miscellaneous tips, advice, and cautions

[das]

Lance,

In brief, the contoured last bottom in the forepart mimics, or rather anticipates the natural foot-bed the foot makes inside a good leather insole welted shoe/boot--it feels "broken-in" from the start. If making a welted shoe/boot with a thick veg/bark-tanned insole, this contouring in the last needn't be too deep, as the foot will create its own in wear, but it gives this a head start.

The radiussed feather-line in the back-part does two things: 1) it creates a closer fit so the foot feels "cradled", and not apt to slosh around, and 2) by having no air-spaces around the heel of the foot, the fleshy pad under the os [heel bone] isn't allowed to spread out, and thereby increases the natural cushioning effect under the os.

On the met. pad, or raised middle bit: this, like anything, can be over-done of course, but people seem to "like" a bit of uplift under the 2nd and 3rd. met. heads to support the transverse met. arch. If the 2nd. and 3rd. heads are allowed to sink too low--as is encouraged by very domed last bottoms, they can actually sink down to or below the same plane as the 1st. and 5th, and that's not good as it's taking the foot out of alingment.

My 2 cents on the convex or domed last bottoms is merely that they make a given girth appear narrower in the finished shoe. If you made a last with a 10" ball girth that was flat on the bottom, like a "D" turned on its flat side, the last would appear wider when viewed from the top than a last shaped like an "O". In wear much of the doming would be forced flatter by the foot, but again, extremes are "bad" IMO. I don't see a problem with a bit of doming, I just don't want to see too much.

[dw]

Lance,

Bob may be better able to address this but I do have some personal experience...

I don't think that a metatarsal pad properly goes *under* the met heads so much as just behind them. When a healthy foot step down, the second, third and fourth met heads do touch the ground and do bear some weight. Even when the foot is static and more so during treading. If that were not the case, the foot would not print under the joint when making a pedographic imprint. Never seen a foot that didn't print all across the treadline/joint--seen some that printed too hard...which does indeed indicate a collapsed metatarsal arch.

The idea of the met pad is to augment the metatarsal arch --prevent it from totally collapsing--rather than force it into an unnatural position. Stick a met pad too far forward and it will be just as uncomfortable as a fully collapsed metatarsal arch.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

frommer@bootmaker.com
http://www.bootmaker.com

[lancepryor]

Al:

I am intrigued by the notion of the non-feather-edged heel seat, if I may call it that. I have a couple of follow on questions. First, how wide do you therefore make the last at the heel? Do you make it as wide as a foot imprint, and, if so, is the print done weight on or off? Or do you make it a bit narrower than the heel print, or what? [For that matter, how do you measure the 'width' of the last, given that it is a continuous curve? Do you measure it in an extended line with the feather edge of the forefoot, i.e where the feather edge would be if it existed?] Also, how wide do you cut the insole; what do you use to guide this decision? And finally, when you actually cut the insole, do you have the edge of the insole follow/extend the line of the last, which would therefore make the insole a bit smaller on the flesh/sole side ( i.e. wouldn't the insole look like \ / ?), or do you cut the edge of the insole so that it is purely vertical/perpendicular to the ground?

[das]

Lance,

Aw geez...me and my big mouth, now I gotta answer questions?

I design the last's feather-line/insole to match the semi-weight-on imprint [seated]in the waist and seat The foot *tracing* is my guide for shaping the sides of the last--the difference is merely rasped or sanded into a nice anatomical curve, though maybe not quite as round as the foot. IOW, the last starts out with a feather-line as a design line, which I then remove. Usually I'm customizing an existing last, and most of those have feather-lines in the seat to begin with.

The width of the insole is the imprint. The width of the last is side-to-side in a caliper or size-stick.

I cut the insole right to the imprint, except of course in the medial waist where you just eye-ball it.

I rarely cut a square feather in my insoles, like the stair-steps some use. I bevel it off, so right at the very edge, yes, it's perpendicular to the ground no matter where it ends up.

