Throat measurment

Share secrets, compare techniques, discuss the merits of materials--eg. veg vs. chrome--and above all, seek knowledge.
Message
Author
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Throat measurment

#1 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

DW,

Oh how interesting this all is Image Okay, "'splain it to me Lucy": I'm experimenting with the Frommer throat formula; two inches up from the baseline is nowhere near the throat. Please clarify again 2" up from where, and 5" up from where, do we plug in the SH +/- additions/reductions?

Would you believe that the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation has no scanners available in any office open on Sundays? I made very clean 8 1/2" x 11" photocopies of the diagrams in question, Swaysland, 1905, and Plucknett-on-Swaysland's 1891, published in 1931. I'm going to put the digital camera in the dern copy-stand and try to shoot jpegs of them to post tonight. I'll try to type up the respective formulas tomorrow, and post those so we know what we're looking at.
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#2 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

Frank,

I think they only say Geronimo out west...west of the Appalachans anyway. On the lasts, however, the nicer bespoke lasts are radiused, and only have a sharp "corner" on the featherline in the forepart. Like that sample I sent you, if you close your eyes and handle it, it feels more like a plastic foot than a shoe last, except around the forepart.

DW,

Do you take your "dangling" short-heel one inch up at the back too? For your long-heel, is the foot "dangling", sitting, standing or what?
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: Throat measurment

#3 Post by dw »

al,

Two inches up from the baseline, as *you* defined the baseline, should *be* the throat. The baseline corresponds to the insole, as I understand your definition. Remember I don't design the whole standard when I set out to draft the tops patterns.

I take the short heel dangling and as Swaysland takes it--from the rounded corner of the heel to the inside corner of the ankle. All girths are taken dangling.

I looked again at Swaysland and Plucknett...at the diagrams illustrating the foot entering into the boot. All I can say is that, in my experience, neither of these illustrations depict reality. I must have put my own boots on a dozen times confirming that. So let me say that anyone can make a drawing and make it look like anything he wants it to look like. Make it "prove" anything he wants it to prove. I know that's a cynical view and not what you want to hear but truth to tell I have rough sketches, that I have been using for years, that I show to all my students, that show just the opposite of what Swaysland shows.

Here's what I see:
2033.gif


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

Re: Throat measurment

#4 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

001: Swaysland's long-work standard for a backseam boot, 1905 [1 1/4" between passlines]
2034.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#5 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

003: Swaysland's diagonal "bind" diagram, 1905
2035.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#6 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

005: Plucknett-on-Swaysland's 1891 long-work standard [2" between
passlines], from 1931.
2036.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#7 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

006: Plucknett-on-Swaysland's 1891 diagonal "bind" diagram, from 1931.
2037.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#8 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

DW,

Nice drawing BTW, and thanks for "shewing" me exactly what you were trying to describe. I see what you see here, however, by the time the toes get that far down the boot *I* think the foot is turning more to it's natural "L" position, thus presenting a dimension somewhat different--and larger than the short-heel. Swaysland's foot-in-a-bind diagrams may be a little off here, but so, too, is yours I think. But be that as it may... Image

At 2" up from the featherline/insole/baseline, the last still controls all the girths. For an average man's size boot, the topline of my counter is around 2" to 2 1/4" up at its *lowest* point right under the ankle bone, so at that height *I'm* not setting the leg's girth--the last is. See: point R on Swaysland above. The first girth I fret about, that's "off the last" so to speak, is the line J-1, or E-J, depending on which diagram you look at above. One line down, H-I, or F-H is still *above* 2". If you want to plug in a 13" girth there, how do you adjust the last?

Looking at the long-work standards above--if they are legible I won't bother with scanning images, but if not I'll still try to post better images--the diagonals at the two passlines, J-K and L-M, or E-K and C-M are established by first determining how far apart the passlines are set up, one is for 2" between [Swaysland 1891], the other 1 1/4" between, [Swaysland, 1905]. Obviously the 1905 version gives the loosest result. In the 1905 version, the passlines at 1 1/4" apart, the diagonals J-K, L-M, are shown as short-heel plus one inch [halved], close to your +3/4" formula, but since they are plugged in at an angle, the result is a tighter leg than you would get setting them straight across, or perpendicular. In the 1891 version, E-K and C-M are exactly the length E-A, IOW the net short-heel girth [halved], and obviously they result in a leg that is smaller *straight across* than the short heel--like your SH -1/2"??, a very tight leg.

