# what makes a good shoe and why do they cost so much



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

I am a bespoke boot and shoemaker. Not famous, not top name by any stretch of the imagination...nor top dollar...but using techniques and materials that only the very best makers use. I see a lot of posts that make me think that many people really don't understand what goes into making a top quality shoe and why they cost like they do. So I would like to offer some opinions from the perspective of a maker. Not everyone...not even every bespoke maker will agree with me 100%...but many years in the Trade convinces me that such disagreements among shoemakers, in particular, are more in the nature of preferences than any real quibble about techniques or materials. So...

First...the lasts: Lasts are important because theoretically they simultaneously embody both the foot and the shoe. In a very real sense lasts are functional sculpture. They very seldom, except for styling anomalies, have sharp angles. Most of the lines seen on a "good" last are what is known as "fair curves." This is a term drawn from engineering and the aerospace industry but the concept itself is ancient. Simply stated a "fair curve" is one that has no abrupt change of direction, no angles, no corners, no drag co-efficient. Much of this dedication to fair curves is aesthetic and is addressed to the lines and shape of the shoe. But some of it is critical to the structure of the foot and to the topography of the interior of the shoe...and that, in turn, relates to foot comfort.

There seems to be a fascination, in some circles, with different models of lasts. But models and their differences are really only relevant to RTW shoes. While each model of last incorporates certain stylistic points that are sometimes unique to that last...sometimes not...such considerations are more or less irrelevant to really top quality bespoke shoes. Additionally some models of lasts fit different feet better than others--there are lots of ways to distribute substance and thus alter topography, for better or worse. These fit characteristics may also be unalterably linked to a certain models of last but again they are of little significance to a bespoke maker. Why?

All of these considerations--the fit, the styling, as well as heel height and toe shape can, if starting with a given model, be adjusted or completely transformed in the bespoke process. And many of the best bespoke makers will carve a pair of lasts for each customer and each foot of that customer.

The backbone of the shoe is the insole. On high end shoes it may be "bark tanned" leather. But just as with any other aspect of shoemaking there are varying degrees of quality. Some of the very best insoling leather in the world comes from  J & F.J Baker Co. Ltd, Colyton, Devon, England. The are hides are tanned in pits of tanning liquor that is extracted from oak bark. Hides may be left in the pits for up to a year. Baker is one of only two tanneries world wide that still uses this ancient pit tanning method and it results in superior leather. Not every top dollar, famous-name brand uses Baker or anything even remotely comparable for their insoles. But not only the ultimate comfort but the longevity of the shoe is highly dependent on what is used for an insole. Some makers...even makers of some renown...use composite or even "paper" insoles. And it is hard to tell in some cases because "composite' insoles can be wholly leather--comprised of scraps and sweepings ground up and made into a kind of "particle board" that might technically be called "shoddy" ("shoddy" is an American Civil War term that referred to woolen fabric made by the same process--ground up and re-felted scraps).

On a good shoe, the upper will be sewn directly to the insole by hand in process known as "inseaming." This will be done by hand because, although there are machines that do this, only the skilled worker can vary the the length and angle of a stitch to accommodate the shape of the last or to prepare for subsequent and more difficult techniques such as the beveled and fiddleback waist. Making an inseaming thread is almost an art in and of itself. inseaming threads are generally and historically comprised of multiple strands of linen or hemp yarn, twisted and waxed with a special wax that is both sticky and antibacterial. It is made primarily from pine pitch, pine rosin and some form of softener such as beeswax or oil. The thread is then tipped with a bristle of some sort--originally boar's bristles, but nylon bristles are becoming more common.

When the thread is pulled through a hole that is made in the insole, the upper, and the welt, the wax melts and then resets...effectively sealing the hole and locking the thread in the leather.

Some manufacturers...the names might surprise...have taken to gluing a rib of canvas to the under-surface of the insole. This is called "gemming." The upper and the welt are sewn to the canvas rib rather than directly to the insole. The inseam is then only as strong and stable as the glue and the canvas....not very, in other words.

I think I need to break this up into several parts but I think it is important to emphasize one point (and probably over and over again)--each technique, each kind or quality of material, that a good bespoke maker chooses, has evolved over literally hundreds of years to perform at optimum with all the other techniques and materials that are brought together in a shoe. A maker can spend top dollar for Baker insole...and the customer pays for this premium material as much or moreso than the maker...only to have the life and comfort of the shoe undermined by the way in which the inseam is constructed. And so it goes. The customer pays for a premium upper material such as cordovan, perhaps even alligator, only to lose the whole shoe a couple of years down the line because the manufacturer decided to cut costs and use an inferior insole material. Ultimately you get what you pay for.

But as a maker, it is a deep disappointment to me to see the materials...and even the concept of "high end" shoes...so disrespected .

 
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

"Little Jack Dandiprat, in a white petticoat,
The longer he lives the shorter he grows."​


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Part II

Upper leathers, and the way they are put together, are just as problematic as any other facet of the shoe. These leathers may be vegetable tanned or mineral tanned...usually the latter is based on chromium salts which can be toxic to some people. But each of these tannages have unique characteristics.

Chrome tan leathers tend to stretch more than vegetable tanned leathers and they accept brighter and more durable top finishes than have been historically applied to vegetable tannages. Both of these attributes are ideal for manufacturing purposes as they cater to both somewhat less than perfect fit and somewhat less than perfect maintenance.

Vegetable tanned leathers have been historically used in every part of the shoe since time immemorial. Although veg tanned leathers are not common in mass produced footwear, they are almost a hallmark of high end footwear. Veg tans form and take a shape much more easily than chrome tans and they do not stretch as much. Both are characteristics that are not just appropriate for high end shoes but shoes in general.

Additionally chrome tanned leathers are often grain corrected even if such amendments are not immediately apparent. Almost all chrome tanned leathers have a top finish which is effectively a "paint job." A lot of sins can be hidden by paint. Veg tanned leathers on the other hand are most often left unfinished with the exception of burnishing. The patina that develops on a aniline dyed veg tanned calf is the definition of depth. Given the current fascination with antiquing and other after thought finishes that seek to emulate patina and depth before the shoes are ever even worn, it should come as no surprise that most of these shoes are made with veg tanned uppers.

Veg tans are also more often "struck through" meaning that the dye penetrates through the core of the leather. Veg tans are most often used for lining especially on high end shoes (although not always) not only because of the way in which they perform mechanically (less stretch) inside the shoe but because they are generally a little better at wicking moisture away from the foot.

There is probably no consensus or standard that dictates which brand names or which models will utilize one tannage or the other. Even among bespoke makers there is very little rigidity in this regard although a case might be reasonably be made that one tannage or the other is superior for a certain application. There simply is not enough choice to be anything other than flexible.

How a shoe is put together once these leathers have been chosen, however can determine objective quality. On very high end shoes, the lining will be made almost as a separate shell, so to speak. One advantage of this is to facilitate adding "structure" to the shoe. Not only will the shoe have a heel stiffener that extends further towards the toe but an additional layer of leather (the mid-liner) will merge with and extend the heel stiffener so that there is a bridge of sorts from the heel to the toe stiffener. This all takes extra time and effort and very few manufacturers ...even the higher end ones...will go to the effort.

