vamping

Share secrets, compare techniques, discuss the merits of materials--eg. veg vs. chrome--and above all, seek knowledge.
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: vamping

#26 Post by dw »

Jake, Tom,

Hell, I'm no artist (maybe that's why my boots are relatively plain and I've concentrated on "fine" rather than "fancy" ) and if my drawings are any good...attribute it to a heck of a lot of fooling around with the pics--hours staring at my hand and scratching my noodle--and a dern good drawing program--CorelDraw.

But once I get it down and in the box, I can blow it up, shrink it down, stretch it out, reverse it, rotate it, colourize it...come in handy now and again.

Tight Stitches
DWII--Member HCC
erickgeer

Re: vamping

#27 Post by erickgeer »

DW,
I think it's Horweens Bucanneer, which is a vegetable retanned leather
I have pictures of yesterdays sample, but I'm still trying to figure out how to post an image.


Thanks
erickgeer

Re: vamping

#28 Post by erickgeer »

this is a picture of my crimping board:
2692.jpg
and this is a close up of the tearing:
2693.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
tmattimore

Re: vamping

#29 Post by tmattimore »

I am not that familiar with chrome retann but it could have just been the goldarn hide. I am no expert on this board or your last but it looks like your angle may be too close to square and you may have set the vamp too low. Do you use Talc on the Vamp before you crimp. A good coat of varnish on the board helps the leather slide better I use rustoleum outdoor paint and talc on the theroy that every little bit helps.
Tom mattimore
erickgeer

Re: vamping

#30 Post by erickgeer »

Tom
I didn't bother recoating it with anything since it was just to test the shape of the edge. The talc doesn't absorb the moisture and make it dry too soon?- I suppose uncoated soft-wood would do the same thing.

I'm in the process of shaping a new board, though I didn't change the shape of the curve - the picture's taken from a weird angle.

I'm trying to test a lot of variables at once, so I'll show you what happens.

Erick
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: vamping

#31 Post by dw »

Erick,

Short of actually being there (and scrapping the patterns, baords and irons Image ) I don't know anyone that can give you a definitive answer. But here's my take:

First, I've used, and crimped Horween's Beaumont in 5 ounce and a dry split three and a half (dry splitting generally weakens a hide). no problems. Skip Horween told me that all their leathers are pretty much tanned the same, only the amount of oils or waxes differ for differnt product lines. So I don't blame the leather off hand.

But think about this...what causes the leather to rip? One way or the other it always comes down to stresses being applied that pull the leather apart. So...looking at you photos, my first thought is the irons and especially where they are placed, are the most likely culprit. The bottom two irons seem designed to pull the relief cut open. On my boards and every board I've ever seen. the most critical iron--the only one you really need--is the corner iron. And that iron is at the corner for one good reason...it pulls the leather away from the blade of the board at an angle such that the stresses at the relief cut are minimized. Follow? And the one iron that you might have needed the most--the corner iron--doesn't seem to be there at all. Beyond that, I can crimp a vamp and never worry about those two iron you have at the side of the "quarter." In fact, I never even tack the quarter down until the very last moment, and then only just to keep them from flapping in the wind.

There may be other factors contributing. The board...as Tom suggests, the leather...but that's my immediate take, at any rate. Hope it helps....

Oops, lunch is over...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
erickgeer

Re: vamping

#32 Post by erickgeer »

Well, it seems to have turned out pretty good, it didn't seem to start blowing out until the very end. I made some changes to the pattern - bringing the cut down so there is little stress on the high tongue and changed the placement of the clamp holes so the angles are different.
Still needs work- but I'm happy!
Thank you for all the input, I look forward to showing something finished.
2694.jpg
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: vamping

#33 Post by dw »

Erick,

Several suggestions...first, don't tack your tongue until almost the end--if it slides down a little it's because it needs to. That in itself will reduce some of the stress on the relief cut. Also you might cut your boards narrower in the foot area so you can get a pincer on them. Then too, I really do think your boards need to be not so thick. A inch is a good compromise. Finally, that style iron almost looks like it might work if you use it like that.

