# What seperates Crocket & Jones from Edward Green



## Sir Walter

Other than the price. What are the qualitative differences? If they both sold shoes at similar price points would they be seen as equals?


----------



## Flanderian

I'm sure that someone with more detailed knowledge concerning the production of each will offer better information, but from my rather casual perspective, EG offers somewhat more elegant lasts, finer detail in construction and perhaps slightly rarer materials than C&J's top-line Handgrade, but both are superb.


----------



## Sir Walter

If you were to have a shoe from each in your hand, would you be able to point out these qualitative differences?


----------



## Flanderian

Sir Walter said:


> If you were to have a shoe from each in your hand, would you be able to point out these qualitative differences?


That would depend on how much you paid me! 

I would try, but I fully acknowledge that my opinion is entirely subjective, and more informed wearers might disagree. One thing I find characteristic of EG is that they usually look more delicate in a positive way than many shoes, but that is clearly subjective.


----------



## flatline

Flanderian said:


> I'm sure that someone with more detailed knowledge concerning the production of each will offer better information, but from my rather casual perspective, EG offers somewhat more elegant lasts, finer detail in construction and perhaps slightly rarer materials than C&J's top-line Handgrade, but both are superb.


I hear the word_ elegant_ bandied around when talking about shoes, especially it seems, Edward Greens. EG shoes/lasts are almost always referred to as more elegant than those to which they are being compared. What exactly does it mean? Is it an entirely subjective term, or is there a characteristic that can be pointed out that denotes elegance (in a shoe)? This is not an attack on EG - I'm just something of a curious shoe newbie.


----------



## Gurdon

*fit*

A few years ago I special-ordered a pair of size 10 E CJ Whithalls (a cap toe oxford) through Ben Silver, after returning the 10 D's which is the size Ben Sliver normally stocks. I wore them a few times. Although the fit was an improvement over that of the 10 D's, the shoes are uncomfortably tight.

Subsequently I was able to get Edward Greens in a size/last combination (10 F/202) that is a very comfortable fit. I have tried other makes of US and UK-manufactured shoes and nothing except custom-made fits as well as the EG's.

Many who post here about shoes speak well of CJ's fit. I may have peculiar feet.

I cannot comment objectively on the CJ's vs. the EG's with respect to elegance or other subjective considerations, in part because I know which shoes are which brands. Perhaps a double or triple blind test would yield useful information.

I do like how the CJ's look when worn. I just can't walk very far in them. Reginald can wear them to the McKillops' garden party.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Flanderian

flatline said:


> . . . . more elegant than those to which they are being compared. What exactly does it mean? Is it an entirely subjective term,


I think it is essentially subjective, though there may be some broad general agreement. EG may likely be thought elegant by many, Crocs by far fewer.

Another exercise for this comparison might be to go to website featuring each. Pediwear shows a good assorment of C&J, and Leathersoul has some elegant EG's. I can clearly see a difference. Can you?


----------



## Sir Walter

My reason for strtig this post is I have seen both lines of shoes in person at Skyvalet. I too am having a difficult time finding a pair that fit in the C&J because of the narrow width that most models are offered. I find both to be very elegant but I do no see a difference which supports the $300 or more price difference.


----------



## Finian McLonergan

This site (it's in French)



took apart EGs and C&Js and found one particular difference: it seems C&J buys in some pre-assembled components from Bartoli, presumably as a cost-reduction initiative. Both manufacturers were equally criticised for their reliance on toe caps to which thermoformed materials had been glued.

EGs are far less widely distributed generally than C&J, so this adds to an aura of exclusivity in their RTW collection, an aura supported by a substantial price premium. Also, they are better known for their MTO offerings than C&J, and this aura of craftsmanship percolates down to their RTW line, in a way reminiscent of a bespoke maker's RTW offerings.

So the price premium would appear to be mainly a marketing-driven one.


----------



## thefancyman

If you are speaking of Crockett & Jones Hand-grade shoes there is very little that separates them from Edward Green which may or may not justify the $300 difference in price. The main difference which has been cited before is that Edward Green's lasts are considered by many to be far more elegant that C&J. Another difference would be the hand burnishing of the calfskin uppers. Edward Green does a much better job than C&J of antiquing the uppers to create a rich and complex patina where sometimes C&J can be a slight bit sloppy. Also, from my experience the seams on the back of the shoe on the top of the heel are often cleaner and more precise on EG over C&J. However, unless you like a particular model of Edward Green more than Crockett & Jones I would not pay the extra money for such minor differences.


----------



## Tonyp

The waist on each shoe is different. EG can be obtained with a fiddled waist and the sole of the shoe also displays this feature. I have not seen this a C&J HG shoe before. maybe they do it but not regularly.


----------



## Sir Walter

While Edward Green may have more models on a very elegant last C&J does have a few models which are just as elegant. While in Skyvalet, I didn't really see a noticeable difference in the level of finishing. I suspect most people assume that because of the price difference one is automatically better made than the other. I will admit that all of Edward Green shoes come on an elegant last where as some of the C&J have a more rounded toe.


----------



## thefancyman

Tonyp said:


> The waist on each shoe is different. EG can be obtained with a fiddled waist and the sole of the shoe also displays this feature. I have not seen this a C&J HG shoe before. maybe they do it but not regularly.


That is a good point. I don't believe either that C&J manufactures shoes with a fiddle back sole but that type of sole is only available on EG made to order program but many of their standard RTW models feature beveled waists.


----------



## oroy38

I wouldn't say the EG lasts are more elegant. I'd just say they're more classic. A lot of the C&J lasts are quite "sleek" compared to the EG lasts. Even the 337 from C&J is sleek compared to, say, the 808 last from EG.

Aside from the aforementioned differences, I basically think that C&J is a tad more susceptible to what's the "taste" of the day (ex: Last 348) whereas EG continues to do their own thing.

Of course I could be completely wrong since I don't know when any of these lasts were first created.  Just going by what my eyes tell me.


----------



## mczewd

Sir Walter said:


> If you were to have a shoe from each in your hand, would you be able to point out these qualitative differences?


I own two pairs of C&J shoes. Recently I had the opportunity to inspect and try on a pair of EG. Yes, you can tell the difference.


----------



## Groover

I've got several pairs of C&J Handgrades and two pairs of Edward Green.

The differences are subtle more than anything else in my opinion.

1. Edward Green waists are finished better. The waist on C&J HG used to bevel now they're virtually flat.

2. The welts are cut closer to the upper on EG.

3. EG use leather stiffeners in the Heel providing much more support (for me at least). The stiffener extends futher into the quarters of the shoe than the type used in C&J

4. The finishing is better on the EG's. I've noticed recently that the HG's finishing doesn't seem as nice as the shoes they were producing 2 years ago.

For some these may only be minor detail, but in my opinion the EG are a step up in terms of overall quality.


----------



## upnorth

I was hoping to get a consensus from those who have owned or purchased shoes in the quality of EG, Lobbs and above.

Do you still look back and continue to purchase cheaper shoes (such as C&J, Grensons etc) or do you burn all bridges once you have tasted the best of the best.


----------



## son of brummell

I would give EG the edge based on the leather quality, leather coloring and finishing (both upper and sole), the lasts, design, and general attention to detail. 

E.g., EG makes a conventional monk shoe just like any other manufacturer. But one of its models has the strap narrow at the buckle holes. This small design element is not in the C & J catalogue.

Overall EG have a special look which sets it apart from C & J. 

However, C & J Handgrades are an excellent, traditional, conservative shoe, and I have many of them.


----------



## Philo Vance

son of brummell said:


> I would give EG the edge based on the leather quality, leather coloring and finishing (both upper and sole), the lasts, design, and general attention to detail.
> . . .
> 
> Overall EG have a special look which sets it apart from C & J.
> . . .
> 
> However, C & J Handgrades are an excellent, traditional, conservative shoe, and I have many of them.


I'd say Brummell's assessment is spot-on. I have several pairs of C&J Benchgrade and Handgrade shoes, EGs, and Lobbs. I dont think I'm qualified to comment on the leather quality, but IMHO the leather coloring and finishing on the EG uppers and soles is much better on the brown and tan shoes that I have than the C&Js (which I find somewhat dull in comparison when NIB). My comments exclude black shoes - black leathers all look the same to me.

The Lobb antiquing is also in a class by itself. I have a pair of EG Malvern Twill Spectators with a lovely patina around the toe box, but again, IMHO, Parisian brown museum calf is the cat's ass, the bee's knees, etc.

Generally speaking, my C&Js develop a nice patina over time, but my EGs/Lobbs seem to come patina-ready.


----------



## Leather man

upnorth said:


> I was hoping to get a consensus from those who have owned or purchased shoes in the quality of EG, Lobbs and above.
> 
> Do you still look back and continue to purchase cheaper shoes (such as C&J, Grensons etc) or do you burn all bridges once you have tasted the best of the best.


Your question is spot on and the answer to it answers your original post. I own loads of Edward Green shoes, three C&J handgrade shoes and loads of Church's shoes, plus 12 pairs of Gaziano and Girling shoes. All answers are subjective - apart from informed opinon of quality of materials. So here's what I think:

I do not now buy C&J handgrades ( partly because of them being too narrow to be honest) , so more relevantly I've stopped buying Church's - I've been spoilt! Edward Green has spoilt me - they are lovely lovely shoes. One must wear them not just look at them to find the difference and discover why they cost so much more. They fit the foot better than C&J and just feel "right". If you'd never had EGs you'd be very happy with handgrade C&Js provided your feet fit the one width they do!

And that's the other thing about EG and G&G I so value - you can ask for any width fitting there is and they'll do it for you without the astronomical surcharge C&J ask for. G&G is just as good. Steve on Leffot blog makes the same point about G&G

Finally EG tell me their leather is better quality and that the higher quality leather you want the less of it there is at market so operations any bigger than them just cannot obtain the best leather. I suspect the sole leather, whilst very good on Handgrades is also better on EG but no proof of that.

So much more I could say but I've bored you enough now!

TTFN!


----------



## Sir Walter

Leather man said:


> Your question is spot on and the answer to it answers your original post. I own loads of Edward Green shoes, three C&J handgrade shoes and loads of Church's shoes, plus 12 pairs of Gaziano and Girling shoes. All answers are subjective - apart from informed opinon of quality of materials. So here's what I think:
> 
> I do not now buy C&J handgrades ( partly because of them being too narrow to be honest) , so more relevantly I've stopped buying Church's - I've been spoilt! Edward Green has spoilt me - they are lovely lovely shoes. One must wear them not just look at them to find the difference and discover why they cost so much more. They fit the foot better than C&J and just feel "right". If you'd never had EGs you'd be very happy with handgrade C&Js provided your feet fit the one width they do!
> 
> And that's the other thing about EG and G&G I so value - you can ask for any width fitting there is and they'll do it for you without the astronomical surcharge C&J ask for. G&G is just as good. Steve on Leffot blog makes the same point about G&G
> 
> Finally EG tell me their leather is better quality and that the higher quality leather you want the less of it there is at market so operations any bigger than them just cannot obtain the best leather. I suspect the sole leather, whilst very good on Handgrades is also better on EG but no proof of that.
> 
> So much more I could say but I've bored you enough now!
> 
> TTFN!


Not boring at all! Thank you for your input.


----------



## CrackedCrab

We interrupt this thread to bring you pictures of my first EGs. A very powerful gateway moment that got me into higher end shoes.

I have both C&J and EG and can't articulate all the differences but I think the quality of the hides, finishing and last shapes on EG are superior. Plus EG's age beautifully. I would say EG is worth the list price and is a fantastic value if you can get them on sale. All around EG is my favorite shoe. Finally, the smell of a a new pair of EGs right out of the box is my favorite smell in the world. Ok this may be getting weird I will stop writing now.


----------



## teddyriley

I find the leather used in EG's shoes to be a step above. Plus the antiquing and finishing of the leather is superb, and virtually non-existent in C&Js. But I like them both.


----------



## oroy38

I'm not a fan of the artificial antiquing. It's like buying ripped jeans. The antiqued/patina look should come with time. It's part of the joy of moving through life with a pair of shoes that you've had for a long time. The whole "pre-antiqued" thing is rubbish.

@CrackedCrab,
Your shoes are lovely. The last is marvelous and they look great. But again with the severely antiqued toe in comparison with the rest of the shoe. It just looks off, but that's just my opinion.

This isn't to say that I dislike EG or Lobb or anything, I just don't like things that are new, but are made in a way so that they look old and worn (like ripped jeans).


----------



## archduke

Leather man
How much more do EG charge for a different width? I have not appreciated this. I could do this for my next EG, whenever that is.

Cracked crab
you have exactly the pair that I have. Did you consider the suede in the same model? I find these just a touch tight but still to wear them


----------



## CrackedCrab

^^ *oroy* thanks, your point is valid and well taken. I have come to like the deep antique of EGs, but on shoes like Lobb Museum Parisian or Museum Chestnut, it is the mottled antiquing is too much for me.

I can see for some tastes the EG antiquing may be too heavy. It would be a more natural process to have them antique on their own time, I suppose you are right.

I am hooked on EG for good though:icon_smile_big:.

Edit: *archduke* missed your question: these are EG/Polo Mckay on 888. They took a while to break in, now are among my most comfortable pairs. Just stick it out and give it 3-4 months, and store with trees.They will suddenly one day become comfortable. This only happens on the 888 for me, my other EGs 202,606,82, 101 all are fine from the start.

Yes I do have my eye on a brown suede pair, as I own the black also and love them, and would like to have all 3. If the 888 last hurts your feet you could go with a MTM Asquith on the 606 for more comfort, and get a similar last shape.


----------



## Leather man

archduke said:


> Leather man
> How much more do EG charge for a different width? I have not appreciated this. I could do this for my next EG, whenever that is.
> 
> Cracked crab
> you have exactly the pair that I have. Did you consider the suede in the same model? I find these just a touch tight but still to wear them


Last time I ordered EG via MTO to get my width it cost an extra £90 - that was this year so it should be uptodate.


----------



## oroy38

CrackedCrab said:


> ^^ *oroy* thanks, your point is valid and well taken. I have come to like the deep antique of EGs, but on shoes like Lobb Museum Parisian or Museum Chestnut, it is the mottled antiquing is too much for me.
> 
> I can see for some tastes the EG antiquing may be too heavy. It would be a more natural process to have them antique on their own time, I suppose you are right.
> 
> I am hooked on EG for good though:icon_smile_big:


I'm glad you took no offense. As far as the antiqued appearance goes, it all comes down to personal taste. I think your shoes look great and the last and design is very elegant. It's just that if I were to buy those shoes I would personally be a little bit disappointed that they came antiqued and that I wouldn't be able to look back a few years after I bought them and see how the patina has deepened.

At the moment I'm saving up for some G&Gs, possibly MTO. Not sure yet.


----------



## Sir Walter

While the shoes posted on htis thread are beautiful and deserving of all praises, C&J does have models that are just as beautiful and elegant. I do however appreciate everyones input.


----------



## Geoff Gander

I have no C&J handgrades, but I can state for certain that my EGs (both pairs on the 202 last) fit me better than any other shoes I own. The arch support is second to none, and (as others have said) the heel support is great. I've definitely been spoiled, but if I see a nice shoe made by C&J, or AE, I'll still buy it.


----------



## Chief

*Trickers*

I had an interesting chat with a gent who works at Trickers a few months back. We were discussing the differences between the shoe makers in Northampton and he said that Edward Green use a better grade of leather, Swiss Calf if I remember. Apparently the cold climate means the cows don't grow so quickly which makes the leather "tighter" or something.

Also, I think the soles on EG are thicker, not sure if this is an advantage though.

I'm my opinion C&J are producing some of the nicest last's in the UK. EG are very classic.

Overall, just looking at the two manufacturers shoes side by side EG look slightly more expensive, I suppose it's the little differences that are hard to spot on their own. But, as the gent at Trickers said, you pay a massive, unreasonable markup for those small improvements.


----------



## DWFII

Finian McLonergan said:


> This site (it's in French)
> 
> took apart EGs and C&Js and found one particular difference: it seems C&J buys in some pre-assembled components from Bartoli, presumably as a cost-reduction initiative. Both manufacturers were equally criticized for their reliance on toe caps to which thermoformed materials had been glued.


All, with the exception of two cement sole construction, are gemmed)...which, although I don't speak French, should have earned them as much or more criticism as the toe stiffeners...and rightfully should limit their price to about half of what they now charge. Gemming is the cheapest method of construction and the most subject to break-down and degradation..


----------



## Sir Walter

DWFII said:


> All, with the exception of two cement sole construction, are gemmed)...which, although I don't speak French, should have earned them as much or more criticism as the toe stiffeners...and rightfully should limit their price to about half of what they now charge. Gemming is the cheapest method of construction and the most subject to break-down and degradation..


Please clarify, what is gemming and which of the manufactures are guilty of the practice?


----------



## DWFII

Sir Walter said:


> Please clarify, what is gemming and which of the manufactures are guilty of the practice?


As stated above, with the exception of two shoes with cement sole construction, all of the manufacturers on the linked page use gemming. I am not going...nor do a feel a need...to point fingers or single out specific companies. Suffice it to say the names are there and they are hardly the only ones who use gemming.

As for what it is...

According to J.H Thornton there are 12 recognized methods of bottoming and attaching an outsole. Not all of them are applicable to high quality...or perhaps better to say...high priced shoes.

Among the foremost is "Goodyear welted." (Parenthetically, no one, including myself, seems sure if this applies to hand inseamed as well as machine inseamed shoes). Shoemakers, trained in Traditional techniques, attach the welt directly to the insole in a process that cuts a channel into the insole and then hand stitches the welt to the leather "holdfast" that is created in the substance of the insole. Done properly this is the most secure and long lasting means of attaching welt. It will never compromise the fit and the welt can be replaced whenever wear or overzealous repair has left it too narrow to be usable.

There are even machine techniques that can create the holdfast from the substance of the insole and the welt can subsequently be sewn, by machine, to it.

All of this is, of course, predicated on a high quality insole with some thickness that can be incorporated into the inseam.

But in a Traditional shop it is done entirely by hand. And that takes time...far more time than almost any other production method...which is why it is almost never found in anything other than really high quality shoes (forget about price and the cache of brand name...I'm talking _*quality*_ not $$'s). That said, there simply is no other method that creates a better, more stable shoe. Although to be fair, Blake/rapid probably comes close provided it is done with the same high quality materials.

Gemming is a process that involves laying down a canvas rib around the perimeter of the under-surface of the insole. The rib is called gemming. And its purpose is to substitute for the leather holdfast...and to do it cheaply and quickly. It can be recognized by the white strip you see in most of those photos...sometimes "pinked" sometimes not. The gemming is cemented to the insole. That is the only thing holding it (and the shape of the shoe) in place. The welt is machine stitched to the gemming and the resultant insole cavity is filled with cork.

Now, it bears repeating...in almost all instances, the gemming is held in place solely by cement. And that is its first weak spot. The cement _*will*_ fail, probably even before the shoe is in need of a resole. When the cement fails the gemming slips and the shoe will walk out of shape. And anyone attempting to resole without the original last, faces the nearly impossible task of trying to re-position the gemming.

Moreover, canvas is far more fragile than leather. If cotton canvas is used, it is subject to bacterial action--rot, in other words. Stitches pull through, the welt itself comes loose, and moisture and dirt enter the shoe.

Gemming also frees the manufacturer to select thinner and cheaper grades of leather for the insole...or eschew leather altogether and use fiberboard insoles. Nothing visible, nothing immediately apparent will alert the customer to this further debasement of sound shoe technologies. Many manufacturers put a Poron or other cushion insole on top of the fiberboard insole and tout the whole as a "comfort" insole.

If an insole is made of good leather it will last for literally decades. If the shoe is inseamed directly to the leather, the inseam...and therefore the shoe...has the potential to be worn frequently, repaired regularly and might still be passed onto the next generation. What is more, a leather insole will form a "footbed" under the foot that will ensure comfort for the life of the shoe.

Gemming creates the need for cork filler. That cork is fugitive and will move away from pressure points. Insoles filled with cork are nearly always bare of cork under the ball of the foot. And if the insole is fiberboard or thin, poor quality leather, the insole itself may wear out (developing a hole)...it certainly will not provide any cushioning to the foot nor will it mold itself to the bottom of the foot.