[jenny_fleishman]

OK, I know I'm going to sound like an idiot, but I don't have my Koleff manual yet, and not knowing some of the vocabulary is driving me crazy!

Can someone define "feather edge"? I'm guessing this is where the side of the last meets the bottom of the last, and has something to do with if there is an angle or a curve... and I assume that the feather edge, whatever it is, goes all the way around the last?

"I design the last's feather-line/insole to match the semi-weight-on imprint [seated]in the waist and seat "...is the "waist" the mid-part (arch area) of the foot? Is the "seat" the heel?

Also, re the heel of the last. My homemade lasts are based on semi-weight bearing casts of my feet. In order to increase or maintain the puffiness of the padding on the bottom of the heel (of the foot), should the last be narrowed slightly at the bottom of the sides of the heel compared to the actual foot to cause more cushioning under the heel?

Thanks for bearing with me!

Jenny

[btippit]

Jenny,

You certainly don't sound like an idiot. You answered your own questions correctly concerning the feather-line/feather-edge and waist. As for the heel width, there may be some different opinions but generally, most of my customers want the width of the last bottom (therefore, the width of the feather-line) in the heel area to be the same as the imprint left when a pedograph is taken. If the last bottom is as wide as the tracing of the foot you will have major fit issues but you could store things in the extra room your shoes would have inside.

One other thing. The feather-edge goes all the way around the last. However on most lasts the arch area is rounded for obvious reasons and the line doesn't show. This is even true on many lasts, though in a smaller area, on the lateral waist area. While the edge does not show, there is an assumed "theoretical" line. This is what is represented by the last bottom pattern that last makers should provide with their lasts. It should fit the sharp edge of the last and can be used as the base for making insole and other bottom patterns like sock liners, tucks, etc.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[jenny_fleishman]

Podograph question...if you want a good print of the foot, is there a noticable difference between using an actual podograph vs. the imprint paper some have mentioned? And is the paper the same stuff that's used in a podograph, or is it different?

[das]

Jenny,

Results can vary depending on the device/media used, but it should be capturing roughly the same data. A simple pedograph can be easily made with 32" thick neoprene rubber sheet, mounted in a frame made from widow screen framing, with the press-in rubber spline to secure the rubber membrane. Any hardware store should have all the bits. Ask them, and make your frame opening roughly 14" x 7", which should cover most feet and give you room to trace around. An ink roller, a blunt stylus for tracing, and big stamp pad, and you're all set.

You can use latex dental dam sheet for membrane, but it doesn't hold up too well, but it's easy to change in this rig too.

[Anonymous]

Here are some pictures that show more about feet, fit, and footwear.

The pictures below are from the indigenous people of the Philippines at the turn of the century. The first frame shows the feet of an adult who had never worn shoes. The second shows a 12 year old's feet after he had been wearing shoes for just a few months. Presumably his feet had looked like the adults before he started wearing shoes.

3835.jpg

This next set of pictures requires no description. Choose your lasts and footwear styles carefully!

3836.jpg

[btippit]

Anonymous,

I need to choose my words carefully here for fear of being misunderstood. I am in no way saying that there is nothing wrong with modern footwear and factory friendly last shapes. In fact, I'm on record as saying just the opposite. However, from the looks of the angles of the soles in the second frame, supination or worse problems were bound to occur. It almost looks like the last used for those shoes is purposefully swung to the lateral side in the forepart, so much so that it would cause a factory the same problems (though in the opposite direction) for pattern making and lasting that a proper, non-symmetrical last would cause if it were shaped and swung like a normal foot.

I have a question. Do you know if the shod and unshod feet in frame 1 are supposedly from the same person before and after wearing shoes? If so, and maybe this is because of the really bad cases we normally see, the shod foot doesn't look all that bad to me....again, relatively speaking. Frame 2 is another story altogether.

Couldn't agree more with your warning about choosing your lasts and footwear carefully though.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[Anonymous]

Bill,

The first two barefeet shown are from different people. I agree that the shod foot doesn't look bad at all. The point is supposed to be that feet that have never worn shoes are significantly different than even those that have only worn them for a short time.

