# Moccasin construction & related issues (pics)...



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Several times in the past I’ve made the claim that the Alden LHS is not a moccasin constructed shoe – although it is a penny loafer – but I never really explained what I meant in clear terms.

With this thread I hope to explain the differences between genuine moccasins and imitation moccasins, and why genuine moccasins are so comfortable. I also offer a theory to explain why so many people complain about the tight fit of their LHS shoes.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

*PART 1...*

*Moccasin Construction Methods*

Below are several diagrams to show how various types of genuine moccasins are constructed. The diagrams are a cross-section through the metatarsals. The red bars represent stitching.

Diagrams #1 & #2 (Weejuns):

Note that in the first diagram the uppers/quarters - which in a genuine moccasin constructed shoe are the same piece of leather - have been up-lasted around the last, i.e. from the bottom up. The uppers are first stitched to the upper sole, which is then stretched around the last from the bottom up. The apron/plug is stitched to the uppers/quarters to close the shoe from the top. Then the outer sole is glued and stitched to the upper sole (with separate stitching). In the second diagram, the outer sole is glued on, but otherwise the construction method is the same. Examples include Weejuns, Sebago "Classic" and "Cayman" models, various Allen-Edmonds penny loafers, the Alden Cape Cod series loafers, etc.

This method is illustrated by a pair of Weejuns I dismantled (photos to follow later in this thread).

Diagram #3 (Blake):

This method is basically a single sole which functions as both the upper and outer soles. The shoe is stitched together the same way as in Diagram #1 above, but with only one sole. Members of the fashion forum can provide examples here, but I have a pair of Bruno Magli's which are made with this method. (I should note that I am 99% sure I have just described the Blake method - does anyone know better?)

Diagram #4 (Gucci):

The old classic Gucci loafers are constructed in this manner. The key difference here is the deep channel which is cut in the outer sole and sealed up after stitching to the uppers. So when you look at the soles of these shoes they look glued on, but are in reality stitched. Obviously other shoes are made this way, but Gucci's are probably the most famous example, hence I have used them here. (Note that the plug/apron on Gucci's is first wrapped over the upper/quarters with a thin rope before stitching, but this doesn't affect the basic moccasin construction method.)

Diagram #5 (Tod's):

Just for information, the diagram shows how Tod's driving moccasins are constructed. Basically a pre-formed rubber insert is sewn to the uppers (which is pre-punched to fit the rubber nubs), the uppers are lasted upwards, and the apron/plug sewn to the top to close the shoe.

Overall, the key point to undertand about genuine moccasin constructed shoes is the way the uppers/quarters are lasted upwards around the last from the bottom up and sewn together at the top.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

*PART 2...*

*Non-Moccasin Construction Methods*

Now that a variety of methods of assembling genuine moccasin constructed shoes have been reviewed, how do these compare to other methods? Basically, there are two more which are particularly relevant here: Goodyear/welted and cemented. For trivia buffs, I also include turn-shoes. (Obviously, there are numerous other methods for constructing shoes, including athletic shoes, etc.)

Diagram #6 (Goodyear/welted):

This is the most common method of constructing good quality shoes. In this method, the insole is tacked to the bottom of the last and a "feather" or ridge of leather is sculpted or attached around the edge of the insole. The uppers are stretched down over the last and nailed down to the insole. A long strip of leather, called the welt, is then sewn around the edge of the shoe by stitching through the feather and uppers. When complete, the feather, uppers, and welt are now stitched together - this gives the Goodyear/welted shoe its immense robustness and strength. Cork is used to fill in the gaps and the outer sole is glued to the bottom of the shoe and stitched to the edge of the welt only - this gives the Goodyear/welted shoe its longevity, since the outer sole is stitched to the welt only, it can be removed and replaced without disrupting the welt/upper/feather stitching. (If none of this makes sense, find a copy of Vass's book on bespoke shoes and stare at the photos for a while; you will reach that Eureka! moment when it all makes sense.)

Examples include the Alden tassel loafers and LHS. In fact, virtually all good quality lace-ups and tassel loafers are constructed using this method. Double-sole brogues and boots have a middle sole between the welt and the outer sole. (This method is modified with a welt that wraps the outside of the upper, such as in long-wing brogues, however this is not relevant to my discussion and so I have not include it here.)

Thus the LHS is a penny loafer with "moccasin" stitching around the toe, but it is not of genuine moccasin construction and is therefore correctly considered an imitation moccasin.