Even the choice of needle for assembly can make a difference with some needle types leaving the thread proud on the surface of the leather and thus subject to premature wearing and failure.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

"Little Jack Dandiprat, in a white petticoat,
The longer he lives the shorter he grows."​


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Part III

Before this gets too boring or ponderous (my thanks to the reader for their forbearance) I want to address outsoles.

Again the bottom line is quality of the leather. And again, if it is leather, we are talking about vegetable tannages. Many so called vegetable tanned leathers are actual tanned with synthetic chemicals that accelerate the process so greatly that several batches of salted hides can be tanned and be ready for shipping within weeks. Like everything else such expediency may result in at least an adequate product, but surely not a superlative one.

Some of the best outsoling again comes from J & F.J Baker Co. Ltd, but very good valona tanned (acorn caps) outsoling is also available from Rendenbach (the other company doing pit tanning) and there is some very nice chestnut tannages out there as well.

Leather outsoles have many advantages that other materials cannot match or simulate. They wick moisture from the foot. They conform to the foot. They conform to the shoe without stressing the shoe. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage is the perceived lack of traction in ice and snow. I say perceived because all things being equal (including hyperbole) leather outsoles have been used for footwear of all sorts and in all conditions...they even climbed Mt. Everest.

And they are just as, or maybe even moreso, environmentally friendly than any other material known to man. For some people that is, and perhaps should be, a critical issue.

But leather outsoles are much harder to produce (one year in the pit?) and much, much harder for the maker to really excel with. Every time I see a supposedly high end shoe with exposed outsole stitching I want to turn away.

Outsoles can be stitched by machine or they can be stitched by hand.

Doing it by hand not only requires some extraordinary skills to do really distinctive and refined work (and I'm not talking about Gosier stiching) but a comparatively larger investment in time, on all levels. One of the giants of shoemaking (and in some sense one of the "elder shoe gods"), John F. Rees, wrote in 'Art and Mystery of a Cordwainer' [1813] that when it came to outsole stitching 12 stitches to the inch was considered "middling work." Today 8spi on a much hand work is considered good enough (sometimes works as gross as 4spi is even extolled) and machine work at 8spi is felt to be sufficient. Yet, the shoemakers of  Rees' time and the work they were doing set a standard that still holds today among shoemakers that respect skill and refinement and technique, and 10-12 spi is ...or ought to be...the standard.

Additionally, when the outsole is stitched the threads will be hidden in a channel that is hand cut into the surface or side of the outsole. This is not only for aesthetic reasons but to protect the stitches from wear.

Exposed outsole stitching is known in the Trade as "stitching aloft." It leaves the stitches vulnerable and they _*will be*_ damaged upon the first wearing. Stitching aloft, in this context, is nearly the hallmark of a mass manufactured shoe and without exception one that is more about expediency than quality. This may come as a shock to some people, but folks let me assure you that even if the manufacturer cannot see his way to pay a skilled workman to hand stitch the outsole, any modern (or even vintage) outsole stitching machine can easily be set up to cut a vertical channel into which the stitches can be dropped and embedded so deeply that the channel may be re-closed to near invisibility. In my humble opinion, there is no excuse for an exposed outseam on leather soles. No shoe that is stitched aloft qualifies as high end regardless of price.

In passing I want to reiterate something I touched upon in the first part of this essay...all of of the techniques that characterize high end shoes, and particularly high end bespoke shoes, evolved and remained in the shoemaker's repertoire for the simple reason that they provide a certain "continuity" of stability and durability throughout the shoe. The sum of which is greater than its parts but no part of which is a significant weak link. High quality shoes are priced high because they draw on materials, skills and perceptions that are not commonplace in the world...and less so today than in the past. High quality shoes are priced high because they represent an uncommon value. If you pay $2400.00 for a bespoke shoe and it gives you twenty years of comfort and support, and protection from an unfriendly environment; helps you to avoid bunions, fallen metatarsal arches, plantars warts, etc.; eases, or at least doesn't contribute to, stresses that develop when you are tired; why then you've spent $120.00 a year for shoes and saved countless dollars in medical bills.

Compare that to any other product in today's market.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

"Little Jack Dandiprat, in a white petticoat,
The longer he lives the shorter he grows."​


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Thank you.


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

Outstanding post!

I wonder if you would be willing to show examples of superior shoe craftsmanship and poor craftsmanship along with a narrative that supports your opinion? Many craftsmen have shared their particular insight into clothing production and from reading your post I can see you would be able to offer valuable insight.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*there might be hope for AAAC after all*

I absolutely learned a couple things from reading this.
Had to look you up: https://www.bootmaker.com/


----------



## MF177 (Jun 10, 2009)

How do you feel about shanks?


----------



## DownByTheRiverSide (Oct 25, 2009)

*THIS IS QUITE . . .*

. . . WONDERFUL !! I am enjoying this a lot. Thank You.


----------



## iclypso (Jan 10, 2009)

DWFII,
Thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge with us.

Dan


----------



## Sean1982 (Sep 7, 2009)

Many thanks for your expertise.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Sir Walter said:


> Outstanding post!
> 
> I wonder if you would be willing to show examples of superior shoe craftsmanship and poor craftsmanship along with a narrative that supports your opinion? Many craftsmen have shared their particular insight into clothing production and from reading your post I can see you would be able to offer valuable insight.


Well naturally, I don't have much in the way of poor craftsmanship in my collection of photos :icon_smile_big: but I can post some photos of my work and some examples of _*some*_ of the issues I've talked about. Might take a day or so to gather together, however.

I realize I have not formally introduced myself but I have made boots for over 35 years full time and the focus of my web page is on that work. I also make bespoke shoes, however.



MF177 said:


> How do you feel about shanks?


Some shoes need shanks...depending on heel height...some don't. I use them where I feel they are necessary.

And thanks to everyone for the kind words.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Superb! Thanks.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

Fascinating stuff.

Speaking of oak- and chestnut-tanned outsoles, Lodger is in the middle of a test comparing the two.



They are working with a firm that does quantitative materials testing for properties like wear resistance. This also relates to a thread here a few months back, where the topic was subjective vs. objective measures of leather quality.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

DWFII said:


> I also make bespoke shoes, however.


Do you have photos of your bespoke shoe work, either on the web, or that might be posted here?


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Perhaps this thread should be made a sticky, and be required reading for all those posting "I want to buy (XYZ cheaply made shoes). Isn't this a wonderful idea?"
(Especially since those threads so often seem to end with the OP arguing against all of the replies that have, often unanimously, told him it really isn't a very good idea.)


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

DWFII: Thank you for such an excellent series of inaugural posts. They are at once informative as to construction details and also provide the reader with a framework of understanding as to the cost of bespoke footwear. The time you took to share this with us is appreciated.

Also, welcome to the forum! Many of us look forward to your future postings.