All of this comes from a 1905 orthopedic study of barefoot populations. It's cited at shoebusters.com/thesis.html, which is a barefoot advocacy site(which blames shoes for every malady and problem known to man)so I'm not sure how reliable any of it really is. I just thought the pictures were good for illustrating the possible consequences of bad fit, bad lasts, or bad style.

[btippit]

Anonymous,

Understood. I wouldn't be able to join the barefoot advocacy movement. Even though I was raised in the country I was always pretty much a tenderfoot when it came to sharp rocks and stubby underbrush. Working out of my home however, the only reason I wear shoes during the day is to keep from rolling the chair over my toes (no grace of a dancer here) or zapping the PCs with a deadly static electricity blast.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[dw]

A couple of thoughts...of no particular worth, whatsoever...

First, I'm not sure that the studies you cite or the photos you've posted...while very interesting...have any relevance at all to the "here-and-now" real world context that we live and deal with both as "civilized" human beings and/or as shoe and bootmakers. Such fringe groups as the barefoot advocacy bunch, while keeping life interesting, are...well...shall we say...not very well rooted in reality.

Secondly...it would appear that even life itself takes its toll on the human foot. In my, admittedly limited, experience, the foot of an infant bears more resemblance to the foot on the right than the foot on the left in your photos. Think on that for a while...maybe we should form a "crawl on your belly like a snake" advocacy group. Obviously, walking--whether barefoot or shod--isn't good for your feet.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[Lisa Cresson]

People on the last making side of the shoe industry may use the term "Munson last" in reference to lasts specific for military footwear. But it is a misnomer, this is clearer once you understand who he was and what his concerns were in his Army post.

To use the term "Munson Last" is rather misleading as it suggests his involvement to an extent that never existed. The term 'Munson last' is the equivalent of the term 'xerox copy' to mean any photoelectrical mechanical copy. Or the term 'kleenex' when requesting facial tissues.

Dr. Munson was an army surgeon who died before WWI; he was not a podiatrist or not even a lastmaker. and moreover never designed a last. His goal was to make sure shoes from different sources fit people with the same "size" feet so they could order their-- size whatever their footwear needs. He identified and tried to solve a footwear fitting problem -- the same problem commercial lastmakers face when grading for the masses. Munson also had nothing to do with the development of MIL spec 1, etc in the 1960s. Which also did not ensure shoes fit better.

That is the involvement of Dr. Muson -- simply to call attention to the sizing problem that has vexed the model makers who grade commerically for the average feet. The project in the 1960s that lead to the development of the MIL 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc specs was another attempt to solve the fit problem. The specs were abandoned because they did not fit better due to their base on geometric grading. Geometric grading is against the human form because the foot does not change in a geometrical incremental manner as it changes size. Rather the human foot changes in a more organic manner as it grows shorter and longer from a standard size 9D men and size 6B in women. There is a military study of foot types by ethic group and toe shapes and arch height/instep measure which is very enlightening and documents the standard grading. Send me email and I will give you the project number and the location in Kentucky where you can order your own copy.

And, anyone who wishes, can contact the New York Public Library Technical Research branch which recently - sometime in the last 20 months - seems to have acquired everything important and more on shoemaking, especially east coast. And a number of titles I have not seen elsewhere.

A new military model for the lathe would be worth [more than I can post due to DW's rules on NO PRICES] today according to the local antique shop that specializes in Military Memorialbelia. There were some mis-listed as last models eBay with a-buy-it now price of a family dinner at McDonalds but they are gone now. If you seen once again - grab it for the American spirit of patriotism that makes election ads into collectible memoria.

Best to you all!

[frank_jones]

Lisa Cresson

One very small point.

You say to “the lathe would be would be worth [more than I can post due to DW's rules on NO PRICES] today”. These are not DW’s rules. They are part of the charity system under US Law. As a non-profit making charity, the HCC cannot get involved in anything which might be regarded as profit-making.