Diagram #7 (cemented):

This method is used for fancy house slippers, such as the "Albert" slippers sold by Brooks Brothers, Church's, Bowhill & Elliot, and Stubbs & Wooton. The insole is tacked to the bottom of the last, the uppers are down-lasted over the last and glued to the bottom of the insole, and the outer sole is glued on top of all of this to complete the shoe. Needless to say, this is a less robust method of constructing shoes and it is used mostly for lightweight slippers.

Overall, the key point here is that the uppers in Goodyear/welted (and cemented shoes) are lasted downwards over the last and attached together at the bottom of the shoe (using a variety of methods).

Diagram #8 (Belgian Shoes):

Just for fun, here's how Belgian Shoes are made. These are turn-shoes, a (literally) medieval method of shoe construction. The upper and outsole are sewn together around the edge when the shoe is inside-out, then the shoe in turned right-side-out, hence the name. Cork or a filler is used to fill out the bottom and an insole inserted. The last is inserted to shape the upper. For Belgian Shoes the apron/plug is sewn on top of the uppers to close the shoe, but turn shoes don't necessarily have an apron/plug. This method means the outer sole cannot be replaced when worn out, which is why Belgian Shoes recommends gluing on a rubber layer soon after purchase.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

*PART 3...*

*What Are The Implications Of Different Methods Of Shoe Construction For Moccasins?*

Because genuine moccasin constructed shoes are up-lasted and sewn together at the top, they have several unique features:
1. The stitching around the apron/plug adds stiffness to the toes, so no toe puff or stiffener is needed for the toes to keep their shape.
2. The stitching around the apron/plug can stretch, thereby allowing for slight changes in the volume of the shoes in the toe box. Beefrolls also allow some changes in volume around the instep as well.
3. The shoes can be constructed without linings and heel counters (although most include the latter), which means they re-shape to the foot more readily.
4. The soles can be very thin, which means a lighter shoe overall.

In summary, this means that genuine moccasin constructed shoes are pre-disposed to be softer, more flexible, and stretchable. Which is great for ready-to-wear shoes and for people who can't (or won't) afford bespoke shoes, and are tired of stiff shoes that never quite fit perfectly. On the other hand, genuine moccasin constructed shoes are more difficult to re-sole (depending on construction method) and provide much less support for the foot than Goodyear/welted shoes.

*Why Are Genuine Moccasins Special?*

So what is the advantage of genuine moccasin construction? There are several answers, but the most crucial is they way they grip the foot, known as "positive fit".

Positive Fit:

The Sebago website notes that their Classic and Cayman models have positive fit, but what does this mean? Frankly, I don't know for sure, but my instinct tells me that it involves the way a genuine moccasin constructed shoe grips the foot without relying on laces, elastics, etc.

The following photos illustrate how this works. Both shoes are Gucci moccasins, the one on the left is the 015940 and on the right the 015942 - both models are now discontinued. These have been chosen since they are identical in construction and they show the differences between a new shoe (left) and a used shoe (right).

Note in the first image that the opening for the foot is a triangle, with the point at the heel. The rear quarters in fact appear to hang inwards. This matches the general shape of the human foot, at least from the perspective of creating a last for maximum performance. Lasts for genuine moccasins will have this signature shape, which is in fact slightly narrower at the heel and waist, but slightly higher across the instep (where the tongue is located), than the human foot.

When the foot is inserted, the genuine moccasin re-shapes as per the second photo. The opening for the foot gets wider at the waist, which means the tongue is pulled lower over the instep and the heel is pulled forward, both adjustments helping to ensure that the shoe grips the foot better.

*Why Does The Alden LHS Fit Inconsistently?*

The photos below show the difference between genuine moccasins and Goodyear/welted shoes. The photos below compare a pair of Weejuns with a pair of Alden LHS penny loafers and Alden tassel loafers. Each are new shoes.

Note that the Weejuns have the signature "triangle" foot opening of genuine moccasin construction, while the LHS clearly does not. This difference, plus the fact that the LHS is not genuine moccasin construction but rather Goodyear/welted, means the LHS does not have the positive fit characteristics of the Weejun, nor the flexibility to shape to the foot.

And here's where my crazy theory comes in:

Without positive fit characteristics, the LHS does not grip the foot well, particularly at the heel, leading customers to buy a smaller size than they should to get the heels to stay on. This leads to the oft-mentioned tight feeling across the instep. With a better shaped foot opening, the LHS would grip the foot better and customers would be able to buy shoes which were not too tight across the instep.

Ironically, the Alden tassel loafers, although not genuine moccasin construction, have a foot opening with positive fit characteristics which appear superior to the LHS (see photos above), which is probably why we don't hear the same complaints about the tassel versus the LHS.

