Pablo,
I disagree that the discussion is off course, and I disagree that less information from the foot is better--the "keep it simple" theory.
It was once said that shoe could be made with a no other tools than a knife and a fork..."nothing could be simpler".... But nothing could be cruder either and nothing could be more "hit or miss."
As bespoke bootmakers with a responsibility to the customer, if not ourselves, we need to collect as much data from the foot as is reasonably possible. I'm not ever going to move to computer scans and the like, nor am I willing to spend more than about twenty minutes measuring a customer. But much of this information is extremely relevant to understanding the relationships of the feet, the lasts, and the patterns. They are, for better or worse, all inextricably entwined.
If nothing else, experience, and comfort with the concepts involved allow a person to confirm theories and techniques. Just as Paul was wondering why a pair of lasts seem to have a bigger SH measurement than the foot...having cross-checks to confirm placement of measurements, methods of measurements, and the validity of a particular theory, can be the difference between real understanding and a lifetime of doing things by rote.
I have often said that the bootmaker who claims that he never has a misfit is either lying or needs a better (higher) standard of fit. In the same vein, being content with the "simple" way may only indicate a need for a better (higher?) standard (level) of understanding. Or not...who am I to say? But it does raise the question, doesn't it?
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
One "Last" Question
-
pablo
Re: One "Last" Question
DW,
The heel measure(SH) historically preceeded the appearance of the long heel measure. I think, from what has turned up so far, the long heel shows up in the US in the second quarter of the 1800's or just after that.Therefore, its a recent addition and useful as is well known.Any link-up
theory on the heel(SH) measure to the long heel measure is a construct that in my view is simply unnecessary.
The heel measure(SH) historically preceeded the appearance of the long heel measure. I think, from what has turned up so far, the long heel shows up in the US in the second quarter of the 1800's or just after that.Therefore, its a recent addition and useful as is well known.Any link-up
theory on the heel(SH) measure to the long heel measure is a construct that in my view is simply unnecessary.
-
pablo
Re: One "Last" Question
DW,
I seem to recall that Paul was perplexed( he had a dilemma) because the boot fit his foot even though the last had a greater SH .. not that he wondered why a pair of lasts seem to have a bigger SH measure( there is a significant difference between the two). You appear to miss the point of discussion ( not meant as criticism but to illustrate how we get of course).
I seem to recall that Paul was perplexed( he had a dilemma) because the boot fit his foot even though the last had a greater SH .. not that he wondered why a pair of lasts seem to have a bigger SH measure( there is a significant difference between the two). You appear to miss the point of discussion ( not meant as criticism but to illustrate how we get of course).
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Pablo,
Come on Pablo, Paul's dilemma is one of understanding the relationships between the foot, the last, and the patterns. And that says nothing about whether I'm right or you're right or even if Paul is right.
Paul asked for help, for input. and he asked for it specifically regarding using my methods. Presumably, I understand those methods as well as anyone. I don't think I have ever lost sight of the point of the conversation. I have addressed myself to Paul and specifically to Paul's question in great detail. It's not a "simple" question and the answer can't be expressed in homilies. However, as the conversation gathered steam it also picked up other contributors and took off in other directions, as well as the original. One thing I learned long ago: it is fruitless to try to control any conversation on the forum (or in real life, either, for that matter) and it is a wet blanket on any kind of creative thinking, to boot. Bottom line, there simply is no way the keep any conversation strictly "on course." Bottom line, I wouldn't want to, in any case...it obviates the whole purpose of the Forum.
You (or anyone) can give Paul (or any serious questioner) a passel of platitudes (not that you did) or you can try to address the possible problems head on. But, in Paul's case, in my opinion, they all come down to one fundamental fact or the other...either he is measuring something incorrectly or he could have an even better fit than he thinks he has on that particular pair of boots.
See, that doesn't say anything about whether the boots actually fit him or not...they might fit him fine. But if they do, then the inescapable conclusion is that the short heel on the last is not significantly different than on the foot (it simply can't be and still fit)...and somewhere, either in measuring the foot or in fitting up the last, or interpreting the data, or...something is being missed or lost.
As for there being a connection between the short heel and the long heel, I never intended to suggest a chronological or historical connection. Given your interest in history, I can understand why you might think that, but you are mis-reading what I said and the point I was making. The relationship between the short heel and the long heel is one of geometry, nothing else in my mind. And all the more inescapable for all of that.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Come on Pablo, Paul's dilemma is one of understanding the relationships between the foot, the last, and the patterns. And that says nothing about whether I'm right or you're right or even if Paul is right.
Paul asked for help, for input. and he asked for it specifically regarding using my methods. Presumably, I understand those methods as well as anyone. I don't think I have ever lost sight of the point of the conversation. I have addressed myself to Paul and specifically to Paul's question in great detail. It's not a "simple" question and the answer can't be expressed in homilies. However, as the conversation gathered steam it also picked up other contributors and took off in other directions, as well as the original. One thing I learned long ago: it is fruitless to try to control any conversation on the forum (or in real life, either, for that matter) and it is a wet blanket on any kind of creative thinking, to boot. Bottom line, there simply is no way the keep any conversation strictly "on course." Bottom line, I wouldn't want to, in any case...it obviates the whole purpose of the Forum.
You (or anyone) can give Paul (or any serious questioner) a passel of platitudes (not that you did) or you can try to address the possible problems head on. But, in Paul's case, in my opinion, they all come down to one fundamental fact or the other...either he is measuring something incorrectly or he could have an even better fit than he thinks he has on that particular pair of boots.
See, that doesn't say anything about whether the boots actually fit him or not...they might fit him fine. But if they do, then the inescapable conclusion is that the short heel on the last is not significantly different than on the foot (it simply can't be and still fit)...and somewhere, either in measuring the foot or in fitting up the last, or interpreting the data, or...something is being missed or lost.
As for there being a connection between the short heel and the long heel, I never intended to suggest a chronological or historical connection. Given your interest in history, I can understand why you might think that, but you are mis-reading what I said and the point I was making. The relationship between the short heel and the long heel is one of geometry, nothing else in my mind. And all the more inescapable for all of that.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Continuing to post some scans of the basic layouts for constructing a standard (as promised)....
