladroit re-soleings, and after the uppers had literally disintegrated. At this point, it's simply the gemming pointing out to you that your shoes really aren't shoes anymore.


----------



## Nick V (May 8, 2007)

Flanderian said:


> In discussions here with John Cusey who is knowledgeable beyond reproach on this topic, I remember him assuring that Blake-Rapid construction is re-soleable, unlike Blake. But I don't recall the details.
> 
> In seven decades of Goodyear shoe wear, I can recall perhaps 1 or 2 gemming failures of a sort. As a boy, my second pair of shoes which were relegated to play where worn until they literally fell apart. I can recall perhaps 2 occasions where the gemming separated. But this only occurred after one or two maladroit re-soleings, and after the uppers had literally disintegrated. At this point, it's simply the gemming pointing out to you that your shoes really aren't shoes anymore.


Both Blake and Blake/Rapid constructed shoes are re-soleable.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Nick V said:


> Both Blake and Blake/Rapid constructed shoes are re-soleable.


Thank you for the correction, Nick!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Thanks Nick.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Nick V said:


> Both Blake and Blake/Rapid constructed shoes are re-soleable.


I just picked up a pair of Blake-resoled shoes from you on Saturday! I hope to wear them later in the week if the rain stops.


----------



## kpk (Nov 6, 2015)

Hi,
I'm a new member and found this thread while searching the web for shoe construction methods. The opening posts were very helpful.

However there is still one stitch technique that eludes me despite spending considerable time on the internet trying to learn more about it. I have been eyeing a pair of hiking style boots from Fracap and they tell me the boots are constructed using the Ideal stitch technique. Does anyone know what the Ideal stitch looks like?

Thank you,
Kris


----------