----------



## Groover (Feb 11, 2008)

DWFII said:


> I
> 
> The backbone of the shoe is the insole. On high end shoes it may be "bark tanned" leather. But just as with any other aspect of shoemaking there are varying degrees of quality. Some of the very best insoling leather in the world comes from  *J & F.J Baker Co. Ltd, Colyton, Devon, England*. The are hides are tanned in pits of tanning liquor that is extracted from oak bark. Hides may be left in the pits for up to a year. Baker is one of only two tanneries world wide that still uses this ancient pit tanning method and it results in superior leather. Not every top dollar, famous-name brand uses Baker or anything even remotely comparable for their insoles. But not only the ultimate comfort but the longevity of the shoe is highly dependent on what is used for an insole. Some makers...even makers of some renown...use composite or even "paper" insoles. And it is hard to tell in some cases because "composite' insoles can be wholly leather--comprised of scraps and sweepings ground up and made into a kind of "particle board" that might technically be called "shoddy" ("shoddy" is an American Civil War term that referred to woolen fabric made by the same process--ground up and re-felted scraps).


It's cenrtainly very interesting to have this confirmed. Upon my last visit to Alfred Sargent I was advised that they user Bakers for their leather.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Groover said:


> It's cenrtainly very interesting to have this confirmed. Upon my last visit to Alfred Sargent I was advised that they user Bakers for their leather.


The description (with photos) of the tanning process on Baker's website, though a bit abbreviated, seems to make an outfit like Horween appear downright _modern_, by comparison.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> Fascinating stuff.
> 
> Speaking of oak- and chestnut-tanned outsoles, Lodger is in the middle of a test comparing the two.
> 
> They are working with a firm that does quantitative materials testing for properties like wear resistance. This also relates to a thread here a few months back, where the topic was subjective vs. objective measures of leather quality.


I would be interested in reading the second part of the article to discover what the SATRA findings were.

I too think that, all things being equal, the chestnut is more flexible and easier to work with. But note that I said "all things being equal." There are many versions of "oak tanned" soling out there. The synth-tans I mentioned above are all putatively "oak tanned." But it seems reasonable to suggest that a hide that has been in the pits for almost a year versus one that has only spent a couple of weeks exposed to tannins will perform better.

Personally, I am not sure I like the softer chestnut as well as I like the almost flinty Rendenbach. I use chestnut almost exclusively but I have reservations.

Additionally, the fact the factory "reported that the chestnut leather was more supple and easier to work with" may not be much of a recommendation. There's the factory mentality again...easy to work with implies less skill required implies less time involved implies less money paid out in wages implies less skilled workers implies diminished quality--Ourobouros.

That said, I thank you for the link...I will try to watch for the update.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> Do you have photos of your bespoke shoe work, either on the web, or that might be posted here?


working....:icon_smile:


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

I'm not a very good photographer and all these are taken by myself so I hope you will forgive the chromatic aberrations and odd highlights that plague these close-ups.

I just finished these...natural vegetable tanned German calf. One inch heel, beveled fiddleback waist, and hand stitched, channeled outsoles sewn at 11 stitches per inch.





































In this final shot you can see the stitching, done by hand at 11 spi (the thread is black so you have to look for it) and you can also see the "wires" on the top and bottom edges of the outsole, as well as the "jigger" bevel on the edge of the welt. The wires and the jigger are often considered purely ornamental (erroneously) but they indicate that wax has been burnished deeply into the edges of the outsole and welt. If this were not done the edges of the welt and outsole would be more apt to soak up moisture simply because these _*are*_ edges--raw fibers. I sometimes run across folks who think that a round edge is more attractive. I can't speak to other people's personal preferences or aesthetics but a round edge, even if burnished, has neither the protective properties nor the crisp lines of the traditionally finished outsole.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Here's another pair I finished not too long ago...I made these for my wife and they have an inch and three-eighths heel; London Tan French calf with forest green kangaroo, silhouette construction.










And here is a shot just before mounting the outsole...this shows the insole and the inseaming, including the heelseat stitching (something a lot of makers, even bespoke makers no longer do).


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Beautiful work.
Do you carve your own lasts, have someone do them for you, or?


----------



## ptrck2184 (Oct 21, 2009)

Really great post and pictures!


----------



## TRH (Sep 6, 2009)

Beautiful shoes and a really informative post. Many thanks for sharing your knowledge.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Great post, great shoes, and great moustache! :icon_smile_big: (check out the website posted by CO Jr.)


----------



## cactiman (Aug 1, 2009)

Very informative posts,I've learned a lot, thanks for posting. 
Great looking shoes too.


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

There have been many discussions on this forum comparing the various shoe makers. One distinguishable feature that strikes me between the very high end and the lower to middle grade range of shoes other than price is the sleekness of the shoes. With British shoe makers, Crockett & Jones seems to be where the shoe styling becomes apparent in sleekness. Edward Green and John Lobb at least to my eyes seem to carry nothing but sleek styling shoes. I am sure as the more qualified senior members have commentated there is also some qualitative differences but I personally am not able to recognize the difference between these three brands as much as I am able to see what separates them from the lower and middle brands such as Allen Edmond's, Alden, Loake and Cheaney. My question is, how difficult is it for shoe companies to develop and produce these sleek styling shoes or is the clunkiness a matter of choice?


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Sir Walter said:


> There have been many discussions on this forum comparing the various shoe makers. One distinguishable feature that strikes me between the very high end and the lower to middle grade range of shoes other than price is the sleekness of the shoes. With British shoe makers, Crockett & Jones seems to be where the shoe styling becomes apparent in sleekness. Edward Green and John Lobb at least to my eyes seem to carry nothing but sleek styling shoes. I am sure as the more qualified senior members have commentated there is also some qualitative differences but I personally am not able to recognize the difference between these three brands as much as I am able to see what separates them from the lower and middle brands such as Allen Edmond's, Alden, Loake and Cheaney. My question is, how difficult is it for shoe companies to develop and produce these sleek styling shoes or is the clunkiness a matter of choice?


Styling has virtually nothing to do with quality.The last determines the "sleekness" of the shoe and as I mentioned too many people seem fixated on one model of C&J last versus another model of EG lasts versus some model of Vass last. Such models may have characteristics that fit one particular shape of foot better than another shape yet not fit any foot as well as a bespoke last.

Some shoe makers/shoe companies stick with classic styling rather than "pursue the moment," so to speak. Many, such as Lobbs (kind of notorious for being somewhat "old fashioned") may do this because of tradition and the certain knowledge that "this too will pass" but the classic styles will always be with us. Others get themselves into an ever tightening financial bind and cannot afford to restock their whole inventory of lasts every time the fashion changes.

Of course, as intimated, bespoke makers can meet any fashion vagary at a moments notice and still fit the foot and deliver quality materials and techniques as well.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

DWF, thank you very much for the enlightening information, particularly the well-written and revealing posts at the begining of the thread. We are fortunate indeed to have a knowledgeable, articulate exponent of traditional craftsmanship with us. 