Gemming is the cheapest and quickest way to get a shoe together. It literally is the default method for bottoming on the cheapest (think $40.00 a pair) shoes on the market--ala Walmart.

Even cement construction is a better alternative simply because it is not masquerading as anything other than what it is--quick and easy...and ultimately short-lived. And everyone knows it--you cannot pass off a cement construction as a really high quality shoe.


----------



## CrackedCrab

Wow, I'm now worried that my many pairs of Aldens, Edward Greens, C&Js, and Lobbs that I've had for 5, 10, 15+ years, worn regularly, that are all still going strong, with none of the potential problems you describe, are now going to spontaneously turn to dust. I guess I need to get some purely hand made shoes or just save the money and go to Walmart. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Flanderian

DWFII said:


> I am not going...nor do a feel a need...to point fingers or single out specific companies.


Ah, but with all due respect, there *is* a need. Your explanation of shoe construction was both interesting and instructive, but since the issue of the thread is a comparison of two makes of shoes, your assurance as to the inferior nature of gemming as a form of construction and that *"the names are there" *yields nothing unless you *do* specify which you are talking about. Absent that information, the reader is left to conclude that both employ inferior construction, which is a disservice if not true, or that neither does, which is hardly helpful if it is. 

On the issue of cork between insole and outer, I find it odd that it should be described as an indicator of inferior construction. My experience with cork, both ground pieces and whole pieces (J. M. Weston), is that it offers both substantial resistance to water seeping through the sole and thermal insulation from either hot or cold pavement. I have never experienced much in the way of cushioning from the cork between the insole and outer sole, either when new, (I.e., before shifting in your explanation.) or after extended wear, and have never heard it before described as being its intended purpose.


----------



## Finian McLonergan

Flanderian said:


> *"the names are there" *yields nothing unless you *do* specify which you are talking about.


DWFII makes it clear that all the names on the referenced page employing a Goodyear construction use gemming - that would include EG, C&J, JM Weston, Allen-Edmond and Lobb. Unless contradicted, I therefore conclude that this is effectively a universal practice among RTW shoe manufacturers who use the Goodyear process. (Shall we employ the All the President's Men system DWFII? If you don't contradict I take it as correct?)

I'm grateful to DWFII for this insight. I've long been sceptical about the high prices charged by manufacturers for refurbishment, when compared to my very reasonable and competent local cobbler. Perhaps I need to rethink this.

Understandably, manufacturers would be very coy about referencing gemming-related failure as a reason for using their services, as it would draw attention to shortcomings in their own processes. So the question now is, how does one accurately diagnose gemming-related breakdown early enough, so that the manufacturer refurbishment route can be selected over the local cobbler? What are the tell-tale signs to watch for, or, as DFWII appears to suggest, are the symptoms too artfully camouflagued for customers to detect?

It also remains for me to understand the likelihood, over the lifetime of a shoe, of structural failure related to gemming, as opposed to the usual failure mode, that of cracked leather in shoe creases, assuming reasonable usage and care. In the case of long-lived leather such as shell cordovan, would one be better off in the long run with a quality Blake-Rapid construction, vs. a gemmed Goodyear build, as DWFII appears to imply?

Questions, questions.


----------



## Groover

in 20 years of wearing Goodyear welted footwear made using the described method (of attaching the rib) I've never had a rib fail on me, ever.

I would also include that during my time of selling this type of footwear I didn't see any failures. Also during that time (3 years) I witnessed at least 2-3 pairs per week being sent off for repair both to the manufacturer and a local cobbler, some of soles on these shoes were so worn and thin that they'd detached from the welt and you could see the cork (if that hadn't been worn through) and the rib itself.

No doubt water will have an affect on the strength of the adhesive over time if continually subjected to it. In my experience it's not something I've ever witnessed.

just my two penneth worth.


----------



## kev777

DWFII said:


> Now, it bears repeating...in almost all instances, the gemming is held in place solely by cement. And that is its first weak spot. The cement _*will*_ fail, probably even before the shoe is in need of a resole. When the cement fails the gemming slips and the shoe will walk out of shape. And anyone attempting to resole without the original last, faces the nearly impossible task of trying to re-position the gemming.
> 
> quote]
> 
> This raises a shedload of questions and requires a further shedload of answers !!!!
> 
> How long have these unscrupulous manufacturers been using this work of the devil called "gemming" ?
> 
> Why havent all the other learned experts on shoe manufacture both here and over on styleforum advised us mere shoe mortals of this underhand method?
> 
> Why havent the manufacturers themselves come clean on this issue?
> 
> Why has no one even heard of the term gemming prior to its use here?
> 
> Why havent all those "gemmed/goodyear welted!" shoes fallen apart as this statement implies they will? Who is hiding all the failed shoes ?
> 
> I will be buying Crocs until such time that this matter is cleared up and have immediately cancelled my orders for a pair of C&J Belgraves and EG Monmouths.
> 
> I cannot convey how depressed, devastated and upset i am !!! (Groovers comments have at least stopped the suicide thoughts)


----------



## upnorth

Kev, you are not going to be alone. I am going to shop at Walmart for shoes this weekend for the first time in 20 years. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## kev777

upnorth said:


> Kev, you are not going to be alone. I am going to shop at Walmart for shoes this weekend for the first time in 20 years. :icon_smile_big:


This is the worst thing to happen to me since i found out that Santa wasnt real and worse still wasnt a geordie !!


----------



## DWFII

I don't doubt that some customers have gotten good wear out of gemmed shoes...and not all Goodyear welted shoes are gemmed...I have gotten 20 years out of a pair of crappy moccasins before they fell apart. If I had paid $1200.00 for them, I guess I would feel pretty satisfied--that's only $60.00 a year.

On the other hand, I have been making shoes and boots for almost 40 years and I spent the first 20 of them doing shoe repair in order to support my "downtown" shop. Because I was simultaneously a shoemaker, I had/have insights that the average cobbler does not have. And I was/am very good at what I did and do. I have dealt with many many cases of failed gemming. Enough that it soured me on the process. Sometimes even in shoes being opened for the first time--where the cork was so clean that it might have just come from the pot.

There _*are*_ other alternatives to gemming...like Blake/rapid...which are not only yield a vastly superior product but are not that much more expensive to implement. But a hundred pennies makes a dollar.

More to the point, I suspect I have a wealth of experiences that afford me a unique perspective on the mechanics of this (or any shoemaking related technique) not available to individuals who make purchases based as much on the cache associated with certain brand names and less on assiduously gathered information...or deliberate consideration.

The use of gemming is a prime example of what I call the "factory mentality." At some point, with most if not all of these firms, it was decided that "job one" would be making money...not shoes, at least in the RTW line. And in pursuit of this noble goal every skilled shoemaker in the firm was replaced with a machine or a dumbed down technique capable of being handled by a three year old. This reduced payroll and increased profit margins. Every scrap of leather was evaluated for substitution with something less costly. Every aspect of the process was examined to determine if it could be done faster and cheaper. Little or no consideration was given to that wildly hyperbolic notion of "quality" unless it could be shown that to ignore it altogether would affect the bottom line. That is the mandate of the factory and that is the decision tree that is inherent in making the decision to make money rather than make shoes. Making shoes takes second or even third place with regard to the motivating principle. _*Not*_ job one, in other words.

What is sad is that many consumers buy into this same philosophy...they really don't care how the shoe is made or if there is a degree of built-in obsolescence. It's all about convenience and expediency--quick and easy. Big macs and French Fries. Used shoes on Ebay.

Sadder is the impulse to defend the mediocre. John Lobb has always been a beacon of quality and prestige for me. I have looked closely at their work and tried hard to emulate it. But I will not defend second-rate work (especially since it undoubtedly springs from a clone owned by a suspiciously disconnected conglomerate). It is what it is. Many of the names on the blog surprised and saddened me.

But whether as as maker _or a consumer, _I am not responsible for the workmanship (or lack of it)...only the company putting it out there at outrageous prices is responsible. In me, at least, there is no impulse to defend other people's cynicism and/or duplicity. For which I am grateful.

I have had a pair of shoes (given to me) for nearly 20 years. The original cost was less than $75.00. They are not Lobbs or any other recognizable brand name.

But then the manufacturer wasn't trying to foist off shoddy as premier and the buyer wasn't buying the blue shy of a name.

Finally, I once again direct your attention to the link provided. I comment, and (hopefully) provide insight..._*always*_ and forever from the viewpoint of a shoemaker...and _*you*_ decide. Shooting the messenger won't change anything. Nor will sticking your head in the sand.


----------



## adhoc

*Some thoughts:

1.* subjective perceptions of which is more 'elegant' are useless - one man's 'elegant' is another man's 'elongated' and yet another man's 'effeminate'
*
2.* impressions of 'fit' are even more useless - EG 888s do not fit my feet as well as C&J 358s; does that make the C&J a 'better shoe'? Of course it does note

*3.* finally, equating 'more antiquing' with 'better' is the high-end RTW shoe equivalent of preferring 'distressed' jeans


----------



## lee_44106

adhoc said:


> *Some thoughts:*
> 
> *1.* subjective perceptions of which is more 'elegant' are useless - one man's 'elegant' is another man's 'elongated' and yet another man's 'effeminate'
> 
> *2.* impressions of 'fit' are even more useless - EG 888s do not fit my feet as well as C&J 358s; does that make the C&J a 'better shoe'? Of course it does note
> 
> *3.* finally, equating 'more antiquing' with 'better' is the high-end RTW shoe equivalent of preferring 'distressed' jeans


Agreed. Although more antiquing does require more time (human time)


----------



## DWFII

upnorth said:


> Kev, you are not going to be alone. I am going to shop at Walmart for shoes this weekend for the first time in 20 years. :icon_smile_big:


Good on you! You're a thinking man, no doubt!

In passing, one of the points made here (and on SF) is that if a shoe is made to the lowest standards of quality...and gemming _*is used*_ in the cheapest and poorest quality shoes, as a matter of course...why should a shoe made with techniques that are indistinguishable, cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars, more?

How is it that "thinking" people will pay highest dollar for lowest quality?


----------



## Orgetorix

Does the quality or strength of the adhesive used to glue the feather matter? Do some makers use stronger adhesive than others? I only ask because there was a thread on this some time ago, and someone seemed to indicate that the adhesive used for gemming feathers is so strong that it's more likely for the insole leather under the feather to tear away than for the feather to come unstuck.


----------



## Sir Walter

Looking at a finished product does not reveal the intricate techniques used to make the shoe. Consumers are forced to make judgments concerning quality based on material that is visible to the eye. Some qualities that all of the so called premier shoe manufactures have in common are;

1. Shoes are made of premium calf skin leather

2. The soles are made from oak bark leather

3. The heels are stacked leather

4. The shoes are Goodyear welted 

5. The shoes are fully leather lined

6. The leather is supple and burnished.


It is difficult for me to find the criticism posted here posted by DWFII to be of much value because it does not point me in the right direction other than to wonder if quality can only be had via bespoke services. If the construction used by the excepted premium brands is not of high quality and subject to such degradation, why are there no complaints of such. I have lesser shoes as does DWFII that have endured for years, so what is the measuring barometer consumers should use as an indication for how long shoes should last and thus makes them worth the price. At some some point value is derived from aesthetics after a minimum amount of qualitative bench marks for construction are demonstrated.


----------



## emptym

On a similar thread on Styleforum, Bengalstripe posted pictures and text in support of DWFII's evaluation of gemming.


----------



## teddyriley

oroy38 said:


> I'm not a fan of the artificial antiquing. It's like buying ripped jeans. The antiqued/patina look should come with time. It's part of the joy of moving through life with a pair of shoes that you've had for a long time. The whole "pre-antiqued" thing is rubbish.
> 
> This isn't to say that I dislike EG or Lobb or anything, I just don't like things that are new, but are made in a way so that they look old and worn (like ripped jeans).


Simply your opinion. Apparently Lobb, EG and G&G and many of their customers purchasing shoes that are "antiqued" feel much differently that you do.


----------



## DWFII

Orgetorix said:


> Does the quality or strength of the adhesive used to glue the feather matter? Do some makers use stronger adhesive than others? I only ask because there was a thread on this some time ago, and someone seemed to indicate that the adhesive used for gemming feathers is so strong that it's more likely for the insole leather under the feather to tear away than for the feather to come unstuck.


It's certainly possible that in the last ten years adhesives have changed significantly but I have access to everything that is on the market and although I am moving more and more to traditional glues rather than super solvent adhesives, I am not aware of any real advances. Then too, a lot of it depends on the quality of other components. For instance...and ironically...a good leather insole is more likely to pull apart than a cheap fiberboard insole. The substrate of the leather is simply too fibrous and less dense.


----------



## rider

I thought we covered this a couple of years ago......and glad the French decided to copy my lead! Haha......I think it is a good thing, although I would be careful about totally knocking the materials used in the welted examples - not every shoe can be handmade in the lap, and not every client can pay $3000+ and wait a couple of years for a shoe to be made that, based on more than a few customers I serve who also order from Bespoke makers, may or may not fit any better than RTW. Now, I do not do welted shoes (all Blake/Rapid, which I like and tout, but certainly has it's detractors) so this makes no difference to me, but a plastic feather (or whatever you want to call it) covered in linen has been standard for welt factories for some time now. We did this:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...47476&highlight=inside+shoes+rider#post947476

******the A/E example is now outdated.....they now use PVC welts, not leather as in the cut-up.

As well as a longer one on StyleForum which seems to be down at the moment, but is called 'Inside Shoes Martegani + A/E'.

Nothing new here, and I wish I had more time to participate in these threads that DWFIII has been on - he is a great resource for knowledge. BUT, there does seem to be a bit of a disconnect with reality, IMO, at play lately. Not the least of which are examples of shoes falling apart, causing injuries or some comparison 'shopping' of shoes and the typical prices that would better indicate value - which will always been in the individual clients mind regardless.

Finally, the few 'handmade' shoes that are available on the market are not without their own shortcuts - mainly in finishing. Few things are perfect and few makers are without fault if someone wants to look hard enough to find it.


----------



## DWFII

Sir Walter said:


> snip...because it does not point me in the right direction other than to wonder if quality can only be had via bespoke services.


Of course it does. Aside from the fact that I have repeatedly pointed out that Blake/rapid produces a better, sounder shoe with no significant difference in costs to implement, what are we really talking about here? Black painted sneakers with tuxedos? Salvation Army goods? Military surplus?

Aren't we talking about quality? Isn't information (knowledge) that impacts your understanding of quality important to you?

Or am I mistaken? And we're really talking about expediency?

In all likelihood only certain lines of shoes from these firms are gemmed. If people not only questioned this practice but refused to buy shoes that were gemmed, the manufacturers would be forced to go to something better.

The fact that people don't think to do this and even defend practices that they fundamentally don't understand...at some level don't really _*want*_ to understand...only serves to underscore my point about how easily we all buy into the factory mentality.

If you could buy shoes that you knew were better quality for the same price or only marginally more, why would you even consider potentially flawed shoes?


----------



## Flanderian

FWIW, I thumbed through an old J. M. Weston catalog. It specifies that Weston *sews* the welt to the insole. Falsehood, outdated information? I can't say.


----------



## Nick V

DWFII said:


> I don't doubt that some customers have gotten good wear out of gemmed shoes...and not all Goodyear welted shoes are gemmed...I have gotten 20 years out of a pair of crappy moccasins before they fell apart. If I had paid $1200.00 for them, I guess I would feel pretty satisfied--that's only $60.00 a year.
> 
> On the other hand, I have been making shoes and boots for almost 40 years and I spent the first 20 of them doing shoe repair in order to support my "downtown" shop. Because I was simultaneously a shoemaker, I had/have insights that the average cobbler does not have. And I was/am very good at what I did and do. I have dealt with many many cases of failed gemming. Enough that it soured me on the process. Sometimes even in shoes being opened for the first time--where the cork was so clean that it might have just come from the pot.
> 
> There _*are*_ other alternatives to gemming...like Blake/rapid...which are not only yield a vastly superior product but are not that much more expensive to implement. But a hundred pennies makes a dollar.
> 
> More to the point, I suspect I have a wealth of experiences that afford me a unique perspective on the mechanics of this (or any shoemaking related technique) not available to individuals who make purchases based as much on the cache associated with certain brand names and less on assiduously gathered information...or deliberate consideration.
> 
> The use of gemming is a prime example of what I call the "factory mentality." At some point, with most if not all of these firms, it was decided that "job one" would be making money...not shoes, at least in the RTW line. And in pursuit of this noble goal every skilled shoemaker in the firm was replaced with a machine or a dumbed down technique capable of being handled by a three year old. This reduced payroll and increased profit margins. Every scrap of leather was evaluated for substitution with something less costly. Every aspect of the process was examined to determine if it could be done faster and cheaper. Little or no consideration was given to that wildly hyperbolic notion of "quality" unless it could be shown that to ignore it altogether would affect the bottom line. That is the mandate of the factory and that is the decision tree that is inherent in making the decision to make money rather than make shoes. Making shoes takes second or even third place with regard to the motivating principle. _*Not*_ job one, in other words.
> 
> What is sad is that many consumers buy into this same philosophy...they really don't care how the shoe is made or if there is a degree of built-in obsolescence. It's all about convenience and expediency--quick and easy. Big macs and French Fries. Used shoes on Ebay.
> 
> Sadder is the impulse to defend the mediocre. John Lobb has always been a beacon of quality and prestige for me. I have looked closely at their work and tried hard to emulate it. But I will not defend second-rate work (especially since it undoubtedly springs from a clone owned by a suspiciously disconnected conglomerate). It is what it is. Many of the names on the blog surprised and saddened me.
> 
> But whether as as maker _or a consumer, _I am not responsible for the workmanship (or lack of it)...only the company putting it out there at outrageous prices is responsible. In me, at least, there is no impulse to defend other people's cynicism and/or duplicity. For which I am grateful.
> 
> I have had a pair of shoes (given to me) for nearly 20 years. The original cost was less than $75.00. They are not Lobbs or any other recognizable brand name.
> 
> But then the manufacturer wasn't trying to foist off shoddy as premier and the buyer wasn't buying the blue shy of a name.
> 
> Finally, I once again direct your attention to the link provided. I comment, and (hopefully) provide insight..._*always*_ and forever from the viewpoint of a shoemaker...and _*you*_ decide. Shooting the messenger won't change anything. Nor will sticking your head in the sand.


While I respect your knowledge and opinion. I disagree with much you have said. After seeing thousands of high-grade G.Y. welted shoes in the shop I see little fault in their making. While the high end makers may charge a premium for their product, over the past 30 years I have not seen anything significant in terms of them using cheaper components. From my experience I know that some of the companies that makers would use to supply components for their shoes are no longer in business and, other companies have not replaced them. Therefore, the makers were stuck with the task of trying to replace a particular component (material) on their own. It may not always be the best but, what can see (and hear) the effort is always there. The materials used by the high-end makers are always top notch sighting upper, lining and, soling leather as examples.

Further, regarding your "factory mentality" comments in terms of production, if you apply your views to the auto industry, are they not the same? IMO they are. Then the question would be, compare the auto of yester-year to todays which is made better?


----------



## DWFII

Nick V said:


> While I respect your knowledge and opinion. I disagree with much you have said. [snip]


I guess it depends on your perspective on quality. If you think that corrected grain leather is top quality, I doubt that you will miss full grain calf. If you think that fiberboard insoles are acceptable, you won't even look to see if your shoes have leather insoles. If you think gemming is anything other than bottom scrapings, well why in the world would you pay four and five times the price for a shoe that is not significantly different in any way excepting that it has a name that is getting all the buzz.

Or maybe "finish" is your holy grail. But no matter how shiny or how subtly patina'd, finish doesn't have any impact...zero...on the life or fit of the shoe. It's blue sky you're paying for, me boyo, in all these cases.

I was watching a "recrafting" video on another forum where there's at least an equal number of folks who are in denial about gemming. And as slick as it was, the odd thing is that no one picked up on one of the major points I made in my original remark--that it is a slippery slope that leads ever downward--because there, for all to see, who _wanted_ to see, was a shoe that clearly did not have a leather insole.

As for the auto industry, this is an industry that had its birth long after the industrial revolution. There is no "hand" or "quality" standard to compare it to, unless you want to look at the carriage trade. And if we do that, when's the last time you saw ornately carved rosewood appointments or gilded hardware in your Nissan? If only because there is no real alternative, we buy, and buy into, what the auto industry sells...and for the most part it is aimed at the lowest common denominator. Even styling changes are overrated...the new models are almost always just more of the same old...and more importantly are, at the most fundamental level, just more glitter.

