One "Last" Question

Share secrets, compare techniques, discuss the merits of materials--eg. veg vs. chrome--and above all, seek knowledge.
Post Reply
Message
Author
paul
8
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

#51 Post by paul »

Well, I guess I'm shopping for a narrower last.

I have indeed measured the foot with a tape and the last with a string. Easier and obviously more accurate.

The High Instep of the last is only 1/8" larger than the foot, so grinding it doesn't have any temptation, as I need to adjust 7/8" out for the SH. The heel could indeed be too narrow on this one. The foot tracing is just at where a 'last tracing' would be. How many bootmakers use a pedograph? Is that something I should look into?

I did mention the last model, #TLW0025. I have no idea how to go about getting this model in narrower widths, though. Can anyone give me a lead on that? What's a comparative model number for any of the other last suppliers?

As for the connectiveness of your instructions patterns, techniques etc., I have had remakable success it seems, so I think I'm on track with you, but this one had me stumped.

Now if someone can put me on to a last sourse, I'll get these done.

Thank you, PK
pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#52 Post by pablo »

Paul,
One other option exists.
If you have a scoop block last, you might try
making another block with the required adjusted
dimensions. Basically, it amounts to replicating
the last's block to the area of the instep and reducing the remainder by one inch. It should work
and you then have two - in - one.
Pablo
User avatar
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

#53 Post by dw »

Pablo, Paul,

It's an interesting approach and one that I've never run across before...probably because scoop-cone lasts are relatively hard to come by these days, especially new.

I don't have much experience with scoop cone lasts, so I can't really speak to how one might go about implementing this approach. The question arises, though, whether reducing the cone wouldn't also reduce the instep girths? Both the high and low instep...and probably even the long heel measurement.

Beyond all that, one of my basic philosophies, for what it's worth, is that cutting on a last is always brinkmanship. Change one parameter/measurement and you change three others.

It has been my experience that in 99.9% of the cases, where the forepart of the last is right on the money but the SH is too big relative to the foot, the last chosen is too wide in the heel. Again, this is the "combination" foot--E forepart, B heel. Choosing a last with a B heel and building the forepart up addresses the shape of the foot--wide forepart/narrow heel. You're fitting what is actually there. Grinding the instep down usually only addresses convenience...in my opinion.

One other point that we ought to consider as we study this problem...the last isn't shaped the way it is because Salvador Dali once worked as a modelmaker. It's shaped the way it is...deliberately...for functionality and in order to impart shape to the boot. The instep has been "squeezed" up and forward to open the throat of the boot when it is lasted and to create a better angle of entry and a more pleasing line. Cut the instep down and you destroy the last's ability to serve the purpose for which it was designed. At one point, grinding on a last obviates the need for a last...as opposed to a plaster cast of the foot.

Again, grinding a last is "brinksmanship." At any point on the last, you cut it at your peril.

That said, I have and do cut on lasts...occasionally--a bootmaker must not be afraid of his tools or materials and sometimes grinding the last may indeed be the only way to address what is there. But it's a last resort, in my shop.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#54 Post by pablo »

All,
Nothing is lost in taking the option mentioned.
But, a lot is gained. The original is left intact
so its not as thought "brinksmanship" is involved. If you think along those lines you miss the point.
This is an adventure into the unknown realm for the uninitiated ( regarding last making ). A well
versed bootmaker should know from experience which parameters are affected when altering the most important tool at his disposal.
It helps to make some templates of the surfaces
then copy as close as possible,if the final block is "off" add some leather.Its a lot of work but much is learned.
paul
8
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

#55 Post by paul »

Pablo,
Thank you for coming up with another approach. I can see me trying that someday.
And DW, Thank you for the words of caution.

Unfortunatly, this is a hinged last so the lesson will have to wait for another opportunity to be employed. I only have 1 pair of scoop cone lasts right now. I used it on the first pair I made back in '82. I actually wear a 12, but this last is a 10 1/2. I wanted a higher heel than the 12 I had access to provided, so I took the 10 1/2 and added a layer under the forepart,and then the sides for width and blended the lines. Isn't ignorance empowering sometime? As it turned out, I've been wearing them for 20 years now, but they diffinetly could be a better fit, now I know one reason why. I also have learned why there needs to be a slight degree to the heel base on heels as high as I made. Like old Mr. Degn used to say(the old gentleman I learned shoe repair from), "there's more than one way to skin a cat, but either way he doesn't like it."