DW has taken on the voluntary role of running the Crispin Colloquy and sometimes he is has to enforce the rules. I am sure you did not mean it that way but he does not make these rules.

Like you I sometimes find such rules irksome but on balance I have come to regard them as very useful. I would hate the Colloquy to degenerate into a free-for-all auction site.

A comment to Emmett - do keep that broom handy.

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com

[Lisa Cresson]

Actually Frank, I remember you are six hours ahead of us with the time difference in the UK.

It is the military pattern models for the lathe that are worth alot for their geometric grade; and military origin and not the lathe itself as your posting suggests. Antique investing is a calculated gamble, for any memorabilia, but none-the-less. a moving target in terms of valuation. Any antique could be appraised upward or doward depending on the research presented.

And since you ask, this is what is behind the posts. Bill Tippit and I have a history which is not understood by anyone in the forum. Several months, back, as I contacted William Klingbeil to tell him that Carl Litche and Joe Patrickus and I were declining to purchase maple last blocks due to the predominance of small sizes, I gave Bill's name and number to William Klingbeil. I suggested he could assist in selling the 10+ year old last blocks from RMoore and his old Ziedel lathe. And then, I sent Bill Tippit photos so that he could close the sale of the Ziedel. My enabling him to make some money without ever having met him is not only unique, it apparently has him so uncomfortable with the situation it affects the understanding of what I have written on the forum.

I seem to have permanently pissed him off because I DID NOT ASK FOR ANY COMMISSION or broker the transaction, leaving him to earn unencumbered. I was not raised in a blue-collar environment, but understand it is the frame of reference for the emotional responses on the forum.

The HCC and I are more alike than different in the dis-association of profits in the postings -- more than anything Bill Tippit or you post [i.e. the taping up of lasts pointing to the Pattern Cutter's Handbook]. Bill posts enough to get people interested in placing orders. Read Jenny's enthusiastic posting on her intentions to soon place order for a custom last. In what I read, Bill Tippit is uniquely, subtly, passively self-promoting, asking people to contact him for help and signing each post with his URL. This is the same as handing out a business card that says 'call me, I know you are stuck.' A listing on the www.newbigbook.com is all the other's use to attract business.

Any of you who react emtionally and post to correct me need to take a minute and consider the source of the information. The comments I post will reference either my research or interviews, or my models. Many read and do not comment, but you succeed in offending your peers. Bill's postings to me produced both sympathy email and phone calls. Like I said many times, no offense intended. Women bootmakers do not post questions here any longer, and you 'fellas' do not see the connection.

Regards to all.

[das]

Lisa,

I find your last post potentially misleading to our readers. Have you actually read 'The Soldier's Foot & The Military Shoe' by Munson?

================
"To use the term "Munson Last" is rather misleading as it suggests his involvement to an extent that never existed."
===============

While I'm sure Dr. Munson himself didn't carve the very last model that bears his name, he did superintend its research and development from his studies of soldiers' feet at Ft. Leavenworth, KS, and subsequently the development of the "Pershing" shoe built on it, first, in 1914, along anatomical lines--SEE the book above. That last has been preserved, with few modifications, down to the present. Where do you get this stuff? Munson [lasts] are not generic like "Kleenex", "Xerox".

While there were other men's bump-toed, inflare, swung lasts made all through the 20thc., the Munson ones were standardized with a national ID number, marked "Munson" on the side, kept by the U.S. Army Quartermaster Dept., and also popularized and used for civilian boots from c.1920 on. You could buy any variety of "Munson" last boots, advertised as such, in Sears catalogues, Red Wing Shoe Co., etc., all through the 1920s, '30s, and '40s.

====================
"Dr. Munson was an army surgeon who died before WWI"
===================

Huh? You may have your Munsons confused. Dr. Edward Lyman Munson, of last fame, was born in 1869, died in CT, 7 July 1947, *after WWII*. He was Assistant Surgeon General in 1901, professor of Military Hygiene in 1912, general staff in Washington 1919 as brigadier general....

