Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [medieval-leather] Re: Shoes on eBay

Expand Messages
  • Linda Rice
    Well, for one thing, I certainly wouldn t have called them elegant , even when they were new. ;o Practical perhaps. To me, it looks like a major part is
    Message 1 of 5 , May 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, for one thing, I certainly wouldn't have called them 'elegant',
      even when they were new. ;o> Practical perhaps. To me, it looks like a
      major part is missing, the back part that might have made it a true shoe
      instead of a slip-on thing? Or are the ripply lines around the edge from
      stitching to a thicker sole that is now gone? I couldn't say whether or
      not it is Elizabethan, but it does look very old. The price is still
      pretty reasonable, which tells me that perhaps other people question it
      as much as I do.

      As much as I disagree with selling antiquities online, at least it does
      give us a chance to see a variety of stuff that otherwise we might not.
      I always save the pictures and a brief summary of the 'verdict', for
      reference.

      Thanks!

      Linda



      Subject: [medieval-leather] Re: Shoes on eBay

      --- In medieval-leather@yahoogroups.com, "Linda Rice" <vmaa2@c...>
      wrote:
      > Once again, somebody is selling something they probably ought not to.
      > I don't know if they are really Elizabethan, but nice close-up photos:
      http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2529464377&category=3
      55


      Anyone care to use this as a learning tool and give a little analysis
      a try, just from the photos? As a start, I will suggest that two of
      the three words in the title are in error.--Marc
    • Anna Troy
      Well if you look at this person s other items he/she seems to think you have to have an expletive to describe an item for it to sell. 8-) As for the shoe, it
      Message 2 of 5 , May 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Well if you look at this person's other items he/she
        seems to think you have to have an expletive to
        describe an item for it to sell. 8-) As for the shoe,
        it looks home made. Those stitches are huge. So it
        could be late 16th century but it could also be later.
        I don't see any indications of a heel although there
        seems to be stitching left around the edge of the
        sole. A home made mule?

        Anna T

        > Anyone care to use this as a learning tool and give
        > a little analysis
        > a try, just from the photos? As a start, I will
        > suggest that two of
        > the three words in the title are in error.
        >
        > Marc
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >


        =====
        "So many books, so little time."

        "Anna's Crafts Links Page" has MOVED to:
        http://www.angelfire.com/retro/crafts

        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
        http://search.yahoo.com
      • Marc Carlson
        Just a quicky input here since this is being a really busy week :) I think either the sole is badly fitted at the toe or has shrunk; and the relative cleanness
        Message 3 of 5 , May 14, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Just a quicky input here since this is being a really busy week :)

          I think either the sole is badly fitted at the toe or has shrunk; and
          the relative cleanness of the stitches suggests to me that those are
          not the original stitches - particularly when compared with the
          threads that appear to still be in outer area of the welt (and would
          then have gone into the outsole).

          Take a close look at the back edge of the vamp. There are holes there
          too. We are definately missing the quarters (it's possible that there
          was an edge treatment there instead of full quarters, which would
          support Anna's suggestion of a mule, but most mule examples I can find
          pictures of have a different welt shape, since the welt wraps down
          around a more solid (wooden or cork) sole. So I'm going to say that,
          based on the welt shape in the front, that this thing had quarters.

          So, anyone have any examples of a shoe or boot that has a vamp seam
          that looks like that (i.e. straight up to the middle)?

          Marc
          ---Anna Troy <owly3@y...> wrote:
          > Well if you look at this person's other items he/she
          > seems to think you have to have an expletive to
          > describe an item for it to sell. 8-) As for the shoe,
          > it looks home made. Those stitches are huge. So it
          > could be late 16th century but it could also be later.
          > I don't see any indications of a heel although there
          > seems to be stitching left around the edge of the
          > sole. A home made mule?

          ---Linda:
          >...me, it looks like a major part is missing, the back part that
          >might have made it a true shoe instead of a slip-on thing? Or are the
          >ripply lines around the edge from stitching to a thicker sole that is
          >now gone? I couldn't say whether or not it is Elizabethan, but it
          >does look very old. The price is still pretty reasonable, which tells
          >me that perhaps other people question it as much as I do.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.