------------------------------

Hopefully this clears up any confusion about previous statements I have made about moccasin constructed shoes. I don't think I have posted anything too crazy here, but if I have I know I will be corrected post haste...indeed.

DD


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

Doc,

I think you should take a little time and think about all of this before leaping to conclusions. :icon_smile_wink: 

Seriously, a very interesting monograph and I learned a great deal from it.

Incidentally, my 986s fit quite well and I bought them in my standard 9.5E.


----------



## Tenacious Tassel (Sep 11, 2006)

*Wow*

I somehow feel instantly smarter after having read these posts.

I am one of those people who have complained about the fit of the 986. I have a lump on my left foot on top that comes from the tightness of these shoes. I have had them stretched 2X, have professional shoe stretchers in them whenver they are not worn, and carry around shoe stretch spray to try an ease late day pain.

I will be at Alden SF next week to see what size may fit better. I may wind up wearing 2 different sized shoes in the end, as my right foot has no issues at all.

The other issue is all the stretching has slightly wharped the leather and it has wrinkles / indentions from where stretching has taken its toll. Ironically, the strap, which gives me fits, is in perfect condition...what on earth is that thing made from? steel?


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

Post of the Year!

Thanks for the great information, photos and diagrams. 

Now, to whom can I bill all this research time?:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Outstanding DD, thank you very much. 
I do know that my moccasin construted Weejuns and Russell boots are my most comfortable and they make my feet the happiest. There's something going on there and I'm thinking you might be on to it. 
Again, thanks.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Boat shoes are moccasin construction as well, yes?


----------



## nerdykarim (Dec 13, 2005)

The 'Trad Hall of Fame' thread was created for posts like this one.
Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Bravo. Excellent post.

This actually explains a lot about shoes I have struggled with. You point out that true moccasins get wider and shorter as they age. Over the years, I have had a couple pairs of shoes that I could not figure out why they felt too small over time - it is because they widened in the heel and foot, and shortened in the toe. Something to think about when buying shoes. This may be another justification for me to shell out the bucks for some LHS's 

Something I have wondered - can the expensive driving shoes and gucci style loafers be resoled? I always assumed not, but your post suggests it could be possible (just maybe not economically smart).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Doc: Thanks for an excellent and very informative post. It goes a long way toward explaining why certain of my shoes just seem to be more comfortable than others.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Tom Buchanan said:


> ...Something I have wondered - can the expensive driving shoes and gucci style loafers be resoled? I always assumed not, but your post suggests it could be possible (just maybe not economically smart).


If I suggested that then I was wrong, once worn through those types of shoes are pretty much goners. It has been mentioned on the fashion forum that some shoe repair people have machines which can re-stitch moccasins. I am somewhat skeptical, and I suspect it can only be done as a partial repair, not a full re-soling. But I am not an expert. The only solution is to add a layer of thin rubber on the sole to take the wear, or best of all have that done soon after purchase so the leather is never worn out.

I desperately want a pair of driving mocs, but have never pulled the trigger because once worn out they are goners. However, these days a wide range of companies make them with thicker, heavier rubber nubs on the bottom, so they are starting to become actually sane in terms of the cost/longevity ratio.

Familyman, this thread was aimed at you because I remember you saying you prefered your Weejuns over your LHS's. Boat shoes are definitely genuine moccasin construction.

For those who have LHS's that fit fine, remember this is just a crazy theory...<smile>


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> If I suggested that then I was wrong, once worn through those types of shoes are pretty much goners. It has been mentioned on the fashion forum that some shoe repair people have machines which can re-stitch moccasins. I am somewhat skeptical, and I suspect it can only be done as a partial repair, not a full re-soling. But I am not an expert. The only solution is to add a layer of thin rubber on the sole to take the wear, or best of all have that done soon after purchase so the leather is never worn out.


Thanks for the response. Your post was great and certainly not wrong - I was wrongly infering that because driving mocs and guccis were stitched, that the soles could possibly be replaced. As you point out (and I had half assumed), someone may be able to do it, but it would probably not be a good idea.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

*Weejuns, Deconstructed*

To further illustrate how genuine moccasins are constructed, the photos below show of a pair of Weejuns, one of which was been dismantled by yours truly, summer 2005. The first photo shows the remaining intact Weejun next to the box. This pair was bought new in 2001 and were made in El Salvador.

The photo below shows the dismantled shoe with all its component parts (except the screws from the heels).

The components shown are (left to right): heel, outer sole, upper sole, uppers/quarters, outside heel counter/strap, apron/plug, cardboard stiffener, flat strap, and sock liner. The heel and the outer sole are displayed upside down, otherwise all other components are shown correctly. Note that (1) the leather strip around the foot opening is still attached the uppers/quarters and (2) the heel still has the rubber top lift attached to the lifts. The lifts for the heel are made of leatherboard, which is basically a chipboard-like material made of leather scraps mixed with glue. The uppers are sewn to the apron/plug with the long string shown in front - the string is made of several strands, heavily waxed, and twisted together to make an extremely strong string. The heel was attached with several screws (actually there was no spiral to the screws, but I don't know what else to call them...). Let me say that whatever poo-pooing I and others have indulged in with regard to non-USA made Weejuns, let me assure everyone that they are extremely SOLID and will not fall apart - it took several hours to dismantle the shoe in the photo below.

Hope this helps show how genuine moccasins go together.

DD


----------



## Tenacious Tassel (Sep 11, 2006)

*DD --*

what would be really nice is if you could do the same deconstructionwith a pair of Alden cordo LHSs. Then we could compare and contrast. Maybe even do so with a few *different* leathers, so we could really "get our hands dirty".

Ha, just kidding of course! :icon_smile:


----------



## Tenacious Tassel (Sep 11, 2006)

*How about these?*

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...ection_Id=525&Product_Id=850760&Parent_Id=522

Yes, these BBs are made outside of USA, and maybe the markup is huge, but I have seen Squire wear these on occasion I believe, and I myself have had a pair for a few years and wore them quite a bit before I discovered the virtues of Alden LHSs.

For under $200, is this the closest we can get to the old Bass Weejuns? Also, will rubbing alcohol also take the "shine" off this shoe as well as has been suggested with newer Weejuns?


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

That exploded shoe is spectacular, thank you so very much. I'll never look at my weejuns the same again.


----------



## well-kept (May 6, 2006)

I had a pair of very old Edward Green captoes which cracked right through to my socks, straight across the vamp. I decided to take them apart to fully understand how they were constructed. Well, it was like trying to take a car apart with bare hands. Biggest surprise? The support for the toecap, sandwiched between upper and lining, was made of flexible rubber, like a thick rubber ball cut in quarters. The bond between sole, welt and insole was astonishingly strong and that is one reason I try never to subject my really good shoes to full resoling.

Thanks for the deconstructed Weejun.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Nothing to add, but worth a read for newer members.

DocD


----------



## Brutus (Aug 29, 2007)

Doctor Damage said:


> Nothing to add, but worth a read for newer members.
> 
> DocD


Very informative indeed. Thanks!


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

I too enjoyed seeing the exploded shoe. I notice that the Weejun has a synthetic welt - I dont have a pair, but I would imagine that the combination of the synthetic welt and the relatively unbreathable corrected grain leather would make for a hot shoe.


----------



## Duck (Jan 4, 2007)

DofD

Thank you for the informative post. Why did you decide a pair of shoes that looked to be in decent condition?


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Speas said:


> I too enjoyed seeing the exploded shoe. I notice that the Weejun has a synthetic welt - I dont have a pair, but I would imagine that the combination of the synthetic welt and the relatively unbreathable corrected grain leather would make for a hot shoe.


My older made in USA Caymans and C-H Pinch Penny Loafers, as well as my newer made in Mexico C-H Pinch Penny Loafers, all have synthetic welts, much like these Weejuns. This latter pair of C-H's has corrected grain leather, too, but these don't seem any hotter than the other two pairs.

All my Aldens are much hotter to wear than any of these shoes. The Aldens are heavier, more protective shoes.

If your recent Weejuns were as sturdy as you say, I'll certainly take another look at a new pair when my Caymans and/or my old C-H's finally wear out.

Weejuns really do look and fit better than other penny loafers, and I'd like to own another pair soon, provided Bass has solved the chronic quality control problems they started having 15 - 20 years ago with this shoe.

DD - thanks loads for all the work and expense you've put forth to provide us with such otherwise unobtainable insight. This Forum just wouldn't work without people like you contributing this kind of value.


----------



## LeatherSOUL (May 8, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Without positive fit characteristics, the LHS does not grip the foot well, particularly at the heel, leading customers to buy a smaller size than they should to get the heels to stay on. This leads to the oft-mentioned tight feeling across the instep. With a better shaped foot opening, the LHS would grip the foot better and customers would be able to buy shoes which were not too tight across the instep.
> 
> Ironically, the Alden tassel loafers, although not genuine moccasin construction, have a foot opening with positive fit characteristics which appear superior to the LHS (see photos above), which is probably why we don't hear the same complaints about the tassel versus the LHS.


Very very informative post. Thank you for the research.

My thoughts on the fitting issues with the LHS...