The first two scans reiterate the prevalence of taking the SH girth by measuring "the foot in a plane through the point of the heel and the neck or throat of the foot." The first is Swaysland and the second is Max Sahm.
Max Sahm is a somewhat contemporary...the book was written in 1960. But since it is entirely in German I've never been able to fully determine how good it is one way or the other. We are left to interpreting photos and diagrams. Still, for all of that, the book seems very comprehensive the work neat and clean. Which brings me to another point in all of this: about the only way that a person can judge whether a writer, or a teacher, or even just a casual conversationalist is worth listening to, when things get dicey, is to study his work. Everyone has a body of work that represents himself almost as uniquely as his fingerprints. It's one thing to propound theories, it's another to actually make them work.
The next several scans are from Sahms book and depict the initial layout of the standard and the pattern design for a closed tab, low quarter shoe.
And the final two scans are from the seldom seen Bata manual. Another work that more or less spans the gap between the "old ways" and the new. Bata claims that in the "good old days the designer would construct his 'standard' without the mean forme. It had been a straightforward geometric approach in which distances between selected points would be measured on the last, or simply computed from given 'length and fitting' and then transferred to pattern paper for the complete standard to be constructed."
In the manual an attempt is made to reconcile the geometric system with the mean forme system and to synthesize the two. It works. But it is not unique, as several of the scans both yesterday and today make clear.
So, there seems to be three ways to create a standard for making shoes extant in the world today: the geometric system, the mean forme system and a system that seems to combine the best of both. I cut my teeth on the geometric system...a pure geometric system...and had a hard time coming to terms with the mean forme system, initially. Now (and for nearly the last twenty years) I have been using a combined system although, truthfully using he mean forme is still almost incidental in my approach. A pure mean forme system doesn't take or seem to require a heel measure unless a boot is to be made. I guess because I rely so heavily on the SH when making wellingtons--both dress and full--I don't fully trust any system that ignores it.
Anyway...Ed, and anyone else who was waiting...there you go. I hope it helps.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
The first two scans reiterate the prevalence of taking the SH girth by measuring "the foot in a plane through the point of the heel and the neck or throat of the foot." The first is Swaysland and the second is Max Sahm.
Max Sahm is a somewhat contemporary...the book was written in 1960. But since it is entirely in German I've never been able to fully determine how good it is one way or the other. We are left to interpreting photos and diagrams. Still, for all of that, the book seems very comprehensive the work neat and clean. Which brings me to another point in all of this: about the only way that a person can judge whether a writer, or a teacher, or even just a casual conversationalist is worth listening to, when things get dicey, is to study his work. Everyone has a body of work that represents himself almost as uniquely as his fingerprints. It's one thing to propound theories, it's another to actually make them work.
The next several scans are from Sahms book and depict the initial layout of the standard and the pattern design for a closed tab, low quarter shoe.
And the final two scans are from the seldom seen Bata manual. Another work that more or less spans the gap between the "old ways" and the new. Bata claims that in the "good old days the designer would construct his 'standard' without the mean forme. It had been a straightforward geometric approach in which distances between selected points would be measured on the last, or simply computed from given 'length and fitting' and then transferred to pattern paper for the complete standard to be constructed."
In the manual an attempt is made to reconcile the geometric system with the mean forme system and to synthesize the two. It works. But it is not unique, as several of the scans both yesterday and today make clear.
So, there seems to be three ways to create a standard for making shoes extant in the world today: the geometric system, the mean forme system and a system that seems to combine the best of both. I cut my teeth on the geometric system...a pure geometric system...and had a hard time coming to terms with the mean forme system, initially. Now (and for nearly the last twenty years) I have been using a combined system although, truthfully using he mean forme is still almost incidental in my approach. A pure mean forme system doesn't take or seem to require a heel measure unless a boot is to be made. I guess because I rely so heavily on the SH when making wellingtons--both dress and full--I don't fully trust any system that ignores it.
Anyway...Ed, and anyone else who was waiting...there you go. I hope it helps.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Anonymous
Re: One "Last" Question
The K.I.S.S. theory is specifically addressed to those for whom it is best suited. Richard
-
pablo
Re: One "Last" Question
DW,
Eureka!
The magic words finally appeared.There they are in the third paragraph above,
"... or he could have an even better fit than he thinks he has on that particular pair of boots".
You appear to agree that there is in fact a window for fitting - that it is possible to have a value grade assigned to fitting, or to put it in your terms, a good," better" ,best fit.And I agree.
When I posed the question of options to the responses about Paul's plea for help on not have a suitable last,I hoped for opinions about the
concepts and theories about fitting. We've , in my opinion come full circle now so since we all agree ... good.
Eureka!
The magic words finally appeared.There they are in the third paragraph above,
"... or he could have an even better fit than he thinks he has on that particular pair of boots".
You appear to agree that there is in fact a window for fitting - that it is possible to have a value grade assigned to fitting, or to put it in your terms, a good," better" ,best fit.And I agree.
When I posed the question of options to the responses about Paul's plea for help on not have a suitable last,I hoped for opinions about the
concepts and theories about fitting. We've , in my opinion come full circle now so since we all agree ... good.
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Pablo,
Well, I hope I'm not continuing a discussion that you'd like to abandon. If so please just say so...plainly...and then leave it at that. You leave too many loose ends untied and I feel compelled to reply.
So, just to clarify...the "Eureka" sentiment that you latched on to has been there all along...with my comments about "standards," about what is "acceptable," and so forth..
The point I was making, just so there's no confusion, is that with nothing against which to compare it, Paul's boot may be a terrible fit but *he* might think it's a good fit.[my apologies Paul for using your problem as an example over and over again. I hope you understand that you, and this problem, are sort of a generic stand-in for a common problem that all bootmakers run across sometime in their careers. Thanks for tolerating that.]
Are there degrees of "fit?" Maybe. I guess, to repeat myself, it depends on what you consider acceptable. I frankly admit that I've made boots for customers where I missed badly. Where I could chase leather across the instep like a tsunami washing across the strand. And the customer said "Best fitting boots I ever had!" I don't know how anyone else would react in such a situation but although I might breath a sigh of relief at not having lost the price of the materials, I am, at the same time, extremely frustrated and disgusted at myself for mis-reading the feet so badly. Fit is not just in the custmer's mind, nor even just in his feet, it is also in the hands and mind of the maker.