Below is a pair of five ounce Beaumont vamps I crimped up in about five minutes this afternoon. I had a pair of boots that needed them so I just did it a day or so sooner.
2695.jpg



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

Re: vamping

#34 Post by erickgeer »

those are great! Yeah, the new board I'm working on is adjusted so I can lever the pincers better, as well as being thinner (my clamps are slightly too narrow to get the screws into them easily), I am looking forward to trying Dick Anderson's screws - I would like a wider pull area than I've got now.

Erick Wilcox
frank_jones
3
3
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:00 am
Full Name: Frank Jones
Location: Lancashire, England
Contact:

Re: vamping

#35 Post by frank_jones »

Erick Geer Wilcox

I am rather belatedly referring back to the question of stitch-down footwear. As you know I have a background of shoemaking rather than boots plus factory manufacturing exposure.

The matter of machinery to do the stitching has been well covered elsewhere. However, perhaps a little background of some of the ways I have seen stitchdowns made could prove useful.

First, a simple description of the footwear construction under discussion. Cement lasted shoes have an insole the size and shape of the last bottom. The upper is stretched over the last, pulled/wiped underneath the insole and stuck in place. Stitchdowns have an insole which is bigger than the last bottom and typically extends out about a quarter of an inch (8mm) all around the feather edge. Instead of being shaped and tucked under the insole, the upper is pulled over the last to give it some shape, and turned outwards and stuck on top of this extended 8mm. The upper and insole are then stitched together along this extended insole. Finally, an outsole with suitable wearing qualities is stuck to the insole.
3659.gif

The diagram shows a cross-section.

Most factory made stitchdowns (usually called Veldtshchoen in Europe and much of the rest of the word except North America) are stretched over the last and pressed onto the extended insole using specialist lasting machinery. In most cases only the forepart section back to the joints and the heel section to just forward on the heel breast are fully stuck to the insole. This leaves the sides of the upper unstuck. Sometimes this is pinched into place using simple plier-type hand tools but more commonly the process leaves the sewing process to push the upper into position as it is stitched. The stitching machine used is almost always a variation of the high speed outsole stitchers used in the Goodyear Welted construction. This type of machine is usually termed “curved needle” on the Colloquy but usually called “Outsole Stitcher” beyond North America.

There are several other ways of lasting stitchdowns widely used by hand shoemakers and small scale workshops. Most make only stitchdowns and although the footwear is often made-to-order, the range of last shapes and styles is deliberately limited. It follows these are not bespoke shoes/boots. More manufactured footwear made on a small scale, which enables the customer to choose the upper material and soling type, plus have the option of things like different sizes/widths for left and right foot. We have around ten organisations in the UK making footwear which is roughly as described here. There are at least four that appear to be doing something similar in the USA.

All the workshops I have seen use a force-lasting process. The details vary but basically they very accurately engineer the construction of the upper. By that I mean the upper patterns are produced to fit the last so accurately that nothing has to be trimmed away after the parts are cut out. The upper is then sewn together in the normal way except that the final operation is to sew the edge of the upper to the insole. Note this is before any last touches the upper. The reason for the accuracy of the patterns is now clear. The “lasting edge” of the upper is lined up exactly with the edge of the insole. Interestingly the machine used to sew the upper and insole together is not an outsole stitcher but a heavy weight upper-type machine. Most of the ones I have seen were sail makers’ machines with a heavy looking foot, rather than a wheel.

The boots/shoes are now force lasted. The method varies but is similar to that used to produce factory made moccasins. The upper is first mulled, usually by pulling the upper over a steam jet, best described as an upside-down version of the steam nozzle on a cappuccino coffee machine. The last is then forced into the shoe.. After getting the last as far into the toe are possible, the heel section is helped into the upper with a heavy weight steel shoe horn.

The footwear is left on the last to dry and for the upper to take up the last shape, before the sole is attached with adhesive.