I understand that you may not want to disclose it, but, if you were willing, could you give us a sense of your price range(s) for traditional dress shoes? And how you go about creating a custom last for someone across a continent from you... is a visit to OR required? (Not that the Pacific NW isn't lovely, it's just a long hike from some places!) 

Thanks again for your contribution to the board.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> DWF, thank you very much for the enlightening information, particularly the well-written and revealing posts at the begining of the thread. We are fortunate indeed to have a knowledgeable, articulate exponent of traditional craftsmanship with us.
> 
> I understand that you may not want to disclose it, but, if you were willing, could you give us a sense of your price range(s) for traditional dress shoes? And how you go about creating a custom last for someone across a continent from you... is a visit to OR required? (Not that the Pacific NW isn't lovely, it's just a long hike from some places!)
> 
> Thanks again for your contribution to the board.


You're welcome. I don't have any problem disclosing information but out of respect for the forum and its members I'd really rather not get into tooting my own horn too much and I certainly don't want to be promoting my business directly. If you PM me I will be more comfortable answering your questions.


----------



## beanball21 (Oct 25, 2009)

I'd like to pass along my gratitude as well for this informative thread.


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

I too appreciate your informative responses. I feel extremely fortunate to have benifited from such a wealth of knowledgeable people such as yourself. Please continue providing any input or prospective you feel would be of interest.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

DWFII said:


> Exposed outsole stitching is known in the Trade as "stitching aloft." It leaves the stitches vulnerable and they _*will be*_ damaged upon the first wearing. Stitching aloft, in this context, is nearly the hallmark of a mass manufactured shoe and without exception one that is more about expediency than quality. This may come as a shock to some people, but folks let me assure you that even if the manufacturer cannot see his way to pay a skilled workman to hand stitch the outsole, any modern (or even vintage) outsole stitching machine can easily be set up to cut a vertical channel into which the stitches can be dropped and embedded so deeply that the channel may be re-closed to near invisibility. In my humble opinion, there is no excuse for an exposed outseam on leather soles. No shoe that is stitched aloft qualifies as high end regardless of price.


The part about the vulnerability of exposed stitching makes perfect sense. But then one has to wonder why shoe manufacturers don't routinely use embedded stitching, if it really wouldn't be that hard to do.

Two possible explanations I can think of:

(1) Even though setting up the machinery wouldn't be that hard, it does involve an extra step or two in the production process, and so adds a bit of production time-cost. Also, maybe it requires more operator skill and/or there's a higher error rate in getting the stitching to turn out right.

(2) There's no point, because even with exposed stitching, leather soles normally wear through before the stitching fails. In other words, exposed stitching may be bothersome esthetically and/or conceptually, but in practice it does the job well enough.

I don't know if these are the real reasons. I'm just curious whether DWFII or others with expertise can offer some additional thoughts on this.


----------



## MF177 (Jun 10, 2009)

DWFII said:


> Styling has virtually nothing to do with quality.The last determines the "sleekness" of the shoe and as I mentioned too many people seem fixated on one model of C&J last versus another model of EG lasts versus some model of Vass last. Such models may have characteristics that fit one particular shape of foot better than another shape yet not fit any foot as well as a bespoke last.


maybe for some its an obsession but for me personally it has more to do with trying to find a rtw last that approximates my foot well, until the day im ready to go bespoke.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> The part about the vulnerability of exposed stitching makes perfect sense. But then one has to wonder why shoe manufacturers don't routinely use embedded stitching, if it really wouldn't be that hard to do.
> 
> Two possible explanations I can think of:
> 
> (1) Even though setting up the machinery wouldn't be that hard, it does involve an extra step or two in the production process, and so adds a bit of production time-cost. Also, maybe it requires more operator skill and/or there's a higher error rate in getting the stitching to turn out right.


You've got it pretty much. No extra steps to speak of, but the error rate can be higher if the operator is not both skilled beyond an average-off-the-street-worker and something beyond brain-frozen focused.

But it's asking the wrong question in the first instance...

The real questions is, or should be, why bespoke makers...who are the torch-bearers for centuries of traditions and skills and the evolution of techniques through countless generations of makers...should so nearly universally consider channeled outsoles to be superior to stitching aloft.

I don't know if these are the real reasons. I'm just curious whether DWFII or others with expertise can offer some additional thoughts on this.[/quote]


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

MF177 said:


> maybe for some its an obsession but for me personally it has more to do with trying to find a rtw last that approximates my foot well, until the day im ready to go bespoke.


Nothing wrong with that especially if you put it in perspective.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

DWFII said:


> You've got it pretty much. No extra steps to speak of, but the error rate can be higher if the operator is not both skilled beyond an average-off-the-street-worker and something beyond brain-frozen focused.
> 
> But it's asking the wrong question in the first instance...
> 
> The real questions is, or should be, why bespoke makers...who are the torch-bearers for centuries of traditions and skills and the evolution of techniques through countless generations of makers...should so nearly universally consider channeled outsoles to be superior to stitching aloft.


OK, thanks. I think I just needed a little help to read your original posts correctly. You were talking specifically about high-end shoes, not mid-range off-the-shelf shoes. Presumably you consider exposed stitching more excusable on the latter. (But presumably you also think that's one more reason to consider going bespoke instead.)


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Kurt N said:


> OK, thanks. I think I just needed a little help to read your original posts correctly. You were talking specifically about high-end shoes, not mid-range off-the-shelf shoes. Presumably you consider exposed stitching more excusable on the latter. (But presumably you also think that's one more reason to consider going bespoke instead.)


Right again...thank you.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

I was a skilled custom picture framer before arthritis stilled my output. I know a bit about custom craftsmanship.

While a lot of the cost of a custom creation can be put to the craftsmanship, not all of the costs can be.

Mass produced high end products can be an excellent value and can have craftsmanship equal to bespoke products.

When I made a picture frame (custom) I measured the mat, the frame and the glass individually. Each setup was done by me (a high priced bit of labor).

When a mass producer makes that identical frame:

He has one setup, but cuts 500 pieces of glass. The setup is by a high cost craftsman, but the cutting is done by a low cost worker.

Ditto, for cutting the molding, mat board, etc.

Also, while I was buying 9 running feet of molding at $4.50 per foot, the mass producer was buying the same molding in large quantities for $2.00 per foot.

My miter machine was very accurate but cut one molding per slice. The mass producer sets up and can cut all the molding with accuracy and speed on a high speed miter machine.

Etc., etc., etc.

In the end, the quality (can be) very similar; the price would be very dissimilar.

I would imagine that the same would hold for shoe making too. If you require bespoke shoes (for fit, or style) then that is what you should get. If you don't require it, you should be able to find equal quality from a mass producer.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Packard said:


> ...you should be able to find equal quality from a mass producer.


Depends on the craftsman I suppose, and how one defines quality, but I doubt it.


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

*Packard* you ought to be able to find an off-the rack shoe with a _fit _that is either as good as bespoke or at least really, really excellent, but does that mean equal quality of construction and equal expectations of longevity?