Superficiality on every level...that's what the "factory mentality" is really all about.

To understand shoes...really understand them and to understand what comprises quality in shoes...you have to have some sense of what the _*traditional*_ standards of quality are and when and where they originated. Only then will you know what is important and what is not.

Beyond that, as implied in the above post, I didn't write or participate in the blog linked early on in this thread. Like everyone else I had one of my sacred cows destroyed right before my very eyes. But I don't see that defending the indefensible or the mediocre helps. There's no learning or objectivity in it.

And to know what quality is...in any field...only objectivity, unflinching and measured, will do.


----------



## Flanderian

*And what of bespoke shoes?*

If John Lobb uses gemming to make its RTW shoes, might they also use this method for their bespoke shoes? If not, why do they not, if it is their established method?

And what of an artisan bespoke maker like Perry Ercolino?

Could it be that his bespoke shoes might also be gemmed?


----------



## DWFII

Flanderian said:


> If John Lobb uses gemming to make its RTW shoes, might they also use this method for their bespoke shoes? If not, why do they not, if it is their established method?


First, there's John Lobb, St. James Street and then there's John Lobb, Jermyn Street--actually, as I understand it, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hermes.

And if the first were using gemming in their bespoke shoes I would be shocked.



> And what of an artisan bespoke maker like Perry Ercolino?
> 
> Could it be that his bespoke shoes might also be gemmed?


I can't speak to that but I doubt it.


----------



## thefancyman

Flanderian said:


> If John Lobb uses gemming to make its RTW shoes, might they also use this method for their bespoke shoes? If not, why do they not, if it is their established method?
> 
> And what of an artisan bespoke maker like Perry Ercolino?
> 
> Could it be that his bespoke shoes might also be gemmed?


John Lobb Bootmaker owned by Hermes does not offer bespoke shoes only a made-to-measure option. If John Lobb utilizes gemming on their RTW shoe collection then they would most likely use it on their MTM line because it is essentially a RTW shoe that is being customized to the client's taste with an existing last. 
John Lobb Ltd. of St. James Street only offers bespoke but I don't know if they use gemming in the crafting of the shoes.


----------



## bengal-stripe

thefancyman said:


> John Lobb Bootmaker owned by Hermes does not offer bespoke shoes only a made-to-measure option.


John Lobb (Paris) owned by Hermes, do offer bespoke shoes, but not in England, this is part of the deal with John Lobb (London). 
John Lobb (Paris) offers some of the finest and most expensive bespoke shoes. They are traditionally handmade.



thefancyman said:


> John Lobb Ltd. of St. James Street only offers bespoke but I don't know if they use gemming in the crafting of the shoes.


Equally John Lobb (London) makes a traditionally handmade product.


----------



## Nick V

DWFII said:


> I guess it depends on your perspective on quality. If you think that corrected grain leather is top quality, I doubt that you will miss full grain calf. If you think that fiberboard insoles are acceptable, you won't even look to see if your shoes have leather insoles. If you think gemming is anything other than bottom scrapings, well why in the world would you pay four and five times the price for a shoe that is not significantly different in any way excepting that it has a name that is getting all the buzz.
> 
> Or maybe "finish" is your holy grail. But no matter how shiny or how subtly patina'd, finish doesn't have any impact...zero...on the life or fit of the shoe. It's blue sky you're paying for, me boyo, in all these cases.
> 
> I was watching a "recrafting" video on another forum where there's at least an equal number of folks who are in denial about gemming. And as slick as it was, the odd thing is that no one picked up on one of the major points I made in my original remark--that it is a slippery slope that leads ever downward--because there, for all to see, who _wanted_ to see, was a shoe that clearly did not have a leather insole.
> 
> As for the auto industry, this is an industry that had its birth long after the industrial revolution. There is no "hand" or "quality" standard to compare it to, unless you want to look at the carriage trade. And if we do that, when's the last time you saw ornately carved rosewood appointments or gilded hardware in your Nissan? If only because there is no real alternative, we buy, and buy into, what the auto industry sells...and for the most part it is aimed at the lowest common denominator. Even styling changes are overrated...the new models are almost always just more of the same old...and more importantly are, at the most fundamental level, just more glitter.
> 
> Superficiality on every level...that's what the "factory mentality" is really all about.
> 
> To understand shoes...really understand them and to understand what comprises quality in shoes...you have to have some sense of what the _*traditional*_ standards of quality are and when and where they originated. Only then will you know what is important and what is not.
> 
> Beyond that, as implied in the above post, I didn't write or participate in the blog linked early on in this thread. Like everyone else I had one of my sacred cows destroyed right before my very eyes. But I don't see that defending the indefensible or the mediocre helps. There's no learning or objectivity in it.
> 
> And to know what quality is...in any field...only objectivity, unflinching and measured, will do.


Okay, you win.
But a few q's:
Are you empling that Lobb, Grenson, Green and the sorts are using corrected grain, fiber and, other inferior products/components? Please answer directly.

I questioned you directly about your "factory mentality" opinion and you responded with a very skewed answer. Using your thoughts, think back to when you were riding in your parents car. Compare it to what you drive today. Which is more comfortable, quiet, handles better. We can go on and on. Notice I excluded the bells and whistles. Now add your hand carvings to the Nissan. How much would that car cost?

Now, use the same reality in making a pair of shoes. Remember we all have to eat (not a lot).

Walk us through how you would make us a pair of shoes using your preferenced materials, time and, labor, and how much you would be willing to sell them to us for. How many can you make in a day?

Last, my name is NICK do not refer to me as "me boyo" unless, of corse you want to have some fun.


----------



## DWFII

Nick V said:


> Last, my name is NICK do not refer to me as "me boyo" unless, of corse you want to have some fun.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an Irish phrase...even a term of endearment, perhaps...that sometimes comes to hand. No offense intended.
> 
> As for the rest...no.
Click to expand...


----------



## chotzo

Dear DWFII....I appreciate your enthusiasm for the towering ideal of ultimate quality. It also seems your knowledge of shoe construction is hard to argue with.

Your knowledge of the Automobile industry, however is lacking. Your statement:
"As for the auto industry, this is an industry that had its birth long after the industrial revolution. There is no "hand" or "quality" standard to compare it to, unless you want to look at the carriage trade. And if we do that, when's the last time you saw ornately carved rosewood appointments or gilded hardware in your Nissan? If only because there is no real alternative, we buy, and buy into, what the auto industry sells...and for the most part it is aimed at the lowest common denominator. Even styling changes are overrated...the new models are almost always just more of the same old...and more importantly are, at the most fundamental level, just more glitter.

Superficiality on every level...that's what the "factory mentality" is really all about."

I am a practicing car designer at a major oem. The cars being made today are superior in almost every way conceivable to the cars of yesterday. When we create a new model (FMC) it is always a major leap forward in safety/ build quality/ performance (NVH/handling/HVAC/comfort...etc) than the outgoing model. Two FMC's down the line and you are talking about a quantum leap difference.
The lowliest Honda will have hand work at the factory to achieve the best quality fit and finish possible. A high line vehicle like a Ferrari will have hand sewn and hand wrapped leather interior coverings and virtually handmade seats, as do many Audi's, Mercedes and other German marque's. Handmade engines are also the norm on high end performance vehicles. Watch the excellent "Ultimate Factories" series for an education.
The factory mentality is "really" about creating the highest quality/ safest/ highest performing product at the most reasonable cost for our customers. 
Lets say you have a bespoke shoe, that costs 3K. An entry model car from a mainstream brand will cost you 20K. That is a lot of money. As a designer I am deadly serious about making a product that is worth that kind of financial investment. Also understand, that even at that cost (with the factory method), typically about half of a manufacturers vehicles are sold at no profit or a loss to the company. They cost that much to make.
Please understand that the car you can buy today is a fantastically complex and difficult product to make, typically taking hundreds of employees 3-5 years and hundreds of thousands of manpower hours to design and ultimately build. 
As for alternatives to cars?....Walk...in your, no doubt, finely made shoe.
Please do your research before you make such sweeping uneducated statements.
A video:


----------



## oroy38

I think we're taking DWFII's statements a little bit too far. The basis of his argument is that the "factory mentality" that has overtaken not just the shoe industry, but other industries as well, is to blame for the downfall of quality in shoes and other products. And when you have a company that isn't as expansive as some of the major manufacturers in the world, the survival instinct kicks in and you do whatever it takes to stay in business.

Assuming that DWFII's information is factual, and I believe that it is, then even the most respected shoe makers are undertaking these procedures in order to maximize profit. They are BUSINESSES after all. Businesses need to make money to stay afloat. Cutting costs and maximizing profit isn't something we should be overtly surprised by, even though it is painful to look at a pair of shoes that costs several hundreds, even thousands, of dollars and see that its construction isn't what it could be.

It is what it is.


----------



## chotzo

I think most people on this forum have a desire for the greatest quality.
That desire can lead you into intellectual dead ends, like knowing some aspects of the construction of an Edward Green shoe is the same as a cheap shoe made at Walmart, therefore Edward Green shoe=Walmart shoe, or Edward Green shoe is no better than Walmart shoe but cost hundreds of dollars more. Preposterous!

Fundamentally the design and construction of the cheapest Hyundai is the same as a 1.4 million dollar Bugatti Veyron. They are not the same.

To get back on original topic, I have a pair of CJ's and a pair of Edward Green's. The EG's are definitely the finer shoe, but I can't say conclusively why. The stitching quality is superb on the EG's....and they are so light on my feet. I love them!


----------



## Nick V

DWFII said:


> Nick V said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's an Irish phrase...even a term of endearment, perhaps...that sometimes comes to hand. No offense intended.
> 
> As for the rest...no.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I accept.
> But now, how about answering my valid questions?
Click to expand...


----------



## MF177

Although i dont have even the 1/12th the knowledge of shoes that DFW and Nick V have, i do understand value and cost in general. In fact one could say its my specialty.

The cost of shoes versus another shoes has to do with several broad categories:

*I.**Quality of construction**:* this can be of more than one kind. The things you can see and the things you cant. This bears on how well the shoe holds up as well comfort although obviously it has to fit your foot too. 
*a)**Base Materials-* quality of uppers, outsoles, insoles, etc.
*b)**Other, construction methods* -stitching, toe caps gemming/ non-gemming whatever. Applies to both materials and labor.
*c)*You could put quality control in here too or give it its own header. That is how much of a reject rate does the producer have. 

*II.**Quality of aesthetics*- although taste enters here, this results in costs as well. Again, more than one sub-category:
*a)**Aesthetics everyone can see*- that includes the quality, type and extent of the finishing and antiquing. I do believe of the two RTW makers that started thsi thread, EG has richer, more interesting browns than C&J. (Then again who the hell cares if its flat black!)
*b)**Aesthetics you or the shoe maker can see*-i put beveled waists in this category. Nobody seeing your shoes gives a damn when you walk by and they look at your shoes, but you, the maker, and other knowledgeable aficionados can take pride in an extra level of craftsmanship when they pick them up. That hs a worth in itself, but it is separate from the value and cost of the construction quality and of the widely noticeable aesthetics.

*III.**Individual economics of the factory and other parts of the delivery chain. *Maybe one factory chooses to encourage a long term future and puts apprentice programs. Maybe two equal shoe makers are in different countries with different exchange rates and on and on. All sorts of thigns here.
*IV.**Name brand, reputation, scarcity, and other intangibles*

This all has a lot of implications. You could produce a shoe of equal construction quality and beauty but leave off a few bells and whistles and maybe save some cost. In theory it should be possible to make an EG, save a few quid on some of the fancy treatments and change the gemming and keep the same price. You could move the components around. Best construction ,save $$ on antiquing. Best leather, save $$ on construction. Whatever, but theyre mixable.

Hypothetically, Maybe grenson masterpiece is $200 cheaper than an EG to produce all in all, and $100 is due to finishes, $100 due to other causes, none due to construction. The final price difference may be $400, and part of that represents extra profit related to the extra cachet.


----------



## DWFII

I did not bring up the issue of the automobile industry. I am relatively knowledgeable about shoemaking...period. I have never claimed privileged information about any other subject.

That said, oroy38 gets a big +1 from me. And a "thank you," as well. It is gratifying to find people who "get it." The factory mentality thing has always struck me as a particularly fine example of the "Catch22 syndrome"--You can't see the flies in your eyes, because you've got flies in your eyes.

I have two comments to make...regarding this whole issue, including much that applies to my feelings about the automobile industry (and not because I have anything against the automobile industry except as a previous point of reference to to the factory mentality).The shoemaker is committed in a way that the shoe manufacturer is not. If he misses a fits, he personally has to deal with the consequences and make it good. He may agonize for hours or days to figure out where he went wrong. If he turns out rough product, his personal reputation will falter. Even if he gets a bad piece of leather, it is his judgment and his knowledge that is the central factor. He can't transfer the blame to someone else--some semi-skilled piece-work peon. It's him, the maker hisownself, who must shoulder the blame.

I might add one other thing that has been running around in my head...the standards of quality for this Trade evolved quite literally over the course of 10,000 years (yes, you read that right). Every standard...such as 3 stitches per inch for inseaming; every technique...such as hand channeling the insole, or choice of techniques such as welted construction versus say, riveted or blake construction; even the choice of materials--the thicknesses and tannages; and the hidden things such as mid-linings which add structure and support for both the shoe and the foot; came about for a reason. The people who originated these techniques or standards weren't fools. And they had access to, and knowledge of, almost every alternative technique that has ever existed. Most they rejected on the way to the best that they could do. That's what a good shoe maker does. That's the standard(s) the hand shoe maker works to.

A shoe manufacturer merely rejects the difficult, the time-consuming and the expensive. And what's left are the standards that most people accept. That's business. But it's also a commentary on our willingness to buy in.
​Bottom line is, I simply don't believe that such comparisons between products that have long histories and, more importantly, that are informed by standards of quality that pre-date the Industrial Revolution...and products that post-date the Industrial Revolution are valid. The Industrial Revolution was all about factories and the standards of quality that factories would establish. In every instance that I am aware of, the factories abandoned...almost wholesale...the older hand standards (providing such even existed) as well as the skilled artisans that were the primary source of those standards. And reason was simple expediency--the shortest distance to maximizing profit. That's business and as has been stated more eloquently than I could have "It is what it is."

Second comment:I don't blatantly push my business. I offer most of what I post in the same manner and for the same reasons that I administer a forum for bespoke shoe and bootmakers. There, I post detailed explanations of techniques, and essays that explore aesthetic considerations, philosophies, motivations, etc.. Parenthetically, I teach bootmaking and have several books that I have written that do the same. I sell them. I derive a significant portion of my income from them. Nevertheless, sometimes I post excerpts...and not just teasers..wholesale from the books. No charge.

I post these kinds of things because I am dedicated, and have been for several decades, to the preservation of the Shoemaking Trade. And yes, understand that if bespoke making is better understood and respected, I will benefit even if only by some trickle-down effect. But the main goal is to "_preserve and protect_" (the motto of my Guild) and to see to it that the knowledge is passed onto another generation without too much being lost on my/our watch.

I don't want to be seen as an "expert." I don't think of myself that way. But that said, and although it still smacks of self promotion to too great a degree for my complete comfort, I do think of myself as an educator. And as someone who feels like he is doing more than just using oxygen.

In the end you can take the information I have provided and do what you want with it. It's free...no advertisements. Take it for what it is worth.
​Most people (and many who have disagreed with me on this subject) didn't even know what gemming was before I commented on the link at the beginning of this thread, much less how it affects the integrity of the shoe and how or when to attribute a shoe problem to gemming. How would they even begin to assess the reasons why a hitherto comfortable shoe that has just been resoled is too tight?

And yes, I've heard all the glowing testimonials about shoes that are gemmed from many of these same people. That they fly in the face of the experiences of someone who does know what gemming is and has dealt with the consequences is not important. But I will leave you with this thought...

As a long time cordwainer I could tell you that I have never had a misfit. Many, many (maybe most) of my colleagues and contemporaries make exactly that claim. Do you believe them? I personally cannot dispute their claims...nor do I really have any interest in doing so. But I have always thought that any shoemaker who claims to never to have had a misfit is either lying or needs to revise his standards of fit.

Think about that...it's appropriate.


----------



## DWFII

MF177 said:


> This all has a lot of implications. You could produce a shoe of equal construction quality and beauty but leave off a few bells and whistles and maybe save some cost. In theory it should be possible to make an EG, save a few quid on some of the fancy treatments and change the gemming and keep the same price. You could move the components around. Best construction ,save $$ on antiquing. Best leather, save $$ on construction. Whatever, but theyre mixable.


This was a good post. I thank you. As I mentioned several times...here and abroad...Fairstitched construction (what is being called Blake/rapid) is probably no more expensive to implement in the factory environment than gemming, yet it produces a shoe that is miles beyond any Goodyear welted shoe in terms of integrity, stability, and durability. [From here on in I will refer to gemmed shoes as "Goodyear welted" and hand-welted as just that]

It might be noted that there are quite a few RTW shoe manufacturers that are nevertheless hand-welt and hand lasted. Somehow they have found a way...and a will...to offer quality commensurate with price.


----------



## Nick V

DWFII said:


> I did not bring up the issue of the automobile industry. I am relatively knowledgeable about shoemaking...period. I have never claimed privileged information about any other subject.
> 
> That said, oroy38 gets a big +1 from me. And a "thank you," as well. It is gratifying to find people who "get it." The factory mentality thing has always struck me as a particularly fine example of the "Catch22 syndrome"--You can't see the flies in your eyes, because you've got flies in your eyes.
> 
> I have two comments to make...regarding this whole issue, including much that applies to my feelings about the automobile industry (and not because I have anything against the automobile industry except as a previous point of reference to to the factory mentality).
> The shoemaker is committed in a way that the shoe manufacturer is not. If he misses a fits, he personally has to deal with the consequences and make it good. He may agonize for hours or days to figure out where he went wrong. If he turns out rough product, his personal reputation will falter. Even if he gets a bad piece of leather, it is his judgment and his knowledge that is the central factor. He can't transfer the blame to someone else--some semi-skilled piece-work peon. It's him, the maker hisownself, who must shoulder the blame.
> 
> I might add one other thing that has been running around in my head...the standards of quality for this Trade evolved quite literally over the course of 10,000 years (yes, you read that right). Every standard...such as 3 stitches per inch for inseaming; every technique...such as hand channeling the insole, or choice of techniques such as welted construction versus say, riveted or blake construction; even the choice of materials--the thicknesses and tannages; and the hidden things such as mid-linings which add structure and support for both the shoe and the foot; came about for a reason. The people who originated these techniques or standards weren't fools. And they had access to, and knowledge of, almost every alternative technique that has ever existed. Most they rejected on the way to the best that they could do. That's what a good shoe maker does. That's the standard(s) the hand shoe maker works to.
> 
> A shoe manufacturer merely rejects the difficult, the time-consuming and the expensive. And what's left are the standards that most people accept. That's business. But it's also a commentary on our willingness to buy in.
> ​Bottom line is, I simply don't believe that such comparisons between products that have long histories and, more importantly, that are informed by standards of quality that pre-date the Industrial Revolution...and products that post-date the Industrial Revolution are valid. The Industrial Revolution was all about factories and the standards of quality that factories would establish. In every instance that I am aware of, the factories abandoned...almost wholesale...the older hand standards (providing such even existed) as well as the skilled artisans that were the primary source of those standards. And reason was simple expediency--the shortest distance to maximizing profit. That's business and as has been stated more eloquently than I could have "It is what it is."
> 
> Second comment:
> I don't blatantly push my business. I offer most of what I post in the same manner and for the same reasons that I administer a forum for bespoke shoe and bootmakers. There, I post detailed explanations of techniques, and essays that explore aesthetic considerations, philosophies, motivations, etc.. Parenthetically, I teach bootmaking and have several books that I have written that do the same. I sell them. I derive a significant portion of my income from them. Nevertheless, sometimes I post excerpts...and not just teasers..wholesale from the books. No charge.
> 
> I post these kinds of things because I am dedicated, and have been for several decades, to the preservation of the Shoemaking Trade. And yes, understand that if bespoke making is better understood and respected, I will benefit even if only by some trickle-down effect. But the main goal is to "_preserve and protect_" (the motto of my Guild) and to see to it that the knowledge is passed onto another generation without too much being lost on my/our watch.
> 
> I don't want to be seen as an "expert." I don't think of myself that way. But that said, and although it still smacks of self promotion to too great a degree for my complete comfort, I do think of myself as an educator. And as someone who feels like he is doing more than just using oxygen.
> 
> In the end you can take the information I have provided and do what you want with it. It's free...no advertisements. Take it for what it is worth.
> ​Most people (and many who have disagreed with me on this subject) didn't even know what gemming was before I commented on the link at the beginning of this thread, much less how it affects the integrity of the shoe and how or when to attribute a shoe problem to gemming. How would they even begin to assess the reasons why a hitherto comfortable shoe that has just been resoled is too tight?
> 
> And yes, I've heard all the glowing testimonials about shoes that are gemmed from many of these same people. That they fly in the face of the experiences of someone who does know what gemming is and has dealt with the consequences is not important. But I will leave you with this thought...
> 
> As a long time cordwainer I could tell you that I have never had a misfit. Many, many (maybe most) of my colleagues and contemporaries make exactly that claim. Do you believe them? I personally cannot dispute their claims...nor do I really have any interest in doing so. But I have always thought that any shoemaker who claims to never to have had a misfit is either lying or needs to revise his standards of fit.
> 
> Think about that...it's appropriate.


