# Shoes: Norwegian v. Veldtschoen Construction



## fruitymetcalfe (Nov 8, 2005)

The Paraboot website gives a brief description of their method of Norwegian construction. Is their method the same as veldtschoen construction which is used by several traditional English manufacturers. And ($64,000 question) if the two methods are different, which is to be preferred? 

Any help will be gratefully received. Thanks,

F.


----------



## Alboreto (Jul 16, 2005)

I can't really answer your first question, because the description on the website of Paraboot is rather vague. However, if you want to compare both constructions you could check the following url: 



If you don't plan to go hiking through snow and water, Norvegese constructed shoes will probably suffice. And my guess is you won't. Crockett & Jones makes one or two pairs of Veldtschoen constructed shoes.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Norwegian and Veldtschoen construction are similar in that the upper is turned out and stitched to the outsole. If the descriptions that I have read are accurate, there are two major differences. First, Veldtschoen shoes have a welt running under the turned-out upper that is stitched between the upper and the outsole on one side and to the feather on the other. In contrast, Norwegian shoes have no welt, and there is a row of stitching connecting the upper to the insole directly. Secondly, Veldtschoen shoes tend to have bellows tongues where Norwegian shoes tend not to have them.

I think that both methods yield a very weatherproof shoe. Which one is better depends on who is making them and what style of shoe you're looking for.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

The veldtschoen is a better field shoe because it is drier in the slop. The bellows tongue, for example, keeps water from leaking in around the laces.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

jcusey said:


> Norwegian and Veldtschoen construction are similar in that the upper is turned out and stitched to the outsole. If the descriptions that I have read are accurate, there are two major differences. First, Veldtschoen shoes have a welt running under the turned-out upper that is stitched between the upper and the outsole on one side and to the feather on the other. In contrast, Norwegian shoes have no welt, and there is a row of stitching connecting the upper to the insole directly.


John, I hesitate to question your explanation, but are you sure about your description of Norwegian (or Norvegese) construction. I've seen diagrams (one of which I seem to recall you put up on the forum) showing the Norvegese to have a welt, but one that turned up against the upper (and was stitched horizontally to the upper), with the horizontal part of the welt lying atop the outsole attached in the usual way with stitching going through the welt to the feather. Further I had vaguely thought of the Veldtschoen construction as the one without a welt, with the upper folded out and stitched to the outsole as you have suggested.

I'm confused.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Roger said:


> John, I hesitate to question your explanation, but are you sure about your description of Norwegian (or Norvegese) construction. I've seen diagrams (one of which I seem to recall you put up on the forum) showing the Norvegese to have a welt, but one that turned up against the upper (and was stitched horizontally to the upper), with the horizontal part of the welt lying atop the outsole attached in the usual way with stitching going through the welt to the feather. Further I had vaguely thought of the Veldtschoen construction as the one without a welt, with the upper folded out and stitched to the outsole as you have suggested.
> 
> I'm confused.


The welt you mention is optional and, as you say, sits atop the outward-turned upper.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

Roger said:


> John, I hesitate to question your explanation, but are you sure about your description of Norwegian (or Norvegese) construction. I've seen diagrams (one of which I seem to recall you put up on the forum) showing the Norvegese to have a welt, but one that turned up against the upper (and was stitched horizontally to the upper), with the horizontal part of the welt lying atop the outsole attached in the usual way with stitching going through the welt to the feather. Further I had vaguely thought of the Veldtschoen construction as the one without a welt, with the upper folded out and stitched to the outsole as you have suggested.


The descriptions that I have read of Veldtschoen have all referred to a welt. It is certainly possible that these descriptions are mistaken or that there are multiple ways to make a Veldtschoen, especially when you consider the brevity and lack of conprehensiveness of these descriptions.

As for Norwegian construction, I was using it as I understand the Italians to use the term "Norvegese", and that term implies a lack of welt. If the shoe has a welt, it's something else (Bentivegna, for example). It is true, as Teacher suggests, that many use "Norwegian" to refer to any reverse-welted shoe.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

jcusey said:


> The descriptions that I have read of Veldtschoen have all referred to a welt. It is certainly possible that these descriptions are mistaken or that there are multiple ways to make a Veldtschoen, especially when you consider the brevity and lack of conprehensiveness of these descriptions.
> 
> As for Norwegian construction, I was using it as I understand the Italians to use the term "Norvegese", and that term implies a lack of welt. If the shoe has a welt, it's something else (Bentivegna, for example). It is true, as Teacher suggests, that many use "Norwegian" to refer to any reverse-welted shoe.


I don't know if that is correct re Norvegese. I am wearing a pair right now, and can see the welt stitch and two more stitches that turn the upper against the welt.