I will stop there. If anybody is still awake and interested, there is more to this story including a description of a variation on the stitchdown seen in men’s smart dress shoes and known as San Crispino construction.

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
erickgeer

Re: vamping

#36 Post by erickgeer »

Frank,

Thank you for that description. I am enjoying this, and the discussion over in "origins of the heel" - where we are seeing the change of terms discussed.

I am familiar with the Veldtschoen (never seen the "/" though), and "field boot". All of the descriptions I've read mention the watertightness of this shoe, but I'm at a loss to see how it is any better than a good welted shoe or boot.

I've experimented with this, and I've seen some students make a leap from cemented construction to stitched construction by lasting and cementing the lining to an insole, and then flanging the upper to a mid-sole/outsole - this sounds like it would be more water tight to me. OTOH, I've never had a goodyear welted boot leak through the inseaming.

I've been trying out different constructions for my shoes on my last, and I've narrowed it down, modifying my original construction to the lines of the "veldt to heel" that Thornton describes in his Manufacture book, but I lean towards lasting and cementing the lining to a full insole (so far).

I'm intrigued by the force-lasting method, but it wouldn't work fo the over-all look that I am trying to effect.

I would like to see the San Crispino construction diagramed if you have it handy.

Thanks,

Erick
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: vamping

#37 Post by dw »

Frank,

As you know I make boots and am interested in shoes only because I'm "curious as a coon."

Nevertheless, I'd be very interested learning about the San Crispino construction, myownself.
das
Seanchaidh
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2000 9:00 am
Full Name: D.A. Saguto--HCC
Has Liked: 148 times
Been Liked: 126 times

Re: vamping

#38 Post by das »

Erick & Frank,

Nice essay on veldtschoens--I only added the "/" because I wasn't sure to spell it with a "d" or "t", but I see it's both.

For grins and giggles I'll stay with stitch-down though. Anyway, this construction has another name in German [Other Volken?] that means "reverse welt" in English, and there are several more variations than the stitched+cemented type Frank's excellently described. Historically, say before the construction was popularized widely by returning English holiday-makers going to Bavaria and the Alps [those "halferschuhs" spelling?] early 20thc., it's mostly found from the Alps down along the Rhine River valley, and got to the English colonies, courtesy of the German immigrants no doubt.

One exception: toddlers' shoes. There are examples of these dating back to the 1630s in the US, but for adults, and the more complex varieties, they are mostly found in German-speaking enclaves in America up through the 1840s, and often represent the stoutest, roughest work.

Interestingly the current issue US Army boots are now "stitch-down" to the midsole, with a cemented outsole, and an inserted insole, plus removable foot-bed. It's going to be hard to win any wars in a "stitch-down" basket-ball boot IMO--if they'd only switched nylon for the rot-prone cotton thread, we might still be in Goodyear welted combat boots like WWII and Korea, but then Bata was lobbying hard to sell the US Government on their DMS system 'round 1960 Image
das
Seanchaidh
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2000 9:00 am
Full Name: D.A. Saguto--HCC
Has Liked: 148 times
Been Liked: 126 times

Re: vamping

#39 Post by das »

PS--I forgot to add:

When we make the repro 1750-60s men's stitch-downs, there're two types. In one, the insole is made on the last same as for hand-sewn welted, but barely any feather, so the holdfast is quite near the featherline of the last, and then last the upper (wet) as usual. The inseam goes through the upper and insole, but the lasting margin is then flanged out and flatted, a shank-piece added, and the outer sole stitched to that. In the other type, we last the upper (wet) and tap the featherline of the last to make a visible line, then allow it to dry. We remove the upper, add an insole that extends beyond the last by 1/2", manually fold the lasting margin outward, replace the upper on the last, and follow the mark of the featherline to stitch it to the insole, add the shank-piece, then another row of stitching to add the outer sole.