So, I'm still left with my question, and maybe I'm on my own here, but who do I call on for lasts in this situation?

PK
User avatar
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

#56 Post by dw »

Pablo,

You're correct about that. Nothing is lost. As I said, I wasn't really commenting on altering a scoop-cone last--especially not in the fashion you propose. I haven't had a lot of experience with them. I was talking more about grinding a last to make it fit as opposed to building up a last to make it fit. Assuming that you understood that, I hope I will not offend you if I take your remarks as an invitation to expand a bit on my thoughts in this regard...

One problem I see is simply the basic approach. You are 100% correct when you say a well versed bootmaker should know what will be affected. I've always said that a well versed bootmaker can take nearly any size last and turn it into nearly any other size last. I've made size 10's into 14's. I've made size 9's into size 6's and I've made a size 3C into a size 6 with an A heel and an EEEE forepart with an accommodation for hammer toes. Trouble is, when questions as fundamental as the discrepancy between the SH of the foot and the SH of the last arise on the forum the questioner is often not really looking beyond that question and perhaps not overly eager to deal with all the complexities that attend altering the last.

Point of fact, I couldn't agree more about what is learned...although I would say that more is learned by success than by failure and frustration. And learning is probably central to how and how far a bootmaker progresses in his career. I would encourage a bootmaker, who is confident in his skills, to try the alternate scoop-cone method (it's not that far removed from the "shovers" of 17th century shoemaking), and I would encourage him to grind if he feels it is necessary. Much will be learned, I am certain.

But returning to the original question...choosing a narrow heeled last and then building up the forepart, leaves you with a last that is intact and can be used again. In that sense it is similar to your method of making a new cone for a scoop-cone last. But grinding a last down leaves you with a last that cannot be used again--except for that particular customer...*if* you get a good fit--and if you are a relative novice and make a mistake, may alter the topography of the last so drastically that it can never be used again...for anyone, not even the original customer. Nothing is learned there except, hopefully, not to do that again!

Again, there's the basic approach--a singularly conservative approach that teaches about feet...because you must always compare the last to the pedograph and to the measurements from the foot (taken together these constitute a relatively accurate representation of the foot); teaches about lasts because you must study and respect the lines and the functional topography of the last even as you add your build-ups; and teaches about patterns because the only way to establish patterns that work consistently for every customer is to apply those patterns to a stable and consistent theory of last making/modeling.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
User avatar
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

#57 Post by dw »

Paul,

If you are looking for lasts...and especially if you are looking for model numbers that work with my methods...call Jones and Vining, in Walnut Ridge Arkansas. I don't have their phone number on this computer but I'd bet that a keyword search of the Forum will bring it up. Ask for April Allison.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#58 Post by pablo »

DW,
Grinding. Don't like it either.
But if there is no other choice keep the record
of the original( templates, measures to the edges of the" egg-shell&#34Imagethen grind.
Building-up is the classic fitting technique and
one item about that which novices may not realise
is the heel measure which is previously noted as
"SH". Try marking the "SH" on the last instep with
a china marker( white is most visible).Insert that last into the boot you made with that last and you will see the mark! At least I do on my lasts. Why is it possible? Why doesn't the leather cover the mark? And why do we ( makers ) need to fit the "SH" if the leather does not touch that mark?
Further, some top cutting styles will make tops that get very close to the white mark and other styles fall farther away from the white mark. Both styles fit the foot well.
Perhaps you all can see how this relates to Paul's dilemma.
User avatar
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

#59 Post by dw »

Pablo,

I have never been able to locate the end point of the short heel measurement on a hinged last. But I am not bothered by this. If you were to do a shadow drawing of the profile of the foot while it was in a heel raised position and superimpose it over a profile of the last the SH would end up in mid air--above the cone of the last. At least on my models it would.

What's more the instep of the foot would be lower than the instep of the last. Again, this is to be expected as the cone of the last has been "squeezed" up and forward for styling as well as functional reasons.

I derive the SH of the last by measuring up the back of the last one inch (or 1/11 of the foot length) and measure around to the high instep (or at the 5/12th section on the top of the last--as derived by Sabbage's Sectionizer). This girth on the last should correspond to the SH of the foot...as measured from the corner of the heel to the break at the front ofthe ankle/shin bone section 4/11th).

Using my approach, we take the SH measurement and synchronize it with the SH on the last for two reasons...

1) it's a reliable indicator of foot width and girth and is closely related to the long heel (which is crucially important in holding the foot into the back of the boot) and...

2) because the short heel is the minimum measurement that the inside circumference of the boot top can be and still allow us to get into the boot. Because of that, the throat will have a constant relationship to the SH of the foot and, more importantly, the SH of the last. In fact, it is possible to measure from the counter point (1/5 the standard last length up the back of the heel) to the high instep and derive a constant ratio (is that the right word) relative to the SH measurement. In the case of my models, a measurement taken from the CP to the HI will equal the SH minus inch and a half, as I recall (it's in my bench notes) if the last is fit-up properly. I don't use this formula much but it aptly demonstrates the relationship between the SH of the foot/last and the patterns.

When one of my models is used and when the patterns are cut according to my method, the high instep mark will just barely be visible when you look down the inside of the boot. And the boot will not go on easily (you won't have to break a blood vessel but you won't fall in, either). My teacher, Mike Ives, always said "this is a high break boot." Meaning that the throat is narrow (relatively) and the boot breaks high on the cone of the last. The vamp/countercover line tends to be parallel to the floor rather than down slanting. Again, I think there's that Blucher influence--not that I had anything to do with it but my teacher may even have known or worked for Blucher...or maybe just known or worked for someone who knew or worked for Blucher. Image

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#60 Post by Pablo »

DW,
At issue here is how all this relates to P.Krause' options.
In your system, G.C. Blucher notwithstanding, how
much can Paul "fudge" and still acceptably fit his customer? Can your top be enlarged 1/4 inch,
3/8 inch.. and still fit? Where is the line drawn at which the boot no longer "pops-in"? And what must be guarded to avoid mis-fits?
User avatar
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

#61 Post by dw »

Pablo,

Well, that's the whole point of going to all this trouble to cross check the SH on the last with the SH on the foot, and so forth, isn't it? As far as I'm concerned there is no "fudge factor." If there's a fudge factor then there's no real, reliable, technique at all, is there?

Can a person make a mistake and still get a boot that is acceptable? Again, I suppose that it depends on what your standards are. As I said this is a high break boot...it is designed and intended to break high on the cone of the last, yet still grip the heel of the last all around and still sit perfectly upright when lasted. As I said it revolves around a narrow throat in the patterns. So...

If the last is an inch bigger than the foot...heck, if the last is a **quarter inch** bigger than the foot...and you plug the measurements from the foot into your tops patterns (Paul did say he was using my techniques, if not my last models), the tops will have been designed, effectively, for a smaller last (one with a SH corresponding to the SH of the foot). As a consequence the throat of the boots will choked. The boot will never draw down properly on the cone of the last; it will lean back; it will not cup the heel of the last; and it will "bite" the front of the ankle. Additionally, the throat may never open up properly and the customer may have the devil's own time getting into the boot.

For me, none of that is acceptable...any more than a boot that leans forward is acceptable. Now. if the question is "can a boot with problems such as that be completed and delivered to the customer?" And "can the customer be satisfied?" My answer to that is "maybe" but it sure misses the point of making boots in the first place, doesn't it?

Now to the other, implied, but hidden part of the question...it is possible to plug the SH from the last into the tops patterns and have the boot last up and look beautiful. But at that point the (smaller) foot will neither go into the boot properly (probably no "pop" ) nor will it fit properly once in. Why? Because the SH is **directly** related to the long heel....and the long heel (although harder to measure and deal with) is **critical** to how the foot is held into the back of the boot.

99% of all misfits made by custom bootmakers can be traced back to some variation of ignoring the SH/LH measurement on the last and how it should, and does, relate to the same measurements on the foot. That's my opinion and others are free to agree or not, but bottom line is that I don't think there's much room for "fudging" (which is just a fancy way of saying "guessing" ), especially if you are using my patterns and techniques.