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

The funny thing, there is a member of this forum, who is a shoemaker and is from Norway: our friend J P Myhre
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/Tutorials/MyhreBespokeSHOES.htm

He ought to know everything about Norwegian shoes. Alas, his shoes seem to be rather English.

I only ever have seen "Veldtschoen" as a machine-made factory product. In these shoes the upper leather is pulled to the outside; then a single row of stitching goes through uppers, welt, middle sole and sole. All the layers are cut level, the upper leather goes right to the edge of the sole.

In the "Norvegese" the upper leather is cut back to half the depth of the welt. Then a decorative row of hand stitching (not dissimilar to the way EG stitches the aprons) combines upper with welt. A second row of plain stitches is placed a fraction further out and combines welt with sole. (I am referring to my one and only pair of Lattanzis). It appears to me that in English shoemaking, "Veldtschoen" is a utility construction method to improve water resistance; in Italian shoemaking "Norvegese" is a flamboyant method to show off virtuoso hand stitching. (In the current issue of LAST vol. 7, page 64 are three pairs of Stefano Branchini, where that Norwegian stitching is taken to some ridiculous extreme.)


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Ok. I found it. This is a diagram of Norvegese construction from the La Botte Chantilly's website--the one that you, Jcusey, posted one time a while back. It shows the construction I was mentioning, with a welt present running up the outside of the upper. You're absolutely right about the upper being turned out, rather than tucked under as with standard hand- and Goodyear-welted construction. It's a mystery to me as to why Italian makers would see Norvegese construction differently--sans welt. Clearly, I have more to learn!

https://www.la-botte.com/club/norvegien_us.shtml

Below is the accompanying diagram of Goodyear-welted construction:

https://www.la-botte.com/club/goodyear_us.shtml


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

jcusey said:


> The descriptions that I have read of Veldtschoen have all referred to a welt. It is certainly possible that these descriptions are mistaken or that there are multiple ways to make a Veldtschoen, especially when you consider the brevity and lack of conprehensiveness of these descriptions.
> 
> As for Norwegian construction, I was using it as I understand the Italians to use the term "Norvegese", and that term implies a lack of welt. If the shoe has a welt, it's something else (Bentivegna, for example). It is true, as Teacher suggests, that many use "Norwegian" to refer to any reverse-welted shoe.


Jon, I wasn't referring to a _true_ welt, but rather an extra strip of leather that runs on top of the out-turned upper and, thus, looks somewhat like a true storm welt from the outside -- like the diagram Roger linked to (don't you link to that diagram, too?). Sorry for the lack of clarity.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

bengal-stripe said:


> The funny thing, there is a member of this forum, who is a shoemaker and is from Norway: our friend J P Myhre
> https://askandyaboutclothes.com/Tutorials/MyhreBespokeSHOES.htm
> 
> He ought to know everything about Norwegian shoes. Alas, his shoes seem to be rather English.
> ...


Mine looks the same. I have a few that have three rather than two extra stitchings, but the extra is just that... extra


----------



## bengal-stripe (May 10, 2003)

Here is a pair of Stefano Branchini (compared with the one featured in LAST, they’re almost restrained).


Roger, the shoe featured at “La Botte” are “Norwegian Welt”, which I believe is different to “Norwegian construction“. Compared with the English “storm welt”, the Norwegian one is stitched from the outside. In Norwegian welt as well as Norwegian construction the innards are turned outwards and show the stitching as a decorative feature.

(Norwegian folk never struck me as show-off-merchants.)


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Bengal-stripe, is that Branchini shoe an example of their version of Norvegese? I'm assuming it is. If so, and from your description of this type, the welt should lie _under_ the turned-out upper (cut back to half the width of the sole extension)--as opposed to _above_ the turned-out upper, as in the "La Botte" diagram. Still, it's hard to find a welt on that Branchini shoe, unless it is the upper layer of the structure that includes the outsole--the part that has the wheeling on it. However, if it is the latter, I don't see the stitches that attach it to the outsole. I'm sure I'm missing something here, but the shoe appears to be weltless, with what looks like a single row of very hefty stitching attaching upper, insole, and outsole in one pass.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Unless I'm missing some crucial points here, it really seems to me as though the terms "Norwegian," "Norvegese," and even "Veldtschoen" are employed pretty loosely, interchangeably, and without much thought to precision in many cases. Jcusey notes that Norvegese construction is often done without a welt, with a turned-out upper lying along the top of the insole, with the outsole just below, and with the whole sandwich stitched from the outside to hold these three components in place. However, I've run across precisely this construction referred to as Veldtschoen in descriptions of light, casual shoes (almost like sneakers). Still, I'm guessing that the Crockett & Jones _Veldt_ model (country-style blucher) is welted in some way (probably with the welt under the turned-out upper). Further, it's clear now that some welted shoes (with the welt above the turned-out upper, or below it) are referred to as having Norwegian or Norvegese construction. Perhaps this whole terminological topic is a case of the terms being close to meaningless (except for signalling a shoe that is not Goodyear-welted), with the particulars of the construction needed to know what we have.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Roger- 

Back in the early 70's, when mountaineering boots all cost less than $50, REI showed four different welts in there catalog and explained advantages of each. "Veldtschoen welt" maybe the same as "Norwegian welt", just said and spelled different because of a different language, or a variation.