In any case, the given girth we have to play with to design the small is the short-heel [or even long-heel?], or the short-heel plus some allowance [which approximates the long-heel?]. In designing, if we shot these lines straight across the leg standard, we get their maximum size. If we angle them as shown, the backseam line ends up closer to the front-line, and a smaller leg that can still be gotten on results. I think the thing to bear in mind down here, in "The Small", is--in all due defference--that the foot has already started to enter the vamp, and by the time we get down to, say, E-J, or J-1, we *can* cut the leg smaller that the short-heel, because the foot's turned the "corner".

One thing to bear in mind: taking the net SH and adding 3/4" here, or subtracting 1/2" there, straight across *might* be approximating the same results you'd get by using the SH net, and placing it at an angle. Thoughts?
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: Throat measurment

#9 Post by dw »

Al,

Well, I know we are never going to agree on this but just a few remarks in passing.

First, my drawing was done from *life*! It depicts reality...at least as it applies to my foot and my customers. I spent nearly three hours modeling my foot, pointed, and again as it was entering my boot. Reviewing the drawing with a critical eye this morning I might concede that the quarters are depicted a bit low in relationship to the rest of the boot. But even the length of foot was compared to the length of the boot to make sure things were in scale.

On the other hand, it is clear to my eye that neither Swaysland nor Plucknett were looking at an actual foot or an actual boot when their drawings were being made. If they were...well, no wonder their boots were too wide in the leg! Image

Neither of their drawings depicts the "pocket" that the heel forms under itself at the back of the boot. The foot is just sort of in there, static and lifeless. Further, the only customer I have who cannot point his foot significantly further than the feet depicted in Swaysland's and Plucknett's illustrations, had had both of his ankles crushed.

And the boot itself is depicted as lifeless. It looks rigid. So in both of these illustrations we have feet that seem to bear only passing resemblance to real feet, wedged into rigid tubes with only a passing resemblance to real boots. Image

das>One thing to bear in mind: taking the net SH and adding 3/4" here,
das>or subtracting 1/2" there, straight across *might* be approximating
das>the same results you'd get by using the SH net, and placing it at an
das>angle.

You may be correct. I am sure the case could be made, in any regard. But *I* think it is an artificial case. I don't use the long heel or a diagonal to design either my dress wellingtons, my full wellingtons or my backseam boots. I don't know any western bootmakers who do. Instead of fooling endlessly with a seemingly inexhaustible number of different angles and variations of the long heel...or short-heel-plus-some-arbitrary-amount-to-emulate-the-long heel-which-by-itself-doesn't-work...why not simplify the task and use a formula based strictly on the SH and plugged in perpendicular to the centerline of the leg? It works.

Finally, just to put a bug in your ear...it seems to me (theory only) that the higher on the cone the boot breaks, the narrower the leg may be. One of the reasons that I don't have much faith in using a plaster cast of the foot to make a boot on, is that the profile of the foot is so much lower than that of the last. So the break tends to be lower even though the girths might be correct. This forces the bootmaker to put a wider top on the boot just to get the foot under the break and into the boot. I have experiential confirmation of this concept but have never really thought it through. [On occasion I have had instances where I sprung the vamp too much and the boot slid down the cone of the last too far. Using my standard method of drafting the tops, suddenly the customer couldn't get those boots on.] And I think of English riding boots with their high breaks and four inch high counters and....their narrow, tight legs. You couldn't do that with a dress wellington with a two inch high counter and a relatively (relative to the English boot) low break.


Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#10 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

DW,

I'd admire your tenacity, and am enjoying the fact that just because we're not on the same page with this, our conversation is not degenerating into a "is so!", "is not" skirmish of biblical proportions. What distinguished old snabs we are, able to flail away with such grace and gentility Image

First, let me say that I agree, Swaysland's two diagrams, showing the foot in a "bind" are *not* perfect, nor do they capture exactly what *I* see either. But, because I don't have drawing software, I can't draw my own illustrations. Let's look at your drawing: I *agree* that the foot can present itself to the bootleg in that position, momentarily, going on, but in my boots [those you made as well as my own], the foot is only at that extreme pointed position, briefly, a little further up in the leg, not so far in. By the time my toes would touch the insole as you've shown, my foot has relaxed back nearer its "L" shape. Also, where you show the foot presenting itself with the short-heel dimension going straight across the leg, I'm not saying "no", just that in what I've been observing pulling my boots on over the weekend, the bootleg is tight to the middle cuneiform, tight to the shin, tight to the bulge of the heel, but there is a little air-space at the high-instep, Hass point--IOW, it's not tight across the short-heel dimension, nor is my foot that pointed, that far into the foot of the boot. If I could draw it, I'd draw something that is somewhere between yours and Swaysland's--tight at instep, heel, and shin, but with air-space at the high-instep/Hass point. I'm not seeing the relevance of the "pocket" *below* the bulge of the heel, since by the time the foot moves another inch or so down, it's no longer fully pointed, and would require another diagram--besides by then we *agree*[?] that the bootleg is *smaller* than the SH Image

===================
"If they were...well, no wonder their boots were too wide in the leg! [ big grin ]"
==================

Let's not jump to conclusions here, nor convict without a trial. I said *Golding* gives me too loose a fit at the small, but I haven't put Swaysland 1891, or Swaysland 1905 to the ultimate test yet. In Plucknett's discussions, *he* says obviously Swaysland's 1891 system generated a very tight ankle, difficult to get on, and probably explained his [Swaysland's] revisions in 1905 to enlarge the area, while retaining the diagonal plug-ins: reducing the distance between the passlines, using the short-heel, *plus* an inch, rather than net, etc.

=======================
"And the boot itself is depicted as lifeless. It looks rigid. So in both of these illustrations we have feet that seem to bear only passing resemblance to real feet, wedged into rigid tubes with only a passing resemblance to real boots. [huh? ]"
=======================

I tend to agree with you here, from an art-critic point of view, except for the fact that at it's maximum extension, the foot *is*, effectively, a rigid object because it won't compress any further, it won't bend any further, it's just "stuck" *if* the leg's too small. Of course bootlegs can, some of them, stretch-out, deform, or be supple enough to ooch on like silk stockings a bit at a time. With baby powder for lubricant, and boot hooks, even first thing in the AM before they swell, feet *can* be forced into a very tight boot; but at this phase we're only talking about the standards and patterns. If the finished boot is going to be grain-in [i.e., slippery], 4 oz. buttery waxed calf, unlined, or if it's got good "draft" [i.e. elasticity--some will expand and contract 1/2" to 1" at the small], we can cut them even tighter still, but that has more to do with allowances added/deducted later, *after* the basic standard has been designed.

===================
"You may be correct. I am sure the case could be made, in any regard."
===================

I sure hope so Image

====================
"why not simplify the task and use a formula based strictly on the SH and plugged in perpendicular to the centerline of the leg? It works."
====================

This is exactly the simplification Golding [and Patrick apparently] *did* do--they abandoned diagonals. And, my whole line in inquiry started with Golding, who *only* uses perpendiculars to lay out the small, the results of which were too loose for my taste [and Lee Miller seemed to find the same]. Rees starts us out with geometric pattern design in 1813, with diagonals, and the taste for much tighter-fitting boots than have been seen in almost two centuries--sans zippers that is. Diagonal design-lines, or passlines, stay with us right up to c.1900, and even more recently with Sharp. Obviously there were two schools of thought here: the "diagonal school", evolved from Rees, and the tight-as-humanly-possibly "close boots", and the "perpendicular school", which is a relative late-comer on the scene, and which does not seem geared towards giving tight-as-humanly-possibly results, *without* fudging by adding or subtracting fixed amounts like +/- 1/2", 3/4", or even 1". It follows, in my mind at this point, rather than doing all of this adding-to/subtracting-from, maybe the net SH will work just fine *if* plugged in at a diagonal. The reason you achieve such a good, tight, fit at the ankle is because you add to or subtract from the foot's SH girth when perpendicular--you've made a "reduction" judgment-call. What if you could get the same results, or maybe better, by using the foot's SH, net, plugged-in at an angle? Your additions and subtractions, as fixed amounts, don't change for a size 4, or a size 14, do they? Do you get the exact same fit at 4 and 14 as you do around 9?

