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
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

#76 Post by dw »

Janne, et al,

A short follow-up to the above: check out the discussion on Sabbage's Sectionizer under "Open Forum" > "Techniques, Crans and Visualizations" > "Sabbages Sectionizer."

In the final illustration, the end point of the SH of the foot would be found (as depicted) *slightly* forward of section four on the foot. Then, referring to figure 3 above, it seems quite clear that section four, as it relates to the last, is well behind and probably above the highest point on the cone. Sabbages' Sectionizer is fully explained, direct from the original text, here on the forum but it can be found in Golding's eight volume series Vol. IV, Section VIII.

Delving further into Golding, as well as Patrick (Modern Pattern Making and Design), George Koloff's book, Swaysland, and every book that I pull from my little collection (originals, not reprints...and worth rubies and diamonds, Image ), the patterns that are depicted for low quarter shoes all seem to have one thing in common--the heel (SH) measurement is drafted onto the layout of the pattern but the quarters are almost universally designed well below the end pont of this heel line.

I can post scans...comparative scans...of this, if there is interest. I'd do it now but I hate to spread some of these old books out under the scanner if there is no real controversy here.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
gaid
3
3
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 3:42 pm
Full Name: Janne

Re: One "Last" Question

#77 Post by gaid »

D.W.
Right, if a method works that is what counts. I'm sorry you had to reiterate it once more but now I can see that your SH and mine differ a lot. Thank's for making that clear.

The reason why I move the SH a bit further down the last is that then I have the right measure for the opening of the shoe, that's why I measure the SH around the heel and up in between where the quarter curve and the first lace hole are supossed to be. Using Sabbages method I will not have that measure, I think? Maybe his method is better when making boot lasts. However, I use the same method regardless of what footwear it is, except Casual lasts that is! On Casuals I add 1/2" on what I call the SH and 1/4" less on the instep. Also, the heel seat will be broader and it will be narrower under the ankle. All this because I want the shoe to grip the heel, kind of compensation for the laces. I'm sure there are other styles that I don't know of where you have to make the last specific for that footwear.

Interesting to hear your thoughts about the hinge last vs the scoop block ditto. Almost half my last stock is hinged but I have not yet noticed any difference, I think they are both as good. But I prefer hinged lasts when it is about to adjust the shoe or boot, they are much easier to put back into the footwear.


No need to scan the old books for me but thank's for your kind offer.

JEM
shoestring

Re: One "Last" Question

#78 Post by shoestring »

DW,it would benifit some of us to see those scans
in order to see a difference in SH methods and keep better track of this thread.

Ed
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

#79 Post by dw »

Ed,

OK, it may take me a while...I usually take Monday afternoons off (work on Saturday) and I was more or less prepared to do the scans this afternoon. But now it's evening and it may not be til next Monday that I get to it.

A lot of people have Frank Jones' Pattern Cutters Handbook, and Koloff's book, and Patrick's Modern Patternmaking and Design. Do you have anything particular in mind?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
cmw
3
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

#80 Post by cmw »

Edward

I have Frank Jone’s book and another one that my boss/master gave me. They show two different methods. Frank’s book shows both the short and long heel line. If the two pictures are different, it is because the last is pushed forwards in the other book compared to the Franks.

I hope you can live with a camera picture. look in the test photo section.

From one repairman to another.
CW
shoestring

Re: One "Last" Question

#81 Post by shoestring »

DW how about a scan of Patrick's when you get around to it.
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

#82 Post by dw »

Ed, et al,

Well, they say crow is a dish best eaten warm so I have to admit that I was wrong about *some* of the books (and authors) I listed as using a heel measure in the drafting of patterns for shoes. The only excuse I can offer is that I read and answer posts from the forum here at my desktop computer in the house and my library is out in the shop. I looked through some of the books quickly on Monday morning but not all of them...and relying on memory (notoriously *unreliable* these days), I was mistaken.

Modern Patternmaking and Design by Patrick, for instance, appears to use the mean forme as the sole basis for creating patterns for shoes. There may be other books I listed that share that approach. Swaysland *does* appear to use the heel measure, as does Max Sahm's book and the seldom seen Bata book. I will have to dig further in my spare time out in the shop. And, I will try to post some scans of Patricks basic layout as well as one from Bata and Swaysland.

Meantime, I have some interesting (at least to me) observations on the whole issue that I am working on--with photos--that may or may not contribute some insights into how the short heel from the foot relates to the last.

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

#83 Post by dw »

A quick question.This is the way I was taught to take the short heel measurement. From a quick review of the literature, it seems to be the accepted method. But just to be sure and for curiosity's sake...does everyone agree on how and where to take the Short Heel measurement off the foot? Look at the illustration below and if you disagree let me know...
2486.gif


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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

#84 Post by paul »

DW,
I'll log on with agreement that this is the only measure I've ever seen for the SH. What I'd be curious about, while you have the drawing up, is where do you measure the 'Long Heel'? And how and when does one use that measure?

I've ordered the Last Making Book and Video that Larry Waller is selling. I'm sure there is plenty of information there for me on the subject.
In the meantime, I've setteled on an 11B size last that I've built up in the forepart, for the pair I'm making right now.

Glad for the information, PK
btippit

Re: One "Last" Question

#85 Post by btippit »

Hello again to all. I'm back from the series of trips and happy to report that I actually won money in Las Vegas which proves there's a first time for everything.

Just a word of caution about the short heel measurement. As I've discussed with some of you before, last makers typically don't measure a high and low instep. Instead they (we?) only locate one instep using the Krippendorf finder method and it's much closer to the bootmaker's low instep than the high instep. That is where the last maker will measure his "short heel" (instep to bottom of heel). Same principal as DW's drawing above but the measurement will be drastically different since the instep is located at a different position. All the grading scales that I posted earlier will still apply but if you ever request a specific short heel measurement from a last maker (and you shouldn't) you need to be sure you're working from the same starting point.

A great reference for last making and grading is "American Last Making" by Karl Adrian. You can order this from Shoe Trades Publishing at www.shoetrades.com/FootwearBooks.html for $45. Karl was head of the model rooms at Sterling Last for years and also head of product development for Brown Shoe Company until his retirement years ago. This book has been considered the "bible" by Jones and Vining, Sterling, and most US last makers for quite some time.

Keep in mind that the grading charts are based on what Brown Shoe declared as the "standards" (Karl was working for Brown when he wrote the book). I don't believe last makers typically dictate the grade between widths, etc. but rather, follow what the shoe maker specifies as each shoe company tends to have it's "Tzar" who convinces everyone that his way is the right way. However, they all tend to more or less follow the guidelines Karl's book with any deviations being so slight they don't make a big impact. When a smaller company or individual orders a last and doesn't know how to grade the widths, then the last maker will step in and suggest the "standards".

By the way, I was happy to see Jake's posting of a good experience with JV. I am sure anyone who orders from them will be happy with the quality of the product and the delivery dates should be very acceptable. April is very good at processing and tracking the orders and Allen Smith (model maker and CAD/CAM manager) and Spencer Bruce (General Manager) are very easy to work with and take pride in what they do.

Well, back to the real world which means recovering from a summer cold picked up during the trip to Vegas and the Grand Canyon.

Bill
shoestring

Re: One "Last" Question

#86 Post by shoestring »

I hope this is not an asinine question.When ordering a new "last" are you to give all the foot measurements or can you just ask for a 10B and build up where needed be?As for that SH measurement that's how it's demonstrated in the two books I am studing.

Ed
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

#87 Post by dw »

OK, I guess people have had enough time to respond. So the next step is to continue with my observations (hopefully tomorrow). But before I do that, let me answer your question, Paul...

The long heel was/is typically measured from the "corner" of the heel to various points, depending on the system, but usually it is measured to the low instep. I do it a little differently...I measure it from one inch up from the floor on the back of the heel to the low instep. I do it that way simply because it is easier to find and locate, due to the angle involved--both on the foot and the last.

I use the long heel much the same way as the short heel--as a check of the last's substance, width, and length. The controversy that developed previously (and which led to my assertions about the short heel, and shoes...and promises to scan) revolved around whether the short heel was even necessary considering that it was not covered by the vamp.

Well, the long heel *is* covered by the vamp...is, in fact, absolutely critical to holding the foot into the back of the boot...and yet almost no one collects, applies to the last, or uses the long heel measurement anymore!! There's no rational explanation for this any more than there is a rational explanation for collecting *less* data on the foot...as when the high and low instep are merged into simply the "instep" (which as far as I can tell has no specific topography or reference point on the foot...in contrast to both the high and low instep).

I suppose that the long heel has given way to the short heel coupled with the assumption that the correct length of last has been chosen and that the correct width of last has been chosen and that all other girths are correct. And in fact this may indeed be enough...as long as you understand that it works only because the short heel is so closely related in both function and in geometry to the long heel. But if we assume that the short heel is not needed...??!! Then what? Suddenly there is no oblique measurement at all to describe the last and how it relates to the foot. Suddenly there's nothing except intuition to prevent putting a man into a 9E last when what he really needs is a 9C... or even a 10B when he needs a 9C.

Now a man might develop such a strong sense of intuition over the course of 30 years that he doesn't need to collect this data, or maybe any data from the foot at all...doesn't need to measure the foot, IOW. And that's just about the level of skill and experience that would be needed to ignore the short and long heel completely and still achieve consistent results. But it's a rare individual that can come anywhere close in less than a lifetime. Personally, I much prefer logic.

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

#88 Post by dw »

Ed,

If you are sure that you know what a 10B should measure at each girth, you generally don't need to give a lastmaker anything but the size you need. In fact, they will almost certainly ignore everything but the size.

But...it bears repeating...not all lasts are created equal. A size 10B in model TLW-XYZ will often not measure the same (in any of the lenght or girth measurements) as a 10B in model TLW-123.


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

#89 Post by dw »

So...This customer comes in to be measured, see...and in the spirit of investigation and curiosity, while measuring him, I decide to see if I can locate, on the pedograph, the ankle side end point of the SH. Finding it, visually is no problem. extending it down to the paper underneath the foot is a bit more troublesome. But finally, after butting the heel of the foot up against a "backstop," I mark the end point of the SH on a piece of masking tape and then run a small square alongside the foot until it is aligned with the SH. This gives me a measurement ...in the same vein as Sabbages Sectionizer...that tells me how far from the back of the heel the short heel will be. And that, in turn, will allow me to compare it directly to the last.

The photos below show where the SH would fall on the last and also where the various other girths lie. Locating the SH on the last was relatively simple...I measured out the distance obtained from my experiment on a piece of paper, with the edge of the paper as the starting point for the measurement. I then aligned that edge with the edge of my workbench. Then I set the backpart of the last on the edge of the workbench so that the featherline at the back of the heel was the required distance from the edge of the bench. Then I ran my trusty square up alongside the last, aligning its edge with the bench and marked the SH on the top of the last.

Given the way that the foot is structured, however, relative to the shape of the last....the result was interesting but a bit misleading perhaps. The instep of the foot does not "fall off" like the last does but keeps rising to meet the shin. It follows that while the SH mark on the last might possibly be the proper distance from the back of the last, it would really be up in mid air above the cone of the last if it were superimposed on the last in the same relative position as it is to be found on the foot.

An interesting side note...using the same method, I was able to locate the High Instep and it was within one millimeter of being exactly where it should be according to Sabbage--at section 5.

I know I have made these points before but here is experiential evidence that can be duplicated by anyone....and which, taken together with some other data I've got in the works may contribute to our understanding of the last and the foot.
2489.jpg

2490.jpg

2491.jpg


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Tex Robin

Re: One "Last" Question

#90 Post by Tex Robin »

DW,

I have always wondered why you say you can't take the Heel Measurement(So Called Short Heel)
on the last and I can. I can see the reason, if your chart is exact. You take your heel measurement at a higher point than I do. according to your drawing about a half inch higher. The way I take the measurement from the foot is to get the smallest circumference in the lowest part of the radius. And this can always be transfered to the last. This is the way I was taught and it has always worked.......TR
Tex Robin

Re: One "Last" Question

#91 Post by Tex Robin »

DW,

PS: Sorry to disagree with all of the antique books, but this is why I never read them.....TR
User avatar
jake
7
7
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 1998 7:01 pm
Full Name: Jake
Location: Mountain View, Arkansas, USA

Re: One "Last" Question

#92 Post by jake »

D.W.,

GREAT ILLUSTRATION!

For what's it worth, I utilize Sabbage's Sectionizer on every last. It's remarkable how accurate it is.

It comes to no surprise, since I'm a student of yours, that I obtain the SH measurement as you illustrated previously. My first teacher didn't even talk about a SH measurement, if I remember correctly. Personally, I don't see how you could obtain a correct fit without a SH measurement, unless you're just guessing and hoping.
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

#93 Post by dw »

Tex,

Well, if you are interpreting the drawing correctly that would be a big difference. Remember though that i have the tape measure turned upside down so that effectively I am measuring along the bottom edge of the tape measure. What I'm looking for, actually, is the center of that ankle-instep-shin radius...just as I'm looking for the center of the convex heel radius.

Using the methods I describe above, I *am* able to locate the short heel on the last--directly--but only just. And really not at all if you consider that the foot does not "fall off" at the top of the instep the way that the last does (I "mispoke" in the above post and typed "last' when I meant foot--I will edit that) .

I have some more scans and drawings to share that are really interesting...to me, at least...but the bottom line is that I don't know for absolute certain that these observations/methods will work with every model of last...nor, to be honest with every size of last, even in my models. I simply haven't had time to check them all out.

But the satisfying thing for me is to see the relationships that I perceive--both from my own experience/intelligence and the "antique" books--confirmed, and to see the connection between my own understanding of lasts and feet and patterns and the conclusions that evolved over literally centuries by boot and shoemakers who were every bit as savvy and skilled and experienced as we are today. It doesn't make sense to me to throw out all that collective knowledge. A person can't be a slave to it, but it's really amazing, once you delve into it a bit, how accurate and applicable it is.

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

#94 Post by dw »

Jake,

I'm with you a hundred percent on the "guessing and hoping." That's, frankly, what I'm all about--as a person, and as a bootmaker, and as a teacher of bootmaking--data, logic, and rationality. Not for me the spurious subtractions and hopeful fudging.

I've some stuff yet to post that bears directly on Sabbage's Sectionizer and how accurate it really is.

Of course, if a person is getting satisfactory results without any of this, well, no fault, no harm. But even if I'm dead wrong on everything and Golding is dead wrong and, so forth, it still contributes to the discussion and the understanding of how feet and lasts relate. Maybe someone, reading all this will become inspired and come up with a method that is simple and divinely inspired to the point of irrefutablity...but in the meantime...

BTW, sorry to all for the lack of clarity in the second photo. The red SH line is actually identical to the yellow short heel line in the third photo--I just changed the color and refined the thickness a bit. The red kind of gets lost in the black background. The points indicated by the arrows in the second photo are, in sequence from the top of the cone, SH, HI, LI, Waist, and Ball. All of which correspond to Sabbage almost to the nth degree.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
btippit

Re: One "Last" Question

#95 Post by btippit »

Ed - DW's right. You can only be sure of what you're getting by ordering a "10B" if you've ordered a size on that last style before, know the original measurements, and calculate each measurement on the new size using the grade information I supplied earlier. If you give a last maker all the various measurements they will probably ignore them or perhaps measure at a different place than you do. Perhaps JV will turn lasts to specific ball girths and lengths like I did but you would need to speak with Allen Smith on that.

DW - FYI last makers (at least the ones I've been associated with) measure the long heel from the bottom of the back curve of the heel (heel corner??) to the center of where the ball girth is measured in the vamp area. Again, quite different that what the boot maker uses so NOT a good measurement to give to a last maker. We also use a measurment (although it's rarely used anymore due to lack of proper training) called the "throat opening". This is measured from the center of where the ball girth is measured in the vamp area to the point on the back of the heel where the backheight of the shoe will reach. Of course a boot will come higher than this (and higher than the last for that matter) but it's a good fit reference when making a model, especially production models of different sizes and widths. This measurement is critical when making a model for a pump or other "true fit", non adjustable shoe and I've always thought that a western boot was basically (in terms of fit) a pump with a shaft since there is no adjustment of the footwear once it's on the foot....it either fits or it doesn't.