Goodyear-welted, and two others were mentioned and Norwegian welt, where it was said that the latter kept the feet dry the longest. In todays world with glued shoes and concrete sidewalks feet stay dryer and shoes cleaner. But in the old days Norway must have been muddy, mud puddles, slush from all the rain and snow and boat travel with hand sewn shoes. Unlike a dryier climate, it would be worth the cobblers time to figure out how to make shoes that keep feet dry as long as possible, and the Norwegian came up with a good method. In todays world, where there are few custom shoe makers, office people making decisions about advertisements for big shoe companies, who don't know anything about welts, you can expect them to say anything about shoes (what would they know?). So, when looking at advertisements expect the blind leading the blind. Same thing about sales people- most don't know anything and are told what to say, same as the people who tell them what to say- what they are interest in saying is what sells the most.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Roger said:


> Unless I'm missing some crucial points here, it really seems to me as though the terms "Norwegian," "Norvegese," and even "Veldtschoen" are employed pretty loosely, interchangeably, and without much thought to precision in many cases. Jcusey notes that Norvegese construction is often done without a welt, with a turned-out upper lying along the top of the insole, with the outsole just below, and with the whole sandwich stitched from the outside to hold these three components in place. However, I've run across precisely this construction referred to as Veldtschoen in descriptions of light, casual shoes (almost like sneakers). Still, I'm guessing that the Crockett & Jones _Veldt_ model (country-style blucher) is welted in some way (probably with the welt under the turned-out upper). Further, it's clear now that some welted shoes (with the welt above the turned-out upper, or below it) are referred to as having Norwegian or Norvegese construction. Perhaps this whole terminological topic is a case of the terms being close to meaningless (except for signalling a shoe that is not Goodyear-welted), with the particulars of the construction needed to know what we have.


All I can say is that in my closet there are at least 8 pairs of Norvegese shoes, and the only one without a welt stitch is a pair of Mantellassi's. I would say that while Mantellassi makes niceshoes, the others that I own are of higher quality, and all have welts.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

bengal-stripe said:


> Roger, the shoe featured at "La Botte" are "Norwegian Welt", which I believe is different to "Norwegian construction". Compared with the English "storm welt", the Norwegian one is stitched from the outside. In Norwegian welt as well as Norwegian construction the innards are turned outwards and show the stitching as a decorative feature.
> 
> (Norwegian folk never struck me as show-off-merchants.)


The thing that everyone should keep in mind is that the Italians use a huge number of construction techniques, each of which has a completely different name from the others but differs in mechanics only relatively slightly. Norwegian is different from Tirolese is different from Bentivegna is different from a number of other techniques, but they're all of a piece. I will repeat that my understanding is that Norvogese construction implies a lack of a welt and a turned-out upper, with one row of stitching connecting the upper to the outsole and another (or a braided pair of rows) connecting the upper to the insole.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

jcusey said:


> The thing that everyone should keep in mind is that the Italians use a huge number of construction techniques, each of which has a completely different name from the others but differs in mechanics only relatively slightly. Norwegian is different from Tirolese is different from Bentivegna is different from a number of other techniques, but they're all of a piece. I will repeat that my understanding is that Norvogese construction implies a lack of a welt and a turned-out upper, with one row of stitching connecting the upper to the outsole and another (or a braided pair of rows) connecting the upper to the insole.


I would love to know where you get this description of Norvegese. Here is a picture from Roberto Ugolini where the welt stitching is very visible









Lattanzi definitely has a welt on his Norvegese construction shoes, and even does a braided welt stitch along with a braided upper stitch on one (ungodly expensive) construction.

Again, for a Branchini, the welt stitch is very clear here

Mantellassi does not use a welt stitch, but they are arguably a lower quality make than Branchini, and significantly lower than Lattanzi or Ugolini, so it could be a cost/time saving measure not to also use a welt.