(NB--in both cases the heel-seat is made with a "blind rand", as were the antiques we're copying.)
frank_jones
3
3
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:00 am
Full Name: Frank Jones
Location: Lancashire, England
Contact:

Re: vamping

#40 Post by frank_jones »

Erick Geer Wilcox

You and Al raise some interesting points and I also realised there were one or two other things I should have mentioned previously. I will come back again later regarding the San Crispino construction.

You mention references to water-tightness. I have also heard several claims about this, interestingly only in a US context, never in Europe. As Al mentioned, a significant amount of US military footwear is made using the stitchdown construction. I have personally seen US Marine combat boots being manufactured in the Danner Boot factory in Portland, Oregon.

I can only assume people take the view that water running down the upper from the top is shed outwards and does not have to pass over a seam or crevice, as it would on cement or goodyear welt construction footwear. Like you I think this kind of thinking is not logical, especially with modern materials and adhesives.

You describe a construction in which the lining is lasted and cemented to an insole, and then the outside upper is flanged out to a mid-sole/outsole. This is a good example of how each basic type of construction can be modified. Although each method of construction is often regarded as a distinctive type, they can be modified or extended in different ways and two or more basic types of construction can often be combined in the same pair of shoes/boots. What you have described makes this last point perfectly, it uses both cement lasted and stitchdown methods in the same shoe.

I think it could be useful here to spell out the five main constructions :-

Cement lasted - already described above. Sole attachment is now nearly always by adhesive. It does not have to be. An obvious alternative is to sew on the sole using a McKay machine.

Strobel Stitched (also called sewn-in sock) - widely used in athletic footwear and in other shoes/boots where the sole is direct moulded.

Stitchdown - covered above.

Goodyear welted - a machine made version of the hand welted shoe/boot.

Moccasin - no need to describe this on a US based website.

There are a number of other constructions but these five are listed because they (with the type of variations mentioned above) together cover over 95% of all mass produced footwear.

There is a further point I should have mentioned regarding the diagram in my previous posting. You will have noticed that the last cross-section shows a bevel of the last wall, as it comes down towards the feather edge. This bevelling is very common on lasts for mass-produced stitchdown footwear. It is done to help the lasting machinery get in really tight at the feather line without the wiper plates fitted to the machine nipping the upper leather and making it weak.

And now a direct question for Al. You say, “the lasting margin is then flanged out and flatted, a shank-piece added, and the outer sole stitched to that”. Can you explain exactly what you mean by a shank piece in this context. I have a problem visualising what you are describing.

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com
das
Seanchaidh
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2000 9:00 am
Full Name: D.A. Saguto--HCC
Has Liked: 148 times
Been Liked: 126 times

Re: vamping

#41 Post by das »

Frank,

"Shank-piece" is the older English term [cf. John Rees, 1813] for what's called just a "shank" today--a stiffener for the waist Image

Seems the Army has bought the same bill of goods as the Marines *sigh* with these stitch-down "basket-ball" boots. The water-proof wonderfulness of this construction I think stems from the "reverse welt" method for hiking boots of yore, but they had an added welt over the out-flanged upper. Any stitch-holes around the upper and insole will admit water, unless it's a tiny hole filled with a very fat thread, as in hand-sewn. I guess in reality it's the Gortex linings that make them waterproof?
firefly

Re: vamping

#42 Post by firefly »

Hey Guys,

Here is my first attempt at crimping. The first vamp took about 20 minutes but the second I was able to get the hang of where to pull and tack, how hard to pull and when to tighten the screws. The second only took about 10 minutes.

I soaked the vamps about 1 hour. I did not use anything other than my hands to chase the wrinkles and pipes. I did add a little leather conditioner a couple of times during the process.

To determine where to place the vamp I just tried to line the points of the blocker in the middle of the clamps.

On the first one I don't think I got enough vamp leather into the clamp. I also did not really pull hard enough when I was tacking the bottom.

Though I did somewhat get the hang of it on the second one I somehow let the tongue get a little off center. I am hoping to trim that out when I cut out the tongue.

