The Crispin Colloquy

paul » Fri Dec 11, 2015 9:22 am wrote:Thank you. Please excuse me if I seemed to "bristle" or be defensive. Long story.
I will follow up with a couple of pertanent images in Bottoming Techniques.

paul

No worries...I didn't take it as "bristling." I could wish for more insight into what you see are the strengths and weaknesses of Opanka, but that's just me--Curious George. (And maybe you'll get to it in bottoming Techniques)

That said, as you and I have discussed, on a truly "professional" forum there is no such thing as "safe spaces."

Nor should there be...

No worries here either. It's all in my head.
I shall get some images and thoughts regarding the style on Bottoming Techniques.
But while here in the Gallery I offer this image of the aforementioned mules.
Paul

Very cool, looking forward to studying your pictures.
Are the exposed toes a design feature only or are there also technical reasons why the sole does not go all the way around the toe?
Thanks for sharing!

I would say it is a style thing.
We can discuss more over in Bottoming Techniques.

I am ordinarily hesitant to post in the Gallery so soon after someone else has posted, but you and I, Paul, seem to be the torch bearers for the Full Wellington. Probably not too surprising since it its a particularly difficult style that few makers (boot or shoe) attempt, much less master.

I mentioned that I had just finished a pair from the Spanish calf that Loy is carrying:

Black Spanish calf, 1-5/8" heel, 14" bound top. The customer has a very thick ankle and heavy, short foot. Did a fitter's model.

Classy boots DW! They look very sleek and elegant to me, no trace of problem feet. Did you make the last yourself?
Here comes the amateur question: Is the Wellington the boot version of a wholecut?
Love the clean lines...

Herr_Leeb » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:30 am wrote:Classy boots DW! They look very sleek and elegant to me, no trace of problem feet. Did you make the last yourself?
Here comes the amateur question: Is the Wellington the boot version of a wholecut?
Love the clean lines...

All side seamed boots are Wellingtons. The full wellington can be considered the sideseamed equivalent of a whole cut shoe, I suppose. But it is much, much, much more difficult...problematic...to block the fronts of a FW than to cut and/or block a pair of wholecut shoes.

And few makers block a whole cut shoe. I do. Dan Freeman does. In my case, the Full Wellington boot experience is influencing the choice to block the shoe uppers. Dan just made that intuitive leap.

I do not carve lasts. The way I was taught...and I think this is far more common in the US where the last lathe was invented...to start with a stock size last and modify it. There are drawbacks and advantages to either approach.

Now you got me inspired....thinking about making a seamless Wellington...out of a whale penis, that could work

Beer's to you DW!
I don't mind being upstaged by simple beauty anytime!
I like your strategic placement of your pattern at the throat line. Perfect, almost poetic!
I agree with Herr_Leeb about the modifications being well hidden.
Brovo Bra!

Thank you both.

Not my favourite pair of FW that I've ever made but perhaps there's a certain consistency involved.

For me technique has always been the grail. Which kind of runs across the grain when it comes to cowboy boots. I've always rejected being called an Artist not only because I think it a bit pretentious but, if I am being 100% honest, it is because whatever artistic abilities I have are minimal and mostly borrowed.

But Paul has both the technique as well as the aesthetic sensibilities and creativity. That's kind of unique. I can't think of another bootmaker whose work is so consistently striking and yet so obviously well made.

Another reason I hesitated to post. Your stuff is always a hard act to follow, Paul.

Thank you, but really, I can only aspire to be worthy of the complements.
At times I wonder about decisions I make and my lack of consistency.
I'm just glad to have a good example to follow. Thanks for the encouragement.
Lead on.
Paul

paul » Sun Dec 13, 2015 6:03 am wrote:Thank you, but really, I can only aspire to be worthy of the complements.
At times I wonder about decisions I make and my lack of consistency.
I'm just glad to have a good example to follow. Thanks for the encouragement.
Lead on.
Paul

Everybody does. When you stop, you might as well put the other foot in and drag the sod on over you.

Well, at least I have a 9 year habit of stopping at three things I would improve on the next pair.

Fresh off the last...
As usual, more pictures and details on http://www.shoes.alexanderleeb.com

Nice looking lasting job!

Alexander,

Seamless!! Nice!

What leather is that?

dw » Thu Dec 17, 2015 3:00 pm wrote:Alexander,

Seamless!! Nice!

What leather is that?

Thank you DW and Paul, your feedback means a lot to me

The upper was sold to me as "Very good quality calf" at my local cobbler supply/leather store. Further questions about it resulted in a blank stare...
It is about 1.2 mm thick, if you bend it over it shows a very fine grain. I picked it because it looked and felt "expensive" to me, it is strong and supple but still has some stretch in it, a requirement for my seamless exercise.
The color is rich and deep and there is no artificial acrylic layer on it. The skin has some blemishes and stretch marks on it, so it's not corrected grain, HOWEVER - the flesh side is very smooth and not fussy at all. So it might be just "Top grain" after all.
I wish I could give you a better answer, but learning about leather is hard to do by reading on the internet only. I would have to see and touch it, guided by a knowledgeable person in order to have a better understanding - an opportunity I have not had yet. But fear not - on my next trip to Austria I will get some expert advice, the finest leather on the market and some Rendenbach soles for good measure...