But, a foot in a brown paper bag is not a fit and doesn't lie anywhere on your "value grade assigned to fitting" scale. But it certainly serves to emphasize the fact that, ultimately, what we are called to do is *fit* the foot--admittedly, as best as we know how--but fit the foot, nevertheless. If there is a "value grade" it is a very narrow one, in my opinion.
And it is for that very reason that we need, have a responsibility, to collect as much relevant data as possible and model the dimensions of the foot as closely as is possible. "Close enough" is not good enough. "Maybe" is not good enough. Except for Guv'mint work.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Well, I hope I'm not continuing a discussion that you'd like to abandon. If so please just say so...plainly...and then leave it at that. You leave too many loose ends untied and I feel compelled to reply.
So, just to clarify...the "Eureka" sentiment that you latched on to has been there all along...with my comments about "standards," about what is "acceptable," and so forth..
The point I was making, just so there's no confusion, is that with nothing against which to compare it, Paul's boot may be a terrible fit but *he* might think it's a good fit.[my apologies Paul for using your problem as an example over and over again. I hope you understand that you, and this problem, are sort of a generic stand-in for a common problem that all bootmakers run across sometime in their careers. Thanks for tolerating that.]
Are there degrees of "fit?" Maybe. I guess, to repeat myself, it depends on what you consider acceptable. I frankly admit that I've made boots for customers where I missed badly. Where I could chase leather across the instep like a tsunami washing across the strand. And the customer said "Best fitting boots I ever had!" I don't know how anyone else would react in such a situation but although I might breath a sigh of relief at not having lost the price of the materials, I am, at the same time, extremely frustrated and disgusted at myself for mis-reading the feet so badly. Fit is not just in the custmer's mind, nor even just in his feet, it is also in the hands and mind of the maker.
But, a foot in a brown paper bag is not a fit and doesn't lie anywhere on your "value grade assigned to fitting" scale. But it certainly serves to emphasize the fact that, ultimately, what we are called to do is *fit* the foot--admittedly, as best as we know how--but fit the foot, nevertheless. If there is a "value grade" it is a very narrow one, in my opinion.
And it is for that very reason that we need, have a responsibility, to collect as much relevant data as possible and model the dimensions of the foot as closely as is possible. "Close enough" is not good enough. "Maybe" is not good enough. Except for Guv'mint work.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
pablo
Re: One "Last" Question
DW,
Plainly put , yes I think the topic has run its
course to the point of divergence in opinion about what is necessary to fit a boot.
I perceive in your approach to the matter an elaboration exceeding the need.
I prefer a more spartan technique that I hope to preserve since it has been passed to me from one who in turn received it likewise. It is important to me to preserve that legacy.
As for the loose ends, continue if you like.
Plainly put , yes I think the topic has run its
course to the point of divergence in opinion about what is necessary to fit a boot.
I perceive in your approach to the matter an elaboration exceeding the need.
I prefer a more spartan technique that I hope to preserve since it has been passed to me from one who in turn received it likewise. It is important to me to preserve that legacy.
As for the loose ends, continue if you like.
-
gaid
- 3
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 3:42 pm
- Full Name: Janne
Re: One "Last" Question
D.W, All
I wonder if you know anything about how many followers Golding and Sabbage had? Where their systems accepted not only by their own students? I ask because I think it is of interest to know what their contemporary colleaques thought of their systems. I guess that not many of them had afford to buy the Bradley machine and the rest of the fancy stuff.
One thing that might be of interest to know for those who just recently have entered the footwear making path. No last making system will fit all feet and not many pattern making system will fit all lasts! That is a proven fact, at least in the orthopeadic trade as I know it. All system could end up kind of static and the way I know the fitters/lastmakers day the kee word is, flexibility. That is why I look at this kind of pragmatic. In the last shop I was working at we talked alot about all systems available and our conclusion was that they all are part of a "smorgasbord"! The makers dilemma is to choose right method for the right client.
JEM
I wonder if you know anything about how many followers Golding and Sabbage had? Where their systems accepted not only by their own students? I ask because I think it is of interest to know what their contemporary colleaques thought of their systems. I guess that not many of them had afford to buy the Bradley machine and the rest of the fancy stuff.
One thing that might be of interest to know for those who just recently have entered the footwear making path. No last making system will fit all feet and not many pattern making system will fit all lasts! That is a proven fact, at least in the orthopeadic trade as I know it. All system could end up kind of static and the way I know the fitters/lastmakers day the kee word is, flexibility. That is why I look at this kind of pragmatic. In the last shop I was working at we talked alot about all systems available and our conclusion was that they all are part of a "smorgasbord"! The makers dilemma is to choose right method for the right client.
JEM
-
cmw
- 3
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 1998 7:01 pm
- Full Name: Chris
- Location: copenhagen, denmark
- Been Liked: 1 time
Re: One "Last" Question
DW, Pablo and all
I would like to say thank you for letting the subject matter divert or encompass more than some would think needed. We beginners are happy that it happens.
Learning about last is the last thing I’ve had time to think about as a cobblers appr. This type of subject is worth gold .
CW
I would like to say thank you for letting the subject matter divert or encompass more than some would think needed. We beginners are happy that it happens.
Learning about last is the last thing I’ve had time to think about as a cobblers appr. This type of subject is worth gold .
CW
-
Len Boden
Re: One "Last" Question
All,
As a now deceased bootmaker once told me...."you don't just fit the foot, you must also fit the head". I once had a customer who ordered a nice elephant boot and then said " I don't want it to fit anywhere except on the bottom" and he was serious. When he picked up the boots he was angry and made me stretch them as much as possible all over. So, I contend that what "I" think is a fit, may not be someone elses idea of a fit.
LB
As a now deceased bootmaker once told me...."you don't just fit the foot, you must also fit the head". I once had a customer who ordered a nice elephant boot and then said " I don't want it to fit anywhere except on the bottom" and he was serious. When he picked up the boots he was angry and made me stretch them as much as possible all over. So, I contend that what "I" think is a fit, may not be someone elses idea of a fit.
LB
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Janne,
Thank You! I've been saying this since the forum itself was founded and again and again in this very conversation. It's nice to have a maker of your stature reinforce the notion, however.