The rest of your post seems kind of convoluted. No, Munson had nothing to with any further Army lasts that I know of, however the last that superceded his was the "Fort Knox IV" or "Mil V"--the other "Mil." last models you cited were for other types of footwear in the 1950s--not '60s--and not for combat boots [save one]. The "Mil. I", for example, was for making a low-quarter Oxford dress uniform shoe for all branches of the service, and was first specified in 1955. Geometric grading of these "Mil." lasts was abandoned, but the lasts themselves were not, and they are still in use to this day, arithmetically graded.

Can you please post the hyper-links to the reports you mention?

What goodies/titles exactly have you found at NY Public Library?

I assume your closing paragraph concerns developing a brand new last model for the military? Yes, this would be a great thing, but the military seems to be moving away from in-house inventory items, and merely finding items on the commercial market already, that can be "authorized" for soldiers' use/wear. So, a new standard combat boot last, for instance, is probably not in the offing. Again, if you can get your hands on a marked "Munson" last, you'll have the 1914 Munson last for all intents and purposes. Many are date stamped as well, so if you wanted you could compare Munsons from various decades.

[Lisa Cresson]

Al,
You seem to have missed the point of my posting which was that the military struggles with the same fit issues - irregardless of the numeric size of the wearer -- that vex commercial shoe makers and their last makers. And that the identification and attempts to solve the problems: fit sizing et al were taking on by a regular surgeon, Dr Munson. Your response is not addressing this issue, and in directs people to think about other than this important classic problem for last makers and makers of footwear.

It does not change the fact that Munsion was NEITHER a gifted model maker or any kind of orthopaedic genius. He identified the problem and tried to come to a resolution, which was not conclusive. Dr. Muson, a military surgeon, took on the supervision of last standardization was much like the supervision of the other aspects of and the last comment, is irrelevant. And yes, it is the elder Muson I refer to. And the MIL 1 et al project was an effort to continue to solve the fitting problems which exist to this day due to the varieties of the human foot. The military men I know, my brother and his many friends from the West Point Military Academy all agree that army issued footwear requires more break-in that commercial footwear.

Far more direct attempts to create healthy lasts were seen on by the Fagus company in Germany. Their project also failed.

The posting on the New York Public Library was informational for people and it cannot be seen online. Do your own Google or Yahoo search to confirm this information. Even if you pay for your membership access, you could not get in without my password et al. So you need to visit New York City. Fly into LaGuardia and we can go for steak if you like.

You might want to read my posting a few mintues earlier to Frank Jones explaining my assistance to Bill Tippit, as all of you are adopting the same irritable tone.

And consider again why the women bootmakers post on another forum. Their absence is apparently not missed by the most frequent posters here, and it happened before I started to post recently. Again, no offense intended and none taken.

Regards,
Lisa

[salsa]

The absence or presence of women on this forum has absolutely nothing to do with gender. If it is related to anything it has to do with results. One can construct a virtual world of words that is glorious in every aspect save its relationship to reality. There are many people in the _real_ world that do not find words or the fantasies (paranoid or otherwise)that can be woven of words all that entertaining or valuable.

In fact, in some quarters, the old saying "actions speak louder than words" has real meaning. This board has always been one of those places.

Richard

[das]

Lisa,

Perhaps I did miss a point you were trying to make, however, my main concern was the historical (in)accuracy of what it seemed you were trying to say about Munson and his involvement in the lasts that bear his name.