Personally, I like that kind of reliable, consistency. I like being able to depend upon a set of "rules" and know that the results will be predictable and controllable--or at least somewhat. Making boots is a never ending game of controlling materials, and factors, and elements that are never wholly under our control. Controlling the "lines" of a boot, for instance (just one example), always comes up against variations in the leather, weather, and the way in which the last and the foot have or have not been respected. Given those uncertainties, I, for one, am not eager to introduce any more "smoke and mirrors" than is absolutely necessary. I simply don't believe in "fudge."


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
paul
8
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

#62 Post by paul »

Pablo,
Thank you for acknowledging my dilemma.
Yes, it's a puzzel. I'll repeat the part of my post where I did a follow up measurement on a recent pair, and the results:

"I've gone back and compared SH measurements on the Light Brown Water Buffs I just finished and on that one the foot popped into the boot just right. That SH on the last was 1/2" greater than the foot! What kind of conclusion does that lead me to? How much can one vary from the absolute?"

I use the SH measurement as the basis for the throat measure in my top patterns. And I get what you're saying, DW, about this being the minimun measurement for the the foot to pass through. But as has been pointed out, the last doesn't even make contact with the boot at this point when completed. So why does it matter that the SH on the last correspond exactly to the SH of the foot? In the example I mentioned, it would seem that there is, indeed, some room for variance here. So, yes, the question is, how far from the SH of the foot can the SH of the last vary and still do it's job of holding the foot in the boot?

PK
User avatar
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

#63 Post by dw »

Pablo,

And just in case my last post came off sounding a bit brusque or antagonistic...nothing could be further from the truth. I deeply appreciate your questions and responses. It helps Paul, and others who are interested, expand their understanding and builds a foundation for looking at things a little differently, perhaps.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#64 Post by pablo »

DW ,Paul,
Not in the least offended. I'm like all, hoping to get at options beyond known systems/techniques.
Our predecessors did not pass everything to us and therefore there is more we have yet to disclose.
Absolutes are not. All that claim to be have an underbelly which will expose the weakness.. in this case , the window of acceptable fit.
At the joint of the counter and the top exists an area of opportunity for "fudging".Tighten there and squeeze becomes irritation. Loosen that area and slipping is inevitable.How much is permissible
is a function of the style of cutting your tops(system/method such as DW's). Some methods use the
heel measure as that spot's measure.. therefore less at that point is tighter,etc.
Another zone of adjusting is the throat.Reduce there and you squeeze.
Another is the elasticity of leather.The French prize their ability of this secret in the 1800's..
doubltless it solved many ills.
Also, the larger the foot the more you can exploit the above( thin feet are notoriously difficult and benefit from this excersize in "fudging".
One old-timer would take two heel measures each time.For years I studied his books and conclude that he was exploring the topic at hand.Paul,he like you also did not have many lasts.
To net it out, there seems to be a window for every foot fitting. Just find it.
DW, I revisited the Mike Ivy file( 11/3/98).He visited shops in Kansas,Okla,TX but declined to say which.Altho Blucher died in 1932, he may have visited the KS shop ( 1950's was the date) and would have seen little of the orig crew.His four measures technique was Blucher's method but, that's what most used also.He claimed to be self taught and that must be moderated by his visiting so many makers( each year for supplies buying) and
"borrowing/learning" from all he could find.
He uses 40 lb. mono fishing line for his bristle and makes a 45 degree angle at the insole feather.
I mention the last because it was the one question he did not want to reveal to me. I could hardly hold my laughter. I had not told him I was a bootmaker so he was , during total silence on the phone for at least a half minute, no doubt something like the LIAR,LIAR movie. I could just see him shaking his head , covering his mouth.. anything to keep from telling his beloved secret.
But ofcourse we all now know theree are no real secrets.
btippit

Re: One "Last" Question

#65 Post by btippit »

Hi all. I'm going back to the part of this stream of postings where Paul was trying to take a TLW-0025 last (ahh, fond memories) and get about 7/8" out of the short heel without grinding. I'm in between long trips so I'll try to be brief on this and I admit I've only scanned over the emails since to be sure I'm not duplicating someone else's answer. If I missed something I apologize.