As far as Golding and Sabbage...Golding was the head of the Cordwainers College in London for 38 years, so one would assume that his theories had great currency. George Sabbage was a colleague of his and would not have been included in Golding's volumes if he had not been well respected.
Flexibility...again I agree. I often catagorize the system of measureing, fitting, and patterning that I use as "my method," but really, it would be better termed "that-evolving-synthesis-of-old-and-new-practices-and-theories-which-all-seem-to-share-a-common-philosophical-bias-that-DW-didn't-invent-but-uses-to-such-good-effect."
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Thank You! I've been saying this since the forum itself was founded and again and again in this very conversation. It's nice to have a maker of your stature reinforce the notion, however.
As far as Golding and Sabbage...Golding was the head of the Cordwainers College in London for 38 years, so one would assume that his theories had great currency. George Sabbage was a colleague of his and would not have been included in Golding's volumes if he had not been well respected.
Flexibility...again I agree. I often catagorize the system of measureing, fitting, and patterning that I use as "my method," but really, it would be better termed "that-evolving-synthesis-of-old-and-new-practices-and-theories-which-all-seem-to-share-a-common-philosophical-bias-that-DW-didn't-invent-but-uses-to-such-good-effect."
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Len,
I hope you are not referring to me! I have been saying that for nearly 25 years and I'm sure I'm not dead yet...well, pretty sure.
Of course, it is so intuitive. But like I said a foot in a brown paper bag is not a fit...even if the customer sighs with pleasure. Not from a maker's point of view, it's not. That the customer is happy is wonderful, and if the results were intended...you *did* fit his head. But you didn't fit his foot...and, for me at least, it's necessary to fit both, for both customer and maker to be satisfied. I can fit a customer loose, in other words, and will do so if that's what he wants. But I'd never say I fit the foot.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
I hope you are not referring to me! I have been saying that for nearly 25 years and I'm sure I'm not dead yet...well, pretty sure.
Of course, it is so intuitive. But like I said a foot in a brown paper bag is not a fit...even if the customer sighs with pleasure. Not from a maker's point of view, it's not. That the customer is happy is wonderful, and if the results were intended...you *did* fit his head. But you didn't fit his foot...and, for me at least, it's necessary to fit both, for both customer and maker to be satisfied. I can fit a customer loose, in other words, and will do so if that's what he wants. But I'd never say I fit the foot. Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
gaid
- 3
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 3:42 pm
- Full Name: Janne
Re: One "Last" Question
D.W.
you're welcome!
I guess you are right about that they where accepted among contemporary colleaques. At least among those from English speaking countries. My master is from Germany and he had never mentioned any of them as far as I remember. Anyhow, like Pablo I like spartan techniques and I will stick to my tape, pen, paper and carbon-paper and forget about Goldings machines
JEM
you're welcome!
I guess you are right about that they where accepted among contemporary colleaques. At least among those from English speaking countries. My master is from Germany and he had never mentioned any of them as far as I remember. Anyhow, like Pablo I like spartan techniques and I will stick to my tape, pen, paper and carbon-paper and forget about Goldings machines
JEM
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Janne,
I wouldn't disagree a bit...but you miss the point (maybe Pablo did, too?) I certainly wasn't advocating the use of a Datum Frame or a Bradley machine. In fact, I use pretty much what you use--paper, pencil, a pedograph and a tape measure. I also said that I wasn't ever going to succumb to the siren song of a computer scan.
But what I was pointing out is that the Victorians--and I repeat, this was arguably the heydey of bespoke making--were keenly interested in "relationships." They were looking for "synergies." How does this angle relate to that measurement, etc.. To me, this is the hallmark of intelligence...of a "questing mind." Of interest, of focus, of involvement. The apparatae (sic) were just the tip of the iceberg as far as their attempts to understand the foot and last. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
BTW, if your master was from Germany, had he (or you) ever heard of Max Sahm?
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
I wouldn't disagree a bit...but you miss the point (maybe Pablo did, too?) I certainly wasn't advocating the use of a Datum Frame or a Bradley machine. In fact, I use pretty much what you use--paper, pencil, a pedograph and a tape measure. I also said that I wasn't ever going to succumb to the siren song of a computer scan.
But what I was pointing out is that the Victorians--and I repeat, this was arguably the heydey of bespoke making--were keenly interested in "relationships." They were looking for "synergies." How does this angle relate to that measurement, etc.. To me, this is the hallmark of intelligence...of a "questing mind." Of interest, of focus, of involvement. The apparatae (sic) were just the tip of the iceberg as far as their attempts to understand the foot and last. Nothing wrong with that in my book.
BTW, if your master was from Germany, had he (or you) ever heard of Max Sahm?
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
gcunning
- 4
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 1998 7:01 pm
- Full Name: Gary
- Location: Wichita Falls, TX, USA
Re: One "Last" Question
Len gave an example close to what had been running through my head.
A boot maker fits a foot perfect as can be yet the customer is not satisfied with the fit.???
Frustrating?
This all comes back to what we have talked about before. 10 boot makers measuring the same foot the same way will be different. 1 boot maker measuring the same foot 10 times will have some slight differences. The Eye and Experience not as much the tape is what makes the customer happy. A couple of other things if a boot maker is perceived to be a "good" boot maker a customer may be less likely to complain. One last thought on fitting. Carl Chappell has said that if a customer picks up his freshly made boots - turns them over inspects top to bottom- and LOVES the looks will do their best to work with the maker in any difficulties in fit. He says the opposite is even truer. If the customer is not just overjoyed with the looks, even though satisfied, may find more problems with the fit.
A boot maker fits a foot perfect as can be yet the customer is not satisfied with the fit.???
Frustrating?
This all comes back to what we have talked about before. 10 boot makers measuring the same foot the same way will be different. 1 boot maker measuring the same foot 10 times will have some slight differences. The Eye and Experience not as much the tape is what makes the customer happy. A couple of other things if a boot maker is perceived to be a "good" boot maker a customer may be less likely to complain. One last thought on fitting. Carl Chappell has said that if a customer picks up his freshly made boots - turns them over inspects top to bottom- and LOVES the looks will do their best to work with the maker in any difficulties in fit. He says the opposite is even truer. If the customer is not just overjoyed with the looks, even though satisfied, may find more problems with the fit.