I believe people size down a half size because of the shape of the Van last. It is a very boxy last up to the tip of the toe versus other Alden lasts so a foot is more inclined to fit further up in the shoe comfortably. Therefore a smaller size is needed. I believe the tight feel accross the instep is due to the strap stitched on accross the vamp which limits the stretching, especially on the 987/987 because shell cordovan doesn't stretch as much.

As far as the heel fitting issues, the LHS (just like the Weejun) does not have a heel counter like the tassel loafer. Therefore it does not grip or wrap around ones ankle like the tassel. If it did have a heel counter and people did not size down, there may end up being fitting issues in the toe area instead.

The picture of the LHS in the original thread is actually a Japan version of the LHS, made with an instep increaser to highten the vamp area for Japanese with higher insteps and arches, which may actually be the ultimate LHS for most.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

DocD: If you don't work in the footwear industry, you should. All of our feet would benefit greatly! Thanks again for a most informative post


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Leathersoul, this thread was written before you were a regular member of this forum, so I appreciate your comments. I stand by my theories on "positive fit" though.

DocD


----------



## LeatherSOUL (May 8, 2005)

Doctor Damage said:


> Leathersoul, this thread was written before you were a regular member of this forum, so I appreciate your comments. I stand by my theories on "positive fit" though.
> 
> DocD


No unfortunately for me at that time, I probably just missed the original post or was on a trip. Thank you for your theories and informational post.


----------



## 3button Max (Feb 6, 2006)

*damage shoe post*

well done Dr Damage---

Max


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> *Weejuns, Deconstructed*
> 
> To further illustrate how genuine moccasins are constructed, the photos below show of a pair of Weejuns, one of which was been dismantled by yours truly, summer 2005. The first photo shows the remaining intact Weejun next to the box. This pair was bought new in 2001 and were made in El Salvador.
> 
> ...


You didn't find a shank in there anywhere, did you DD? Just curious. C-H Pinch P/L's don't seem to have them. But when my dogs tore apart a previous pair of Sebago Caymans several years ago, I found what looked like a Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP) shank among the ruins. On their website, Sebago claims steel shanks for the current Cayman II's.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

No shanks in those Weejuns, not even a plastic one. You will find most lightweight Italian shoes don't have shanks either (and personally I don't miss them).

DocD


----------



## Markus (Sep 14, 2004)

*Regarding Fit and "Positive Fit"*

Great thread. Don't know how I overlooked it when it was first up and running.

However, I'm not so sure I agree with your conclusions. My humble opinion is that the Gucci and Weejuns have simply had some kind of stretcher inserted for a period of time during their manufacture. The net effect would appear to be that the very back of the heel is formed with a somewhat narrower cross section.

Another comment with respect to shoes with "true mocassin construction" as compared to the Alden LHS is that, in my experience they typically offer little or no arch support, whereas the Aldens do somehow. I find the Aldens far more comfortable. The weejuns I had eventually stretched so much they were useless. Talk about having to buy a size down to account for stretching--the weejuns were agony and my LHSs have all been bought my true size and have been far more comfortable from the get-go.

Thanks for your post. Good info and analysis.

Markus


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Markus said:



> However, I'm not so sure I agree with your conclusions. My humble opinion is that the Gucci and Weejuns have simply had some kind of stretcher inserted for a period of time during their manufacture. The net effect would appear to be that the very back of the heel is formed with a somewhat narrower cross section.


No, that shape is from the design of the shoe and the shape of the last. It's quite normal for true mocassin construction shoes, or at least the ones that are made properly.



> Another comment with respect to shoes with "true mocassin construction" as compared to the Alden LHS is that, in my experience they typically offer little or no arch support, whereas the Aldens do somehow. I find the Aldens far more comfortable. The weejuns I had eventually stretched so much they were useless. Talk about having to buy a size down to account for stretching--the weejuns were agony and my LHSs have all been bought my true size and have been far more comfortable from the get-go.


Of course the LHS is not a true mocassin construction, but rather a Goodyear welted construction. The latter can more easily incorporate stiffeners and shanks, hence the greater support. Some people simply cannot wear mocassins and that's fine; by contrast I find heavy welted shoes to be hard on my feet and I avoid them, mostly. Stick with what works best for you.

DocD


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

What a great thread.


----------



## srivats (Jul 29, 2008)

DocD, this thread is amazing. Thank you so much for taking the time to post this.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

I found this thread while cruising The Archives. I think it deserves our renewed attention, so here it is again.


----------



## g3dahl (Aug 26, 2011)

Thanks -- a great thread indeed! I certainly wouldn't have seen it had you not bumped it.


----------