I buy your "bug" about how high the boot breaks, BTW, and will add that the higher it beaks at the instep [crimp point at tongue, etc.], the sooner the toes and the foot will "turn the corner" there and enter the vamp, and the sooner the foot will begin to right itself, so the "faster" the small of the bootleg can neck-in. A person with a low instep has the advantage getting their foot down a tight leg easier, but if the last is fitted low, to correspond with their foot, the break point will be lower [i.e., closer to the insole, not further down the instep], so it will take longer before their foot begins to right itself entering the vamp. And you're right, so much of this has to do simply with the type of boot being designed. The higher the topline at the counter, the higher the line of tension along lines F-H, or H-I--there is no give along the line of stitching--so, the lower the topline of the counter, etc., the easier it is to force into. Your boots, or even a backseamed boot with a 2" counter-height under the ankle, can be cut tighter there than one of Janne's with 3" to 4" high counters, for just this reason.
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: Throat measurment

#11 Post by dw »

For those who were/are following this discussion we have had several people (western bootmakers) weigh in favouring the use of the short heel plugged in perpendicular to the baseline as a method of drafting the tops pattern; and several people(English/traditional) favouring the use of a diagonal, indeterminately linked to some variation of the long heel, to draft tops patterns for pull-on boots.

I don't know that this issue will ever be resolved but I am going to suggest an experiment and would like to hear what others observe during the course of the experiment. This only takes a few minutes and actually doesn't even waste any leather.

Cut a rectangular piece of scrap leather 20" long and as wide as your own short heel measurement...plus a quarter inch seam allowance on each long edge. Fold the leather edge to edge, grainside in, and sew a seam a quarter inch in from the edge. What is created should be a tube of leather twenty inches long and, allowing for the "orange peel factor", with an inside diameter slightly less than the short heel measurement.

Now try to push your foot through that tube to the end. You may have to bunch the tube a bit around the ankle and lower leg if your calf is stout and low on the leg.

The question is...can you push your foot all the way through the tube or does it hang up, immovably, somewhere shortly after the foot is placed into the tube? Can you tighten the tube down another quarter inch (one-eighth inch more off each edge) and still get your foot through? Another half inch?

Tight Stitches...
DWFII--Member HCC
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#12 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

DW,

Good idea! Let me suggest that we set some parameters on this here tube-test thingie, because different results would be found by using stretchy 4 oz. chrome, versus 7-8 oz. firm veg. How shall we make the tube more realistic? A lined bootleg, brand new, is rather crisp and firm, not drapey and supple. I'd say make the tube out of a 6, or 7-8 oz veg. side, sew boot straps into it, and cut the top big enough for the calf.

One point of clarification: don't let me confuse you, the "diagonal school" of dead guys observes, mostly, that the girth to use is the *short* heel, not the long-heel, however something close to the long-heel can be observed in the bind-spot [they say]. And, by plugging-in the SH at a diagonal, the measurement at that spot--the passline--*straight* across will be somewhat *less* than the SH. I think we're zoning-in on a measurement less than the SH--don't forget Rees with his observation that he'd seen people get into boots 2" less than their *SH*.

A long time ago, or should I say "once upon a time..."? In all events I made a boot for myself. I tested the leg by trying to get it on before lasting the boots. No way, it wouldn't go. I went ahead and finished the boots, and did nothing to appreciably increase the leg's size at the small like treeing it way out. When done I could get my foot a little further in, but by standing up, and stamping my foot hard into the finished boot, voila, it eventually popped-on. IOW, I think it would be possible to get on a boot that is tighter in the small than just this test-tube, because you have something to stamp into. Surely, much of where we go with this has to do with the fit the customer wants. An extreme "as-tight-as-possible" fit like painted-on designer jeans in the mid-'70s, only zipped when laying flat on your back using pliers, or something more practical.

I'll make my test-tube and get back to you all next week.
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: Throat measurment

#13 Post by dw »

Al et al,

OK, that's fair and it lets us establish a set of known parameters. But a couple of suggestions...[and let me say I've already performed this experiment with your 8 ounce veg tan leather and have photos, etc., which I will post along with my observations in a few days]...cut your "test-tube" to be 12 inches long. This will bypass the problem with the calf for most people and give us a truer idea of what's really going on. Secondly, do attach pulls of some sort...both at the top *and* at the bottom. Without the pulls at the top you'll never get you foot into the tube and without at least one pull at the bottom, you'll play "hello" trying to get it off. As it was, even with a pull at the bottom, I got a dern charlie-horse in my calf and jumped around in frantic agony until I could get the heel of my other boot to clamp down on the bottom pull and pull my foot free.