When you have a last that you're happy with and want to get one of the same style that is as close to possible in measurement without building up here's the easiest way to accomplish this. Measure the ball, waist, instep, and short heel carefully on an UNTOUCHED version of the last that you have. By that I mean "fresh from the lastmaker" prior to any grinding or building up. Unless you are paying for model development or something very strange happens, the lasts should always grade approximately as follows:

Ball, Waist, and Instep = 1/8" per HALF SIZE
Short Heel = 3/16"+1/64" per HALF SIZE. We last makers never quite caught on to that "common denomiator" thing so we couldn't write 13/64". Besides, our tapes were marked in increments of 1/16" so who are we kidding?

Ball, Waist, and Instep = 3/16" per width. So, if an 8D has a ball measurement of 9", an 8EE will measure 9 3/8".
Short Heel = 1/8" per width. So, if the short heel measures 12" on an 8D, it will measure 12 1/4" on an 8EE.

First, decide what size (forget width) you want in length. Length grade should ALWAYS be 1/6" per HALF SIZE. Between widths it varies depending on the last or last maker but a general rule is that the length grades 1/24" longer PER WIDTH as you go up from the master width (D on mens and B on womens). Most of the time the grade does not shorten as you get into narrower widths (and 8 is and 8).

Once you decide the general length, calculate the measurements based on the grades above until you start getting into one of the four areas mentioned that will force you to grind off. Order that size and just build up the rest. Unless you're willing to pay for custom model work or can get someone with the software to grade the last digitally (see previous postings with last maker contact info), holding to the measurements you want, this is the best option....in my humble opinion.

See you after the next trip!

Bill
User avatar
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

#66 Post by dw »

Bill,

Great to hear from you again and that grading information is simply invaluable. Thank you for that!!

Several questions arise... and one comment.

Comment first: Your advice seems sound to me, but then it is really just a variation of what I've been saying all along. Choose a last that is just equal to or slightly smaller than your largest critical measurement (I think I said that right) and build everything else up. In this case, however, I am proposing that the shortheel is *always* your most critical measurement.

My questions come down through time from E.J McDaniel and are posed mostly to get your take...EJ always drummed into me that "all lasts are not created equal" (Which is why I insist that my students stick with lasts that I know work with my patterns). Isn't it true that some models of lasts will differ in measurement...and even topography (shape)...despite being marked the same size? A 9D in a TLW 0025 might not be equivalent to a 9D in a TLW 0225...might not have as high a cone, might not have as narrow a heel , might not be the same in length or ball girths, etc..

And, is there or isn't there often a "grading error" that creeps in over a run, even with runs that are cut using sizing models. If you cut an 8A last using a 9D sizing model isn't there a slight error that occurs?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
User avatar
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

#67 Post by dw »

Pablo,

Well, you know more about Mike Ives than I do (I assume you meant "Ives" and not "Ivy"--Ives is the name if we're talking about the same guy). When I worked with him he was the "master", if you know what I mean...I was more concerned with learning from *him* than who he, himself, learned from. Now, of course, I wish I had asked him in more detail. Mike used to put his pulls behind the sideseam like some of the older pre-1900's boots, even on dress boots. He always used monofiliment...at least when I knew him, but he never cut the insole feather at a 45 degree angle, then. So that's changed. He used to cut his tongues by hand but the last time I saw him...what? 10 years ago?...he was using a hand struck clicker die that he had made himself.

Everything I talk about is part of a system. Of course there is room for fudging in any area of the boot.There may be a dozen differnt way to cut the tops, for instance--and they all produce acceptable results. But what I was talking about is the "system"/methodology...my system, and my methodology.

On a cosmic scale there may indeed be absolutes. We humans are not large enough to perceive those absolutes in full detail, however. So some see the universe from the perspective of Roman Catholicism. Some see it from the perspective of the Dao. Some see it all deriving from string theory. Everybody has a piece of the truth, or at least a vision that works for them. And so it goes, even with bootmaking. But it is a rare individual who can encompass, master, and synthesize...synergize... even one system, much less two.