Fine! I would love you to make a pair of your shoes for Me!
We can post the pictures along the waY. Give us the cost when you are done.


----------



## DWFII

Nick V said:


> Thank you. I accept.
> But now, how about answering my valid questions?


Frankly, I don't think they _are_ valid questions...I think you've already made up your mind long ago. The answers are here, and repeated, for those who _*want*_ to see or hear them and at least a few others have understood. Beyond that, I simply have no taste for interrogation...from either side of the light.


----------



## emptym

DWFII said:


> ... Most people (and many who have disagreed with me on this subject) didn't even know what gemming was before I commented on the link at the beginning of this thread, much less how it affects the integrity of the shoe and how or when to attribute a shoe problem to gemming ...


Great point. This is the important piece of information that was new to me. 


Nick V said:


> Fine! I would love you to make a pair of your shoes for Me!
> We can post the pictures along the waY. Give us the cost when you are done.


Why not commission a pair in the usual way and pay half at the beginning?


----------



## MF177

DWFII said:


> This was a good post. I thank you. As I mentioned several times...here and abroad...
> 
> It might be noted that there are quite a few RTW shoe manufacturers that are nevertheless hand-welt and hand lasted. Somehow they have found a way...and a will...to offer quality commensurate with price.


Thank you


----------



## MF177

DWFII said:


> Most people (and many who have disagreed with me on this subject) didn't even know what gemming was before I commented on the link at the beginning of this thread, much less how it affects the integrity of the shoe and how or when to attribute a shoe problem to gemming. How would they even begin to assess the reasons why a hitherto comfortable shoe that has just been resoled is too tight?
> .


some of us, such as me have more fit issues than others, and thus are more sensitive to problems in shoes. others are not.
2nd..your last point here is very interesting about resoled shoes. after combining everything you wrote, with rider's deconstrucitons and my own experience, i also believe i finally understand why more than one pair of shoes was never again comfortable after resoling. Problems with the cork, thin insoles, etc.


----------



## chotzo

DWFII! I've enjoyed reading your informative and thoughtful responses. I really appreciate your efforts towards educating us in the finer aspects of the shoe making craft. I respect those individuals who uphold time honored crafts, even when the culture at large, or the moment, don't value such skills. I find your dedication impressive.

I could only wish that the disconnect from the customer, that some unfortunately think exist, and designer (engaged in the industrial/factory system) were true. Then I wouldn't have to sit in consumer clinics with my customers telling me to my face how ugly my proposal is. I wouldn't have to worry that if I f**k up a 300 million dollar new model development that factories may close and people I've never met get laid off. Or consider that a bad floor mat design may contribute to a paying customer's death. I wouldn't have to read enthusiast forums calling for me and my coworkers firing/ dismemberment/ or worse...sometimes by name!
This is no pity party. That's par for the course, what one accepts to have the fantastic opportunity to craft a beautiful, meaningful product for the customer. A sincere effort to understand anothers craft pays dividends.
PM if you are interested in learning more about the astounding amount of hand craft that goes into vehicle development, I would love to share that with a fellow sincere crafts person.

I do understand (I think) your argument of quality vs price vs name branding. In my own journey up the ladder of higher and higher quality shoes I've had to really consider value for price. I started out with my discount Gordon Rush shoes at 100$ at the Nordstrom Rack. Boy, did I think those were great, most I ever paid for a shoe, and compared to my 50$ shoes they were twice as good. I come here (AAAC) and learn about even better shoes and then try to exercise my new found knowledge. I finally peak out with a fantastic pair of Edward Green made (if I'm correct) RLPL shoes that I was able to score for less than 600 dollars complete with lasted shoes trees on EBAY! After wearing them, I understand the hoopla. They're wonderful, and as for value, at least 5 times better then the GR shoes. Now these shoes still retail for @ 1200$ on the RL website. Are they worth that much money? If what you say is true about the construction methods(and it is!), maybe, maybe not. Is there a viable alternative @ 1200 dollars? Can I get a true bespoke shoe that uses the great quality construction methods you promote for 1200$? If so, then the EG shoes may not be worth the money. But I paid 550$ for mine! Is there a true bespoke alternative at 550$? If so, let me know..lol...
I can get John Lobb rtw shoes on Ebay all day long for @ 600$. I have to assume that is a great deal. I would also only pursue factory resoles hopefully with the original lasts to alleviate some of your valid concerns about re-crafting the shoe.
Now as a single man, making a reasonable (but not amazing) amount of money I am able to indulge my shoe folly to a cetain extant. I also understand, that I am very fortunate to be able to do so. For probably 90% of this country, anything more that 200$ for a pair of shoes is extreme. 1K for a pair of shoes would be considered astronomical and 3K (usually where true bespoke shoes land pricewise..if I am wrong please correct me) just ludicrous. 
But at AAAC, we all work hard and are lucky, so lets assume we can all afford it.
Now, if I could get a true bespoke shoe for 1K, will it be twice as nice as my EG's? I can imagine that. If I get a 3K pair of bespoke shoes, will they be 5 times as nice as my 550$ EG's...well now....wow...that would have to be some amazing shoe.


----------



## DWFII

chotzo said:


> DWFII! I've enjoyed reading your informative and thoughtful responses. I really appreciate your efforts towards educating us in the finer aspects of the shoe making craft. I respect those individuals who uphold time honored crafts, even when the culture at large, or the moment, don't value such skills. I find your dedication impressive.


Thank you!



> Is there a viable alternative @ 1200 dollars?


Yes, Fairstitched (Blake/rapid)



> Can I get a true bespoke shoe that uses the great quality construction methods you promote for 1200$? [


Yes, others have...



> Now, if I could get a true bespoke shoe for 1K, will it be twice as nice as my EG's? I can imagine that. If I get a 3K pair of bespoke shoes, will they be 5 times as nice as my 550$ EG's...well now....wow...that would have to be some amazing shoe.


Well, I guess it depends on what you're looking for. Some evidence of the heart/hand connection perhaps? Or just a bit of machine oil? Or a few flakes of rust? 

If you have fitting issues, good bespoke can address that to a degree that would astound you (not that it's magic, mind). But I suspect that fully 80% of the folks here, wearing RTW, are not fit as well as they could be. Just the simple issue of narrow heels and wide forefeet, make that a given.

Beyond all that, there may be some degree of refinement that, as a connoisseur, you might appreciate--beveled waists if done properly are not just aesthetically pleasing they are difficult to do and add a degree of refinement that is one of the hallmarks of a really fine shoe. Channeled outsoles, as opposed to exposed stitching, is another, for the same reason.

Bespoke isn't for everyone. And poor bespoke is no better...maybe worse, if only for the disappointment that ensues...than good RTW.

How would you know? Objective evaluation. Once you've established that the shoe is made to sound, traditional standards, then look carefully at the fine points--the evenness of stitching the treatment of edges, etc.. Over the holiday weekend I saw a pair of highly touted MTO shoes from Europe. The topline edge was beaded...common enough..._*but! *_the quarter leather that butted up against that bead was not only not skived (refined) but was so much heavier than the bead, it looked like a chop job. And the outsole was sewn by machine so roughly that I was appalled. That's just a couple of examples. On the other hand, I saw a pair of RTW, fairstitched Berlutti's several weeks ago that impressed me immensely.

The devil...and the angels...are in the details.


----------



## bengal-stripe

DWFII said:


> II might add one other thing that has been running around in my head...the standards of quality for this Trade evolved quite literally over the course of 10,000 years (yes, you read that right). Every standard...such as 3 stitches per inch for inseaming; every technique...such as hand channeling the insole, or choice of techniques such as welted construction versus say, riveted or blake construction; even the choice of materials--the thicknesses and tannages; and the hidden things such as mid-linings which add structure and support for both the shoe and the foot; came about for a reason. The people who originated these techniques or standards weren't fools. And they had access to, and knowledge of, almost every alternative technique that has ever existed. Most they rejected on the way to the best that they could do. That's what a good shoe maker does. That's the standard(s) the hand shoe maker works to.


Welted footwear, as we know it today, is basically a child of the 19th century. Until that point the most common construction method would have been the turnshoe made on symmetric lasts (left and right shoe would have been identical). I believe it was only the discovery of the asymmetric last (from the 1820s on) that encouraged the creation of stronger methods of construction. Yes, previously there had been a need for utility/working shoes for the lower classes, but they were unbelievably crude 'cobbled together' (with nails, pegs, what-have-you).

Up to the early Victorian age there were two types of footwear.: delicately soft and finely made for carriage folk and hard-wearing (and probably unbelievably uncomfortable) stuff for those who had to walk. At about the same time, from the 1850s onwards the shoe industry as we know it today evolved, which forced the run-of-the-mill cobbler to join the industry, initially as outworker (work masters would take partly finished product to the various outworkers who did no longer make shoes in its entirety, but only one particular step. From the 1870s centralised facilities (factories) evolved and the workers had to go there.



DWFII said:


> Beyond all that, there may be some degree of refinement that, as a connoisseur, you might appreciate--beveled waists if done properly are not just aesthetically pleasing they are difficult to do and add a degree of refinement that is one of the hallmarks of a really fine shoe. Channeled outsoles, as opposed to exposed stitching, is another, for the same reason.


All those refinements are likely to be the result of an anti-factory initiatives. Those firms of shoemakers that did survive, could not compete with the factories on price so they were forced to go into the more luxury end of the trade. So they invented styles and construction methods that the factories could not compete with.

All those developments you list, would not have come into existence without the factory.


----------



## shoefan

Well, there really seems to be a divergence of opinion here. I understand where DW is coming from, given his personal observations. On the other hand, Nick, who has repaired thousands of shoes, says he doesn't see the frequent failure of the gemming that DW cites. So, what is reality?

I think there are a couple of separable issues. Can we agree that, assuming quality materials, that a welted shoe is superior to other constructions? Perhaps, particularly if you believe that a cavity between insole and outsole is desirable, since it allows the insole and filling to develop a footbed corresponding to the owner's foot. Further, resoling is easier.

So, the next issue is whether the gemming and cork footbed are suffering frequent failure. I find it a bit hard to believe that the quality GY welted (gemmed) shoes are failing that often. Don't Alden, AE, C&J and EG, among others, resole/refurbish thousands of shoes each year? If they were seeing such common failure, wouldn't they implement a different construction method, e.g. Blake/Rapid? Surely repairing the gemming while resoling a shoe would be a somewhat expensive undertaking, and one that the customer doesn't know he is paying for. As for the cork footbed, some argue the cork can help the footbed adapt to the customer's foot; DW obviously feels differently. Most customers don't really care about the construction of their shoes, so why would these companies not change? EG moved to a new factory recently, so they had the opportunity to implement a new production process if this were desirable. So, I wonder.... DW is arguing from experience, but is that experience representative of the larger sample?

There are lots of other issues here about the disposable nature of our society, the preference for quantity over quality, the impact of advertising and marketing on our perceptions, and the notion of a 'factory mentality.' Don't have time to comment on those now, but perhaps later.

One final note: anybody interested in the tension between handwork and automation in the auto industry should read "The Machine That Changed the World," a great book addressing auto manufacturing. Automation -- and statistical process control and other techniques -- have decidedly improved the quality, reliability, and affordability of autos. Not that these lessons have direct relevance to shoes whatsoever.


----------



## DWFII

bengal-stripe said:


> Welted footwear, as we know it today, is basically a child of the 19th century. Until that point the most common construction method would have been the turnshoe made on symmetric lasts (left and right shoe would have been identical). I believe it was only the discovery of the asymmetric last (from the 1820s on) that encouraged the creation of stronger methods of construction. Yes, previously there had been a need for utility/working shoes for the lower classes, but they were unbelievably crude 'cobbled together' (with nails, pegs, what-have-you).
> 
> Up to the early Victorian age there were two types of footwear.: delicately soft and finely made for carriage folk and hard-wearing (and probably unbelievably uncomfortable) stuff for those who had to walk. At about the same time, from the 1850s onwards the shoe industry as we know it today evolved, which forced the run-of-the-mill cobbler to join the industry, initially as outworker (work masters would take partly finished product to the various outworkers who did no longer make shoes in its entirety, but only one particular step. From the 1870s centralised facilities (factories) evolved and the workers had to go there.
> 
> All those refinements are likely to be the result of an anti-factory initiatives. Those firms of shoemakers that did survive, could not compete with the factories on price so they were forced to go into the more luxury end of the trade. So they invented styles and construction methods that the factories could not compete with.
> 
> All those developments you list, would not have come into existence without the factory.


Let me start by reiterating a point I thought I had made obvious (I certainly stated it): shoemaking, and the standards of quality that existed up until the early 20th century, _*evolved*_. Some might try to make the point that shoe factory standards are a further evolution. But given the evidence, I don't think so. What's more, I think a strong case can be made that with the Industrial Revolution a whole _other_ and new standard came into being.

Now, we can sit here and exchange personal opinions...and you're entitled to yours. But since it is unlikely that we will agree on much in this context, and hesitating to impose my opinion on you, I feel compelled to defer to some of the leading authorities in these matters.

We have both of us cited J.H. Thornton whose _Textbook of Footwear Manufacture, _The National Trade Press, London, 1953, which includes this, on page 28:
"During the _seventeenth_ _century_ (my emphasis) the soft turnshoe types began to give way to the thick-soled heavy leather riding boots, at least for men. The Civil War--the first since the disappearance of armour (other than breastplates and helmets) now rendered ineffective by gunpowder--may have been the reason for this. Such boots could not be 'turned' and so the WELTED method was developed (the writer has found some evidence that it was used before this period). 
Welting [snip] is the most important method of construction at present in use."​June Swann, past Keeper of the Shoe Collection at the Northampton Museum for over 30 year, and author of numerous tracts, essays and books and considered one of, if not _*the*_ foremost authority on shoes and the history of shoes, writes in her book _Shoes,_ B.T. Batsford, London, 1982, Chapter 1--1600-1660, Early Stuart"HEELS
There had been hints of changes in shoe styles in the 1590's, the most momentous being the introduction of the heel, which was very quickly made quite high for both men and women. [snip]
With the introduction of the heel came the _*innovation*_ (my emphasis) of 'straights', shoes made, like socks for either foot and _*no longer*_ (my emphasis) left or right, (fig.3) though some heel-less and low-heeled shoes continued rights and lefts into the 1620s. [snip] Rights and lefts returned in c.1800 when high heels were abandoned and, with the development of the pantograph in the early nineteenth century, have remained with us."​R.A. Salaman who, in close collaboration with some of the foremost shoe historians in the world, as well as such inestimable sources as Devlin, Garsault, Golding, Leno, Plucknett, Rees, Swaysland and Thornton (copies of most of which I own) wrote a book entitled _Dictionary of Leatherworking tools c. 1700 to 1950, _Geo, Allen & Unwin, London, 1986.

I quote:"There has been no basic change in the design of boots and shoes since the Middle Ages. The chief improvements have been the development of the welt (q.v.) and improved tanning and currying methods. The penetration by water was, and remains, one of the unsolved problems of shoemaking. There is an old story that when king George IV )_c_. 1830) was asked whether he considered water to be a wholesome beverage, replied, 'I don't know what it does to my stomach, but I know it rots my boots.'

Much skill and effort was devoted to the design of boots and shoes by makers of the period _c_. 1800-1920. A look at their products in museums such as that at Northampton, or Messrs Clark's Museum in Street (Somerset), or in the showrooms of London makers such as John Lobb or Henry Maxwell, immediately reveals an elegance of design and quality comparable to the products of the best tradesmen in other fields--and this in spite of the humble position of shoemakers at the time and the harsh conditions under which most of them worked.

One of the driving forces behind their high attainment may have been the fierce competition for patronage that existed between the makers; _*but these products also exemplify the high standards of excellence in both design and execution that comes about almost spontaneously when traditional skills are applied to familiar objects over a long period."*_ (emphasis mine)​Now let me introduce D.A. Saguto, a prodigy of June Swann, current head of the shoemaking department at Colonial Williamsburg, and one of the foremost shoe historians in the US. Also the editor of the new English language translation of M. Garsault's 1767 _Art du Cordonnier_."Queen Elizabeth I had the new "upright" (straights), and Shakespeare mentions both "uprights" (straights) and rights/lefts, but "uprights" were remarkable, IOW something new and weird. Most of the surviving English shoes from Jamestown, VA (c.1607-15) were made on straight lasts, bent into left and right configuration through wear, but there are a few insoles that were cut/made left and right. English uppers all through the 1600s (and beyond) offer styles cut decidedly left/right, though made on straight lasts for cheapness."

​In passing it might be noted that Garsault's book quite clearly illustrates shoes made very similar to what we today would call "blake" although this was done entirely by hand.

Now I will agree with the idea that some fantastic work was done in reaction to the advent of the factory. Sewing done at 64 stitches to the inch...on uppers as well as on welt... is a legendary example. But such work was never intended for use, only for show and never became part of the technical lexicon of the hand shoemaker.

That said 12 stitches to the inch on welt was often cited as "middling" work--meaning "so-so.' Today there are many examples of highly touted shoes sporting welt stitching that is pushing an almost unbelievable 6 to the inch.:devil:

How the mighty have fallen...but there...right there is the true influence that the factories have had on the Trade.


----------



## DWFII

deleted...double post


----------



## DWFII

First of all...DW is offering information from the relatively narrow perspective of a bespoke shoemaker--a point I have made and emphasized many times. I don't consider it arguing but some may. More to the point, it is _*one*_ viewpoint...one based on a unique perspective, perhaps...but not written in stone. It's not the Ten Commandments, folks--it is free information...and an *opinion*...take it for what it is worth.

As to why these firms have implemented GY welting...you would have to ask them but I suspect it is simple expediency. It is fast, it is cheap, and as someone on another forum pointed out, it creates lots of return business if only in the form of re-gemming and re-welting shoes. Beyond that, Fairstitched techniques require that extra piece of leather--another cost to rob the company of its rightful booty. It may also be inertia--they are still running on (relatively) old or not fully depreciated technology.

I don't agree that having a cork filled forepart cavity augments the formation of a footbed. The footbed, to actually _*be*_ a footbed needs to be created by the compression of some fibers in a leather insole and the shifting of other fibers and substance to fill vacancies.

It is so counter-intuitive that it borders on cognitive dissonance to suggest that a material touted as a "cushion" on one hand, can be heralded as a subtrate for _*aiding*_ in the creation of a footbed, on the other. The best analogy I can think of is trying to flatten out a 60 penny nail on a spring mounted anvil.

Beyond that, cork is in short supply all over the world...not nearing extinction but even wine makers are switching to some sort of synthetic because they cannot get cork.

So what's next? What's next is what shoe manufacturers are already going to--foam rubber of some sort. The trouble with that...and surely another unpalatable opinion...is that not only will foam rubber absorb and hold moisture against an insole but again it is hardly going to allow a true footbed to develop, even _*if*_ paperboard insoles could develop a footbed.


----------



## cmacey

How did a humble campare and contrast thread get so far off track?:crazy:


----------



## Gurdon

A wonderfully informative discussion.