Here's another thing to keep in mind. MOST last makers don't really measure the ball exactly the same as a boot maker. Most of you that I've worked with measure the ball girth around the widest points of the inside and outside ball joints. Last makers typically measure from the widest point on the outside around a point just behind the inside ball. The reason? No one ever told me (it's how I was taught) but my guess is that we were so intent on getting the tape to lay flat all around the last and to always follow the same path on the ball measurement (no criss crossing) that this is just easier. It typically gives a slightly smaller ball girth than what you guys will get but everything is relative. If you measure an orginal last's ball girth and on your next order say "give me a ball girth 1/4" bigger than a size 9C", the last maker will make the new last 1/4" bigger than where HE measures the ball on a 9C and thus it will also be 1/4" bigger where YOU measure it.

By the way, it brought a tear to my eye to see the photos of that old TLW last. Then I realized it's one you got from JV (saw the stamp) after they bought Sterling and I composed myself.

:-(

Bill


Bill
pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#96 Post by pablo »

DW,
The controversy about the heel ( a.k.a. SH ) measure seems to have moved from options of how to account for the SH to about the conflict of how the measure is taken( certainly NOT about whether the measure is of import ).
In your system, the angle you take the measure is *critical*. In the prior and "traditional" system,there was no angle so the controversy is at a loggerhead and impass therefore not resolveable.Also, not all "antique" books would necessarily agree with your system given that they did not all utilise an angle in their methodology.So, your system does diverge from the past methods in that manner.As for the logic of the decision to create a system for measuring and making boots, you have chosen a methodology that works well for you but makes less sense to me. It is more involved than necessary ( KISS : keep it simple stupid is for me atleast more better)and the earlier ways of measuring and making boots works just as well.All that you've claimed as objectives for your methodology are achieveable
otherwise thru the old ways..it is as simple as that.
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

#97 Post by dw »

Pablo,

Well, I'd have to disagree with you...and I find myself actually a little embarrassed at having to do so simply because I think the preponderance of the evidence is contrary to your assertions--and you are the historian, not me. But I refer you to Golding and Swaysland, at least and can nearly quote you chapter and verse. Golding, himself authored a whole section on "Measuring and Obtaining Data from the Foot", Vol. VIII, Section XVI, and the third chapter of that section is entitled "Heel Angles." While he asserts (and I would not disagree) that each foot, depending on the height of the arch and instep...as well as, and as importantly, the "pitch" (the heel height)... will have a different heel angle, the measuring of such seems to be just about as I have illustrated.

At the same time the construction of "standards" always included the heel angle as well as a "long heel" as is shown clearly in the illustrations below scanned in from Golding.

Was the heel angle ever codified to a particular angle? I don't think it was and I don't think it ever could be given the different types of feet and different heel heights of the footwear wanted. But the idea of the heel--short heel--and even the long heel are standard concepts especially in older work. It is only when we broach the 20th century that using the heel measurement seems to take a backseat to relying solely on the mean forme.


We also need to remember that Golding and Swaysland and Bordoli were writing during the last half of the 19th century (and early 20th)--the Victorian Age, if you will. These **were** the "old ways" (unless you want to go back to the "bronze age of shoemaking" of Rees and Devlin) and arguably the heyday of bespoke work in terms of refinement, quality and fit. But there was noting simple about the "old ways." The Victorians were forever inventing clever devices to obtain more accurate data. They were obsessed with relationships and precision. Golding has a whole chapter --chapter VIII, in Vol. VIII, Section XVI--entitled "The Latest Apparatus" wherein he describes and included photos of The Bradley Machine, The Datum Machine and the Datum Frame. So, in my opinion, this whole business about "keeping it simple" is a relatively new notion imposed upon society by people whose attention spans tend to be limited by the length of a Tums commercial. It kind of reminds me of the old axiom that it is most "admirable to be open-minded...as long as you're not so open-minded that your brains fall out."
2494.jpg

2495.jpg

2496.jpg


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
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

#98 Post by dw »

The following images were taken from Golding's "Boots and Shoes" [I can't seem to find a date of publication in my volumes but it is undoubtedly the very late 1800's or early 1900's], New Era Publishing, London. Golding edited this eight volume set, contributing his own dissertations and including those of other respected makers.Golding was for 38 years the principle of the Cordwainer's Technical College of London.

The first illustration is a very simplified diagram of where basic girths are to be taken. The author of this section [Vol. VI, Section XI}, a J. Ball goes on to say..."The heel measurement is a very important one and is obtained by determining the girth of the foot in a plane through the point of the heel and the neck or throat of the foot." And "There are other parts of the foot that it may be considered necessary to measure in some cases, as for example, the waist measurement at a point between A and B, the high instep between B and C, and the long heel from D to B (see Fig, 10)"
2497.jpg


The second illustration (Golding Vol. VIII, Section XVI) is essentially the same concept but this section is written by Golding himself.

"Position of Girth Measurements"
"These are usually decided by reference to general terms such as jointts, insteps, etc., and are shown in Fig 44 as given in the Author's Manufacture of Boots and Shoes, where A is the ball, B the half ball, C tehwaist, D the instep, E teh long heel, F the heel , and G the ankle positions of the measurements respectively....(note the inclusion of the long heel)...These positions where the girth measurements are to be taken can be located by using proportions of the foot's length, say, half the length of the foot for the instep. Or the foot may be measured more frequently than is usually done by carrying out a suggestion made by E.J.C. Swaysland and measuring at every inch, or by Sabbages's system of dividing the foot into elevenths (see Section VIII, fig. 38)."
2498.jpg


In the next several images, the construction of the standard is depicted--using both the mean forme and the heel measures (both short heel and long heel.Golding) Careful reading of this section seems to indicate that if measurements from the foot are not available, the long heel is derived from a conjunction of the inside forme and the outside forme and the heel line is 10 degrees off of the long heel line. This indicates that even when a standard size, non-bespoke shoe is to be made, the heel line and the long heel are important. The second illustration, in particular shows the layout of the patterns themselves and it must be noted that the quarters do not rise above the heel line--reinforcing my assertion that even shoemakers use the SH for patterning although they seldom design the vamp to cover it.
2499.jpg

2500.jpg



Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
pablo

Re: One "Last" Question

#99 Post by pablo »

DW,
You did not state exactly what you disagreed with.
The prior methods I referred to were prior to the Golding, Swaysland... the items could not be simpler. A tape, a pencil,a page of paper and a foot. Take the six foot measures( or your choice of how many) the calf & ht and make the boot ordered.Its just that simple.
Don't need the the above pictured items.Or the "theory of relativity" you choose to embrace.That is what was meant by the traditional method.
With regard to the long heel,I have not located an
earlier( for boot measures) use than an American
source in the late 1860's.It appears to be of US
origin and taken the old-way.
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

#100 Post by dw »

Pablo,

Tying up loose ends... I have not "moved" into any controversy about how the short heel measurement is taken. I *have* addressed the possibility that how the SH is taken and where, will have an effect on where you locate it (or don't) on the last. Janne indicated that he takes the SH different than I do. Ditto Tex. So I drew the illustration and asked if anyone disagreed. But I don't have an angle that is set anymore than anyone else does. I work with the topography of the foot, when measuring, not angles or apparatus.

But the possiblity that there are different approaches that may have equal validity to my own, may have some bearing on whether you think the SH is an important measurement...for shoes, yes...but particularly for boots. Personally, I don't know how to articulate how important the SH measurement is (and has been, historically) for boots without referencing the long history of shoemakers using and valuing the short heel even in shoe styles where the quarters are not designed to cover the SH.

But, my remarks about the *long heel* are just as pertinent to the discussion, in my estimation, as how and where the short heel is obtained...or used. If one understands the importance of the long heel...how can one fail to understand the importance of the short heel?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
Post Reply