The real dilemma for anyone getting into bootmaking is to choose a system and stick with it...yes, religiously...until you are pretty sure you understand it, before you start trying to bring in other theories. My system may not make sense or work for everybody.

Bottom line is, however, that I can only explain my own system. I can't justify grinding down the last to someone with a problem fitting unless I know almost to the nth degree how and where and why each step is being done. If Paul and I are not using the same last model...right there I have lost the greater proportion of my ability to help him or even address his problem. If, to further complicate matters, a student doesn't measure as I do...let's suppose he's subtracting arbitrary sums from girth measurements (as some makers do as a matter of practice)...again, I am at a loss as to how to help. And if the student rejects or questions some of the fundamental assumptions that underpin my methods, well, we're not even talking the same language anymore. That student may go on to make brilliant boots but I can't be of much help to him, that's all I'm saying.

In the end all I can do is describe as clearly and as openly as I can what I perceive to be the problem, what I would do in the circumstances...and hope it makes sense. Some, even those who aren't versed in my methods will glean something from what I've said (as I've gleaned from others), some may never get it...and why should they? If quantum physics rings your bell, there's no need to start burning incense.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
btippit

Re: One "Last" Question

#68 Post by btippit »

DW,

It's nice to be able to contribute. I wish I had more time and more to offer. Certainly, what I was suggesting is exactly the same concept as what you are saying. I just figured a lot of people might not have the secret decoder ring necessary to gain access to the grade rules. Now, as for your questions:

1) You're correct. The label "9D" only means that for that particular style, the model maker has determined the last marked 9D comes closest to fitting a foot that is a size 9D....whatever that is. The shape and individual measurements can vary greatly between styles due to type of footwear, materials used, construction methods, etc. In reality the idea of a 9D is in the HEAD not the FOOT. However, when you're trying to fit footwear to something as pliable as a human foot...a foot that might increase in girth measurement 1.5 sizes during the course of a day, you need to establish some "standards" and try to work within them. Of course this applies to the production shoe arena and really doesn't pertain to custom shoemaking. I think the best way anyone can order a custom last is to use the method I described or better yet, if you've got a last that you were happy with when it arrived and made note of the measurements on an orginal before you modified it, you can just tell the last maker you got the first one from to send you another one of the same style, "X" inches longer or shorter than the size 9D or whatever the original was and with a ball measurement of "X". Tell them not to stamp a size on it but rather, your customer's name. Build up where necessary and voila! a custom last. Then down the road you can use the closest one in your inventory as a base for length and specify the ball measurement. With the grading scales I mentioned in my previous email, you will be able to know exactly what the ball, waist, instep, and short heel will be by just telling the last maker to turn the last to your specified ball measurement. And believe me, 99.99999% of the last makers will want to know the ball measurement you want and could care less about the other measurements because they only use the ball measurement to check the last in the factory. There's no reason to use anything else because the proportions are determined by the original model and the other girth measurements will always be proportional to the ball in the same way as the original model. Only model makers measure the waist, instep, SH, etc. It's impossible (without using a CAD system like ours or making new models) to increase a ball measurement 3/4" while only increasing the waist and girth 1/2". The same goes for the shape...proportionally it will remain the same and it was originally determined
by fit requirements (mostly from the ball back) and style requirements (mostly toe shape and heel height).

2) You can get grading errors using conventional lathes and production models if you try to go too far from the size model you're turning from. Depending on the lathe being used, typically 3 sizes is the most you would want to turn up or down from any model. If you turn another width from a model (for example turning an 8E from and 8D, that basically is considered a size in girth (remember 3/16" per width in ball, waist, and instep grade). Some lathes you might be able to stretch to 4 sizes but the shape will begin to distort and the sharp featherline will start to round. Using CNC lathes and computerized grading eliminates this problem as the arms of the lathes are now direct drive and not "broken arm" turning and there is no model to "copy". I have turned a size 18 (10E)...that's EEEEEEEEEE from the digital data of a 9D and everything was proportional, measured correctly, and fit the patterns and templates. Of course whether you use CNC lathes or very good production models made every 3 sizes and every couple of widths, there's always operator error to worry about but there aren't many people still doing this type of work and they're very good at what they do.