As to fitting: as I recall, during WWII, Munson lasts, used only for Army combat boots (the Marines used a "Navy" last for their "boondockers" from the '20s through the '40s at least), came in 139 length and width combinations, and for women too, but they still needed to have some boots custom made at that rate. They were obviously more attentive to fitting than we are with today's soldiery. No production last is going to be a fool-proof fit for everybody, but few lasts of the type (hiking/combat boot) come closer than the Munson. The last is a proven good-fitter. From Munson's book, it's apparent that he was concerned with fit--length and width--but also shape, as in the anatomical medial "swing" or inflare he imparted in his last, which I suspect was directly influenced by Meyer's work in Germany in the 1880s(?) (to be technical Camper in 1780, not Munson, identified the "problem", it just took Meyer to solve it 100 years on by swinging lasts). The heel-to-toe bottom contour on the Munson last is also pretty unique, and in a boot with a balanced heel height and toe spring, also a highly regarded aspect of its fit characteristics. Munson stated that he'd wanted the last to be even more inflare than it turned out, but manufacturing constraints, as well as the prevalence of semi-bunionized soldiers' feet precluded that. He settled for an inflare shape that at least wouldn't cause or exacerbate the halux vaglus deformity.

=================
"Dr. Munson, a military surgeon, took on the supervision of last standardization was much like the supervision of the other aspects of and the last comment, is irrelevant."
=================

Not sure I follow you here. Munson Sr./Jr.? The Munson last model was created under his direct supervision, as was the "Pershing" boot that was to be made on it. I don't recall he discussed, or in fact claimed to have anything to do with how the last was subsequently to be graded in length or width. He was, however, fanatical on teaching officers how to fit each soldier for his new boots, test-walking them up and down ramps W or W/O field gear, etc. In this sense "fit" is not just the last, but which length/width is selected by or for an individual to wear. Is that the aspect of fit you wanted to discuss? Numbers and letters are just a starting point for fit--in the end the customer (formerly with the assistance of highly-trained sales people) were the final word. In fact, people's "addiction" to "their size" is problematical. If I like the fit I get from brand (last) "X" in size 9D, I might tend to think brand (last) "Y" is "bad" because their 9D doesn't fit me as well. It's the tyranny of numbers


Why do you seem to want to stress here that Munson himself wasn't a professional last model-maker, or "orthopaedic genius" per se? Do you find some fault with his last design?

Glad to have the input about break-in from military guys you know, though I find it curious, as most of them are wearing "commercial" boots and shoes these days.

Sorry the NYPL stuff is not accessible on-line--I was merely asking, in the hopes it was. In all events, give as full a citation as you can for stuff, like the Fagus project, so folks can follow it up if they like.

Whatever your dealings with Bill T. are, they're your private business, and don't need to be aired out here in public

Perhaps you'll find it hard to believe, but when I read and respond to your posts on here, I'm not thinking about anybody's sex, just the points raised, so no need to get defensive on that score. Over the many years of this Forum, people have come and gone, but I can't say as I've detected any pattern based on sex, sorry.

[admin]

As the administrator of this forum, I feel somewhat compelled to address this issue particularly since it is hung out here with no basis in fact and available to a public that may not have any way to differentiate sloth from slander.

There has never been any gender bias on this forum.

That is not to say that there is no bias.

Anyone who comes to this forum expecting special treatment based on what part of the country he/she comes from; how old they are; whether they are male or female; or even who their father, grandfather, mother, sister, brother, was...anyone coming to this forum with a sense of entitlement, in other words...is bound to be disappointed in the extreme.

There is no gender on the internet...unless an issue is made of it. "DW" could just as easily be female as male.

On the internet, as Al suggests, ideas reign supreme. Unless one is a "flamer" or a "hit-and-runner," one cannot put forth an idea for discussion without justification...without a fairly and closely reasoned thesis. That's what "discussion" is about. That's what a "discussion forum" is about. One doesn't even have to be "right" in some cosmic or universal sense but one has to invest more in the ideas being presented than mere flippancy or worn-out and inappropriate dialectic will warrant. And one has to be willing to listen--anyone not here to learn almost certainly needs(and will probably be encouraged)to move on.

Not everyone wants or enjoys discourse--some don't like to be put on the spot...questioned, critiqued. Some don't like being removed from the spotlight. But to be part of a community such as this one, is much like being part of a community in real life. One's place in that community must be earned.