Also, allow for the "orange peel factor" and make the test-tube a little big at first, then if that works, sew another line of stitching a little further in from the edge--effectively reducing the inner diameter--and try again. And be sure to trim and hammer down your seam.


Tight Stitches...
DWFII--Member HCC
User avatar
jake
7
7
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 1998 7:01 pm
Full Name: Jake
Location: Mountain View, Arkansas, USA

Re: Throat measurment

#14 Post by jake »

Sounds good to me fellers. I'll give it a try too.
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: Throat measurment

#15 Post by dw »

All,

I'm curious, so here's quick, easy survey...for those who would be so kind...

How far can you point your toes?

Can you point your foot such that the shin, ankle, and instep all are in a line?

Can you point your foot such that the shin, ankle, instep, and toes are all in a line?

Can you lay a straight edge on this surface/line...and where are the "hollows" under the straight edge...if any?


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC
User avatar
jake
7
7
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 1998 7:01 pm
Full Name: Jake
Location: Mountain View, Arkansas, USA

Re: Throat measurment

#16 Post by jake »

D.W.,
Can you point your foot such that the shin, ankle, and instep all are in a line?


NO
Can you point your foot such that the shin, ankle, instep, and toes are all in a line?


NO
Can you lay a straight edge on this surface/line...and where are the "hollows" under the straight edge...if any?


I can lay a straight edge on this line, but there's a "hollow" from the low instep to the shin, with the deepest concavity at the face of the ankle.
2057.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: Throat measurment

#17 Post by dw »

Jake, and all...

Wow! I've gotten some private email on this (hopefully they will post publicly, too) but all I can say is that there is a big difference among people. I'm beginning to think my foot may be the exception rather than the norm. And I'm going shopping for a tutu this weekend, Al.

I can point my foot extremely straight. In fact, if you look at the photo below, you can see that I can point my toes beyond 180 degree. AND! I can lay a straight-edge on my shin and there's little or no gap right on down past the middle cuneiform. I'm not double jointed though...go figure.
2058.jpg


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

Re: Throat measurment

#18 Post by Tex Robin »

DW.
You must be the champion toe pointer, and
Al must get second place but I didn't get the meaning of this experiment. Did I miss something. Must have? Image
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: Throat measurment

#19 Post by dw »

All,

Further to our "test-tube" experiment...

Here are my results and a few observations.

I started with a dry 7/8 ounce wax calf from Kellett. My SH measurement is 12 1/4". I cut the piece of leather 12" x 13 1/4". I drew a line at 13" from one edge and folded the leather edge to edge with the grainside in. I then sewed a seam along that line, making an effective outside diameter of 12 3/4" and a theoretical inside diameter of ???. I wore a heavy boot sock. The tube went on, and came off, fairly snugly but with no real problem...as expected. You can see in the photo below (the little red blob is my toe peeking out) that I can get my foot all the way through the tube.

Then I sewed a seam further in from the first one--such that the outside diameter (seam to seam) was 12 1/4" and the inside diameter was roughly
12 1/8" (it was hard to get a good reading). I trimmed the excess off the seam and hammered it flat.

The tube went on hard but fairly smoothly. Once the foot had stopped moving however, it became a little harder to get off--with results that I have already, somewhat sheepishly, described. But that was due more to not having a direct angle to pull the tube off. If I had had a helper, I'm sure it would have come off as surely as it went on.

As for diagonals and diagonal binding...my observations are as follows...if the long heel, or some other diagonal girth (?) were an important factor in getting a boot on, then this experiment might...ought to...reveal that. I theorize that we wouldn't be able to get our foot through a tube with an inside diameter of SH or less. Simply because any diagonal is presumably going to be larger than the SH girth. So what I have done in this experiment should be impossible.