----------



## jcusey (Apr 19, 2003)

iammatt said:


> I would love to know where you get this description of Norvegese. Here is a picture from Roberto Ugolini where the welt stitching is very visible


I don't see any welt stitching there. I see a braided sticth connecting the upper to the insole, another stitch connecting the upper to the outsole, and another row of stitching sitting outside the upper that attaches the three pieces of . Is the piece of leather on top a welt? Without disassembling the shoe, I don't know how you would know, and I fail to see what function it would serve given the other construction elements.



> Again, for a Branchini, the welt stitch is very clear here


Again, all that picture shows is a row of stitching outside of the upper-outsole stitching. It does not necessarily show a welt.


----------



## Alboreto (Jul 16, 2005)

Please allow me to be so daft as to suggest you check the link I posted above () which shows diagrams taken from a Japanese source, and which differentiates between the Norvegese, Norwegian and Norwegian Welted constructions (the last one I suppose is also known as Tirolese). To add to the confusion, you'll also find the reverse welted construction. However, if you look at the Veldtschoen construction as depicted there, you'll see that the upper is turned outside and stitched down on a piece of leather J Cusey writes about (if I recall correctly) as not actually a welt, but resembling one, and the lining, the inner so to speak, is turned inside and attached to what Vass calls the bridge. I know you use another term for it, but I don't remember it. I do hope this sheds some light in the darkness.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Alboreto, that's very helpful. I would hope that those diagrams are correct, but did notice that the one showing the reverse welt seemed wrong, in that my understanding (which might be what's wrong!) is that a reverse welt is the same as a "split welt," in which a half-thickness of the welt runs under the upper, and the welt, upper, and insole are attached as with, say, a Goodyear-welted shoe, with the other half of the split running up the outside of the upper. I wonder whether, with the Norwegian, Norvegese, and Veldtschoen types of construction, there is often a _midsole_ that, in some ways, takes the place of a welt. I don't read Japanese and so can't make out the labels of the parts, but several of the diagrams seem to have two layers making up the outsole part of the shoe. All in all, though, I like those diagrams and will print them out and save them.


----------



## Alboreto (Jul 16, 2005)

Roger, what you describe as a split welt, would look like this: 

L_ (1/2 of the split welt attached to the upper)
l (other 1/2 of the split welt stitched to the bridge)

With the upper to the left of the L_ and l (I couldn't draw the upper), and the _ being the part of the welt that isn't split, but stitched to the sole. So if you picture the welt as a capital L, the vertical side of the L is split, with one part visible, facing upwards and stitched to the upper, and the other part of the upper side of the L is pulled down and stitched to the lower, invisible parts of the upper and perhaps a bridge (although I think you call it differently in English - edit: I was looking for the word feather). The horizontal part of the L ( _ ) is left intact (unsplit) and is stitched to the sole.
Does this "sketch" make any sense to you? 

Or do you mean something also known as Bentivegna, where the front half of the welt is turned to the outside, as the _ in the drawing, and the back half turned inside as is the case with the Goodyear welt?


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Alboreto, I'm not sure that I follow your explanation, but what I meant by a split welt construction (called a "Storm welt," I believe by Crockett & Jones and a "fudge welt" by Edward Green) was one in which the full-thickness welt lay between the upper-insole assembly and the outsole, but as you proceed to the outside of the welt, it splits--with the top half running up against the upper on the outside (but not being attached to the upper, just lying against it), and the bottom half running out to the width of the outsole. The welt, upper, and insole are attached by the usual manner (as shown in the diagram for the Goodyear process), and the welt is attached to the outsole in the usual manner too. All that is different from standard Goodyear construction is that the welt--instead of lying in full thickness against the top of the outsole--splits so that only the lower half lies against the top of the outsole.


----------



## Alboreto (Jul 16, 2005)

So the welt looks like an y, with the right upper part of the y (the right leg of the v part so to speak) attached to the sole and the left part of the "v" laying against the upper. The / part of the y is attached to the upper and insole and is not visible. A goodyear welt would look like a /, but with this welt the upper half is split, forming a v and therefore the entire welt looks like a y.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

jcusey said:


> The descriptions that I have read of Veldtschoen have all referred to a welt. It is certainly possible that these descriptions are mistaken or that there are multiple ways to make a Veldtschoen, especially when you consider the brevity and lack of conprehensiveness of these descriptions.
> 
> As for Norwegian construction, I was using it as I understand the Italians to use the term "Norvegese", and that term implies a lack of welt. If the shoe has a welt, it's something else (Bentivegna, for example). It is true, as Teacher suggests, that many use "Norwegian" to refer to any reverse-welted shoe.


From an email response from Stefano Bemer:



> La lavorazione Norvegese può essere fatta sia con il guardolo sia senza a
> seconda della richiesta del cliente.
> stefano


Which says that Norvegese can is either with or without a welt depending on the preference of the client. In that case, with weltis certainly not something else.


----------

