Do you think the picture above shows something being handmade? Sure, there are hands in the picture, but the main part here is a large, in this case also modern, machine. It stands next to maybe 30-40 other large shoemaking machines which are all part of the production of what nowadays more often than not are called “handmade”. To all shoe brands and shoe manufacturers out there who devaluate words and give untrue info to your customers, below is a list of phrases to help you give the correct info from now on. You are all welcome!
Instead of saying “handmade in England”, say “Goodyear welted in England”.
Instead of saying “our handcrafted footwear”, say “our bench-made footwear”.
Instead of saying “manufactured by skilled artisans”, say “manufactured by skilled workers”.
Instead of saying “our shoes are made by hand in Spain”, say “our exclusive shoes are created in Spain”.
None of the latter suggestions will sound less good to your customers, although, and this is a big ALTHOUGH, they have the great advantage of actually being true. Truth is a good thing, you know.
For more on the topic, read this recent article on The Shoe Snob.
Truth is indeed a good thing…maybe the only thing.
The more a ‘tool’ controls the way something is done, the less the human hand (or the human heart) can be involved.
There is so much deception in modern marketing–words like “traditional,” “authentic,” “best quality,” “finest,” join “handmade” to signal that the truth is other than what is being presented.
Dw Frommer II: Yeah agree on that, while as we talked about on Instagram I think factory-made Goodyear welted shoes can be excellent as well, even if they aren’t handmade. But the deceptive marketing often seen today is a problem for sure.
Jesper,
Instagram is not really very friendly when it comes to these kinds of discussions, if only because you cannot correct your misspelled words, etc.. So I thought I would reply over here…hope you don’t mind.
I’m fine to disagree too. But I would pose a question: Isn’t the deception and misleading terminology all about perception, when you get right down to it? Isn’t it all about ‘appearance?’ So how is that different from judging a shoe (or any product) by how neat and shiny it looks? Without considering the techniques and processes that you can’t see (such as HW vs. GY)? isn’t there an element of deception there, as well? If only self-deception?
And, of course, if I understand your blog entry, the issue here is less “handmade-vs.-machine (or how many machines are used) and more about the deception on the part of most manufacturers…on many fronts.
In many ways, IMO, it’s not how much of the shoe is made by machine but how much of the shoe is made by a Compleat Shoemaker who knows what he is doing and personally takes responsibility for the outcome. All the rest is ‘tools’ to one extent or another.
That said anyone who has done this work–by hand and using Traditional techniques–will tell you that almost without exception, every Traditional hand technique yields an objectively superior result to the same or similar process done by machine.
Look at D.Wegan’s First Place shoe–no machine can duplicate the precision or the finesse…or the elegance.
26m
DW Frommer II: Of course, understand, replied on Insta but take them here as well.
Yeah, that’s one of the points to why you should use correct words to describe how the shoe is made.
Regarding Daniel’s shoe, sure, not many humans either ? But then he spent up towards 150 hours on that one shoe, it’s not really comparable to anything sold to customers, nor handmade bespoke or factory made Goodyear welted shoes.
Jesper
Agree about being honest and accurate. I’m fairly hardcore about proper terminology. I don’t believe in ‘hand sewn Goodyear weltimg’ as an example. There’s no such thing.
With regard to D. Wegan’s shoe, I think a case can be made that if such work seems out of the reach of most people…or beyond imagination…it is our own fault for embracing the lowest common denominator (of price, if nothing else) and making it the defacto standard of quality.
Once upon a time work similar to what D. Wegan presented would have been respected, surely, but maybe regarded as being more in the realm of “middling work”–to quote a master of the 19th century about 18spi.
And prize work…at as much as 64spi…accorded the same deference that we, today, give to Daniel’s work.
I don’t mean to demean Wegan’s work. It is truly remarkable esp. for this day and age. I myself could not do as well and I’ve been at this for near-as-nevermind 50 years. But as Pogo said “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
Maybe we get what we deserve.
Dw Frommer II: Yeah, hand sewn Goodyear welt is an oxymoron for sure.
I’ve seen a bunch of old vintage contest shoes, both in person and in books/pictures, and although there’s definitely even more refined work than Daniel’s shoe this year or Patrick Frei’s winning shoe last year, none of those look bad compared to the old masters work, IMO. To put Daniel’s shoe as being “middling work” in those times I’m not sure if it’s correct, and comparing it to the 64 to the inch example, which, correct me if I’m wrong is only one example of one shoe made, it’s not the regular standard of contest work back then as it sometimes can sound like, which is a bit unfortunate.
What I see looking at it historically, is that yes, the highs was higher, sure, but mainly the overall level of the contest work was at a higher level, there were much more shoemakers with much more competitions and competition in between them (both commercially and in contests), which pushed things. Something I hope that the world champs now will continue to do, so that we will see more and more amazing shoes being made through the coming years.
Jesper,
Well, when I said “middling work” I was quoting Rees or Devlin or one of the other 19th century great. I think the language and use of language was different then than now and no disrespect was intended by the terminology….then or now. What I was suggesting and I think the history and record supports it, is that the standard of workmanship for both the shoemaker and the consumer was higher than it is today. I suspect and have reason to believe (from that very quote, if nowhere else) that uppers sewn at 20+ spi were indeed relatively common as consumer goods.
The only remaining Certified Apprenticeship program in the USA specifies that to complete an apprenticeship program you have to be able to hand stitch, by eye, at 18 spi on the uppers. Apprentice level, to reiterate.
As for 64 spi, IIRC, June Swann catalogued a number of prize work entries at that frequency (not just one) and 50spi is even more common. Common enough that there is a pair in the Los Angeles County Museum at 54 spi. Swann detailed a pair that were in a Exhibition in Philadelphia in which the maker (according to the story) worked on his entry for nearly three years…by lantern light, wearing two pair of spectacles. And never made another pair of shoes again. Swann, who was, for a good many years, Keeper of the Shoe Collection at the Northampton Shoe Museum, pointed out in a letter to The Honourable Cordwainers’ Company, that the reason such work was possible (aside from tannages that are not available or even really possible today) was that most Master Shoemakers had been at their bench and their Trade since they were around 8 years old.
Personally, I’ve even seen factory made shoes from around 1900 that were sewn by machine at close to, or exceeding, 20spi.
History…and Tradition…is good for putting things in perspective.
DW Frommer II: Yeah, think we more or less mean the same thing here then.
Yeah more than 50 spi I know, but thought it was only one shoe where the 64 spi was measured. Actually been looking at having June part of the world championships jury, hasn’t been possible yet though, would be cool if solved sometime before she becomes too old 🙂
I find this debate to be slightly depressing. For a shoe manufacturer in a developed economy to make what you consider to be ‘handmade’ shoes would make the price beyond the affordability of anybody except the truly wealthy. Which is why we turn to makers such as Vass or Enzo Bonafe (Italy is a borderline developed economy).
The trades people who operate the machinery that make shoes at Edward Green are highly skilled. The machines don’t welt the shoes on their own, so in my mind, they are handmade. Just as a furniture maker uses a bandsaw to make a cabinet, a shoemaker uses a machine to help the process of making a shoe. Some would call it progress.
Pursuing the handmade as you describe it only pushes labour to the third world, and as you are aware shoes that are handmade in China or Vietnam are considered less worthy than those made in UK, Italy or the United States. So therein lies the dilemma, do we sacrifice the labour and skills of those making shoes in our own countries because they don’t meet the criteria of your understanding of handmade, or do we accept that handmade can include some use of machinery or technology?
Ross,
I’m not surprised you find it depressing–if only because you’ve missed the point.
It’s not about accessibility or availability or even about price. It’s about misrepresentation and misuse of language…not only to deceive but to the extent that no one can distinguish between quality and not-so-quality anymore. It is, in some respects, a concerted effort to dumb down the language and reduce everything to a mediocre lowest common denominator.
There has to be room for every level…and a market economy that is held to certain principle of honesty and transparency, insures all levels will be available. Nothing else can do that.
I understand your point, it’s not particularly complex. You believe the meaning of the adjective ‘handmade’ should match that in dictionary. No machinery? So, does this concept reach to the the constituent parts that make the product? How the tools are made? Delivery? Design?
It’s a false concept and one rooted in self interest and hypocrisy. You produce ‘handmade’ shoes therefore you are the authority on what is and what is not handmade. Even though machinery and technology is used in the creation of the shoe from slaughterhouse to lace factory, to the method or transportation.
I don’t eschew all machinery. I can’t think of a bespoke maker who does on a regular basis. We all use at least the sewing machine. I can’t think of too many bespoke makers who claim otherwise. In some sense, a machine is just another tool.
Again, the issue is not whether machines are used but whether we say we don’t use machines when we do. That is the real hypocrisy.
The other question is ” who is in control?”
To one degree or another every maker has knowledge and techniques, movements, sensitivities…that are unique to him. And limitations that are unique to him. But they are limitations and techniques that he can transcend if he is of a mind to.
In a greater and starker sense, however, machines impose limitations and techniques that cannot be transcended. By their very nature, they force short cuts and the expediencies upon both the work and the maker. The ‘stroke’ on a forepart lasting machine is limited. If there is more stretch in the leather than the stroke can draft out, then “oh, well” that surplus is not dealt with. The stitch length on a sewing machine is set. The vamps that are cut on a clicking machine are all exactly the same size and shape…through multiple hides simultaneously, even if that means some are cut from better leather than others.
These limitations are also the very thing that makes machines so attractive to manufacturing–it doesn’t take a very skilled person to operate them. And, as a consequence the operator cannot ‘go too far,’ so to speak. Can’t draft leather unevenly, can’t cut ‘outside the lines.’ It’s all clones–ticky-tacky.
All of which reduces the cost of years of training and the subsequent higher wages that would be paid to a skilled shoemaker. Not to mention pensions. So, the ‘human’ is taken out of the equation…as much as possible.
It also reduces the responsibility of both the operator and the manufacturer to make decisions that are best for the production of a high quality shoe and not just the bottom line. Because humans are so fallible and so aberant and you can always point to someone else down the line for any defects.
And yes, making shoes the way I do, the way most bespoke makers do, confers a certain authority that those who do not make shoes can’t not hope to have, much less understand. Years and years of experience; choices made and the consequences dealt with; personal responsibility acknowledged and taken; triumphs and mistakes; learning and adapting. Skill, insight, expertise–wisdom…call it what you like but it is very real.
And cannot be acquired by using machines. Or, more importantly twisting the language so that we convince others and ourselves that it doesn’t matter.
At which point we, ourselves, become the tools.
PS…my point was not meant to be complex. Nor, if I may be so bold, was Jesper’s. Some fundamentals are like that–stark and simple.
My point was meant to be understandable to people who don’t have the experiences or the unique perspective of the Traditional shoemaker, and are therefore perhaps more open to knowledge than someone who is automatically dismissive.
And my point, like Jesper’s, was about language and misrepresentation…and, again, honesty and transparency…rather than the absolute virtues of the process or the benefits to a particularly incurious (IMO) segment of society.
None of which you address.