Anyway, allow me to join the chorus of readers saying thanks for such an informative set of posts.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Corcovado said:


> Anyway, allow me to join the chorus of readers saying thanks for such an informative set of posts.


To all those readers, thank you for the kind words. I am sincerely glad to be of service.

If you can bear with me I think I will re-post an excerpt from an essay I wrote some time ago for the bespoke shoe and bootmaking forum I created and administer for my Trade guild:

One of the aspects of all of this that has been an "issue" with me for as long as I can remember, is what I call the "factory mentality" that seems to pervade almost every aspect of modern life--from what we eat and how it is produced and delivered to us, to the entertainment choices that we typically make. And of course, that mentality not only affects shoemaking but, in my opinion, tends to undermine every aspect of what we consider "quality."

If a maker decides...for whatever reason--personal standards of quality, expediency, or even necessity--that celastic toe boxes are acceptable, would it not be reasonable to assume that using celastic (or something like it) for heels stiffeners would also be OK? If fiberboard "cottages" (shank covers) are reasonable, why not fiberboard heel stacks...or even fiberboard insoles? If cement sole construction meets a standard of durability and...logic...why not moulded sole construction? If tacks (in the heelseat and shank area) are the logical choice (versus hand stitching or pegs), why not staples? It's a slippery slope.

Each of the aforementioned techniques originated in a factory context and the over-arching reason for implementing every single one of them was to cut costs or replace time consuming and/or hard to master skills. In each case, implementing one led to implementing the next...and the next. And each of these techniques can be seen in...indeed they are almost the hallmark of...common, post WWII, mass-manufactured, commercial footwear...at almost any price point.

If we adopt techniques and materials such as these we, in effect, surrender to the "factory mentality"...because the only valid reasons to do so are the very same ones that motivated the factories themselves--the "bottom line." Time is money; skilled workers command higher wages. Money, money, money.

On the face of it, such considerations might not seem unreasonable but, from a purely economic point of view, they are nearly suicidal for the "bespoke" maker because they put us in direct competition with the factories. Whether we like it or not. But few of us will ever buy leather or other materials in the kind of freight car quantities that result in train loads of savings. Nor will many of us put out 50,000 pair a day, week or month--the kind of quantities that allow for realistic price competition.

And if the old ways and the reasons for doing them are lost and our "custom" shoes become fundamentally indistinguishable from factory shoes, shouldn't they then be priced accordingly?

I am fond of saying that a person has to choose: to make shoes or to make money, because in some fundamental sense one cannot do both. It is easy to misinterpret this statement. On the face of it, it is almost shocking to those who do not think it through. But the simple fact is that in any endeavor there must be a focus.

If we choose to make money...if that is the underlaying motive...every decision that we make will revolve around that objective. "Cutting costs" becomes the order of the day. Buying cheaper leathers, employing faster (but not better) techniques and materials, ignoring the little, "fussy" details, are all viable considerations to maximize monetary returns.

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with this approach, although it is certainly not the author's cup of tea. But it _is_ something other than shoemaking...for the very simple reason that the focus is on the money, not the boots.

If we choose to make shoes, a whole other set of choices not only present themselves, but become almost mandatory. A shoemaker is always searching for better leathers...better tannages, better finishes, longer wear...and price cannot be a consideration. A shoemaker will always be open to new materials and new techniques (or ways to improve upon old ones)--not to speed up the process or to make a difficult job easier, but for the simple and sole reason of improving quality and wear and fit and beauty. Sometimes...perhaps more often than not...that even means going back to older, time honoured, traditional techniques that require a level of skill and mastery that do not come easily or quickly.

Ultimately it comes down to what is "job one." The focus. Everything...every decision--every investment, every reduction--springs from that focus.

I cannot speak for other Trades but I suspect that there isn't much difference when you come right down to it.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

Thanks for the post.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

Corcovado said:


> *Packard* you ought to be able to find an off-the rack shoe with a _fit _that is either as good as bespoke or at least really, really excellent, but does that mean equal quality of construction and equal expectations of longevity?
> 
> Anyway, allow me to join the chorus of readers saying thanks for such an informative set of posts.


No doubt most often bespoke will be of higher quality, but a good bit of the additional cost of bespoke is because of the small (very small) production runs.

Going back to the process I know best, there is a custom "period" picture frame builder (Abe Munn) in NYC that competes with the best of the hand carved frames from master craftsmen from Italy. To do this work at the highest levels requires about 20 years of experience. A skilled worker can turn out about 1 frame a week; Abe Munn probably does about 50 per week (perhaps more).

But Munn does not have full spectrum craftsmen that can build, carve, finish carve, file, sand, gesso, apply the rabbit skin adhesive and gold leaf and antique the frames. Instead they have individuals that have learned how to do each of the separate functions. The cumulative experience is probably equal to the same 20 years, but there are none that can build a frame from beginning to end.

It this more production friendly than having a single craftsman work on the frame from beginning to end? Certainly. Are any corners cut on craftsmanship--none that I've been able discern.

I would imagine that similar parallels would exist for shoe making. For bespoke (I imagine) the craftsman would develope a shape for the leather "blank", draw it onto the leather and carefully cut it out. For small production runs, they might have a steel pattern that they lay on top of the leather and simply trace the shape; for long production runs they might have clicker presses with steel rule dies that would "blank" out the leather in the hundreds. In the end, if the leather is carefully selected in all cases the quality of the blank would be the same. Of course, custom is custom and will allow for any type of special shape you desire, but from a quality point of view, the cost difference is not reflected in the quality regardless of which of the three methods above described for cutting the blank is used.

All I am pointing out is that a $6,000.00 bespoke shoe is not 4 times as well made as a $1,500.00 production shoe, and might not be any better made at all. But it is custom and that might be all that matters.


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

Packard said:


> No doubt most often bespoke will be of higher quality, but a good bit of the additional cost of bespoke is because of the small (very small) production runs.
> 
> Going back to the process I know best, there is a custom "period" picture frame builder (Abe Munn) in NYC that competes with the best of the hand carved frames from master craftsmen from Italy. To do this work at the highest levels requires about 20 years of experience. A skilled worker can turn out about 1 frame a week; Abe Munn probably does about 50 per week (perhaps more).
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Packard said:


> All I am pointing out is that a $6,000.00 bespoke shoe is not 4 times as well made as a $1,500.00 production shoe, and might not be any better made at all. But it is custom and that might be all that matters.


Let me apologize ahead of time because I don't really want to come off as quibbling, but I do disagree. I understand the points you are making and I agree with the basic parts. But if you think about it you can come up with many, many examples of things we use or even desire that have been transformed by some small modification or addition...or even, to go the other way, some lack of attention. A meal that was ruined by spoiled meat. A rifle that was upgraded, so that there were fewer misfires, by a small part.

I could go on in the same vein from critical to mundane, but in every instance 99% of the process and the materials remain the same but the simple addition or subtraction of one component either makes the product workable, or more desirable, or more functional, or a disaster, etc..

Why is that? Because every human made artifact is more than the sum of its parts. Even the passion of the maker brings to the work can influence quality and by extension...value.