I would really appreciate your criticisms and advice. I know this is not a full cut but it was still a mystery to me.
4856.jpg
4857.jpg
4858.jpg


Thanks for listening,

Mark
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
bultsad

Re: vamping

#43 Post by bultsad »

Mark,
You have the idea. I would move the vamp up on the board about a 1/2 inch or so. Also, it looks like you are using a #9 or 10 punch in the cut. I use a #6. That big hole may get in the way when you cut the tongue, and cause you all sorts of grief. Even with a hole, as you can see, you sometimes end up splitting the roo.

Jim
firefly

Re: vamping

#44 Post by firefly »

Jim,

Thanks for the feedback. I felt it was too low as well just from some of the other pictures that I had seen. It started out really high on the board but as I turned the screw it seemed to work itself down the board.

Would you suggest moving the whole vamp back toward the back of the board to force the tongue further up the board?

Also would you suggest pulling them off, rewetting and recrimping?

I did use a #10 punch. Next time I will try smaller. I did try to keep an eye on the hole and I kept holding the tongue pattern up to it as I tightened the screw.

Again thanks for the feedback.

Mark
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: vamping

#45 Post by dw »

Mark,

I agree with Jim...mostly--you're doing fine.

I would remark, however, that I use a #10 punch all the time. I started out using a smaller punch years ago and found that it just ripped quicker. You can adjust where you punch that hole so that it will not be in the way of cutting your tongue and if you don't cut your tongue too wide you shouldn't have any problem.

Also I often have the tongue get a bit off center...sometimes the leather is just like that--maybe a bit tighter on one side than the other. It is no problem to cut the tongue so that it's no longer an issue. After all, the center of the vamp is the "crease" from the blade of the board, not a measured mid-point between one side of the blocker and the other.

BTW, there is a photo of a pair of vamps I crimped, above, posted about three years ago...jeez, time flies!

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
firefly

Re: vamping

#46 Post by firefly »

DW,

The picture above is what I was using as a visual comparison. When I compared mine to that picture it did seem like mine were a bit low on the board like Jim commented.

Should I pull them off the boards and recrimp them?

Thanks,

Mark
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: vamping

#47 Post by dw »

Mark,

I probably wouldn't but it's certainly an option. I might cut them as is but as if I were cutting for a little lower heel. That will spring the vamp a little.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
bultsad

Re: vamping

#48 Post by bultsad »

Mark,
I would also go with the vamps crimped as they are, unless you want the practice.

You said: "It started out really high on the board but as I turned the screw it seemed to work itself down the board."

Are you tacking the vamp at the quarter line? Those are the first two tacks that I put in vamp. I fold the vamp over the board and eyeball the height for the quarter lines and put in the tacks. Then attach your screw and just snug it up-then I tack the toe and proceed crimping.
As far as the hole size- whatever works for you as long as you do not have trouble cutting the tongue.
Good Luck
Jim
firefly

Re: vamping

#49 Post by firefly »

Jim,

Tacking the vamp at the quarter line was actually the last thing that I did. I loosely placed the vamp on the board and lined up the points where the quarter and the bottom of the vamp meet in the center of the crimping screw and lightly snugged up the screw.

Then I snugged up the toe section and placed those two tacks. So I actually worked from the toe back...snugging the vamp over the board, placing the tacks, chasing wrinkles and tightening the screw.

The last thing that I did was to tack the quarter and the tongue.

As I tightened the screw it seemed to pull the vamp downward and toward the back of the board.

I will go with the vamps as they are but I do have some spare vamp leather and I am going to try again so I will make some adjustments.

Thanks again for the guidance.

Mark
j1a2g3

Re: vamping

#50 Post by j1a2g3 »

DW,

Do you use a mid liner on your boots or some kind of backing? Is this to make the boot stiffer? If you do one, when and how do you attach it to the upper? Thanks in advance, Joel

If I haven't said this already, you have been a great help. Thanks Joel
Post Reply