-
Frank Jones of Lancashire,
Re: One "Last" Question
Janne Melkersson and All
First to add my thanks to others for the discussion in this thread (is that the right term?). Hardly ‘One “Last” Question, but who cares. This discussion has again made me go back and look closely at the old books. The idea of a short heel measurement “on the last” is something I had problem getting my head around. But then I am one of those “shoe” guys, so perhaps I can be excused. Making us think and look again at our knowledge/expertise base is what the Colloquy does so well.
Janne asks about the standing or following of people like Golding and Sabbage. I can give an opinion but for an opinion to have any value one needs to know a little about the person behind that opinion. So here goes:-
This 64 year old has been in the business since schooldays. Like Tex, I partly grew up in my father’s workshop. At 18 years old I began to realise I wanted to know more than my father could teach me. I eventually found Cordwainers Technical College, as it was called then. The Principal in 1958 was Jack Korn, the man who’s name is on the front cover of Golding’s Volume II. The other person named below Korn on page 185 is Miss Ivy Facey. In the 1950’s and 60’s Miss Facey was widely recognised in the UK as one of the best specialist experts in closing (sewing/fitting). At the end of my first two years at Cordwainers, I was asked to help with the City and Guilds Evening class and within three weeks was in charge of the more advanced half of the group. In those days the evening class frequently started with 60 or 70 people! I continued teaching evening classes until moving out of London in 1966.
Later in my career I worked at SATRA (Shoe and Allied Trades Research Association) in Kettering. SATRA was and still is, the largest footwear technology research organisation in the world. This took me in and out of footwear factories and workshops all over Britain and in a number of other countries. A large part of my work was running practical training programs for machinists from factories who had been selected to run their company’s sewing training school for new recruits. I ran these courses in South Africa, USA, Montreal, Canada (that one in French!) as well as in England. Later I became Head of Footwear at one of the other UK colleges which also had a full shoemaking department.
That is enough of about me to establish that I have had a feel for footwear technology and its dissemination over many years in the UK and to a limited extent elsewhere. My apologies for the CV, I know, it should be in the Registry.
So back to Janne’s question. In my career I cannot recall anybody ever mentioning Sabbage or his Sectionizer. Certainly it was never even touched on at Cordwainers Technical College during my six years studying there from 1958 to 1964. This is only one person’s experience but I am confident that none of the UK footwear colleges from the early 1960’s to the present have ever included it in any of their curriculum. Golding is certainly a name that college lecturers will recognise but only because of some old books in the college library carrying that name. I don’t think most of the lecturers would have as good a grasp of what is in those books, as have regular readers of the Colloquy.
Much of what is in these books has been superseded and the material produced over the years, often by SATRA, has replaced it. The exception to this has always been for anybody wanting to make boots, particularly dress boots. Without a doubt the earlier works such as Golding (especially the 1902 book but also the seven volumes dated 1935) and Swayland (1905) are highly regarded in this respect. As has been said many times, the second half of the 19th century and the first 30 years of the 20th was when most men had a pair of “best boots” they wore to church. This changed dramatically after 1930.
To summarise, Sabbage does not have a following and never did as far as I know. Golding is the old guy who produced those old green books “that nobody looks at any more”. Both of these statements are qualified by the disclaimer - in my personal judgement.
I will come back to the gadgets and machines in the Golding books another time, Yes, it will be shorter (big smile)
Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com
First to add my thanks to others for the discussion in this thread (is that the right term?). Hardly ‘One “Last” Question, but who cares. This discussion has again made me go back and look closely at the old books. The idea of a short heel measurement “on the last” is something I had problem getting my head around. But then I am one of those “shoe” guys, so perhaps I can be excused. Making us think and look again at our knowledge/expertise base is what the Colloquy does so well.
Janne asks about the standing or following of people like Golding and Sabbage. I can give an opinion but for an opinion to have any value one needs to know a little about the person behind that opinion. So here goes:-
This 64 year old has been in the business since schooldays. Like Tex, I partly grew up in my father’s workshop. At 18 years old I began to realise I wanted to know more than my father could teach me. I eventually found Cordwainers Technical College, as it was called then. The Principal in 1958 was Jack Korn, the man who’s name is on the front cover of Golding’s Volume II. The other person named below Korn on page 185 is Miss Ivy Facey. In the 1950’s and 60’s Miss Facey was widely recognised in the UK as one of the best specialist experts in closing (sewing/fitting). At the end of my first two years at Cordwainers, I was asked to help with the City and Guilds Evening class and within three weeks was in charge of the more advanced half of the group. In those days the evening class frequently started with 60 or 70 people! I continued teaching evening classes until moving out of London in 1966.
Later in my career I worked at SATRA (Shoe and Allied Trades Research Association) in Kettering. SATRA was and still is, the largest footwear technology research organisation in the world. This took me in and out of footwear factories and workshops all over Britain and in a number of other countries. A large part of my work was running practical training programs for machinists from factories who had been selected to run their company’s sewing training school for new recruits. I ran these courses in South Africa, USA, Montreal, Canada (that one in French!) as well as in England. Later I became Head of Footwear at one of the other UK colleges which also had a full shoemaking department.
That is enough of about me to establish that I have had a feel for footwear technology and its dissemination over many years in the UK and to a limited extent elsewhere. My apologies for the CV, I know, it should be in the Registry.
So back to Janne’s question. In my career I cannot recall anybody ever mentioning Sabbage or his Sectionizer. Certainly it was never even touched on at Cordwainers Technical College during my six years studying there from 1958 to 1964. This is only one person’s experience but I am confident that none of the UK footwear colleges from the early 1960’s to the present have ever included it in any of their curriculum. Golding is certainly a name that college lecturers will recognise but only because of some old books in the college library carrying that name. I don’t think most of the lecturers would have as good a grasp of what is in those books, as have regular readers of the Colloquy.
Much of what is in these books has been superseded and the material produced over the years, often by SATRA, has replaced it. The exception to this has always been for anybody wanting to make boots, particularly dress boots. Without a doubt the earlier works such as Golding (especially the 1902 book but also the seven volumes dated 1935) and Swayland (1905) are highly regarded in this respect. As has been said many times, the second half of the 19th century and the first 30 years of the 20th was when most men had a pair of “best boots” they wore to church. This changed dramatically after 1930.
To summarise, Sabbage does not have a following and never did as far as I know. Golding is the old guy who produced those old green books “that nobody looks at any more”. Both of these statements are qualified by the disclaimer - in my personal judgement.
I will come back to the gadgets and machines in the Golding books another time, Yes, it will be shorter (big smile)
Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com
-
gaid
- 3
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 3:42 pm
- Full Name: Janne
Re: One "Last" Question
D.W.
Well, I would have been very surprised if you have had one of those machines in your shop. It was ment to be a joke!
Since my master had tons of German books regarding the topic I'm sure he had Sahms book. If Goldings book where translated into German he might have had that one too. The only author I remember clearly is Mr Helmut Körner. He was invited to the shop and teached us his mixed version of the geometric-mean forme pattern making system. His book is "Das Modellieren, fachbuch fur Ortopädie Schuh-Technik" My master, Mr Ettwein, was from the same kind of school as Mr Körner and they taught me to measure the foot the way I do today. Their SH is close to where you measure the HI.
Frank
Thank's for your interesting input. It seems like you have had an very interesting job! About old books, we had access to Mr Ettweins library and we did read them. However, he had kind of parsimonious approach to them, but like Luthers relation towards the Apocrypha, he did find them interesting to read.
JEM
Well, I would have been very surprised if you have had one of those machines in your shop. It was ment to be a joke!
Since my master had tons of German books regarding the topic I'm sure he had Sahms book. If Goldings book where translated into German he might have had that one too. The only author I remember clearly is Mr Helmut Körner. He was invited to the shop and teached us his mixed version of the geometric-mean forme pattern making system. His book is "Das Modellieren, fachbuch fur Ortopädie Schuh-Technik" My master, Mr Ettwein, was from the same kind of school as Mr Körner and they taught me to measure the foot the way I do today. Their SH is close to where you measure the HI.
Frank
Thank's for your interesting input. It seems like you have had an very interesting job! About old books, we had access to Mr Ettweins library and we did read them. However, he had kind of parsimonious approach to them, but like Luthers relation towards the Apocrypha, he did find them interesting to read.
JEM
-
paul
- 8
- Posts: 1038
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:00 am
- Full Name: Paul Krause
- Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
- Been Liked: 14 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
No problem here. I've served as a generic stand-in for more than one conversation, I'm sure.
Posting some thoughts in reply has just about taken it all out of me. I don't know how you guys do it! I want to agree with Chris in appreciation for the divergent and encompassing subject matter. I just wish I didn't feel like I should be at the bench instead of feeling my butt fall asleep while I sit here chewing on all these new thoughts.
I have gleaned the solution to my quandry, BTW, and I need to say thank you to Pablo and DW for the energy you've both put into the subject. I'm putting toe boxes in the boots in question today. I used an 11B and built up the forpart. To be honest, I'm probably still alittle off of the true SH but I'm willing to see what I get. Furthermore, I know I need to identify more than one last model that works for me. Time spent with David Espinosa in Phoenix last Monday opened up alot of understanding. My thanks to him as well.
The value of this discussion to me is having something to shoot at that I can identify. If I'm too near-sighted to see the rings of a target clearly then I can't visualize my arrow stickin' outta the center ring. I may be frustrated with a second ring shot if I'm still becoming proficient, but at least I need to have the clear picture of a perfect shot. This is, to me, the value of DW's emperical approach. On the other hand if I couldn't settle for 'good enough' until I understand what I'm really doing, if there wasn't such a thing as a 'pretty good fit', then I'd have to do something else. I feel frustrated at my miss also, but I gotta get that pair in the bank to cover the costs of playing this game I love so much. The learning curve is a bumpy road! I can accept that. 'Good enough' is of value if it's compared against the ideal. The difference is in the attitude one takes to ones shortcomings, isn't it? I want to 'strive' for perfection, but I've seen alot of miserable perfectionists. I think, if a customer walks away 'fit in the head' but I know where I could have done better, then there is value in that.
Pablo, you give me permission to 'fly by the seat of my pants' when I come to a situation I'm lacking in somehow, but I have to stay present, don't I? I have to keep in mind what I did and be ready to adapt. I think that's an important contribution to my way of analizing new things I learn, against things I know to work for me.
You guys with the old books add alot to the discussions.
So a big thanks once again.
PK
Posting some thoughts in reply has just about taken it all out of me. I don't know how you guys do it! I want to agree with Chris in appreciation for the divergent and encompassing subject matter. I just wish I didn't feel like I should be at the bench instead of feeling my butt fall asleep while I sit here chewing on all these new thoughts.
I have gleaned the solution to my quandry, BTW, and I need to say thank you to Pablo and DW for the energy you've both put into the subject. I'm putting toe boxes in the boots in question today. I used an 11B and built up the forpart. To be honest, I'm probably still alittle off of the true SH but I'm willing to see what I get. Furthermore, I know I need to identify more than one last model that works for me. Time spent with David Espinosa in Phoenix last Monday opened up alot of understanding. My thanks to him as well.
The value of this discussion to me is having something to shoot at that I can identify. If I'm too near-sighted to see the rings of a target clearly then I can't visualize my arrow stickin' outta the center ring. I may be frustrated with a second ring shot if I'm still becoming proficient, but at least I need to have the clear picture of a perfect shot. This is, to me, the value of DW's emperical approach. On the other hand if I couldn't settle for 'good enough' until I understand what I'm really doing, if there wasn't such a thing as a 'pretty good fit', then I'd have to do something else. I feel frustrated at my miss also, but I gotta get that pair in the bank to cover the costs of playing this game I love so much. The learning curve is a bumpy road! I can accept that. 'Good enough' is of value if it's compared against the ideal. The difference is in the attitude one takes to ones shortcomings, isn't it? I want to 'strive' for perfection, but I've seen alot of miserable perfectionists. I think, if a customer walks away 'fit in the head' but I know where I could have done better, then there is value in that.
Pablo, you give me permission to 'fly by the seat of my pants' when I come to a situation I'm lacking in somehow, but I have to stay present, don't I? I have to keep in mind what I did and be ready to adapt. I think that's an important contribution to my way of analizing new things I learn, against things I know to work for me.
You guys with the old books add alot to the discussions.
So a big thanks once again.
PK
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Frank,
It's depressing isn't it? Since Golding was the head of Cordwainer's Technical College for 38 years, and George Sabbage A.B.S.I. was an (*the*?) instructor in last fitting at Cordwainer's Technical Colege for 18 years, as well as one of the principle shoemakers at Samuel Winter, Ltd., Royal Court Shoemakers, for 44 years, one despairs of you and I having any long term effect on the Trade. Despite the sometimes long and grueling hours spent experimenting, articulating, and writing it all down.
I have, in my career, been astonished at how far removed from the basic theories of patternmaking most bootmakers are. They do things mostly by rote and don't have a clue as to how or where to change the patterns or alter them if things go wrong...or even if they simply want to change the looks so as to not parrot their teachers. In fact, that's one of the reasons I wrote it down and one of the reasons I created the Crispin Colloquy--to preserve the knowledge, and connect people, and foster understanding.
It's obvious it's all going to be for naught. Seventy-five years from now, if there are still any bespoke makers out there, no one will remember The Pattern Cutters Handbook or Western Bootmaking: An American Tradition. Or maybe they'll remember the books but not the authors. [sigh] And any shoemaking or bootmaking being done will probably revert once again to hand-me-down patterns that, like the stories of the Tuatha Dé Danann before print, get ever so slightly changed and corrupted with each telling.
I have a question, though, regarding the short heel on the last...I guess it was never clear to me how extensive your experience with bespoke shoemaking was. If fairly extensive, how did you ever address the concept of making the last to fit the foot without some reference to the oblique angle of force that the shoe needs to exert on the foot to hold it into the back of the shoe? Was it all laces? Or did you have another measurement you used to verify the last?
Because, if I am reading it right, Pattern Cutters Handbook more or less assumes that the last is already correct...or intended for production work in stock sizes.
If your bespoke experience is limited then I can understand why you never gave a second thought to the SH of the last (how about the SH of the foot?)--just as I had a hard time getting my head around a patterning system (mean forme) that didn't seem to reference the foot at all.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
It's depressing isn't it? Since Golding was the head of Cordwainer's Technical College for 38 years, and George Sabbage A.B.S.I. was an (*the*?) instructor in last fitting at Cordwainer's Technical Colege for 18 years, as well as one of the principle shoemakers at Samuel Winter, Ltd., Royal Court Shoemakers, for 44 years, one despairs of you and I having any long term effect on the Trade. Despite the sometimes long and grueling hours spent experimenting, articulating, and writing it all down.
I have, in my career, been astonished at how far removed from the basic theories of patternmaking most bootmakers are. They do things mostly by rote and don't have a clue as to how or where to change the patterns or alter them if things go wrong...or even if they simply want to change the looks so as to not parrot their teachers. In fact, that's one of the reasons I wrote it down and one of the reasons I created the Crispin Colloquy--to preserve the knowledge, and connect people, and foster understanding.
It's obvious it's all going to be for naught. Seventy-five years from now, if there are still any bespoke makers out there, no one will remember The Pattern Cutters Handbook or Western Bootmaking: An American Tradition. Or maybe they'll remember the books but not the authors. [sigh] And any shoemaking or bootmaking being done will probably revert once again to hand-me-down patterns that, like the stories of the Tuatha Dé Danann before print, get ever so slightly changed and corrupted with each telling.
I have a question, though, regarding the short heel on the last...I guess it was never clear to me how extensive your experience with bespoke shoemaking was. If fairly extensive, how did you ever address the concept of making the last to fit the foot without some reference to the oblique angle of force that the shoe needs to exert on the foot to hold it into the back of the shoe? Was it all laces? Or did you have another measurement you used to verify the last?
Because, if I am reading it right, Pattern Cutters Handbook more or less assumes that the last is already correct...or intended for production work in stock sizes.
If your bespoke experience is limited then I can understand why you never gave a second thought to the SH of the last (how about the SH of the foot?)--just as I had a hard time getting my head around a patterning system (mean forme) that didn't seem to reference the foot at all.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
dw
- Seanchaidh
- Posts: 5830
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 1997 10:00 am
- Full Name: DWFII
- Location: Redmond, OR
- Has Liked: 204 times
- Been Liked: 122 times
- Contact:
Re: One "Last" Question
Paul,
Wow!! Well spoken. That's all I can say. If you somehow manage to hang onto that attitude for the next thirty years, you'll do alright.
I get the feeling re-reading through some of these posts that there is a great reluctance to quantify/qualify "fit." For me, despite recognizing all the variables...irregular lasts, blood pooled in the foot at the time of measuring, different hand/finger/tactile pressure by the one taking the measures, different ways of interpreting the data and fitting up the lasts, even gait...I have a firm sense that there *is* such a thing as "objective" fit. A fit that is quantifiable and empirical. One that even if it can't be duplicated to the nth degree by different makers with different methods, or even the same maker on different days, is still within such a narrow range of variance that it would be recognized as a good fit by any experienced maker.
For me, it's too convenient to couch this procedure and these concepts in relativity. Too easy to ignore or deny a standard of fit that might make me less than avid in my pursuit or less willing to go to the trouble, financial as well as mental, to increase the depth of my understanding. And all too easy to avoid the feelings of frustration and disgust that an obvious miss generates by saying "it's all relative" or "it's close enough" or "the customer was happy."
I'm wholeheartedly with you...skill and understanding is at the heart of bootmaking, for me at least, and "if there wasn't such a thing as a 'pretty good fit', then I'd have to do something else", too.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Wow!! Well spoken. That's all I can say. If you somehow manage to hang onto that attitude for the next thirty years, you'll do alright.
I get the feeling re-reading through some of these posts that there is a great reluctance to quantify/qualify "fit." For me, despite recognizing all the variables...irregular lasts, blood pooled in the foot at the time of measuring, different hand/finger/tactile pressure by the one taking the measures, different ways of interpreting the data and fitting up the lasts, even gait...I have a firm sense that there *is* such a thing as "objective" fit. A fit that is quantifiable and empirical. One that even if it can't be duplicated to the nth degree by different makers with different methods, or even the same maker on different days, is still within such a narrow range of variance that it would be recognized as a good fit by any experienced maker.