But why do we focus on the middle cuneiform as an end point to our diagonal? Why not the base of the toes? If we use the outside corner of the heel as a focal point, why do we arbitrarily assume that the middle cuneiform will be the point of diagonal bind? Why not a greater angle...or even a lesser?? It might be suggested that we focus on the middle cuneiform because it is a prominent feature that has to turn under the vamp break to allow the foot entry into the boot. But we are talking about a tube in this experiment--a constant diameter cylinder, with no relief such as is afforded by the foot breaking under the vamp. And if we can pass the foot through a constant diameter tube of short heel or less, then surely the foot ought to go into a boot where there *is* relief at the break of the vamp. So why shouldn't the toes be the end point of our diagonal bind? Isn't the length of a girth taken from the outside corner of the heel to the toes longer than the long heel (where ever it is taken)? And if diagonal bind were a real problem, wouldn't the foot bind on a longer line rather than a shorter? Sooner rather than later?

For that matter, we can look at it from the other direction. Taking the heel as a focal point, isn't there an angle going towards the calf? Yet where and how does the calf fail to enter the boot? In our test tube experiment, the tube only hangs up on the leg when the girth of the leg...*taken perpendicular to the baseline*...exceeds the inside diameter of the tube--ie. the short heel measurement. Again, suggesting that the perpendicular measurement its the critical one.
2059.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: Throat measurment

#20 Post by dw »

Tex,

Well, it would seem that way. Must have something to do with being short and not being able to reach the cookie jar when I was a wee bairn.

But I don't think Al has weighed in on this yet. The survey on foot pointing arose out of the continuing discussions about drafting tops patterns and throat measurements. Al seemed a bit surprised when I described how I could point my foot...although I thought it was quite common. So I thought I would start looking a bit harder at other people's feet to see if I was abnormal or something. Or "something," I suppose.

The theory is, as I understand it, that the straighter you can point your foot, the narrower you can make your tops. I'm wondering if that's really true and if it is, how do we measure that on a customers foot...or take it into consideration, for that matter? Hence the nattering about throat measurements.

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: Throat measurment

#21 Post by dw »

But until further data comes to light, the real champion toe pointer may be my wife, Randee (and this photo is just a little askew so I didn't catcher the full extent of her talent)...
2060.jpg


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

Re: Throat measurment

#22 Post by Tex Robin »

Toe pointers,

I'm sorry Jake. I thought that was Al's foot. Well it has been a little slow lately. You just never know what the next subject is going to be here on the torum. Just don't try craming your foot into a top that is too small and have to cut it off. The boot that is. Image I don't even know what I am doing here! 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: Throat measurment

#23 Post by jake »

All,

Gosh! Twinkle toes, You and Randee can really point 'em. I'm getting concerned if I'm not the weird one here. I tried to the point of causing a cramp in my arch to straighten my foot further. What you see is the best I could do.

I hope we can get some more feedback from other members. Tex, can you point your foot as above? Margaret, where you at? Let's take a look at your old hoof.
D.A. Saguto--HCC

Re: Throat measurment

#24 Post by D.A. Saguto--HCC »

DW,

I can't open photos here, so I'll have to wait until I'm at my office later today.

You might win the tutu. I can force my toes down fine, but experimenting by pushing he front of my leg and foot against the file cabinet, for a straight edge, here where I'm sitting, I contact fine at 5" up the shin, at the middle cuneiform all the way to the toes, but there is about 1/4" of air-space at the front SH position, increasing to maybe 1/2" at the ankle and above--my shin bone is bowed in I guess. I can get my toes straight though.

And in this contortion, my SH point, in front, is about 1" +/- lower than the maximum bulge of the heel behind--it's not parallel like yours.
User avatar
jake
7
7
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 1998 7:01 pm
Full Name: Jake
Location: Mountain View, Arkansas, USA

Re: Throat measurment

#25 Post by jake »

To All,

Some friends came over last night to visit, so I acquired some more guinea pigs for our experiment.

This first pic is of a 27 year old male:
2062.jpg


This is a 21 year old female:
2063.jpg


This is my 3 year old daughter's foot:
2064.jpg


From all the submitted photos so far, I can conclude one thing. It seems that the majority of the time females can point their foot in a straight line with no "hollows", especially right above the break of the ankle. While males have a limited capacity to straighten their foot. Thus, allowing "hollows" to be formed between the shin and middle cuneiform (low instep). As to the exception to this rule, well......D.W. has an extra "X" chromosome. J
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply