[Roger]

Great stuff, Jcusey. There is a Dutch clothing and style forum (https://www.stijlforum.nl/SMF/index.php?) that used to have excellent diagrams of all of these construction methods, but it has, alas, disappeared. I hesitate to call up the Norwegian-Norvegese distinction that has been discussed in the past, but perhaps you could provide a little more detail on these and the reasons for not distinguishing between them. As I have understood your earlier posts, you define Norvegese as the Italian cordwainers would--meaning no welt. In fact, I recall your saying that if a shoe has a welt, it is neither Norwegian nor Norvegese (by your definition). A little more clarification here would really be helpful.

Edit: A point or two re Blake-Rapid. You didn't mention that one disadvantage--one that you give for Blake--is the possible foot irritation from the interior stitching. The reduced flexibility, relative to Goodyear welting, comes from the fact that the midsole extends over the entire surface of the sole, rather than only at the edges. Theoretically, therefore, the shoe should be less flexible, and yet a number of people have said that they have noticed no difference in actual wear.

 

[Roger]

Could have happened at the same time. They had no interwebz, back then.

Here is the close up of Goyserer welt on a "summer" shoe - the "Slatin Pasha"(executed in the Maftei workshop, Vienna). So this is(as mentioned by jcusey) purely for aesthetics and an expertise of excellent craftmanship.

That's not what Jcusey said. He was alluding to Blake-stitched shoes that had a row of stitching into the uppers for purely decorative purposes. The shoes you have displayed appear to be Norwegian-welted ("Goiserer" or "Goyser-stitched" as it is termed in the Vass catalog), in which the stitching is functional and absolutely necessary to attach (a) the upper to the feather and (b) the upper/welt assembly to the outsole.

 

[Roger]

The diagram of the Goodyear welting method from La Botte Chantilly is not really the best illustration of this method or of welting of any kind. It shows what looks like a double-soled shoe with the welt-sole stitching running through only the inside (or "leather") sole and not connecting to the outsole, and no indication of what connects the two soles. In practice, most welted (Goodyear or otherwise) shoe are single-soled, with the welt/outsole stitching extending all the way through the outsole which may or may not have a closed channel. (With a double-soled shoe, the stitching from the welt would, I believe, generally go all the way through both soles.) I rummaged around and found this illustration that might be helpful (with the cross-sectional diagram about halfway down the webpage giving the more typical welted-shoe layout):

https://www.sebata.com/c-goodyear.php

Also, the side view of Blake/Rapid construction makes it hard to see--in the same way we do with the other methods (i.e., a head-on cross-section)--how the various components go together. Here's a nice diagram from the Santoni website (the same one that Jcusey got the Bologna diagram from). After clicking on to the link, click "About Santoni," then "Construction," and then go to "Blake-Rapid." FYI, what is labeled "midsole" in this diagram is really the insole, and what is labeled "innersole" is what's usually referred to as the midsole.

 

[Roger]

You know, I really don't know what to do about the terminology here. Suffice it to say that there are two variants (with a welt and without a welt). Not knowing any Italian cordwainers, I don't know how they use the terms, although I suspect that there are about fifteen different terms for the same type of construction.

Yeah...you're right. I've been doing a little digging around today and now better appreciate your point here, making me a little sorry I brought it up at all. You're absolutely right about the two variants, and so maybe that's the way to define Norwegian (or Norvegese) construction--either having or not having a welt. In the old webpage on the "stijlforum" website, I recall that they gave a diagram for Norwegian construction and a second for what they termed "Welted Norwegian" construction. If resistance to the elements is the primary motivation for this kind of construction, then I'd definitely prefer the welted variation.

 

[Roger]

The Bologna method appears to be simply the classic moccasin construction but with a bit of a fiddle to the insole (the "first stitch") which probably does nothing more than tidy up the lining.

I'm not sure that there is one "classic moccasin construction" method, as the term "moccasin" is applied to a large number of different forms. Many--the most primitive--have only the one layer of leather wrapped around with a seam at the bottom where the sides come together, and may or may not also include a (usually cemented) sole. Most, if not all, moccasin-constructed shoes that I've seen also have the upper with a stitched apron--to maintain a shaped toe box without the addition of a toe puff. A Bologna-constructed shoe would not necessarily have the apron form (it's missing from the diagram above) and might have a light toe puff. In such a case, I don't think anyone would label the shoe as having moccasin construction. In the diagram above of Bologna construction, my guess is that the part labeled "lining" running along the bottom of the upper structure will more generally be an insole, made of stiffer material than the "lining" material on the rest of the inside of the upper. It's hard to see the need for the first stitch otherwise; the lining could just be continued around the bottom and stitched in the center. This fact--that the material changes at the first stitch (although admittedly this is not indicated in the above diagram) would, if true, make a Bologna-constructed shoe different from most moccasin-constructed shoes I've seen.

I've found, when looking at cross-sectional diagrams of the different construction methods, that there is considerable variation from one presentation of a particular method to the next. For this reason, I suspect that there are shoes by a number other manufacturers (than Santoni, from whose catalog the diagram of Bologna construction was taken) in which the construction is described as Bologna, but whose details differ from those in the Santoni diagram. And similarly, there will be countless shoes described as having moccasin construction that differ widely in the details.

 

[Roger]

Can we add Bentivegna?

Bentivegna construction--at least as Santoni illustrate it--would appear to produce a very sturdy and watertight shoe.

As before, once you have clicked onto the website, click "About Santoni," skip down to "Construction," and then to "Bentivegna." Again, the labeling is, I believe, a little mixed up. What's labeled "midsole" is really the insole, and what's labeled "innersole" is what we'd normally call the midsole. Here we have a construction method that has no seam running from the outsole into the insole--like Blake and Bologna--and thus no way for water to be wicked into the shoe. It differs from Norwegian/Norvegese construction by not having the upper turned out, but achieves almost the same water-tightness with the reverse welt. This construction method--at least as illustrated by Santoni--would seem to produce a very solid shoe--with the full midsole--and would never, I imagine, be wanted in double-sole form.

Again, though, I suspect that other construction details are used by other makers who refer to their shoes as of Bentivegna construction.

 

[Roger]

The word moccasin gets misused by the industry almost as much as the words "liberal" and "conservative" are misused by Americans. But when it comes down to the nut of the thing, moccasin construction is just a single piece of leather that wraps upwards over the foot and is attached to a plug that sits on the top of the foot. Everything else is fluff and details. The differences are not 1, 2, 3 but rather 1a, 1b, 1c.

Would you consider a shoe lacking a stitched apron, and having a toe puff instead, a moccasin?

 

[Roger]

There is a thing like "Classic Moccasin Construction".

A classic moccasin of native Americans has one layer of leather, forming the sole and the sides. On top comes the apron and a structural seam connects lower with upper section. Compared to a conventional shoe it is like a 'Tarte Tartin' (upside-down cake). Normally the structural seam is the one that joins upper and sole and is at the bottom, in a moccasin it's on top.

Moccasins without an additional sole are only useful as slippers round the house. The simplest way to add an outer sole lay the sole/side piece on top of the additional sole and stitch both pieces together, while still flat. Then lay the last on top. Pull the sides up over the last, lay on the apron on and hand-stitch on the last. Characteristics of true moccasin construction is the leather going all the way underneath the foot.

All the classic Bass, Sebago, etc are true moccasin construction. Check it, they are usually unlined, the leather that forms the sides run all the way under the foot. But Alden's "Leisure Hand-sewn" is not a classic moccasin. It is a conventional welted shoe and the seam on top forms no functional purpose and is solely decorative.

Yes, I guess one could consider the original Native American moccasin as the classic form, probably the original form at least (or is it?). In any case, as I understand it, you're saying that the apron seams connecting the upper and lower pieces are necessary for a shoe to be considered of moccasin construction. If true, this would put Bologna and Moccasin construction into different categories.

 

[Roger]

Please be more specific on stitched apron (photo?). I do know that toe puffs are a piece of leather or plastic (uuggh) inserted between the lining, if present, and the upper leather in the toe area. Although they may have roughly a similar purpose or goal as stitched aprons, I suspect they are completely different things.

Here's a picture of moccasin construction:

https://www.barker-shoes.co.uk/(0mdfu045nw4tov4552quakut)/Construction.aspx

Scroll down to Moccasin. There you'll see a cutaway, showing two seams at the side-top connecting the sides to what is often called the apron (sometimes called the "lake"). All the shoes I've seen described with the term "moccasin" have this structure, not the smooth vamp (on top) shown for Bologna construction. The main purpose of the stitched sides/top is to provide something of a toe box. The toe puff (of hardened leather or thermoplastic) serves the same purpose with a vamp that is not seamed the way a moccasin (or any Norwegian-toe shoe) is. My point was only that Bologna construction does not appear to require this double-seamed vamp (allowing for a toe puff to achieve the same effect), and in this way is qualitatively different from Moccasin construction.

 

[Roger]

Bengal's description is marvelous. I think this issue popped up because I may have misinterpreted the diagram for the Bologna construction posted by Jcusey. Maybe the diagram is inaccurate, but it appears that the upper wraps around the bottom of the foot, like in a moccasin construction shoe. In fact, looking again, that diagram suggests that there is no plug and the upper is a continuous tube, which is quite impossible!

Yes, I see what you mean. It does appear that way in the diagram, but I guess we have to assume that there is a seam there somewhere, perhaps in the middle--at the edge of the diagram. It wouldn't surprise me greatly to discover that with some Bologna-constructed shoes, the "outside leather" in the diagram stops just inside of the "second stitch, with a thicker insole filling the space between the two "first stitches" (there also being one of the right side).

 

[Roger]

Roger, IMO you have a serious lack of first hand experience. No problem.

Not sure what this means, fritzl! I don't see how vast experience is necessary to study and understand the details--even in the abstract--of shoe construction. All that is taking place in this thread is a discussion of some details laid out in diagrams. Does one need to have visited factories and been fitted for bespoke shoes to have valid input to such a discussion? :icon_smile_wink:

But, you take part in discussions with such a energy... It seems obvious, that the majority of members is not interested in details about their i.e. shoes. My blue eyed attitude brought me more beating than listeners..., anyway. Think about it. Regards

This forum is made up of literally thousands of members, and their interests vary widely. There are some who are very analytical and to whom construction details matter. Those to whom these things are uninteresting will simply pass by the thread. That's the way it should be. Those who are interested will peruse the thread and perhaps add to it. The fact that 95% of the forum membership couldn't care less about construction details is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant. There have, by the way, been, at this point, 663 views of this thread, so at least some interest exists!

 

[Roger]

You already know my answer. Please, do not take offense, but there is more than theory. Quoted from Mr. Bengal Stripe: "The right fit" is not something like a mathematical formula (only one correct answer possible). Whether it's a shoe, a suit, a shirt, the "right fit" is something very personal, you might wear those things tighter or looser than what the craftsman feels is correct. Even if you are happy with the fit, having worn the item several times, you might prefer little changes somewhere (take off a smidgen on the heel and add a bit over the toe). In a bespoke garment/shoe everything can be adjusted individually. Having worn a particular item for a while, will give you a better understanding what you want to get altered before you commission the next suit, shoes, whatever. Perfection, if it ever exists, is usually not achieved instantly. Thread: https://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=74264

I fully agree with Bengal-stripe's assertion re fit and the benefits of bespoke shoes, but am having trouble connecting it with the subject of this thread.