Well, if there's any more feedback tonight, I'll try to add my 2 cents worth again. I'm off to the WSA shoe show in Vegas and may or may not log on while I'm there. I was in Atlanta last week, came home Thursday night and left Friday morning for Brazil, arrived back home around ten this morning and leave around nine tomorrow morning for Vegas. I'm taking a couple of days off after the show to see the Grand Canyon with my wife and win my fortune on slots....OK, I'll see the Grand Canyon. With all that's going on I may not even log on while I'm out there but it won't be the first time I've disappeared from the radar screen.
Like Arnold always says...."I'll be back".

Bill
User avatar
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

#69 Post by dw »

Paul,

Let me start out by saying that the only way I know to help you is to be totally up front and honest...sometimes, as lacking in social graces as I am, that may sound a bit critical or ornery. So I apologize ahead of time and ask you to understand that no offence is intended.

Twenty five years ago, I was sure that I was a bootmaker...and a dern good one at that. I made some beautiful boots and except for the occasional broken foot (from compression--too tight boots, in other words) I was sure I was an exceptional fitter, as well. A veritable legend--in my own mind, at least.

Looking back at some of those boots, now, I realize how bad they truly were. But at the time they were all pretty dern good.

Your real dilemma, is that you've come to a point in your work where you're beginning to get a glimpse of what the next step is but you haven't come to terms with it and perhaps really don't have the tools. You're asking about the SH on the last and how it should relate to the SH on the foot. So you've seen that there might be a relationship.

I structured the method I teach around some fundamental assumptions. Assumptions about the foot and how it relates to the last; assumptions about the patterns; about fit; about materials, etc.. From my perspective, there is a greater chance that you are not doing everything as I would do it than that the method itself is faulty. For instance the TLW 0025 is not one of my lasts. Right there, you have made anything I can say to pinpoint your problem moot, or at least immediately suspect. I am not criticizing you for the choices you've made in this regard, all I'm saying is that there's not much I can say to help you if we're not on the same page.

Probably the best advice I can give you is to get yourself a pedograph, a couple of pairs of lasts in one of the models I recommend (so you have some options with regard to heel width) and make yourself a pair of boots where the SH of the last is made identical to the SH of the foot...without grinding on the last. You need to, at least, try the method out the way it was intended before you can judge it to be faulty.

Finally, I would point out, just to put things in perspective, that every pattern making system I have ever run across...for making *shoes*...where the leather doesn't even come close to covering the end point of the SH--from Patrick to Koloff to Swaysland to Golding to Frank Jone's book--uses the SH or some variation of it in drafting the patterns. The short heel of the foot is clearly important in making the patterns. The patterns must go on a last. The last must embody the fundamental structure and substance of the foot. Critical to that substance is the SH. You see? Like the system itself, the foot, the last, and the patterns are inextricably related. It's a circle and it cannot be broken.

I really and truly hope this make sense and that I have not presumed upon your good will too heavily.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Frank Jones of Lancashire,

Re: One "Last" Question

#70 Post by Frank Jones of Lancashire, »

Bill Tippit, Sr.

First I would like to add my thanks to DW’s.

I have met and spoken with “last men” (not PC but I have yet to meet a “last woman”) from a number of countries, many of whom were model makers or similar. They are a very special bunch of people. Not only are their skills and knowledge extremely specialized, most of it is not written down anywhere. We are especially privileged to have somebody such as Bill, who not only really knows his stuff but is able and willing to explain it in terms boot/shoemakers can understand. Such details on grading are often closely guarded “secrets” by many. As DW said - truly invaluable stuff.

I have a basic question. You say “a general rule is that the length grades 1/24" longer PER WIDTH”. Are you saying that for a given size, when you increase the width you also increase the length of the last by 1/24"? If so, then the grading of the (two dimensional) upper patterns would also have to reflect this. I have never heard this mentioned anywhere before, for example when discussing pattern grading with staff from die makers.

Have a good time at the Grand Canyon.