Is a $6000.00 shoe worth four time more than a $1500.00 shoe? Probably not. But not _certainly_ not. I'm not aware of any shoemaker charging $6000.00, even for bespoke work (although in terms of hours worked, materials invested, and the cost of living, $6000.00 is probably where bespoke shoes should start, if the truth be known). But many times that $6000.00 price tag has a good portion of "blue sky"--reputation--attached to it. Such as when women (and men) pay a premium for a certain well known Italian designer's shoes. People who don't understand what makes quality...in a shoe or a frame...will often buy the name more than the product. It's a way to compensate for ignorance (lack of knowledge) and it is way too common. It is, in fact a critical element of the whole fashion industry

On the other hand I can tell you with absolute certainly and conviction that, all things being equal, a $1600.00 RTW shoe will probably be worth four times more than the $500.00 RTW. And, without exception, the $500.00 shoe will be worth four times more than the $125.00 shoe.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

John Lobb's bespoke shoes start at $4,000.00; according to Forbes Life, their bespoke monk straps are $6,000.00.


----------



## Xenon (Oct 3, 2007)

Packard correct me if I am wrong but I believe you are arguing the point that a bespoke shoe as DWFII makes/describes could be made/manufactured at a lower price point. This may be the case to a certain extent if volume were there and additional automation (at certain steps only) could be incorporated without the slightest reduction in quality. Often as DWFII describes it is those little quality drops that can bring huge savings.

An example would be the last making: the last could be designed using software and matched up with a laser surface scanner to digitalize a 3D model of the client's feet and feed to a CNC pantograph to machine the model into a maple block = last. Non of this would be cheap initially but given sufficient volume could lower production time and cost without any ill effects. The volume part is what would always be critical using this approach but regardless would always be more expensive than RTW. I understand fit is not a quality issue you brought up nut just showing potential savings.

to quality however, things like a real leather insole that is sewn directly to the upper and welt is an aspect that currently is not automatable. This machine does not exist currently. All RTW or MTM shoes always use a short cut to attach the insole and upper together (such as glued linen strips ect) and ususally results in an insole that is only glued when goodyear constructed. Additionally I believe stitching with a single thread is not something that can be accomplished by machine (not sure I am explaining myself clearly). Also harder leathers may be problematic or impossible when trying to automate.

I am not rich by any means but have looked far and wide for shoes deviod of any synthetic parts (insoles, welt attachements, toe box/ heal stiffeners ect) and simply could not find any-period. Texon and the like are omnipresent in even the most expensive RTW or MTM english shoes. You may argue that these do not diminsh quality but they certainly are a compromise towards production ease and feasablity. 

Quite simply quality levels and construction details that DWFII has described are unfeasable in a factory/production setting. Machines could possibly be designed/ built that could match bespoke in the future but they would certainly be very expensive and this goal is probably not being looked into.

In any regards it is comforting to know that artist/creaters/craftsmen like DWFII still exist.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Xenon said:


> .
> 
> An example would be the last making: the last could be designed using software and matched up with a laser surface scanner to digitalize a 3D model of the client's feet and feed to a CNC pantograph to machine the model into a maple block = last. Non of this would be cheap initially but given sufficient volume could lower production time and cost without any ill effects. The volume part is what would always be critical using this approach but regardless would always be more expensive than RTW. I understand fit is not a quality issue you brought up nut just showing potential savings.


The last serves two purposes, both involving form. It must form a shoe that comfortably and correctly fits and supports the wearer's foot, _and_ at the same time it should produce a shoe whose form is pleasing to the eye.

While I believe it might be possible to automate the "fit" portion of this equation, I'm not sure whether an automated program yet exists that can translate a correct fit for any given foot into a shoe with a pleasing form, with 100% accuracy, no matter what the form of the foot is.

There remains a good measure of art to any bespoke work, and as far as I am aware, art has yet to be successfully automated.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

When I was a picture framer I might frame a print and I would first design the frame/mat with the client: 15 to 20 minutes.

I would order the materials from various sources: 10 minutes.

I would get the molding in and chop the miters to length: setup: 10 minutes; cutting 5 minutes.

I would cut the glass: set up 5 minutes; cutting 3 minutes.

I would cut the mat boards: set up 5 minutes; cutting 3 minutes.

I would assemble the frame: 30 minutes.

A production framer would buy 250 of the same print that I paid $45.00 for and he would pay $20.00.

He would buy 2,200 feet of molding that I payed $30.00 for and he would pay $18.00.

The setup costs that I had to figure into the job, he figured 1/250th of that cost.

My labor costs were figured at my hourly rate of $60.00 per hour. The production framer would figure at $60.00 per hour for the setups, but at minimum wage for the production.

In the end, the identical frame from me would be in the $185.00 to $225.00 range; and from the production framer it would be about $100.00.

I sold an awful lot of framing. Because if you didn't like the image or frame design of the production art, then you needed custom framing. But that did not mean that there was a substantial improvement in quality.

Of course I offered hand painted bevels (not available in production framing) and french matting, and hand ruled lines, hand painted mat boards, etc. All of which made my frames very special (and expensive). Also I had a following because of the designs. This allowed me to sell at a premium.

However, on basic framing using commercially available moldings (which we all used) and standard (non-decorated) mats, the quality difference was negligible. The biggest difference being that I was fastidiously careful about cleaning the glass on both sides and making sure that there was no dust on the inside of the glass.

But if you just consider the set up times and the time I spent ordering the materials you have nearly 45 minutes of labor (about $45.00 in cost). I spread that out over one (1) frame. The production company would spread that out over 250 or more frames ($.018 each frame or less). So there is no way, all things being equal, that the custom framing can cost what the production framing costs. Additionally, my miter saw cost $2,800.00 and they used $20,000.00 production saws. Mine was very, very accurate (but slow), and theirs is very, very accurate but lightning fast.

Which means that custom work can be very, very good but much of the cost is in setups due to the singular nature of the work. Also the materials cost more though they may be sourced from the same vendors (due to the smaller order quantities).

Also note that some custom workers are not superior workers. It would appear that the O.P. offers superior work and probably prices his work competitively for the type of work he offers. But custom does not always equal superior. 

There will always be a place for fine custom work. Especially when that work is elevated to a level that makes it an art form. 

But if your requirements are for fairly standard fare, then high end production work probably will yield more bang for the buck.


----------



## Decadent (Sep 29, 2007)

DWFII, an excellent post! Looking forward to more pictures of your superb work. You know, this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship between AAAC and Tight Stiches.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Xenon said:


> Quite simply quality levels and construction details that DWFII has described are unfeasable in a factory/production setting. Machines could possibly be designed/ built that could match bespoke in the future but they would certainly be very expensive and this goal is probably not being looked into.
> 
> In any regards it is comforting to know that artist/creaters/craftsmen like DWFII still exist.


I think you understand quite correctly. I am not even sure that a machine could be built to duplicate the kind of quality that a good bespoke maker brings to the game. Every operation that can be automated has already been automated...and in every single case that I am aware of compromises were made just to get a rough approximation of the technique.

