Our site continues to revel in saturation methods. This week the becksömsydda, which has gone from functional pjäxkonstruktion that today constitute a hallmark of the flamboyant Italian shoe manufacturers.
It is said that Italian pjäxtillverkare around the town of Montebelluna downloaded this largely waterproof construction from Norwegian manufacturers sometime in the 1800s. Many Italian manufacturers call it actually today for Costruzione norvegese.
As the saturation method includes the becksömsydda a number of different elements. Like the welted construction secured first shoe uppers with ritsläppet in the insole by staples. Next, attach the insole and shoe uppers stripe that runs around the shoe. For this construction, a somewhat thicker stripe, also called storm stripe. Features of the design is that the edge of the rim folded up along the side of the shoe, unlike the welted construction where the edge of the rim is hidden in the shoe upper. Equally distinguished becksömsydda the construction of the welted by the outsole is attached to both the edge and the shoe’s upper. Overall, this gives a more durable construction than water, which prevents water from both the ground and the side from penetrating the insole.
Today, the visible structure preferably among Italian manufacturers who managed to make the robust construction, with two visible seams along the edge of the sole (becksöm and avlappssöm), a stylistically coveted detail. What makes many manufacturers hesitant design is that it is extremely laborious and time consuming, making the price tag easily get out of control. Sheath Lassi-shoes image for example, requires not less than 600 stitches all sewn by hand.
There are machines capable of stitching the same operation, but which are now very rare. This type of equipment must actually have been in Sweden before the shoe industry went into the grave. If not Sweden as spare production restores its status, we skofantaster largely satisfied with these beautiful shoes from Italy and Southern Europe. Which in and of itself is not completely wrong…