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com
paul
8
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

#71 Post by paul »

Thank you. Most of it makes sense, however this has been alot for me to process. I have started replies 4 times now over the last couple of days. I think I just need to go back to the bench and chew on it all. It's obvious there's alot I have to learn. Some of the thoughts shared on this subject will require more time to process than I have right now. Bottom line is I need to order some lasts. Do last makers come to the Round Up? I'm gonna try to make it there.
PK
Pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#72 Post by Pablo »

Frank,
While Tippit is off-line vacationing at the Big Hole,let me inject some background on this subject.
In 1887 the Boot& Shoe Assn commenced the US effort to standardize the measures Tippit is describing. Those owners of companies codified
what is termed the standards( last measures) which
US lastmakers have used as benchmarks ever since.
Not every last house has strictly employed those
measures in making their lasts but have stayed remarkably close to those early numbers for over a century now. There exist tables of those standard measures which incidentally were published in booklet form by at least two last companies.
As to the 1/6 inch length grading, recall that Tippit wrote that was the grade per HALF SIZE not full size.. 1/3 inch per full size ... that is exactly the standard of 1887!!!
As to the volume change caused by the longer length, its a design choice which the customer selects. On a prior post, Tippit & I discussed
the crazy miniscule demands some customer have had in designing lasts so lasts should be viewed as arbitrary shapes.. not standardized.
Now, there is another very interesting code which
few ever discuss( lastmakers that is ) and that is the " bible". Its the super-secret in-house
standard opperating procedure regulating the house's manufacture of their lasts. That is an interesting document.
Dan Freeman

Re: One "Last" Question

#73 Post by Dan Freeman »

Frank
I'm surprised you havn't heard of the slight lengthening of lasts within a size, as the width increases. It must be an American practice.
gaid
3
3
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 3:42 pm
Full Name: Janne

Re: One "Last" Question

#74 Post by gaid »

D.W.

You said earlier that the leather doesn't even come close to cover the end point of the SH when it is about to make patterns for shoes, at least regarding the pattern making systems you had run acrossed.
I'm not sure I understand you on this one. When I am making shoes the end point of the SH is covered with leather as you can see on the photo.
2482.jpg

I'm surprised to hear that there are pattern makers who don't cover up to the end point of the SH. I measure the SH so it come in between the quarter curve and the first lace hole. Maybe your SH is somewhere else then mine?
JEM
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
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

#75 Post by dw »

Janne,

I think the SH *is* somewhere other than where you have it, at least that's the way I was taught to measure it. I don't guess that automatically makes me right and if what you're doing works, well that's all that counts isn't it? But to reiterate....

First and foremost, I was referring to hinged lasts when I said the SH is up in mid air...as I stated clearly in the opening lines of my July 28th post to Pablo. You're using a scoop cone last in the photo and that makes a difference (more on that below).

But nevertheless, I still think, if the truth be known, that the end point of the SH of the foot and the top of your vamp are at least a half inch distant from each other, even on your scoop cone last.

If you draw a profile of the last and compare it to a profile of the foot, I believe the end point of the SH of the foot will end up in mid air above the cone of the last.

Every reference I've ever read or seen, that deals with measuring the foot, indicates that the SH is measured from the farthest point at the backof the heel to the break between the shin and the instep. Sabbages Sectionizer puts the SH at roughly 4/11 of the length of the foot. Again, that's usually in mid air. And to my eye, even on your photo, well above the top of your vamp or the end of your tongue.

It is at least theoretically possible to build a scoop cone last high enough to encompass the SH, although I've never seen a modern day last built that way. And I suppose it is theoretically possible to design and build a shoe that rises so high on the instep of the foot as to cover the end point of the SH...anything is possible, I guess.

But, if your vamp rode all the way up to the break of the ankle--where the shin connects to the foot...where I was taught the SH should be taken--every time the leg was flexed forward while walking, the top of the vamp would be pushed down. The shoe would quickly be distorted all out of shape and the ankle would be chafed. Wouldn't it?

Anyway, that's the way I was taught to measure the SH. Others may have a different understanding of the SH and may measure it differently, or apply it to the last differently than I do. I have never seen or heard you describe how you measure the short heel...so anything is possible, I guess. And I've never examined your last so...again, anything is possible. But all things being equal, I'll stand by what I said....and let the devil take the hindmost. Image

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Post Reply