For me, it's too convenient to couch this procedure and these concepts in relativity. Too easy to ignore or deny a standard of fit that might make me less than avid in my pursuit or less willing to go to the trouble, financial as well as mental, to increase the depth of my understanding. And all too easy to avoid the feelings of frustration and disgust that an obvious miss generates by saying "it's all relative" or "it's close enough" or "the customer was happy."
I'm wholeheartedly with you...skill and understanding is at the heart of bootmaking, for me at least, and "if there wasn't such a thing as a 'pretty good fit', then I'd have to do something else", too.
Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
-
pablo
Re: One "Last" Question
Paul,
What you are experiencing , we all have experienced.. its a long road that leads into the past from whence came all the " old ways " of putting boots together. Be proud that you are inheriting what others( most of them unknowns ) have bequethed to the future. It will come in time, no need to rush.
Some helpful hints ( perhaps your mentor in AZ has already made these ):
1. when you complete the top , before you last the thing, put it in a stretcher( shaft stretcher - a long one ) .. enlarge the stretcher but only in a manner that can confirm the throat
measure( that is about one & one half inches/or two above the vamp/counter line).. tape around the shaft at the throat and the reading will indicate the (SH) plus the draft allowanace/welt, minus the trim.This is an indicator confirming near correct or revealing an over-large throat.
2. After lasting look for the (SH) mark on the instep of the last - if its too far away from the leather( experience will guide you )you may need to remove the tops and reduce the draft.If the mark is "close" to the leather its reassuring you are on target and proceed.
There are lots of " road signs " like these at the various key stages of bootmaking - look for them and you will quickly advance.
Good Luck
What you are experiencing , we all have experienced.. its a long road that leads into the past from whence came all the " old ways " of putting boots together. Be proud that you are inheriting what others( most of them unknowns ) have bequethed to the future. It will come in time, no need to rush.
Some helpful hints ( perhaps your mentor in AZ has already made these ):
1. when you complete the top , before you last the thing, put it in a stretcher( shaft stretcher - a long one ) .. enlarge the stretcher but only in a manner that can confirm the throat
measure( that is about one & one half inches/or two above the vamp/counter line).. tape around the shaft at the throat and the reading will indicate the (SH) plus the draft allowanace/welt, minus the trim.This is an indicator confirming near correct or revealing an over-large throat.
2. After lasting look for the (SH) mark on the instep of the last - if its too far away from the leather( experience will guide you )you may need to remove the tops and reduce the draft.If the mark is "close" to the leather its reassuring you are on target and proceed.
There are lots of " road signs " like these at the various key stages of bootmaking - look for them and you will quickly advance.
Good Luck
-
Frank Jones of Lancashire,
Re: One "Last" Question
Janne Melkersson, DW and All
Janne - I only wish I had your fluency in languages. You say, “However, he had kind of parsimonious approach to them, but like Luthers relation towards the Apocrypha, he did find them interesting to read.” In many ways that exactly covers all the sense of my previous summary - and you are working in a foreign tongue. With a little revision study, I can discuss shoemaking in French but I certainly could not construct a sentence like that.
DW - I don’t feel it is depressing but I think you are being a little hard on yourself. If you look at later material published by Korn, Patrick, the Manual of Shoemaking from the Training Department of C&J Clark, Thornton’s two books, Pattern Cutter’s Handbook, and other material in particular the Modern Shoemaking series started by SATRA in 1974 which now runs to over 50 titles - all of them use information and sometimes content which can be seen to have roots from Golding, Swaysland, and even Devlin, etc. If you think about it they would be wrong if they did not have respect for and build on the best of the earlier work. (I am very much aware that I am only quoting publications in English from UK - talk about the arrogance of the English - where are the comparable seminal items from the USA)
I too think it is a shame that so many handshoe/bootmakers have little or no background understanding of any system or method behind their approach to producing patterns. I frequently feel they would be better shoe/bootmakers if they did. The truth is there is so much to learn, understand, and master in this craft of ours that often there is simply not enough days in the week or years in one’s life. If a few people can find a way of describing/explaining/teaching some of these things in a more easily absorbed format, then perhaps 2% of the craftspeople out there will become perhaps 2% better at what they do. I personally am happy to nudge that process along. I believe in the old adage of trying to leave this world a tiny bit better place than the one I discovered when I was born. To be remembered by name is something that would truly surprise me.
Just give me one wish. I would be really pleased if some thing derived from the Crispin Colloquy was still around informing and flourishing in say 2050. Now that would be something special.
Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com
Janne - I only wish I had your fluency in languages. You say, “However, he had kind of parsimonious approach to them, but like Luthers relation towards the Apocrypha, he did find them interesting to read.” In many ways that exactly covers all the sense of my previous summary - and you are working in a foreign tongue. With a little revision study, I can discuss shoemaking in French but I certainly could not construct a sentence like that.
DW - I don’t feel it is depressing but I think you are being a little hard on yourself. If you look at later material published by Korn, Patrick, the Manual of Shoemaking from the Training Department of C&J Clark, Thornton’s two books, Pattern Cutter’s Handbook, and other material in particular the Modern Shoemaking series started by SATRA in 1974 which now runs to over 50 titles - all of them use information and sometimes content which can be seen to have roots from Golding, Swaysland, and even Devlin, etc. If you think about it they would be wrong if they did not have respect for and build on the best of the earlier work. (I am very much aware that I am only quoting publications in English from UK - talk about the arrogance of the English - where are the comparable seminal items from the USA)
I too think it is a shame that so many handshoe/bootmakers have little or no background understanding of any system or method behind their approach to producing patterns. I frequently feel they would be better shoe/bootmakers if they did. The truth is there is so much to learn, understand, and master in this craft of ours that often there is simply not enough days in the week or years in one’s life. If a few people can find a way of describing/explaining/teaching some of these things in a more easily absorbed format, then perhaps 2% of the craftspeople out there will become perhaps 2% better at what they do. I personally am happy to nudge that process along. I believe in the old adage of trying to leave this world a tiny bit better place than the one I discovered when I was born. To be remembered by name is something that would truly surprise me.
Just give me one wish. I would be really pleased if some thing derived from the Crispin Colloquy was still around informing and flourishing in say 2050. Now that would be something special.
Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com