Gurdon


----------



## Flanderian

In my seventh decade of life, I have never had the welt on a Goodyear welted shoe fail. Ever.

As a boy, I always had two pair, a school/church pair and a "play" pair. They were inexpensive shoes, indifferently cared for and bereft of trees. The "play" pair ultimately served in place of cleats during long Saturday afternoon games of tackle football. After succumbing to multiple bouts of re-soling and re-heeling by cobblers who would have better served society in a different role, they eventually would be declared "worn out." This only occurred when the uppers finally split and their stitching was in tatters. Yet always, the welt still held.


----------



## Leather man

So, bye bye J Cusey's "Shoe Pyramid". 

And bye bye the English ready to wear shoe market and makers - for there is NO maker of RTW shoes in England who does not use Goodyear welt method including ribbing ( what we call gemming). DWF11 is not correct in saying that perhaps not all models or lines use gemming - actually every RTW shoe no matter which maker , no matter how expensive uses gemming as part of the GY welted method. 

Very sobering


----------



## Orgetorix

DWFII said:


> Most people (and many who have disagreed with me on this subject) didn't even know what gemming was before I commented on the link at the beginning of this thread, much less how it affects the integrity of the shoe and how or when to attribute a shoe problem to gemming. How would they even begin to assess the reasons why a hitherto comfortable shoe that has just been resoled is too tight?


This isn't even close to true. While I haven't heard the *term* "gemming" used here before, the *technique* itself has been discussed numerous times. And not only have the problems you raised not been brought up as a serious issue, very knowledgeable people here have specifically said that it isn't a major problem.

Which is why, when another cobbler like Nick with decades of experience contradicts you, I remain skeptical as to whether your experience really reflects the reality of Goodyear welted shoes in general.


----------



## DWFII

Orgetorix said:


> Which is why, when another cobbler like Nick with decades of experience contradicts you, I remain skeptical as to whether your experience really reflects the reality of Goodyear welted shoes in general.


It is surely your right to be skeptical...but I am not a cobbler.


----------



## DWFII

Leather man said:


> So, bye bye J Cusey's "Shoe Pyramid".
> 
> And bye bye the English ready to wear shoe market and makers - for there is NO maker of RTW shoes in England who does not use Goodyear welt method including ribbing ( what we call gemming). DWF11 is not correct in saying that perhaps not all models or lines use gemming - actually every RTW shoe no matter which maker , no matter how expensive uses gemming as part of the GY welted method.
> 
> Very sobering


While I have no way to independently confirm it someone of considerable stature on another forum offered that the following shoes were hand-welted, without gemming;

Cleverley semi-bespoke
Gomez RTW
Scafora RTW
Stefano Bemer RTW
Vass
Saint Crispin's

Are not cleverly and Saint Crispin English firms?

And while not English any number of the Italian RTW are Fairstitched (Black/rapid) and not gemmed.


----------



## Orgetorix

DWFII said:


> It is surely your right to be skeptical...but I am not a cobbler.


So? You've already stated that you've done a lot of cobbling in the past, to support your bespoke business. And that your problems with gemming come directly from your experiences with shoe repair during this time. I don't see how it's relevant whether you are presently a cobbler or not.

(Just so I don't come across as too critical in this thread, let me reiterate here what I said over at SF: I really, really respect your skill and experience as both cobbler and cordwainer, and I am hugely appreciative that you take the time to share your knowledge with us here. You know way, way more than I will ever know about shoe construction, and you have taught me a lot since you've been participating on the fora. Thank you.)


----------



## DWFII

Orgetorix said:


> So? You've already stated that you've done a lot of cobbling in the past, to support your bespoke business. And that your problems with gemming come directly from your experiences with shoe repair during this time. I don't see how it's relevant whether you are presently a cobbler or not.
> 
> (Just so I don't come across as too critical in this thread, let me reiterate here what I said over at SF: I really, really respect your skill and experience as both cobbler and cordwainer, and I am hugely appreciative that you take the time to share your knowledge with us here. You know way, way more than I will ever know about shoe construction, and you have taught me a lot since you've been participating on the fora. Thank you.)


It doesn't make any difference to anyone but me.

But if you are really sincere in your last paragraph, it shouldn't be too hard to understand that it is somewhat disrespectful to call a shoemaker/cordwainer a cobbler. (And this has been the case since the middle ages.)

I don't necessarily take offense but I do insist...I've earned at least that, if nothing else.


----------



## indylion

DWFII said:


> While I have no way to independently confirm it someone of considerable stature on another forum offered that the following shoes were hand-welted, without gemming;
> 
> Cleverley semi-bespoke
> Gomez RTW
> Scafora RTW
> Stefano Bemer RTW
> Vass
> Saint Crispin's
> 
> Are not cleverly and Saint Crispin English firms?
> 
> And while not English any number of the Italian RTW are Fairstitched (Black/rapid) and not gemmed.


For the price, Vass is a very good buy? 
Where does Tramezza and Mantellassi rank?


----------



## Nick V

DWFII said:


> It is surely your right to be skeptical...but I am not a cobbler.


Dude....Stop skiting the fair Q's:
How much, How long does it take and, How many can you make in A day?
A proud cobbler.


----------



## DWFII

Nick V said:


> Dude....Stop skiting the fair Q's:
> How much, How long does it take and, How many can you make in A day?
> A proud cobbler.


Dude, yourself. I have made it clear that I don't feel comfortable posting this kind of information on a public forum...simply because I deem it too self-promotional if not self-congratulatory.

If you cannot accept that, tough.

That said, you can google my name, find my website and see my work. Or you can see some of it here.

And I answer private mail or emails... even from rude people.


----------



## Leather man

DWFII said:


> While I have no way to independently confirm it someone of considerable stature on another forum offered that the following shoes were hand-welted, without gemming;
> 
> Cleverley semi-bespoke
> Gomez RTW
> Scafora RTW
> Stefano Bemer RTW
> Vass
> Saint Crispin's
> 
> Are not cleverly and Saint Crispin English firms?
> 
> And while not English any number of the Italian RTW are Fairstitched (Black/rapid) and not gemmed.


Cleverley is, St Crispins are not English. I have no personal knowledge of Cleverley semi-bespoke but I can see the website and notice this line is as it says, semi-bespoke. I suspect the customer will be paying a high premium for this range ( and well worth it I am sure as Cleverley have a great name)


----------



## bengal-stripe

DWFII said:


> Let me start by reiterating a point I thought I had made obvious (I certainly stated it): shoemaking, and the standards of quality that existed up until the early 20th century, _*evolved*_.


Well, admitted, I did forget about boots.

But shoes in the first half of the 19th century (men and women) were rather like ballet slippers, flat and extremely softly made. 
From the few samples I have seen (but not held in hand and inspected), I would say they were turned with an additional light sole attached. 
(I even doubt, they were pump-stitched, although some might have been.)










https://www.songsmyth.com/shoes.html

Even men's boots (away from the countryside) would have been made extremely light and soft:










J Sparks Hall of 308 Regent Street is credited with the invention of the side-elastic boot. 
Those were for Queen Victoria, but similar styles existed for fashionable men:

https://www.dhub.org/object/141906,worn

It is not until the 1840s/50s that lace-up shoes or boots with solid soles and heels (for men and women) came into fashion. 
That is the point where footwear as we know it today, was 'invented'.

I do not believe there is a linear history (X begat Y and Y begat Z) of shoes (nor a linear history of anything). 
Oetzi's footwear did not evolve in a straight line to Berluti (or whoever).

There were twist and turns and numerous _cul de sac_.


----------



## Checkerboard 13




----------



## chrstc

DWFII said:


> While I have no way to independently confirm it someone of considerable stature on another forum offered that the following shoes were hand-welted, without gemming;
> 
> Cleverley semi-bespoke


Hello,

I find this very interesting as, let's just put it this way, I have been told by one of my sources in the shoemaking industry that these particular shoes are made by a certain RTW firm in Northampton that has been mentioned a lot in this thread:devil:

Chris.


----------



## Nick V

DWFII said:


> Dude, yourself. I have made it clear that I don't feel comfortable posting this kind of information on a public forum...simply because I deem it too self-promotional if not self-congratulatory.
> 
> If you cannot accept that, tough.
> 
> That said, you can google my name, find my website and see my work. Or you can see some of it here.
> 
> And I answer private mail or emails... even from rude people.


Very nice. Beautiful lasts.
How many stitches per inch on your Good Year welts?


----------



## well-kept

DWF,
I took a look at the photos of your work via the link provided. You are clearly gifted and skilled. And it was nice to see you credit Edward Green for your inspiration and high standards. So with that, perhaps this debate has come full circle and found a resting place.

Incidentally, the moniker "Dude", while rhyming with 'rude', is used colloquially as a term of endearment.


----------



## DWFII

Nick V said:


> Very nice. Beautiful lasts.
> How many stitches per inch on your Good Year welts?


Thank you.

Beautiful lasts are beside the point for a bespoke maker...for two reasons:

Good bespoke is about fit, unfortunately some people's feet can never be made beautiful and comfortable at the same time. We try. We spend a great deal of time looking at profiles of the last and striving for fair curves...where appropriate. But we have to work with what is there and we have to assume the customer came to us because he was not comfortable even in the most stylish RTW last in an "H" width.

Second, had you seen those lasts before I made the shoes I doubt whether you would have considered them beautiful. For a bespoke maker, creating beauty is in the job description. A lastmaker once told me that a good shoe maker should be able to convert any size last into any other size last and not only achieve fit but preserve the grace and the lines of the original last. In retrospect, I think that was a bit of an overstatement but it is near-as-nevermind to being true.

As for spi, I run at the standard for inseaming...three per inch, occasionally closing up around the toe. I also hole the insole parallel to the treadline in the forepart of the shoe because I accept J.H. Thornton's admonition to do so--it makes logical and mechanical sense to me.

Outsole stitching is done at 10-11 per inch...by hand. Among my peers 10 per inch is considered tight. 8 spi may be closer to a standard...if only because that is considered close to optimum for a a curved needle stitcher.

I stitch outsoles on my shoes by hand. When making boots, I stitch them on with the CN. I do that because when the "western" (read cowboy) boot was evolving and at its peak--in the wake of the Industrial Revolution--machine stitching was the standard.


----------



## DWFII

well-kept said:


> DWF,
> I took a look at the photos of your work via the link provided. You are clearly gifted and skilled. And it was nice to see you credit Edward Green for your inspiration and high standards. So with that, perhaps this debate has come full circle and found a resting place.


I thank you for the kind words, but I think you mis-remember. I don't believe I have ever credited EG. I have nothing against them, per se. But John Lobb is the shoemaker...and the firm (St. James Street)...that I look to.



> Incidentally, the moniker "Dude", while rhyming with 'rude', is used colloquially as a term of endearment.


Maybe for someone in their 20's or 30's. I'm from a different school, as who should say.



> "Dude" is used colloquially as a term of endearment.


Sorry, I'm not feeling the love.


----------



## well-kept

"I don't believe I have ever credited EG."

You have indeed. See below.

"Most of these are done on an old (1930's) West End last with all that implies for good or not so good. I am working with a lastmaker to create several models that have lines which borrow, in spirit at least, from G&G and Edward Green, and several other top end makers." 


The above is copied and pasted from your linked September 3, 2009 posting on the other forum. The "spir" in spirit and in "inspiration" derives from the same root implying "breath", a high level of tribute.


----------



## DWFII

well-kept said:


> "I don't believe I have ever credited EG."
> 
> You have indeed. See below.
> 
> "Most of these are done on an old (1930's) West End last with all that implies for good or not so good. I am working with a lastmaker to create several models that have lines which borrow, in spirit at least, from G&G and Edward Green, and several other top end makers."
> 
> The above is copied and pasted from your linked September 3, 2009 posting on the other forum. The "spir" in spirit and in "inspiration" derives from the same root implying "breath", a high level of tribute.


Ah, yes. I see...I apologize. I was speaking about the lasts rather than the shoes and the workmanship that goes into the shoes, but no matter, you're right, I did credit EG. I'm smarter than I thought!


----------



## emptym

Could DW or Bengalstripe pls explain what "turning" a shoe means?


----------



## shoefan

Turnshoes were sewn inside out, then 'turned' rightside out for wearing.


----------



## Alan Sartoria

Returning to the OP's question, "Edward Green Vs. Crocket & Jones" - My first set of Goodyear welted shoes were five pair of C&J's ordered from PLAL. They did seem fantastic at the time. Having done some research, I arrived at the opinion that I was not going to pay the premuim asked by EG. How wrong I was!

I curiously walked into Saks one day and handled, then tried on a pair of Beaulieus in Dark Oak. End of story. I have since then bought a couple pair of Lobbs and several EG follow ons (now numbering 19 pair).

I very seldom wear the Lobbs and the C&J's are strictly reserved for rain days. The comfort and feel of the EG's are incomparable (yes, even against the Lobbs). I happen to be blessed (or cursed) with flat feet and find not only do the EG's provide the best arch support, but are so, so, aesthetically sublime.

The C&J's in comparism, hurt my feet after a few hours. When compared to the EG's, it often feels as though I'm walking on plywood while wearing the C&J's. And the finish is simply not in the same league as EG. 

I will add though, that the leather on the Lobbs are the most supple. The leather on the EG's are less so and breaking the shoes in is an exercise of "mind over matter" (no fun). Still soldiering on through the break in process on some pair but from the few that have properly settled in, I am sure to be rewarded for many decades.

Alan


----------



## Sir Walter

At the end of the day, is it being suggested that Edward Green and C&J is no better constructed than AE or Alden but uses better leather uppers, and that all English made shoes using Goodyear welt are worth no more than $300. So in essence there is no real difference between C&J and Edward Greens as the original question is presented?


----------



## Sir Walter

Alan Sartoria said:


> Returning to the OP's question, "Edward Green Vs. Crocket & Jones" - My first set of Goodyear welted shoes were five pair of C&J's ordered from PLAL. They did seem fantastic at the time. Having done some research, I arrived at the opinion that I was not going to pay the premuim asked by EG. How wrong I was!
> 
> I curiously walked into Saks one day and handled, then tried on a pair of Beaulieus in Dark Oak. End of story. I have since then bought a couple pair of Lobbs and several EG follow ons (now numbering 19 pair).
> 
> I very seldom wear the Lobbs and the C&J's are strictly reserved for rain days. The comfort and feel of the EG's are incomparable (yes, even against the Lobbs). I happen to be blessed (or cursed) with flat feet and find not only do the EG's provide the best arch support, but are so, so, aesthetically sublime.
> 
> The C&J's in comparism, hurt my feet after a few hours. When compared to the EG's, it often feels as though I'm walking on plywood while wearing the C&J's. And the finish is simply not in the same league as EG.
> 
> I will add though, that the leather on the Lobbs are the most supple. The leather on the EG's are less so and breaking the shoes in is an exercise of "mind over matter" (no fun). Still soldiering on through the break in process on some pair but from the few that have properly settled in, I am sure to be rewarded for many decades.
> 
> Alan


I wonder if the problem you have with C&J has more to do with the last and lest to do with construction, since it has been shown that construction techniques for the to are extremely similar.


----------



## Alan Sartoria

Sir Walter said:


> I wonder if the problem you have with C&J has more to do with the last and lest to do with construction, since it has been shown that construction techniques for the to are extremely similar.


Sir Walter,

On your "last misfit" comment, I am not so sure. I am by no means sufficiently versed on nuance of shoe making. Value (as I see it) is a matter of form and function. The C&J's come in two different lasts (337 & 348) and the EG's run the range (82, 888, 606, 202, 89). The EG's, despite varying lasts, feel unformly better under my feet. So, as to functionality, I prefer the EG's.

As to form (aesthetics), my eyes being the ultimate judge, I will unequivocally offer that the EG's appeal (far better) to me.

Alan


----------



## Sir Walter

Alan Sartoria said:


> Sir Walter,
> 
> On your "last misfit" comment, I am not so sure. I am by no means sufficiently versed on nuance of shoe making. Value (as I see it) is a matter of form and function. The C&J's come in two different lasts (337 & 348) and the EG's run the range (82, 888, 606, 202, 89). The EG's, despite varying lasts, feel unformly better under my feet. So, as to functionality, I prefer the EG's.
> 
> As to form (aesthetics), my eyes being the ultimate judge, I will unequivocally offer that the EG's appeal (far better) to me.
> 
> Alan


I have no argument with that, wear your EG in good health and may you look your best in doing so.


----------



## Leather man

Sir Walter said:


> At the end of the day, is it being suggested that Edward Green and C&J is no better constructed than AE or Alden but uses better leather uppers, and that all English made shoes using Goodyear welt are worth no more than $300. So in essence there is no real difference between C&J and Edward Greens as the original question is presented?


This is indeed what is being suggested - and you can include John Lobb Paris Ready to Wear and Gaziano and Girling Ready to Wear. As I have posted earlier there isn't an English maker who produces shoes that are hand welted - all use the gemming method. Our bespoke friend is therefore positing that we are being overcharged for these makes of shoe and that he would recommend that we do not buy them.

My own experience, FWIW, is that as above Edward Green shoes support the foot underneath much better than C&J or Church's. Certainly on the comfort level , as well as quality of materials level you seem to get what you pay for. And speaking purely personally, I have never had a problem with Goodyear Welted shoes - maybe I am lucky? However I am not so sure. Whilst respecting DWF11 s experience as a fine bespoke shoemaker , I find it odd that such esteemed companies as Edward Green and Gaziano and Girling (RTW) use the gemming method if it is known to cause such problems as have been outlined.


----------



## Sir Walter

It would be nice to hear from representatives of the English companies that have been discussed at length. I would be interested in getting their prospective on the quality issues that have been so eloquently articulated here by DWFII. 

The shoes made by Martegani are Blake/Rapid. I am assuming by what have been stated here that they are better made than John Lobb, Edward Green, C&J and the rest of the English makers.


----------



## DWFII

There is an inherent weakness in gemmed construction. You may never have to deal with it especially if you have your shoes re-crafted immediately upon noticing that there is a hole in the shoe or that the outsole is coming unstitched. Nevertheless from my perspective it is a weakness that is not only unnecessary from the manufacturers point of view, it is unnecessary from the consumers point of view.

Gemming, synthetic toe stiffeners, and iron nails represent...to me...a significant retreat from traditional standards of quality. As I've said before, it is a slippery slope. I am fond of pointing out that one mistake (or in this case compromise) can be overlooked, two are disturbing, but put enough of them together and it soon adds up to ugly.

But editing out all the white noise...

_All things being equal which is stronger? Canvas or leather? If it is canvas why are we not making shoes entirely out of canvas?

All things being equal, which is the stronger, more secure, and stable method of attachment? Stitching or cement? If it is cement, why do we sew any part of the shoe? _


----------



## Taliesin

DWFII said:


> There is an inherent weakness in gemmed construction. You may never have to deal with it especially if you have your shoes re-crafted immediately upon noticing that there is a hole in the shoe or that the outsole is coming unstitched. Nevertheless from my perspective it is a weakness that is not only unnecessary from the manufacturers point of view, it is unnecessary from the consumers point of view.


This is an interesting thread and thank you for offering us your views and expertise. Still, I have to say that absent some form of non-anecdotal evidence, such as photographic examples of failed gemming, I have to go with the overwhelming experience of AAAC and StyleForum shoe consumers. That experience is that no one has reported failed gemming or problems arising therefrom.

So while I don't doubt that the method you prefer is evidence of artistry and superior craftsmanship, it seems to practically speaking boil down to a distinction without a difference.


----------



## CrackedCrab

Taliesin said:


> This is an interesting thread and thank you for offering us your views and expertise. Still, I have to say that absent some form of non-anecdotal evidence, such as photographic examples of failed gemming, I have to go with the overwhelming experience of AAAC and StyleForum shoe consumers. That experience is that no one has reported failed gemming or problems arising therefrom.
> 
> So while I don't doubt that the method you prefer is evidence of artistry and superior craftsmanship, it seems to practically speaking boil down to a distinction without a difference.


I love you man.


----------



## windsor

Thank you DWFII for sharing your views on this forum. Your information has sparked many thoughtful and insightful comments. I hope you continue to post on AAAC.


----------



## MF177

*DFW
*
can we say that gemming and the need for a cork footbed are part and parcel of the same construction. In other words, in your hand welted shoes, no cork is needed because a)youre using top grade thick leather insoles and b)because of your attachment method. correct so far?

to answer a question you posed, i have often, but by no means always, had shoes resoled by reliable cobblers and they were tight therafter.