The lining is veg tanned calf.

For the soles I took your valuable advice and used Baker leather which I got online from Lisa Sorrell.
I welted the shoes 360 and did not prepoke the holes in the holdfast, but made them as needed when welting to have better control over the wrinkles and creases. It was a blast to work with, thank you for the tip!!!

Cheers,
A.

Pair of alligator boots for my "oil baron" customer (his 8th? pair).

He has roses on his ranch and while the colours in this photo are not quite right, the actual roses on the boots are a perfect match for the real life flowers...at least according to him. (don't know what happened to the colour...the camera catches it perfect one time and not another.

Here's another pair in the works as a graduation pair for his son in March. Elephant and Spanish calf and the roses. The colour here is better but still not right...I think I need a new camera.

Nice!
I recognize the flowers and back panel stitch patterns from an old discussion regarding top panel stitching elsewhere here on the Colloquy, dealing with the ends of thread on the sections of the flowers.
Did you hide your ends with the "needle threader"?
Paul

It's an old (and favourite) pattern of mine.

Using a threader to hide the ends is a good technique and one I would employ for show work.I also use that technique when making shoes in certain areas.

But it is also possible to use a "professional" grade woodburning tool with a knife tip and snip/melt the threads very close to the leather. Nylon will melt at a lower temperature than it takes to scorch leather. (With silk you almost have to backstitch and tie off.)

Also...my mistake...the boots above are crocodile, not alligator.

NOBODY makes a pair of cowboy boots like you Dee-Dubb!

Keep us posted Ol'Buddy!

Adios, Jake

P.S. Merry Christmas!

homeboy » Tue Dec 22, 2015 4:19 pm wrote:NOBODY makes a pair of cowboy boots like you Dee-Dubb!

Keep us posted Ol'Buddy!

Adios, Jake

P.S. Merry Christmas!

Thanks, Jake.

FWIW, I did a spread of boots on another forum...here...that you may like. I posted them there because they've all already been posted here at one time or another and because I could keep the displayed photos small which meant that 24 pics didn't blow away the bandwidth. Take a look.

I'm not really proud of showing this shoe here, but it's my first venture into 18th century shoe making and I'm desperate to learn from the experienced craftsmen here ... so here we go.

The pictures show the last stages of my first try of a 1750s ladies' shoe with silk/linen upper and white rand. Following the original I picked for form, proportions, heel height and a number of other details (cf. http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the ... rch/156125) the treadsole went on with the grain side facing upwards, so towards the foot rather than the ground. (A reason for this may have been to give the sole a bit more traction on the smooth interior floors the wearer would have walked upon - these shoes were meant for being worn indoors mostly, as attested by the pattens accompanying (and sometimes surviving together with) them.)

The treadsole is sewn to the the white rand (ca. 8-9 stitches per inch, should actually be more I think), which obviously acts as a means to connect treadsole and the upper construction like a welt normally does. Where it meets the heel breast, the seam continues down the heel cover. The piece of leather at the bottom of the heel is likewise sewn to the lower end of the of the heel. Seams are protected at the bottom by an incision at an oblique angle.

So far so good, but I completely failed to get the nice, straight and extremely regular seam the originals show. Part of it (the larger part, actually, I'm sure) is due to my doing this for the first time, part of it to not fitting the heel size exactly enough to the shoe/last and yet another part is is due to not (yet, let's hope for the best here!) knowing the construction methods employed at the time. Also, I think the whittawed leather I used was a bit too thick for the rand resulting in a too high/thick rand in terms of proportions.
Or, in other words: Hhrrrnngrrrrhhharghhhhhh...&%8xx"!**#&***!!! (read: what-a-great-learning-and-character-building-experience :-))

The one detailed description of this part of the construction of a white randed 18th cent. shoe I found actually shows a different construction method where there is no visible seam to the white rand. With the slipper in question The folded white rand is stitched through from above and through both layers in a way that the seam comes to lie wedged between rand and upper so that is hidden from view (cf. http://www.museum-digital.de/nat/index. ... oges=29398, I have the article mentioned there). I (foolishly?) chose to no go that way. No I'm wondering if there are more descriptions of constructional details like this for the method I not quite managed to employ?

I think I should have used thicker leather beneath the silken heel cover to provide more of an "anchor" for the stitches running along the breast and bottom of the heel - I had the problem that the very thin alum tanned leather/silk layer tended to tear out.
Thanks in advance for all comments/questions/pointers!

Cheers,
Martin

For completeness' sake a picture before starting sewing:

Cheers,
Martin