Take lasting as an example...there are machines that will last the shoe, start to finish.

OK, now let me shift gears just slightly. Back in the '30's (if not earlier) it was established that lasts with an "inside cone" (the "instep" of the last is shaped such that it angles towards the medial ball joint/big toe) were infinitely more comfortable than lasts with straight cones. Simply because it is closer to the way the foot itself is shaped.

Back to lasting...machines cannot last a shoe on an inside cone last without nearly as much human intervention as if there were no machine at all. So, lasts were changed. Many RTW shoes, even some at the highest price points but certainly all lower tier shoes, are made on straight cone lasts.

Personally, I think something has been lost.

As for lastmaking, most lasts today are cut with cadcam systems that rely on software patterns. There are even some systems that scan the foot and merge that data with specific last models to create a "custom " last. Personally, I don't feel confidant of the accuracy or efficacy of such systems but they are probably the wave of the future. One thing I am sure of--it hasn't reduced the price of lasts one iota.

Many bespoke makers carve lasts for individual customers and individual feet. But this system, which was once the standard among bespoke makers, is nearly lost and lastmaking has been nearly a separate Trade since the invention of the Gillman Last Lathe many, many years ago.

The critical point is that when the transition was being made...and lastmaking as a separate Trade was in its infancy...many of the model makers were ex-shoemakers who understood the foot and the relationship of the foot to footwear. And some pretty remarkable innovations were introduced. Today not one of the lastmakers, or the modelmakers who work for them, are, or ever were, shoemakers. They don't even measure the last in the same places as the shoemaker measures the foot and if you ask them about inside cone lasts they hedge their answers--straight cone lasts are considered the standard now.

Lobbs at $6000.00?...well, well. Guess I'll have to raise my prices. :icon_smile_big: Seriously, I was on the board of directors for a venture capital firm for a while and one thing I learned...if someone is willing to pay $6000.00 for a pair of Lobbs, that's what they are worth. It's called "fair market value."


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Packard said:


> Also note that some custom workers are not superior workers. It would appear that the O.P. offers superior work and probably prices his work competitively for the type of work he offers. But custom does not always equal superior.


I couldn't agree more. Especially the last sentence.

But in line with a previous post...I would remark that if a person educates himself, he can find any number of bespoke makers even in the US that have no bright-light, international reputation, and don't have much "blue sky" added into their "cost of materials."

If you want the bragging rights to a pair of Lobbs you'll pay for it.

But at the same time, if you don't want to know what makes a good quality shoe, you can pay Lobb's prices for Walmart specials (OK, not _*in*_ Walmart)

That's at least part of what this thread was intended to be about--as the subject line suggests.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

I am not trying to be combative. As a custom framer I was called upon to justify the higher prices I charged and some of the higher cost went into higher quality workmanship and materials, but part of that cost was due to the singular nature of custom work.

Certainly you need to understand what you are buying. If you were not in the know when Johnston and Murphy switched to production offshore you might assume that the new J & M shoes were of the same quality as the old ones. I'm certain they retained a certain number of customers based on an old (and deserved) reputation for quality. But the new J & M does not deseve those same accolades and only knowledge of the product will make you a smart consumer.


----------



## oudinot1815 (Nov 1, 2009)

Extremely informative post! Like sitting in a graduate seminar.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Packard said:


> I am not trying to be combative.


No worries. I understood that.


----------



## Xenon (Oct 3, 2007)

To checkerboard13 yes that is a good description of the dual role of the last. And the artform portion can never be automated but cad type software allows the melding of artform (lets face it: toe box shape since it really is the only place where the last shape does not represent the foot) with varying client sizes and foot form.

I do my own shoe designs and if a family member wants the same styling I have to start from scratch measuring everything in the toe box design to transfer to the block of wood.

Packard agreed on what you said. It is all about how much you are willing to pay for the details not available in RTW. Personnally I would not pay $1600 for a JLP or $1200 for EG since I know these will have some synthetics component in them but would be willing to pay $2000 or more(hopefully not much more) for a shoe that is all leather and to my style


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

Xenon said:


> To checkerboard13 yes that is a good description of the dual role of the last. And the artform portion can never be automated but cad type software allows the melding of artform (lets face it: toe box shape since it really is the only place where the last shape does not represent the foot) with varying client sizes and foot form.
> 
> I do my own shoe designs and if a family member wants the same styling I have to start from scratch measuring everything in the toe box design to transfer to the block of wood.
> 
> Packard agreed on what you said. It is all about how much you are willing to pay for the details not available in RTW. Personnally I would not pay $1600 for a JLP or $1200 for EG since I know these will have some synthetics component in them but would be willing to pay $2000 or more(hopefully not much more) for a shoe that is all leather and to my style


I wonder if you or DWFII can comment on the various makers specifically. What is the difference in the type or quality of materials used in C&J vs JL or EG. It appears to me that the upper level of premium shoes start at C&J, and as I stated earlier these three seem to make shoes on a sleeker last than do Alden, AE, AS, Cheaney and others. There is obviously some value in design and the sleeker last account for this. I doubt seriously if most shoe enthusiast can really tell the difference in quality of material from these three. Just as with suits, most if not all knowledgeable members recognize quality from a certain starting point but after that it becomes a matter of preference and the numbers, names and associated reputation and prestige plays a role.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I thought DFWII was quite clear that there was no correlation between "sleekness" and quality. Maybe I misunderstood his prior remarks.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> I thought DFWII was quite clear that there was no correlation between "sleekness" and quality. Maybe I misunderstood his prior remarks.


I suppose it has to do with how you define "quality." But personally, I think there might even be a reverse correlation between quality and sleekness. It seems to me that the more any maker of anything focuses on superficialities the less energy they have to focus on substance.

I am not comfortable critiquing other makers specifically or by name, but I can say that I have a fondness in my heart for Lobbs on St. James Street (all other Lobbs are franchises owned and run by Hermes) for the simple reason that they took the standards of quality to the next level and in addition many of the best young makers trained with Lobbs. That said they certainly do _*not*_ have a reputation for "sleekness." Quite the contrary they are considered a bit stodgy and old fashioned...I call it "classic."

Among the younger generation and the "fashion conscious" Gaziano and Girling impress me simply because there is a certain aesthetic refinement in everything they do.

Beyond that, I look assiduously at every C&J, every EG, every Cleaverly, every Santoni, Berlutti, and Vass shoe that I see posted here and in other venues but I don't often see anything that makes me sit up simply because I'm not interested in "sleekness" per se.

It seems contrary to the whole concept of quality, IMO.


----------



## yid (Jul 13, 2008)

thank you for a great article! its great to learn new things every day.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> I thought DFWII was quite clear that there was no correlation between "sleekness" and quality. Maybe I misunderstood his prior remarks.


Aesthetics and quality go hand in glove. Without the aesthetics the sales will suffer. Without the aesthetics the shoes will not be able to carry the higher required prices. Without the aesthetics there would be no coveting, the first step towards buying luxury goods.