Respect is not a given...again, it is earned. It can be earned in many ways--by contributing...selflessly (even selfishly, in some cases); by demeanor or attitude; by inerrancy; by an openness and a willingness to learn. And for those who aren't particularly conversational...by a demonstration of one's skills or abilities--the "results" that were mentioned here. And in many cases, a combination of some or all of the above.

Not everyone will fit in to a particular community. Some won't like the administrator...or will think that they surely could do the job so much better--know which jokes are appropriate or not and be outraged when the administrator does not support them. Some will see shadows and disrespect where there is none....simply because they are not the center of attention. Some just won't like the tone--too high-minded or too low brow. As Al pointed out, over the years (seven or eight now?) a number of people have come and gone. Some few we have regretted, most left of their own volition or after having created such a sense of ill-will that they couldn't possibly remain. We are biased. We are biased towards each other and towards the Trade. But our biases have nothing to do with age or gender or geography. More men have left...or been dismissed (in extreme cases) from...this forum than women--probably at a rate of four to one.

In the end, there are dern few issues that cannot be discussed on this forum and even fewer issues...short of complaint or slander...that cannot be brought before the administrator and moderators of this forum for a fair hearing in the proper venue and in good time.

Yr. Hmb. Svt.
The Crispin Colloquy

[tom mattimore]

The "Pershing boot" was a modification of the 92 campaign shoe which was a modification of the 89 campaign shoe. Maybe we can start a donnybrook about Pershing. Since I may be the only one who is currently making the 89, 92, 93 french brodequin and the 1917 trench shoe I am some what familiar with it. IMHO opinion the"Munson" was the best commercial last and the various patterns based on the 89(no internal overlapping seams) were the best for the foot I have ever seen or worn.
Tom

[das]

Tom,

Thanks for that. I'm curious though--and maybe tossing around the term "Pershing" boot too freely--is the "new" model 6" boot in Munson's book in fact the "Pershing"? But I agree, the Munson last is the only one I know of in the US, designed by a doctor with minimal fashion considerations, hence it's more anatomical and so a great fitter. It has a certain look though, and only works for that one type of footwear. Has anybody here had any experience modifying a Munson into other configurations? I'd think if you cleaned out the back-part (thinned the cuboid up towards the island) and re-worked the toe shape, you'd still have many of the benefits of a Munson, without the distinctive "bump" toe.

[tom mattimore]

The photo in Munsons 1917 book of the new model 6" is called the 1912 variant of the 1902 Garrison shoe. It is a full balmoral type shoe with perforated toe cap and is a holy bear to make. Heavy cotton drilling lining with a leather reinforce sewn on the lining. two rows of stitching on the toe cap and where the shaft goes into the galoshe with a double needle machine at about 20 spi.
I suppose you could keep some of the traits of the munson and vary the toe shape but the principal reason I like it is the heel is narrower and the ball wider then any other last I have seen. This proportion is IMHO the reason it fits so large a percentage of the male foot.
I was around for the transition from the stuck on sole leather boot on a munson to the "jungle boot" and there was universal compliant about the fit.
When My brother and I joined the boy scouts My dad took us down to the surplus store and bought us both a pair of double buckle shoes. We had been reading about how the Foregin Legion did not issue socks so we took our first 20 mile hike sans socks with no blisters at all. I would not do that again.

[das]

Tom,

Thanks for that. So the shoe in Munson's book is not the so-called Pershing boot? I just wanted clarification on that, in case I was applying the wrong terminology.

I like the Munson just for the reason you stated, plus it's anatomical toe-shape and swing. But, not everybody wants that broad "bump" toe, and I think the last is too thick in the back-part to make a decent low-quarter shoe.

Another factor--a delicate one perhaps--on this was the integration of the US military. The lasts and boots from the '50s onward had to fit a more racially diverse bunch of feet, which could have added impulse to the notion of making them wider and roomier than a Munson in the waist and back-part. Thoughts?