I have never had a pair of shoes 'fail' but i have twice in 20 years had comfortable shoes become highly uncomfortable after a resoling and even once had a pair re-resoled in checked in order to fix the problem but to no avail. These were very comfortable (good but not the top quality-) RTW GY welted shoes. Afterward they felt wrong under part of the foot as if perhaps there were an issue with the cork or perhaps the insole itself? (never was able to get them to be comfortable again)

is it fair to say this is perhaps a function of the whole cork-gemming complex perhaps coupled with an inferior insole? Does the presence of cork and gemming potentiallly lead to this problem i described? Would this be essentially non-existent in a hand welted shoe?

if what i say is correct, is this perhaps then a better understanding of 'failure' of the shoe. It sorta works ok and looks great, but after one resoling, a $400 shoe is effectively consigned to the back of the closet because i cant comfortably walk more than a block or two in it- a shoe i used to walk 40 blocks in each way to work about once every two weeks.

By failure, perhaps its really lost utility


----------



## emptym

^I've had a pair of shoes that were resoled fit tighter. I assumed it was because the cork had been replaced. What are the causes, DW? Was the gemming possibly re-glued in a different way?


shoefan said:


> Turnshoes were sewn inside out, then 'turned' rightside out for wearing.


THank you.


----------



## Leather man

Sir Walter said:


> It would be nice to hear from representatives of the English companies that have been discussed at length. I would be interested in getting their prospective on the quality issues that have been so eloquently articulated here by DWFII.
> 
> The shoes made by Martegani are Blake/Rapid. I am assuming by what have been stated here that they are better made than John Lobb, Edward Green, C&J and the rest of the English makers.


It is my view that the shoemakers do not get involved with discussions on the fora because they do not want to get embroilled. Take that as you will.

Blake/Rapid is no better than GYwelting in a wet climate. It lets water in. The diagrams all show why. The stiching goes through from the outsole, the midsole and into the insole. It is fine for showery weather but not the kind of wet we get in the UK. Therefore I do not accept what is being said here about Blake/Rapid.

I am sure DWF11 is right that handwelting is the best option for fit especially. However there is a reason this is only offered on bespoke shoes in the vast majority of cases ( I don't know what kind of welting Vass use or St Crispins - but they use cheap, yet highly skilled labour so......) It is very expensive because it is labour intensive. Any RTW maker going down this route would not sell many shoes because of the price. I've asked people I know in three English companies about this ( and no I will not say who because I was asked not to) and they all couldn't believe what is being said here about GYwelting and ribbing ( what we call gemming). They all said "Do y ou know how expensive our shoes would be if we handwelted - we wouldn't sell very many and you might as well go bespoke if you can pay that kind of money!" I am sure , quite sure they are right. What is the point in making shoes no one wants?

That being said I really do not agree that using ribbing is such a bad thing. It allows welted shoes to be factory made , shoes that are wearable and repairable even in the wettest of conditions.

I do not doubt that you are a real craftsman DWF11 and your website shows this. Maybe its because of that you baulk at factory methods but without these methods most of us wouldn't be wearing good shoes at all. I also don't doubt that you've seen some GY welted shoes with ribbing broken down or adrift back when you repaired shoes but I don't accept your sample is statisically significant.

Moreover, if there were such an obvious ( at least to those in the know - like cobblers who see these things, or makers - like Janne) problem then don't we think someone would have blown the whistle by now? I mean the whole of the American and English RTW shoe industry depends on this process and has done for decades.

I believe that shoemakers like Edward Green and Gaziano and Girling have real integrity and would not use a method so flawed, so weak, so underhanded almost. They use it because it works and is strong.

There isn't a method that is flawless. I bet fault could be found with any welting method used if enough shoes were dissected. Blake/Rapid of course isn't a welting method.

DWF11, you also say when we buy GYwelted shoes using the ribbing method we are really buying a "name" because they are not worth the money. I own, Loakes ( 2 pairs only), Cheaney, Crockett and Jones, Church's , Edward Green ( a lot) and Gaziano and Girling ( quite a lot). I can assure you that there is a clearly discernable increase in quality the higher up the price ladder you go. And unless the factories are lying through their teeth to me, their profit margins are not high - I was surprised. Sure the shops sell the shoes on at a profit but at a margin much lower than in the clothing industry. I have to say therefore that what you accuse them of is unfair. You may have insight into the raw materials costs but not intimate knowledge of running a small UK shoe factory with very high labour costs. - which by the way I am happy to pay rather than using near slave labour somewhere a very long way away.

In short, I think here we have a real craftsman who is passionate about his craft - and such folk are usually intolerant of anything less than the best. However give me a Gooyear welted shoe anyday over a Blake/Rapid . I have worn them for over 20years and never ever had a problem. Nick V and esteemed cobbler here has never either. Sadly I do not have a good cobbler near me so send mine back to the factory anyway to be repaired - using the same machinery they were built with. This I am perfectly happy to do. I would not buy a Rolls Royce and have it serviced at a back street garage nor would I buy Edward Green shoes and have them repaired at Timpsons ( my local!) I like to look after my things!


----------



## StrayanPom

Alan Sartoria said:


> Sir Walter,
> 
> On your "last misfit" comment, I am not so sure. I am by no means sufficiently versed on nuance of shoe making. Value (as I see it) is a matter of form and function. The C&J's come in two different lasts (337 & 348) and the EG's run the range (82, 888, 606, 202, 89). The EG's, despite varying lasts, feel unformly better under my feet. So, as to functionality, I prefer the EG's.
> 
> As to form (aesthetics), my eyes being the ultimate judge, I will unequivocally offer that the EG's appeal (far better) to me.
> 
> Alan


If we assume that a different last number equals a different last, I am perplexed as to why you say the C&J's come in two lasts (337 & 348): I own two pairs of C&J's on lasts 318 and 332. Both G (wide fitting). No matter how elegant EG's are (and that is subjective), no matter how well made EG's are (and that is a more objectively measured standard), none of EGs that I tried are comfortable on my feet. And only the G fit C&Js. SO, for form, EG's may have the EdGe, but C&J function as foot covers far more comfortably for me.

In the end, we choose what we like and hopefully thereafter like what we chose


----------



## StrayanPom

Alan Sartoria said:


> Sir Walter,
> 
> On your "last misfit" comment, I am not so sure. I am by no means sufficiently versed on nuance of shoe making. Value (as I see it) is a matter of form and function. The C&J's come in two different lasts (337 & 348) and the EG's run the range (82, 888, 606, 202, 89). The EG's, despite varying lasts, feel unformly better under my feet. So, as to functionality, I prefer the EG's.
> 
> As to form (aesthetics), my eyes being the ultimate judge, I will unequivocally offer that the EG's appeal (far better) to me.
> 
> Alan


If we assume that a different last number equals a different last, I am perplexed as to why you say the C&J's come in two lasts (337 & 348): I own two pairs of C&J's on lasts 318 and 332. Both G (wide fitting). No matter how elegant EG's are (and that is subjective), no matter how well made EG's are (and that is a more objectively measured standard), none of EGs that I tried are comfortable on my feet. And only the G fit C&Js. SO, for form, EG's may have the EdGe, but C&J function as foot covers far more comfortably for me.

In the end, we choose what we like and hopefully thereafter like what we chose


----------



## Matt S

StrayanPom said:


> If we assume that a different last number equals a different last, I am perplexed as to why you say the C&J's come in two lasts (337 & 348): I own two pairs of C&J's on lasts 318 and 332. Both G (wide fitting). No matter how elegant EG's are (and that is subjective), no matter how well made EG's are (and that is a more objectively measured standard), none of EGs that I tried are comfortable on my feet. And only the G fit C&Js. SO, for form, EG's may have the EdGe, but C&J function as foot covers far more comfortably for me.
> 
> In the end, we choose what we like and hopefully thereafter like what we chose


I believe he was referring to Handgrade C&J.


----------



## Flanderian

I sit here looking with pleasure and admiration at the 25-year-old pair of Church's brown buffalo suede brogues that rest upon my feet. Never a problem with the welt. Yet I am sensitive to the artisan cordwainer who makes beautiful shoes using a demonstrably superior method, but who must accept less than famed names demand. And I have no doubt but that very often one must pay 100% more to get something 10% better. Because, unfortunately, while the cost of living has risen, the cost of living well is often unsupportable.


----------



## rider

> Leather man.......Blake/Rapid is no better than GYwelting in a wet climate. It lets water in. The diagrams all show why. The stiching goes through from the outsole, the midsole and into the insole. It is fine for showery weather but not the kind of wet we get in the UK. Therefore I do not accept what is being said here about Blake/Rapid.


I agree with this post in it's entirety. With the only correction that Blake/Rapid is not made as described - Blake is this, not Rapid. In Blake/Rapid there are two seperate stitches - no connection from the ground to the insole. It's a watertight method. The Midsole is Blaked/MacKay'd to the insole and the outsole is stitched to the midsole by the Rapid stitcher - 2 different stitchers, and 2 different planes. The stitch line is not straight thru.


----------



## Nick V

Leather man--

Well put. We know the price points of the makers in the cross-hairs here. There are little or no deficiencies in their products or manufacturing processes/techniques. If they ramped up in the way suggested how much would they have to charge for their shoes?
For what reason? Who would buy them?


----------



## DWFII

rider said:


> I agree with this post in it's entirety. With the only correction that Blake/Rapid is not made as described - Blake is this, not Rapid. In Blake/Rapid there are two seperate stitches - no connection from the ground to the insole. It's a watertight method. The Midsole is Blaked/MacKay'd to the insole and the outsole is stitched to the midsole by the Rapid stitcher - 2 different stitchers, and 2 different planes. The stitch line is not straight thru.


Nice diagram. I think a small clarification is in order. I don't care for the term Blake/Rapid just because of the confusion you addressed. People don't understand. I suspect few realize that all GY is really GY/Rapid, come down to it. That's why I go back to Thornton's classification of "fairstitched."

The thing I've said over and over is that I suspect fairstitched construction would cost no more and perhaps even less to implement than GY. Why? Because it takes at least two very specialized machines to do GY and only one, fairly common machine, to do FS. Namely a lockstitch McKay.

And it certainly results in a much better constructed and more stable shoe.

A really thriving shoe repair might very well have a lockstitch McKay. I always wanted one but as the boot business grew I found I didn't need it and lost interest. I have no idea what one would cost these days, so I am admittedly speculating but I doubt it approaches the $50k-$75k apiece the more specialized machines probably cost.

I might add that I am virtually certain that the "Blake stitch" could also be done by hand fairly easily using either pump construction techniques or the simple expedient of a long section of steel guitar string. Which, if nothing else, would allow the very occasional repair without the shoe needing re-crafting.


----------



## Leather man

rider said:


> I agree with this post in it's entirety. With the only correction that Blake/Rapid is not made as described - Blake is this, not Rapid. In Blake/Rapid there are two seperate stitches - no connection from the ground to the insole. It's a watertight method. The Midsole is Blaked/MacKay'd to the insole and the outsole is stitched to the midsole by the Rapid stitcher - 2 different stitchers, and 2 different planes. The stitch line is not straight thru.


Thank you for the clarification Rider - good to learn a bit more about another process from someone like you.


----------



## Taliesin

DWFII said:


> _All things being equal which is stronger? Canvas or leather? If it is canvas why are we not making shoes entirely out of canvas?
> 
> All things being equal, which is the stronger, more secure, and stable method of attachment? Stitching or cement? If it is cement, why do we sew any part of the shoe? _


I was thinking more about this, and these seem like the wrong questions. It isn't whether leather is stronger than canvas, or whether stitching is more secure than cement. There are stronger materials than leather, and stronger binders than thread. Maximizing strength isn't the exclusive goal.

The better questions are whether canvas is _strong enough_ for the job, and whether cement is _secure enough_ for the job. Absent clear evidence that they aren't, a reasonable assumption, based on decades of industry practice, would appear to be that they are.


----------



## DWFII

Taliesin said:


> I was thinking more about this, and these seem like the wrong questions. It isn't whether leather is stronger than canvas, or whether stitching is more secure than cement. There are stronger materials than leather, and stronger binders than thread. Maximizing strength isn't the exclusive goal.
> 
> The better questions are whether canvas is _strong enough_ for the job, and whether cement is _secure enough_ for the job. Absent clear evidence that they aren't, a reasonable assumption, based on decades of industry practice, would appear to be that they are.


Good enough for government work, Eh?

No, you have missed it...perhaps because you aren't as close to it as I am. We want the strongest, and the most stable and the most flexible, all at once. Some of that may seem contradictory but that's the beauty of the leather and the thread. Similarly, nails seem stronger than pegs, and all things being equal iron is stronger than wood. But, the rusting problems aside, pegs flex...some would say a critical characteristic of any vertical fastener that is going into a shoe...and thus the tearing that a really hard material under torsional stresses and embedded in a softer substrate inflicts, is avoided.


----------



## DWFII

bengal-stripe said:


> Well, admitted, I did forget about boots.
> 
> But shoes in the first half of the 19th century (men and women) were rather like ballet slippers, flat and extremely softly made. It is not until the 1840s/50s that lace-up shoes or boots with solid soles and heels (for men and women) came into fashion.
> That is the point where footwear as we know it today, was 'invented'.
> 
> I do not believe there is a linear history (X begat Y and Y begat Z) of shoes (nor a linear history of anything).
> Oetzi's footwear did not evolve in a straight line to Berluti (or whoever).
> 
> There were twist and turns and numerous _cul de sac_.


"Welted construction "began" in Germany in the late 1400s, then replacing turnshoe construction exclusively. Welted dominated through the 1600, 1700s, and 1800s. 

 With a few Coptic exceptions that spring to mind, there are no symmetrical "straight" shoe (with uppers joined to separate thick sole) or "straight" lasts before c. 1600. There are plenty of "straight" lasted shoes 1600-1700s with uppers cut decidedly left and right, i.e. foot-specific. And left and right lasts came back into fashionable wear during the Neo-Classical Revival in the late 1790s. They were even heavily advertised in the (provincial) US from c.1800 onward. The year 1820 only marks the year Blanchard's US last-duplicating lathe was patented (actually 1819). It never took off for making lasts until post 1850s, after somebody invented the grading adjustment gizmo for it. In the 1800s right and left lasts were for "better" footwear, "straights" (cheaper") for "cheaper footwear. "The science is in" on this."-- _pers. com. D. A. Saguto 12/9/09, Master Shoemaker and Head of the Shoemaking Faculty at Colonial Williamsburg, one of the foremost shoe historians in the world and "author/translator" of M. de Garsault's 1767 __Art du Cordonnier (Art of the Shoemaker)_​ 
Since you are British and may not be familiar with the scholarly world of shoe historians, esp. those in the US, I strongly suggest that you contact June Swann, past curator of the Shoe Collection at the Northampton Shoe Museum, or, in lieu of that, the current curator...if you feel a need for verification..


----------



## Taliesin

DWFII said:


> Good enough for government work, Eh?
> 
> No, you have missed it...perhaps because you aren't as close to it as I am. We want the strongest, and the most stable and the most flexible, all at once. Some of that may seem contradictory but that's the beauty of the leather and the thread. Similarly, nails seem stronger than pegs, and all things being equal iron is stronger than wood. But, the rusting problems aside, pegs flex...some would say a critical characteristic of any vertical fastener that is going into a shoe...and thus the tearing that a really hard material under torsional stresses and embedded in a softer substrate inflicts, is avoided.


I think "good enough" does capture what I'm getting at. If the gemming never fails, then it is "good enough", even if other, stronger materials are available. If the gemming only rarely fails, then it's a rational cost/benefit decision.


----------



## DWFII

Taliesin said:


> I think "good enough" does capture what I'm getting at. If the gemming never fails, then it is "good enough", even if other, stronger materials are available. If the gemming only rarely fails, then it's a rational cost/benefit decision.


Well, I accept that "good enough" is what you're getting at but it's not exactly the definition of "quality" is it?

Beyond that, you have simply reiterated one of my major objections to the technique--it is the sine qua non of the factory mentality--the profit margin.


----------



## Taliesin

DWFII said:


> Well, I accept that "good enough" is what you're getting at but it's not exactly the definition of "quality" is it?


But it is. Quality meaning "good enough to provide the service expected of the product." If I expect the gemming to never fail, and it never fails, then the shoe has lived up to the quality expectation I have for it vis-a-vis this particular facet of shoe construction. From a usage standpoint, I'd have no reason to want to buy a more expensive product if the cheaper product does the same thing.

Of course, there are other reasons to buy the more expensive product, including supporting craftsmen, supporting traditional techniques, and enjoying a more personal experience. A lack of those reasons, however, doesn't equate to a lower quality of shoe, but instead to a less interesting shoe.


----------



## Sir Walter

Given what has been shown here with the various shoe dissections, what is the difference between C&J Handmade and Bench grade shoes? They both look like the same construction to my very novice eyes.


----------



## Nick V

A beautiful pair of VASS model "Aldi" came in today. We removed the liner to confirm they were Goodyear welted. I never intended to state that Blake/rapid is better or vice/versa only there is nothing wrong with Goodyear. I'll stand by that.


----------



## Groover

Sir Walter said:


> Given what has been shown here with the various shoe dissections, what is the difference between C&J Handmade and Bench grade shoes? They both look like the same construction to my very novice eyes.


The quality of the leather on the HG is better. It feels more luxurious, buttery even. HG have channelled soles, also they hide the sole stitches when looking at the welt. I'm sure DWF will explain the exact term, but I understand when the machine stitches the sole on it cuts a slit in the welt and then flattens it back down once the stitch is in place. They also have a full leather sock liner, some like this feature some (me included) don't.

Also, only the HG models feature the 337 last.


----------



## DWFII

Taliesin said:


> But it is. Quality meaning "good enough to provide the service expected of the product." If I expect the gemming to never fail, and it never fails, then the shoe has lived up to the quality expectation I have for it vis-a-vis this particular facet of shoe construction. From a usage standpoint, I'd have no reason to want to buy a more expensive product if the cheaper product does the same thing.
> 
> Of course, there are other reasons to buy the more expensive product, including supporting craftsmen, supporting traditional techniques, and enjoying a more personal experience. A lack of those reasons, however, doesn't equate to a lower quality of shoe, but instead to a less interesting shoe.


This strikes me as either obvious sophistry or the penultimate answer to the OP's question--"What separates Crocket and Jones from Edward Green?" _Nothing...they're both "good enough."_

And perhaps not that much separates them from a Walmart level shoe either. Again, they're good enough.

Or even a pair of running shoes painted black....now _*that*_ would be "interesting."

Rather than letting the factories and the factory penchant for reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, set our standards and our expectations for us, I think we need to foster another set of standards particularly for those things we consider "top shelf" or quality. And particularly among people who aspire to a certain air of distinction and taste.


----------



## well-kept

DWFII said:


> This strikes me as either obvious sophistry or the penultimate answer to the OP's question.


If that's the penultimate answer, what is the ultimate answer?

DWF, permit me a brief anecdote: I took a pair of my Lobb St. James oxfords into a custom shoemaker in NYC. They only needed their toplifts replaced and it would have been absurd to return them to London. The owner of the shop took my shoes in his hands, bent them every way possible and proceeded to tell me how inferior Lobb St. James in general, and my Lobbs as well, were in comparison to his own product. He did everything he could to persuade me to place an order with him.

What I did instead, against my instincts, was leave my Lobbs with him for new toplifts. Quite apart from the fact that he replaced them with lifts of the incorrect iron, and charged me more than he or anyone might have charged for performing the same task on a 'lesser' shoe, I was put off by his knocking something I owned and loved. I never went back to him for anything, let alone custom-made footwear, because of his arrogance.

Even if his work were superior to Lobb, such superiority would be very well-served by humility, in the same degree that we acknowledge that the greater one's strength, the greater the requirement of restraint in using it.

I enjoy the few pair of hand-lasted shoes I own and I enjoy my factory-produced shoes just as much, for their own qualities. Having been in third-world countries and seen people going barefoot in appalling circumstances, I always feel fortunate to have shoes at all. In that regard, we are all kings.


----------



## AlanC

DWFII said:


> This strikes me as either obvious sophistry or the penultimate answer to the OP's question--"What separates Crocket and Jones from Edward Green?" _Nothing...they're both "good enough."_
> 
> *And perhaps not that much separates them from a Walmart level shoe either.* Again, they're good enough.


I'm sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on the forum. Good grief.


----------



## well-kept

AlanC said:


> I'm sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on the forum. Good grief.


Alan, thanks. That's what I was trying to get at but you nailed it in fewer words.


----------



## RJman

Nick V said:


> A beautiful pair of VASS model "Aldi" came in today. We removed the liner to confirm they were Goodyear welted. I never intended to state that Blake/rapid is better or vice/versa only there is nothing wrong with Goodyear. I'll stand by that.


Are you saying that Vass are not hand welted? Or that they are gemmed?


----------



## Taliesin

DWFII said:


> This strikes me as either obvious sophistry or the penultimate answer to the OP's question--"What separates Crocket and Jones from Edward Green?" _Nothing...they're both "good enough."_
> 
> And perhaps not that much separates them from a Walmart level shoe either. Again, they're good enough.
> 
> Or even a pair of running shoes painted black....now _*that*_ would be "interesting."


Sophistry? You give me too much credit. I'm not that sophisticated.

I was addressing "good enough" as to this one particular fact of shoe construction. Of course EG and C&J have other differences, such as leather quality, finish, etc.



> Rather than letting the factories and the factory penchant for reducing everything to the lowest common denominator, set our standards and our expectations for us, I think we need to foster another set of standards particularly for those things we consider "top shelf" or quality. And particularly among people who aspire to a certain air of distinction and taste.


Sure. But until it is demonstrated that gemming is an inferior method (not just an easier one), I don't see hand welting as automatically being a minimum standard for "top shelf" status.


----------



## DWFII

AlanC said:


> I'm sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on the forum. Good grief.


Oh, really? How about telling this dumb old shoemaker how a Walmart shoe with leather uppers and goodyear construction (gemming and all) differs from any of these brands. And before we get into such amorphous attributes as "finish" (read "shine) or "quality of leather" (which is dern hard to categorize even for someone who has worked with leather for over forty years) let me ask also how would you know? Some of the every firms represented by the demontage early on in this thread have been castigated for "corrected grain" leather. But I'm from Missouri...I doubt the average poster here could recognize corrected grain leather if there was a sign and an arrow above it. Or articulate what was wrong with it. Why? Simply because nearly all chrome tanned leathers have a flexible "paint job" on the surface of the leather which at least covers surface flaws in the corium if not corrects those flaws. I don't use it, but then I'm a dinosaur.

Beyond that there is at least one major US firm that is highly regarded on AAAC, that is moving to PVC welting for at least some of their lines. For those that care, or are objective enough (wouldn't take much), PVC is a form of plastic.

What? you want to talk about insoles? Many of the companies that use GY are no longer using leather insoles. Or if they are using leather insoles the insoles are poor quality and half the substance they were ten years ago. A good many...even among the premium brands have gone to fiberboard (pressed paper) and foam rubber for insoles...covered of course with a smart looking sockliner...yippee!!

So what's left? eyelets? Is that what makes these shoes so much better than run of the mill factory produced shoes? Or is it the little cloth bags and the demi-jar of high price polish and the gold stamping on the sock liner?

Ridiculous? Ignorance is ridiculous especially if it is willful.


----------



## AlanC

DWFII said:


> Oh, really? How about telling this dumb old shoemaker how a Walmart shoe with leather uppers and goodyear construction (gemming and all) differs from any of these brands.


_Prima facie_ evidence shows it to be true. A Target suit is also sewn together of cloth but that doesn't make it the equivalent of an Oxxford or even a Samuelsohn.



> Ridiculous? Ignorance is ridiculous especially if it is willful.


So is arrogance.


----------



## DWFII

AlanC said:


> _Prima facie_ evidence shows it to be true. A Target suit is also sewn together of cloth but that doesn't make it the equivalent of an Oxxford or even a Samuelsohn.
> 
> So is arrogance.


Prima facie? Prima facie means "at first sight." and I'll give you that but it doesn't say much for objectivity or depth of knowledge, does it?

Let me tell you about another bit of about prima facie...

I've got even money that 95% of the people posting to AAAC and this thread in particular, didn't know what gemming was before the thread was started. They may have heard about Goodyear welting and even seen some gemming in videos that they watched...in complete befuddlement--not really knowing what they were seeing, in other words. And just as surely, they didn't know that the whole inseam--the entire connection...the backbone of the shoe...was dependent on cement or glue. They didn't realize that the welt wasn't being sewn to the insole, it was being sewn to a ribbon of canvas. Most, to this moment in time, never even thought about whether the insole in their shoes was leather or fiberboard...wouldn't even know how to find out, even if they could recognize the real stuff.

And virtually none of them (approaching zero, IOW) have ever cut a 10 iron (quarter inch +/) insole from an oak tanned shoulder that had been in the tanning pits for as much as a year, Have never carefully shaped and channeled that insole, holed it, made inseaming threads from multiple strands of linen yarn waxed with shop-made handwax and tipped with a boar's bristle in lieu of a needle. Never sewn welt and tested the strength of both the thread and the leather..._*and*_ the connection...with every stitch. Never taken the measure of either a hand welted inseam or a gemmed one.

But suddenly they're experts. And, in the limited context of being a consumer, rightfully so. They wear the shoes and get enjoyment out of them. Never doubt it. But many many folks out there wear their Walmart specials and get many many years out of them too. Neither activity begets knowledge or objectivity, however. For many people, Walmart shoes are also "good enough"...maybe even "_quality_" if you want to dilute/dumb down the language that much.

And that's all fine by me...it hardly registers, if the truth be known. Why? Because as I have said *repeatedly* and all along...my opinions are opinions from the _*perspective*_ of a shoemaker. Take them for what they are worth.

And in passing, if I'm arrogant, I'm only arrogant about things I know something about...and only in the face of what, "at first sight" looks like willful ignorance.


----------



## Orgetorix

AlanC said:


> _Prima facie_ evidence shows it to be true. A Target suit is also sewn together of cloth but that doesn't make it the equivalent of an Oxxford or even a Samuelsohn.


Maybe an even more apt analogy: A Desmond Merrion MTM suit uses fusing in the fronts. So does a Brooks Brothers 1818 suit. But that doesn't mean that both of them are no better than a Target suit.


----------



## DWFII

Orgetorix said:


> Maybe an even more apt analogy: A Desmond Merrion MTM suit uses fusing in the fronts. So does a Brooks Brothers 1818 suit. But that doesn't mean that both of them are no better than a Target suit.


I would never claim it does. But if I've understod you, you've got your analogies skewed. The Desmond Merrion (I don't know a thing about suits) is equivalent to a Lobbs bespoke...in the _*techniques *_they use to achieve that level of quality.

All of the firms linked on the blog site use the _*same*_ _*techniques*_ as common, low priced shoes. And many of the same materials.

??!!

It's not that hard.


----------



## clintonf

DWFII said:


> Oh, really? How about telling this dumb old shoemaker how a Walmart shoe with leather uppers and goodyear construction (gemming and all) differs from any of these brands. And before we get into such amorphous attributes as "finish" (read "shine) or "quality of leather" (which is dern hard to categorize even for someone who has worked with leather for over forty years) let me ask also how would you know? Some of the every firms represented by the demontage early on in this thread have been castigated for "corrected grain" leather. But I'm from Missouri...I doubt the average poster here could recognize corrected grain leather if there was a sign and an arrow above it. Or articulate what was wrong with it. Simply because nearly all chrome tanned leathers have flexible "paint job" on the surface of the leather which at least covers surface flaws in the corium if not corrects those flaws. I don't use it, but then I'm a dinosaur.
> 
> Beyond that there is at least one major US firm that is highly regarded on AAAC, that is moving to PVC welting for at least some of their lines. For those that care, or are objective enough (wouldn't take much), PVC is a form of plastic.
> 
> What? you want to talk about insoles? Many of the companies that use GY are no longer using leather insoles. Or if they are using leather insoles the insoles are poor quality and half the substance they were ten years ago. A good many...even among the premium brands have gone to fiberboard (pressed paper) and foam rubber for insoles...covered of course with a smart looking sockliner...yippee!!
> 
> So what's left? eyelets? Is that what makes these shoes so much better than run of the mill factory produced shoes? Or is it the little cloth bags and the demi-jar of high price polish and the gold stamping on the sock liner?
> 
> Ridiculous? Ignorance is ridiculous especially if it is willful.


Hi, I don't usually get involved in any of these discussions (mainly because I feel that I don't know enough about the subject matter).

However, I do have an understanding of people.

I do admire the "education" that you bring to the forum. I also admire your desire to "remove the fog" (my words) from the eyes of the "non-believers" (again, my words).

However, it's beginning to "feel" to me that you are not only defending your position (which I believe every person has the right to do, if based upon some empirical evidence), but you are trying to force home your "truth".

Whilst I have no dispute that what you say is accurate (I have attempted to verify the Gemming statement with some of the contacts I know), it is only one aspect of why a person buys a pair of shoes.

I am not qualified to comment on the psychology of why people buy and what compels them to purchase certain brands over others. However, surely you can appreciate that the psychology of the mind does play a part in the purchasing of items?

I would be extremely surprised if you told me that you didn't have a well branded and advertised product in your food cupboard at this moment in time.

Assuming that you do, how would you react if someone told you that brand X (your favourite) was no better the bargain basement brand in the supermarket?

Furthermore, when you tried to defend your rational for the choice using some empirical data, they started to comment upon (or imply about) your ability to discern *anything* to do with your favourite brand?

All, I'm saying is the truth is the truth, no matter how you tell it. However, people will accept the truth or not. I do not feel that it is necessary for a version of the truth (no matter how accruate it is) to be the touted as the only version, and everything else is not worthy of any consideration.

So, please let's continue with the education and leave off the preaching.

Regards

Clint


----------



## Groover

Wasn't this a thread about Crockett & Jones and Edward Green?

Personally I believe it would be beneficial to the OP and those interested in hearing the comparisons of the two brands that the discussion regarding construction, it's merits and pitfalls be taken to a dedicated thread.


----------



## Orgetorix

DWFII said:


> Prima facie? Prima facie means "at first sight." and I'll give you that but it doesn't say much for objectivity or depth of knowledge, does it?
> 
> Let me tell you about another bit of about prima facie...
> 
> I've got even money that 95% of the people posting to AAAC and this thread in particular, didn't know what gemming was before the thread was started. They may have heard about Goodyear welting and even seen some gemming in videos that they watched...in complete befuddlement--not really knowing what they were seeing, in other words. And just as surely, they didn't know that the whole inseam--the entire connection...the backbone of the shoe...was dependent on cement or glue. They didn't realize that the welt wasn't being sewn to the insole, it was being sewn to a ribbon of canvas.


That may be true of some, but not all and certainly not 95%. As I've said repeatedly, the technique has been discussed here several times before you came along. And not only has it been discussed, several people have said that gemming is *not* a problem the way you have been saying. I quote from Jcusey's tutorial on shoe construction, which can be found on the AAAC home page:



JCusey said:


> Third, a rib made of stiffened linen tape can be glued (gemmed) onto the insole. This sounds like a shoddy procedure unlikely to produce a quality shoe, but this is not the case. When done properly, the gemming is extremely secure and long-lived, and the linen rib can take as many reweltings as a cut-and-turned rib.


The original forum-post version can be found here: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=85307

Andy also mentions the technique, though not by name, in his Encyclopedia. And it has been mentioned in other threads here as well. So stop pretending nobody knew about gemming before you came along. If people who have participated here for any length of time didn't know about it, they haven't been paying attention.



DWFII said:


> But suddenly they're experts. And, in the limited context of being a consumer, rightfully so. They wear the shoes and get enjoyment out of them. Never doubt it. But many many folks out there wear their Walmart specials and get many many years out of them too. Neither activity begets knowledge or objectivity, however. For many people, Walmart shoes are also "good enough"...maybe even "_quality_" if you want to dilute/dumb down the language that much.


People on this forum have Allen-Edmonds shoes that are well into their second and even third decades of life. Who can say that about Wal-Mart shoes? Nobody. Within a few months of regular use, the corrected-grain uppers crack and split and look terrible. The cemented soles peel away from the uppers. The poor-quality stitching of the uppers starts to come apart. The cheap stiffeners used in the toes and heels (if any are indeed used) crumple and the shoe loses its shape.

Allen-Edmonds shoes, probably the bottom of the barrel of shoes that are considered acceptable quality around here, are far, far better than Wal-Mart shoes. There is no market for secondhand Wal-Mart shoes on Ebay. By the time the first owner is done with them, they're trashed. But there's a huge market for secondhand AEs, and it's been growing steadily for the last several years. Not because people don't know any better and would refuse anything but a hand-lasted shoe if they did, but because AE provide a good cost-to-quality ratio and serve thousands of men well.

You seem to think that quality is a binary value with welted shoes. Either a shoe is handwelted and therefore of good quality, or it isn't. And the backlash you're getting here is because everyone else posting here can see that quality isn't like that. It's a spectrum. Is a gemmed EG shoe as good as a handwelted bespoke shoe? No. But it's better quality than a C&J shoe, which is better than an AE, which is better than than a Johnston and Murphy, which is better than a Bostonian, which is better than a Wal-Mart shoe.



DWFII said:


> And that's all fine by me...it hardly registers, if the truth be known. Why? Because as I have said *repeatedly* and all along...my opinions are opinions from the _*perspective*_ of a shoemaker. Take them for what they are worth.
> 
> And in passing, if I'm arrogant, I'm only arrogant about things I know something about...and only in the face of prima facie willful ignorance.


And here's the other reason you're getting backlash here: you say your assertions are just opinions, but you act like they're undeniable truth. You say you don't want to be considered an expert, but then you assert you know what you're talking about and you call the disagreement of others (including other shoemakers, if we count Janne Melkersson at SF) willful ignorance.


----------



## MF177

*This is a repeat of a question for DWFII that wasnt answered*

in your hand welted shoes, no cork is needed because a)youre using top grade thick leather insoles and b)because of your attachment method. am i correct so far?

to answer a question you posed, i have often, but by no means always, had shoes resoled by reliable cobblers and they were tight therafter.

I have never had a pair of shoes 'fail' but i have twice in 20 years had comfortable shoes become highly uncomfortable after a resoling a-- they felt wrong under part of the foot as if perhaps there were an issue with the cork or perhaps the insole itself? (never was able to get them to be comfortable again)

is it fair to say this is perhaps a function of the whole cork-gemming complex perhaps coupled with an inferior insole? Does the presence of cork and gemming potentiallly lead to this problem i described? Would this be essentially non-existent in a hand welted shoe?

if what i say is correct, is this perhaps then a better understanding of 'failure' of the shoe. It sorta works ok and looks great, but after one resoling, a $400 shoe is effectively consigned to the back of the closet because i cant comfortably walk more than a block or two in it- a shoe i used to walk 40 blocks in each way to work about once every two weeks.

By failure, perhaps its really lost utility


----------



## well-kept

Orgetorix said:


> And the backlash you're getting here is because everyone else posting here can see that quality isn't like that. It's a spectrum.


I think there is another reason for the backlash; the lack of respect for all or most forum members, which while thinly veiled for a time has finally exploded full-bore in posts 142 and 144.

That is regrettable because forum members almost by definition do have the discernment and taste we are accused of lacking. None of us, I'll wager, buys shoes at Walmart. Many of us, treated differently, might appreciate a detailed tutorial and ultimately end up providing a solid client base.


----------



## DWFII

well-kept said:


> I think there is another reason for the backlash; the lack of respect for all or most forum members, which while thinly veiled for a time has finally exploded full-bore in posts 142 and 144.
> 
> That is regrettable because forum members almost by definition do have the discernment and taste we are accused of lacking. None of us, I'll wager, buys shoes at Walmart. Many of us, treated differently, might appreciate a detailed tutorial and ultimately end up providing a solid client base.


I've never characterized anyones remarks as "ridiculous"--post 138. Nor have I singled out any firm or person. Nor have I _*demanded*_ that questions be answered that the poster had clearly declined to answer. I spoke to one issue and in that context I said any number of times that this was an opinion _*from*_ _*a makers perspective.*_ I didn't put anyone down for buying or enjoying their favourite brands. And I did mention at least one other technique that is done in factory work, that in my opinion would make a sounder shoe and if employed should not raise the price significantly relative to GY construction. no one picked up on that...no one wanted to hear it.

What's more I have been here the whole time answering questions with a fair amount of patience and courtesy. And I have actually read those posts I answer. I'm guessing again, but I suspect most of the current crop of posters have not read all the way through this discussion and have given short shrift to my admittedly sometimes lengthy posts. This is conversation, or it could be if people let it be. You can't jump in the middle and take bits and pieces out of context and not generate a bit of frustration and testiness. There, right there, is where any "lack of respect" originates.

In my book, to take the time to answer questions, to give a patient and full explanation...even multiple times...is the height of respect. It makes me suspect that some folks don't want respect they just want to argue.


----------



## DWFII

MF177 said:


> *This is a repeat of a question for DWFII that wasnt answered*
> 
> in your hand welted shoes, no cork is needed because a)youre using top grade thick leather insoles and b)because of your attachment method. am i correct so far?


Yes.



> to answer a question you posed, _*i have *_often, but by no means always, _*had shoes resoled by reliable cobblers and they were tight therafter.*_


A central tenet of my thesis. And it bears repeating, esp. from someone (you) who has enough objectivity to understand.



> I have never had a pair of shoes 'fail' but i have twice in 20 years had comfortable shoes become highly uncomfortable after a resoling a-- they felt wrong under part of the foot as if perhaps there were an issue with the cork or perhaps the insole itself? (never was able to get them to be comfortable again)
> 
> is it fair to say this is perhaps a function of the whole cork-gemming complex perhaps coupled with an inferior insole? Does the presence of cork and gemming potentiallly lead to this problem i described? Would this be essentially non-existent in a hand welted shoe?


Not entirely non-existent. But close-as-nevermind. The channeled insole is like a rabbet in woodworking...there can be no doubt where the upper was lasted to and where the welt fits. Any competent cobbler can replace welt...even all of it...and get things back in place with a fair degree of accuracy.



> if what i say is correct, is this perhaps then a better understanding of 'failure' of the shoe. It sorta works ok and looks great, but after one resoling, a $400 shoe is effectively consigned to the back of the closet because i cant comfortably walk more than a block or two in it- a shoe i used to walk 40 blocks in each way to work about once every two weeks.
> 
> By failure, perhaps its really lost utility


You have it. But that said let me reiterate...again...I never guaranteed that a GY shoe would fail. I simply said that it had a greater potential to fail than any other method of construction with the possible exception of cement sole construction. Simply because it uses techniques and materials the sole purpose of which is to make the job easier, faster, more easily mechanized, and cost the absolute minimum regardless of the potential for failure.

Thank you again.


----------



## DWFII

clintonf said:


> Whilst I have no dispute that what you say is accurate (I have attempted to verify the Gemming statement with some of the contacts I know), it is only one aspect of why a person buys a pair of shoes.


I spoke to _*one*_ aspect of these shoes. I didn't take any of them to task for their lasts or their stying or the leather they use.



> I would be extremely surprised if you told me that you didn't have a well branded and advertised product in your food cupboard at this moment in time.
> 
> Assuming that you do, how would you react if someone told you that brand X (your favourite) was no better the bargain basement brand in the supermarket?
> 
> Furthermore, when you tried to defend your rational for the choice using some empirical data, they started to comment upon (or imply about) your ability to discern *anything* to do with your favourite brand?


I make shoes for a living. I work with my hands. I take responsibility for what I do. Perhaps because I do, I don't become so intimately attached to things I buy that I feel like I have to defend them or take responsibility for them. That kind of attitude is not open-minded, it's not objective and it almost invariably leads to a "I don't want to know" mind set.

And what is the "empirical data"? Is it anecdotal testimony that "I've never had a problem" or is it similar statements such as MF177 just posted for the second (?) time--statements (data?) which seems never to register? Or the stories I've told of my experiences and _*my*_ observations. Admittedly, much of the data I have provided is something a little more than anecdotal. It is facts about why a technique is flawed--what the materials are and why they are not on a par with other materials. Why cement is not as strong as stitching. What the mechanics and logic is for for the process--from beginning to end. I have tried to provide such data to anyone and everyone who wished to hear it.

The author of the blog that did the deconstructions said on another forum that the cement holding some of this gmming was pretty strong but in other instances you could literally pull it off the insole with your fingers. Is that empirical enough?



> All, I'm saying is the truth is the truth, no matter how you tell it. However, people will accept the truth or not. I do not feel that it is necessary for a version of the truth (no matter how accruate it is) to be the touted as the only version, and everything else is not worthy of any consideration.
> 
> So, please let's continue with the education and leave off the preaching.


That would be good advice. But correct me if I'm wrong... I get the impression that you haven't been following along here (many haven't). Because I have been courteous and patient far more than I have been testy--probably by a twenty to one ratio. Even when people were rude or missed the point. And I'm just one voice answering questions and implications from a dozen different directions. I think , by any objective standard, I have had the patience of a saint and the courtesy of a politician.

There are limits, however...and I think I've reached mine..


----------



## clintonf

DWFII said:


> I spoke to _*one*_ aspect of these shoes. I didn't take any of them to task for their lasts or their stying or the leather they use.
> 
> I make shoes for a living. I work with my hands. I take responsibility for what I do. Perhaps because I do, I don't become so intimately attached to things I buy that I feel like I have to defend them or take responsibility for them. That kind of attitude is not open-minded, it's not objective and it almost invariably leads to a "I don't want to know" mind set.
> 
> And what is the "empirical data"? Is it anecdotal testimony that "I've never had a problem" or is it similar statements such as MF177 just posted for the second (?) time--statements (data?) which seems never to register? Or the stories I've told of my experiences and _*my*_ observations. Admittedly, much of the data I have provided is something a little more than anecdotal. It is facts about why a technique is flawed--what the materials are and why they are not on a par with other materials. Why cement is not as strong as stitching. What the mechanics and logic is for for the process--from beginning to end. I have tried to provide such data to anyone and everyone who wished to hear it.
> 
> The author of the blog that did the deconstructions said on another forum that the cement holding some of this gmming was pretty strong but in other instances you could literally pull it off the insole with your fingers. Is that empirical enough?
> 
> That would be good advice. But correct me if I'm wrong... I get the impression that you haven't been following along here (many haven't). Because I have been courteous and patient far more than I have been testy--probably by a twenty to one ratio. Even when people were rude or missed the point. And I'm just one voice answering questions and implications from a dozen different directions. I think , by any objective standard, I have had the patience of a saint and the courtesy of a politician.
> 
> There are limits, however...and I think I've reached mine..


Hello again,

I have tried to follow the whole thread and I agree, for the most part you have been courteous. I wouldn't even have considered posting any "advice" to you if you hadn't have been.

However, what I am simply trying to say is that you have made your observations and commented that they are your opinions, based upon your experience. I feel that you do not have to justify yourself in any other way.

To be drawn into conversations where the same (or similar) ground is covered is, frankly, futile.

I honestly doubt that someone who feels that they are getting "value" from certain brands will immediately stop buying them because of this thread. Especially, when this practice appears to be widespread in the ready to wear arena.

In an ideal World everyone would have everything hand made for them, usng the highest quality materials to the higest construction. Unfortunately, this is far from an ideal world. So people make do. Some more than others.

There will always be a market for decent quality ready to wear items, because of the cost and general expedience of obtaining them.

Therefore, I would prefer you to post a new post, wowing us with your shoes and the lovely construction techniques that you employ (as you have done elsewhere).

Speaking frankly (and completely admitting to my ignorance), I want a shoe to look good, be able to last me a few years (10+) and be maintainable. Whether my shoes are gemmed or not is of little interest to me, until it becomes a problem. When it does, then I will "shout" about it.

*However, thank you (and others) for highlighting this potential "issue".*

Most on this site will look at some of the "designer branded shoes" which may be fairly well made, as not a patch on some of "finer" RTW manufacturers (even the ones which are the topic of this thread). By comparision, a Crockett and Jones pair of shoes will tend to be leaps and bounds ahead of the equally expensive fashion house based shoes. Therefore, someone who purchases C&J or E.G., et al. will feel that they are getting their money's worth.

You may know better, but I cannot help but feel that you've raised awareness and that there is little that more than you can do.

I hope you understand that I mean you (or anyone on this site) no disrepect.

I just think that it's becoming tedious with the arguments and counter-arguments as some of the valid questions/answers are being lost and hence, potentially missed by people such as myself.

Cheers

Clint


----------



## DWFII

Clint,

I thank you for your reply. Bear with me while I observe that people like you are more responsible both for my testiness and my continued engagement with futility than any other factor. 

I guess I knew that it was futile. But there were just enough people such as yourself and MF177 to encourage me...just enough thoughtful, even encouraging PM's and emails to foster the hope that someone was listening and, more importantly wanted to hear...or understand.

In passing, I never intended that anyone stop buying their favorite brand of shoes. I am not now, and have not been selling anything. I have scrupulously avoided pushing my own work as an alternative. I simply thought people who consider themselves discriminating would welcome the information and insights. 

Again thank you for your courtesy.


----------



## MF177

DWFII said:


> You have it. But that said let me reiterate...again...I never guaranteed that a GY shoe would fail. I simply said that it had a greater potential to fail than any other method of construction with the possible exception of cement sole construction. Simply because it uses techniques and materials the sole purpose of which is to make the job easier, faster, more easily mechanized, and cost the absolute minimum regardless of the potential for failure.
> Thank you again.


Thank you for your answer DWF. I have always suspected that there was an issue that sometimes a shoe somehow didn't 'take' the resoling well. Your explanation gives me a possible cause.

To me that is failure of the shoe- not that the shoe falls apart, but that it fails in the full achievement of its purpose, it failed in that i only got one sole's worth of life out of it and thereafter the shoe changed.

Again it's only happened to me twice ever, but that still annoys the hell out of me, as one was a favorite pair and both were $400-plus. I can still wear them but i cant walk distance in them.

_Now, one caveat : maybe i can tell better than some consumers that something has gone off because a) i am a somewhat difficult fit and i search hard for the right shoes. b) when i walk in dress shoes i tend to walk at least two miles each way, 4 miles RT in a day, not counting indoor walking. under these combined circumstances if something isn't right, i'll know because i feel it in my feet. and in fact i cant walk that distance if something is off with the shoe._


----------



## MF177

Also- i am suspecting, based on my close reading of what DWFII said, 
is that a gemmed Goodyear welted shoe is best sent back to the original manufacturer for repair as they have the machinery to re-cork and redo the gemming, whereas 99% of the local repair shops will not.

is that a correct reading?

and if that is so then i would suspect that sending it back to the original maker probably prevents some 'failures' that would occur after a more basic re-soling even if the local guy was using a quality outsole.

DFW also seemed to say that a hand welted shoe will be easier for a local cobbler to get a 100% satisfactory repair than a machine welted and gemmed shoe. Correct?

[of course a northampton factory resoling costs $200 or $250 or more and takes forever to get your shoes back. A local quality resole job, with oak soles if you can get them, is about half as much, and an el cheapo job is maybe $75.]


----------



## DWFII

MF177 said:


> Also- i am suspecting, based on my close reading of what DWFII said,
> is that a gemmed Goodyear welted shoe is best sent back to the original manufacturer for repair as they have the machinery to re-cork and redo the gemming, whereas 99% of the local repair shops will not.


And most importantly the original last...again something the cobbler wouldn't have.

is that a correct reading?



> DFW also seemed to say that a hand welted shoe will be easier for a local cobbler to get a 100% satisfactory repair than a machine welted and gemmed shoe. Correct?


I think so, I've done it...and call me DW, if you please.


----------



## emptym

DWFII said:


> ... But, the rusting problems aside, pegs flex...some would say a critical characteristic of any vertical fastener that is going into a shoe...and thus the tearing that a really hard material under torsional stresses and embedded in a softer substrate inflicts, is avoided.


Very interesting. Thanks DW.


clintonf said:


> ...Most on this site will look at some of the "designer branded shoes" which may be fairly well made, as not a patch on some of "finer" RTW manufacturers (even the ones which are the topic of this thread). By comparision, a Crockett and Jones pair of shoes will tend to be leaps and bounds ahead of the equally expensive fashion house based shoes. Therefore, someone who purchases C&J or E.G., et al. will feel that they are getting their money's worth....


This made me wonder, C:

Is the reception DW got here similar to the one someone pushing C&J or EG would get when posting on a "fashion" forum (one that pushed Gucci and Prada)?


----------



## MF177

DWFII said:


> And most importantly the original last...again something the cobbler wouldn't have.
> is that a correct reading?
> I think so, I've done it...and call me DW, if you please.


i mistype a lot!


----------



## chrstc

Hello,

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread but it does seem to me that one incredibly important aspect of the "factory mentality" and mass production has been missed. Very few bespoke makers today make for younger men or women. One of the shoemakers that I use tells me that I am one of their youngest customers and I am by no means that young any more. Quite simply even the very best makers such as Fosters and Lobb etc would struggle to survive if they relied purely on successive generations of the same families coming through their doors. They need new blood, new customers willing to spend what is, let's face it, an incredible amount of money on a single pair of shoes and very few people would make the leap from Walmart shoes to Lobb St James without going via EG, C&J and a whole range of other makers first.

Factory made shoes opened up the market a whole new clientele who could not otherwise afford good shoes. In that sense the factories have kept traditional shoemakers in business and that is something which shouldn't be overlooked regardless of whether quality standards haev suffered over the years. Personally I would rather see a large group of people in a position to buy GY welted shoes rather than keep them as the preserve of the super-rich, thus condemning the trade to eventual extinction.

Chris.


----------



## Groover

For the 95% who don't know what gemming or an insole rib is, here is a picture of the rib, the white canvas running around the insole.










Here is a picture of the welt after being machine stitched through the uppers,linings, and the rib:


----------



## clintonf

DWFII said:


> Clint,
> 
> I thank you for your reply. Bear with me while I observe that people like you are more responsible both for my testiness and my continued engagement with futility than any other factor.
> 
> I guess I knew that it was futile. But there were just enough people such as yourself and MF177 to encourage me...just enough thoughtful, even encouraging PM's and emails to foster the hope that someone was listening and, more importantly wanted to hear...or understand.
> 
> In passing, I never intended that anyone stop buying their favorite brand of shoes. I am not now, and have not been selling anything. I have scrupulously avoided pushing my own work as an alternative. I simply thought people who consider themselves discriminating would welcome the information and insights.
> 
> Again thank you for your courtesy.


DW, you are absolutely welcome. See below for further comments.



DWFII said:


> And most importantly the original last...again something the cobbler wouldn't have.
> 
> is that a correct reading?
> 
> I think so, I've done it...and call me DW, if you please.


Now, this is interesting, as someone who's recently gotten into shoes, I have always used local cobblers to do any resoling work. Unfortunately, I've been less than pleased with the result (more about quality than fit).

However, to send a pair of shoes back and pay up to an additional $300 is relatively pricey in comparison a cobbler's general prices.

From my, admittedly limited, understanding, having the shoe "taken care of" by the manufacturer seems the preferred choice. But for me, having to wait weeks for the shoes to be ready combined with cost, has always been a factor.

As I mentioned before, I tried to get some information from one or two people in the shoe industry. I got a positive response from one, who claimed that they've never seen a "gem" fail on a pair of shoes.

But that's just one maker, out of the many around. I just wonder if MF177 may have a point that some of the potential gemming "failures" of shoes may never happen or be identified as such, because the original manufacturer will replace all of the relevant parts when they "service" the shoes?

I have absolutely, no proof of this, but I can't help but wonder?



emptym said:


> Very interesting. Thanks DW.
> 
> This made me wonder, C:
> 
> Is the reception DW got here similar to the one someone pushing C&J or EG would get when posting on a "fashion" forum (one that pushed Gucci and Prada)?


Well, I think some strong and challenging points were raised here and, for some, it must seem like an attack on the very essence of RTW shoe making. So, I guess that there would be some resistance.

But looking at it in context, there must be a reason why Bespoke shoes are deemed "better" than RTW shoes aside from the individual lasting aspect.

I doubt that I'll be changing my buying patterns any time soon, as I cannot afford to spend a vast amount in shoes and I've already collected some "nice" RTW shoes along the way. I'd like to try bespoke, but there isn't a need for any at the moment and most of my shoes fit me well (I guess I'm lucky)

But at least, I should be able to ask better questions of the makers of the RTW shoes that I buy.

Hence, DW good job done (in my opinion).



chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread but it does seem to me that one incredibly important aspect of the "factory mentality" and mass production has been missed. Very few bespoke makers today make for younger men or women. One of the shoemakers that I use tells me that I am one of their youngest customers and I am by no means that young any more. Quite simply even the very best makers such as Fosters and Lobb etc would struggle to survive if they relied purely on successive generations of the same families coming through their doors. They need new blood, new customers willing to spend what is, let's face it, an incredible amount of money on a single pair of shoes and very few people would make the leap from Walmart shoes to Lobb St James without going via EG, C&J and a whole range of other makers first.
> 
> Factory made shoes opened up the market a whole new clientele who could not otherwise afford good shoes. In that sense the factories have kept traditional shoemakers in business and that is something which shouldn't be overlooked regardless of whether quality standards haev suffered over the years. Personally I would rather see a large group of people in a position to buy GY welted shoes rather than keep them as the preserve of the super-rich, thus condemning the trade to eventual extinction.
> 
> Chris.


Very good point and aside from making the manufacturers sums of money, factories have brought a lot of exclusive, and otherwise prohibitively expensive stuff to the masses. I, for one am grateful for that.

It would be interesting to get a RTW's shoe Manufacturer's point of view on this thread. Not to start some sort of witch hunt or Internet argument. But, potentially, to provide a rational behind the use of such materials (is there any reason bar cost for it's use?).

Just a thought....

Clint


----------



## clintonf

DWFII said:


> Clint,
> 
> I thank you for your reply. Bear with me while I observe that people like you are more responsible both for my testiness and my continued engagement with futility than any other factor.
> 
> I guess I knew that it was futile. But there were just enough people such as yourself and MF177 to encourage me...just enough thoughtful, even encouraging PM's and emails to foster the hope that someone was listening and, more importantly wanted to hear...or understand.
> 
> In passing, I never intended that anyone stop buying their favorite brand of shoes. I am not now, and have not been selling anything. I have scrupulously avoided pushing my own work as an alternative. I simply thought people who consider themselves discriminating would welcome the information and insights.
> 
> Again thank you for your courtesy.





DWFII said:


> And most importantly the original last...again something the cobbler wouldn't have.
> 
> is that a correct reading?
> 
> I think so, I've done it...and call me DW, if you please.





emptym said:


> Very interesting. Thanks DW.
> 
> This made me wonder, C:
> 
> Is the reception DW got here similar to the one someone pushing C&J or EG would get when posting on a "fashion" forum (one that pushed Gucci and Prada)?





chrstc said:


> Hello,
> 
> I know I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread but it does seem to me that one incredibly important aspect of the "factory mentality" and mass production has been missed. Very few bespoke makers today make for younger men or women. One of the shoemakers that I use tells me that I am one of their youngest customers and I am by no means that young any more. Quite simply even the very best makers such as Fosters and Lobb etc would struggle to survive if they relied purely on successive generations of the same families coming through their doors. They need new blood, new customers willing to spend what is, let's face it, an incredible amount of money on a single pair of shoes and very few people would make the leap from Walmart shoes to Lobb St James without going via EG, C&J and a whole range of other makers first.
> 
> Factory made shoes opened up the market a whole new clientele who could not otherwise afford good shoes. In that sense the factories have kept traditional shoemakers in business and that is something which shouldn't be overlooked regardless of whether quality standards haev suffered over the years. Personally I would rather see a large group of people in a position to buy GY welted shoes rather than keep them as the preserve of the super-rich, thus condemning the trade to eventual extinction.
> 
> Chris.





Groover said:


> For the 95% who don't know what gemming or an insole rib is, here is a picture of the rib, the white canvas running around the insole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of the welt after being machine stitched through the uppers,linings, and the rib:


Nice pictures G!!

Thanks for the visual explanation.

Clint


----------



## Nick V

Regarding re-crafting:

Almost all repair shops will re-craft a shoe using metal jacks or presses. They use a few sizes to accomodate the full size run of mens shoes. Very few shops actually use lasts custom fitted for each pair of shoes. Doing so will prevent the shoe from being mishapped during the re-craft process.
Now, the factories have the exact lasts used in the manufacturing process. Therefore, preventing the shoe from changing shape. Make sense?
I can't tell you how many times shoes were sent back to the factories and the factory aborted the job half way through because they could not finish it. Or, the customer complained that the shoe did not fit right after the re-craft. Well, those shoes get sent to us to finish or correct. I am talking high-grade shoes only. So, if I don't have the original lasts and the companies do, how do those shoes wind up in my shop for us to correct or finish?
I'll tell you why, a good craftsman that takes pride in their work will go the extra distance (which also translates to his out of pocket expense) in order to get the job right. Not many in my industry have that mentality which hurts the repair industry. There are those that do. 
So if your repair shop has satisfied you in the past and has proven by their preformence that they appreciate your business continue to use them. They certainly appreciate your business and are willing to continue to earn your trust.


----------



## MF177

Nick V said:


> Regarding re-crafting:
> I'll tell you why, a good craftsman that takes pride in their work will go the extra distance (which also translates to his out of pocket expense) in order to get the job right. Not many in my industry have that mentality which hurts the repair industry. There are those that do.
> So if your repair shop has satisfied you in the past and has proven by their preformence that they appreciate your business continue to use them. They certainly appreciate your business and are willing to continue to earn your trust.


i agree...


----------



## Xenon

I know this thread is old but I was just finally able to access the link to "de pied en cap".

Well I owe an apology to all EG lovers as I was under the firm believe Lobb was superior to EG but if the articles and photos in the link are to be generalised for all shoes from lobb and EG, this is untrue. In fact it appears that EG has a slight edge especially in the materials used. For example the heel stiffener is leather in the EG and synthetic for the Lobb.

Are the Lobb Prestiges built like the Lobb taken apart? who knows?


----------



## emptym

While visiting relatives over Christmas, I found . Very well made and interesting. It's a few years old. I'd say both he and his wife have actually grown much more handsome over that time. 

After I watched the video, I showed it to my parents and other relatives. It helped them understand why I would spend so much money on a pair of shoes. They said the intelligence, passion, and effort depicted in the video made them appreciate DW's boots and hand-crafted goods in general.


----------



## indylion

Xenon said:


> I know this thread is old but I was just finally able to access the link to "de pied en cap".
> 
> Well I owe an apology to all EG lovers as I was under the firm believe Lobb was superior to EG but if the articles and photos in the link are to be generalised for all shoes from lobb and EG, this is untrue. In fact it appears that EG has a slight edge especially in the materials used. For example the heel stiffener is leather in the EG and synthetic for the Lobb.
> 
> Are the Lobb Prestiges built like the Lobb taken apart? who knows?


Not at all suprised. Rider did a thread a while back comparing Lobb to Tramezza.


----------



## DWFII

Xenon said:


> I know this thread is old but I was just finally able to access the link to "de pied en cap".
> 
> Well I owe an apology to all EG lovers as I was under the firm believe Lobb was superior to EG but if the articles and photos in the link are to be generalised for all shoes from lobb and EG, this is untrue. In fact it appears that EG has a slight edge especially in the materials used. For example the heel stiffener is leather in the EG and synthetic for the Lobb.
> 
> Are the Lobb Prestiges built like the Lobb taken apart? who knows?


You have to wonder, though. Not all Lobbs are the same. As I understand it, only the Lobbs on St. James street is really Lobbs. All the others are Hermes--they just bought a license to use the name Lobbs. That, in itself, is a shame but you can call a quince a pear all day long and it still won't taste like an Anjou.


----------



## emptym

Whoops! I forgot the link to the video in my post above. But it's working now. Sorry for anyone's frustration. It's well worth a look.


----------



## Matt S

DWFII said:


> You have to wonder, though. Not all Lobbs are the same. As I understand it, only the Lobbs on St. James street is really Lobbs. All the others are Hermes--they just bought a license to use the name Lobbs. That, in itself, is a shame but you can call a quince a pear all day long and it still won't taste like an Anjou.


John Lobb Paris is owned by Hermes but the shoes are made in Northampton, along with all the other brands. They are similar to EG in quality but more adventurous in style. They put their own twist on classic styles and are definitely some of the most unique-looking shoes made in Northampton.


----------