Whether "sleekness" equals "aesthetic beauty" is a matter that I am not prepared to discuss.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Packard said:


> Aesthetics and quality go hand in glove. Without the aesthetics the sales will suffer. Without the aesthetics the shoes will not be able to carry the higher required prices. Without the aesthetics there would be no coveting, the first step towards buying luxury goods.
> 
> Whether "sleekness" equals "aesthetic beauty" is a matter that I am not prepared to discuss.


All very true, but not really the point I was addressing. Another poster was positing that the "sleekness" of certain brands of relatively pricey shoes were reflective of their _quality_, as though it was impossible to achieve a "sleek" design using cheaper materials or construction techniques. I think DFW has now twice stated that there is no such connection.

I certainly agree that whether "sleekness" is the (or even a) determinant of aesthetic beauty in a man's shoe is a whole 'nother ballgame.


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

Packard said:


> Aesthetics and quality go hand in glove. Without the aesthetics the sales will suffer. Without the aesthetics the shoes will not be able to carry the higher required prices. Without the aesthetics there would be no coveting, the first step towards buying luxury goods.
> 
> Whether "sleekness" equals "aesthetic beauty" is a matter that I am not prepared to discuss.


Geez, I don't know whether to respond or not...I'm not trying to be combative either. I guess as the OP I have a certain responsibility but...?

I think I see where you're going and I don't disagree entirely but I am uncomfortable with the terms in which you are framing your remarks. It almost sounds as if you are equating aesthetics ...and quality, since you have connected them...with marketability. This goes back to the post about sleekness being a hallmark of quality. I'm not sure there really is an equation there.

I think it is true that something that is made very well will have an intrinsic grace and elegance about it...if only because a really good maker will never lose sight of the details.

But I think we can point to any number of products that are very well made that never seem to catch on; and of course the inverse...so many products that are total crap that sell like hot cakes.

If aesthetics (and quality) were the drivers of marketability...or even "coveting"...there would be no need for ad agencies in this world. And all the struggling artisans who spend their lives pursuing a standard of excellence and preserving centuries old Trades would be upper middle class. :icon_smile_wink:

PS...yes, luxury goods do rise and fall on the quality and aesthetics of their product but the very fact that high quality bespoke shoes command such a tiny fraction of the market...heck, of "interest"...by comparison with AE, tells the whole story right there. Luxury goods are never "marketed" they are coveted and secret icons of social distinction--to be discovered and shared with only a select few.


----------



## speedmaster (May 27, 2008)

>> "I say perceived because all things being equal (including hyperbole) leather outsoles have been used for footwear of all sorts and in all conditions...they even climbed Mt. Everest."

Makes me wonder, did they rotate their shoes/boots such that they never wore the same pair two days in a row?! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

I believe that while aesthetics are not a determining factor in quality of construction, a higher level of skill (and perhaps artistic ability) is needed to create a shoe that is well constructed, fits well and is aesthetically pleasing.
It is (of course) quite possible to construct a high quality pair of shoes that fit perfectly, but are not at all pleasing to the eye. 
From a utilitarian point of view, those shoes would be perfectly fine, however since we humans place value on the aesthetics of the clothing with which we adorn ourselves, an aesthetically pleasing pair of shoes of the exact same quality of construction and fit is far likely to command a higher price. Are they better shoes? From the standpoint of objective quality, not especially, but they will (to many) have a higher perceived value.
I believe that it might be agreed that building an aesthetically pleasing pair of shoes of the same high quality would require extra work and abilities, if nowhere else, at least in the design and construction of the lasts.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> I believe that while aesthetics are not a determining factor in quality of construction, a higher level of skill (and perhaps artistic ability) is needed to create a shoe that is well constructed, fits well and is aesthetically pleasing.
> It is (of course) quite possible to construct a high quality pair of shoes that fit perfectly, but are not at all pleasing to the eye.
> From a utilitarian point of view, those shoes would be perfectly fine, however since we humans place value on the aesthetics of the clothing with which we adorn ourselves, a pair of shoes of the exact same quality of construction and fit is far likely to command a higher price. Are they better shoes? From the standpoint of objective quality, not especially, but they will (to many) have a higher perceived value.
> I believe that it might be agreed that building an aesthetically pleasing pair of shoes of the same high quality would require extra work and abilities, if nowhere else, at least in the design and construction of the lasts.


You made my point better than I did. No matter how well made something is, if it does not appeal to our aesthetics it is likely not to sell at all. Even utilitarian items (like wrenches from Snap-On) have paid careful attention to appearance.

Notwithstanding logic, most of us would rather marry a beautiful woman who can cook (plus other equally important skills), than an ugly one that can cook (plus other equally important skills).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Packard said:


> most of us would rather marry a beautiful woman who can cook (plus other equally important skills), than an ugly one that can cook (plus other equally important skills).


_But see_ Jimmy Soul, https://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/mybestfriendswedding/ifyouwannabehappy.htm.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Packard said:


> You made my point better than I did. No matter how well made something is, if it does not appeal to our aesthetics it is likely not to sell at all. Even utilitarian items (like wrenches from Snap-On) have paid careful attention to appearance.
> 
> Notwithstanding logic, most of us would rather marry a beautiful woman who can cook (plus other equally important skills), than an ugly one that can cook (plus other equally important skills).


Though you grasped my intended meaning perfectly, I had left out two key words necessary to express what I intended to say. (Please see edited post.)
It now actually does say what I intended (and what you understood.)


----------



## DWFII (Nov 8, 2009)

speedmaster said:


> >> "I say perceived because all things being equal (including hyperbole) leather outsoles have been used for footwear of all sorts and in all conditions...they even climbed Mt. Everest."
> 
> Makes me wonder, did they rotate their shoes/boots such that they never wore the same pair two days in a row?! :icon_smile_big:


I'm not sure what you're getting at, and I can't speak for Edmund Hillary, but rotating shoes is one way to make a good pair of shoes last. Rotating among three pairs, for instance, can probably extend the life of each pair perhaps as much as ten times what they would ordinarily be expected to last.


----------



## Commander Caractacus Pott (Oct 9, 2009)

Just read through the post. Well done DFWII. Very informative.


----------



## Xenon (Oct 3, 2007)

DWFII mentions that there may be infact a negative correlation between quality and a certain sleekness in bespoke shoes. Unfortunely from my observation I have to agree with this view.

In fact although i have great admiration for the higest quality standards in shoemaking I have to confess about my appreciation for absolute sleekness and fashion forward designs. 

Many bespoke makers I have approached seemed to dislike breaching the "fair curve" axiom, I liking extreme curves and angles/sharpness in the toe box.

I was commenting last year to a shoemaker on his high level of quality and you could simply and easily grasp his love of "fair curve". I enquired about providing my own (much sleeker last) for him to make me some quality shoes and although very polite, he was very confused about the oxymoron I presented. In the end he took on my commission I suspect for the challenge to see if he could successfully make something he did not like! 


DWFII I am curious to know if there are any specific challenges to making a shoe sleeker in the toe box and point than the G&G smart square design?


----------

