Insoles and inseaming

[dw]

Al,

If I may allay just a little bit of your confusion...

Yes, I know that there is no "outside channel." (and even now I am scourging myself in penance ) But this is one instance...and I have thought this for years... where the lexicon fails in my opinion. The feather, as you prepare it (remember I saw you do this lo, these many years) is very different from the feather as many others of us prepare it. You are not actually removing much, if any leather, whereas I am cutting a rabbet at the edge of the insole. So the impulse to differentiate the two techniques seems called for. And I suppose that there is a correct terminology that differentiates the inseaming from the outseaming, too, but here...among friends and forgiveness...I know I am taking liberties in hopes that communicating an idea trumps linguistics.

My point in this whole conversation is that even using a rabbetted feather, and stitching my outseam a little better than an eighth of an inch from the face of the vamp (trying to center my outseam between the vamp leather and the edge of a moderately refined outsole), I am still sometimes cutting the inseam. I wonder how, using a square awl...with the cutting edge perpendicular to the line of inseam stitching...you can possibly avoid cutting the inseam given that you don't inset your inseam at all. And, to compound the problem you're stitching 10spi against four spi.

The reason I ask, is that if I knew how you avoided making "mincemeat" (is that a valid shoemaking term?) of your inseam, maybe I could avoid making "hash" out of mine.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

Al:

Thanks for that. I was referring to the width of the feather (as I believe was DW as well). I have a (mis?)recollection that you had written about simply stitching out the edge of the insole, without any sort of feather, and I think that may be what DW was referring to.

I can certainly see how the square awl, with its tip like a knife, would cut through the inseam, whereas a regular stitching awl with a pointed tip would be more likely to simply pierce the seam without cutting it.

Regarding the channel, only one thing to add regarding your method #2. I've seen 2 approaches: A.) cutting the channel at a 45 degree angle from a point just inside the edge of the outsole, and B.) cutting a flap in from the edge of the sole, much more horizontal to the surface of the sole (and therefore parallel to the ground). I think option A is considered better in terms of durability, because the channel is protected by a thin lip which has to wear off before the channel is exposed and because perhaps the angle of the cut makes the flap less likely to open up. However, it is more difficult to do than simply cutting a horizontal flap and folding that back to sew, since in approach A you need to actually hit the channel with the awl, whereas with B you have a broad area that the awl can exit, since there is a wide area that has been cut and folded open.

Lance

ps posted just after DW posted his reply.

(Message edited by lancepryor on September 18, 2008)

[dw]

Paul,

Yes, I use a curved needle stitcher on my "production" work. There is a "proper" way to hold the work when using this machine--the sole must always be level...in both dimensions...esp. if you are simultaneously cutting an outsole channel. If you're stitching aloft, I guess it doesn't matter.

On my Landis, that means that the tops will be slightly angled in towards the machine around most of the forepart.

Now, I can avoid cutting the inseam by setting the guide on my machine so that the line of stitching is further away from the face of the vamp (and the inseam). But this means that to be balanced the welt itself must be wider. The law of diminishing returns kicks in about here and you end up with a pretty clumsy looking boot/shoe in most cases and if you are not careful. I don't know where the "happy middle" is and I'm not sure, given the way I cut my feather, if I would like it anyway--I like the look of my welt...the width...the way it is now.

So...I guess that leaves cutting the feather rabbet wider. But I'm sure that there are diminishing returns involved in that approach as well.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Larry,

I think...and this is all guessing...that going to a quarter inch wide rabbetted feather would be fine given that your insole was thick enough to prevent it from curling up during wear.

I believe that this is why many shoemakers, esp. "old school" shoemakers, do not cut a rabbet on their feather--because the insoles that they use are so extraordinarily (from a bootmaker's POV) thin...6 iron or so. Remember that 6 iron is technically one-eighth of an inch. If your rabbet is half the depth of the insole, and your insole is 9-10 iron, you may be OK, but if it is 6 iron to begin with and the rabbet is half the depth, the resulting 3 iron (1/16" ) flap is simply not thick enough or stiff enough to resist the "roll" of the outsole and shoe.

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


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

(Message edited by dw on September 18, 2008)

[dearbone]

7966.jpg

now i know why i kept this insole for so many years,Paul if you can't envision what Al, was describing,i hope the picture helps,i marked with silver pen where the holes are,i have no idea what your machine does to break your rabbet,i out and inseam by hand, but i think to do it like Al explained,like the picture above is stronger than the rabbet.

Regards Nasser

[dw]

Nasser,

Unless I'm seeing things wrong, you are not doing it like Al does it. You appear to have cut a notch as in the following illustration

7968.gif

Al would not have that notch on his insole...see the illustration below:

7969.gif

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dearbone]

DW,

I do not wish to speak on behalf of any living or dead being,and the man can surly speak for himself, but my understanding of him saying,"incise a sallow vertical cut with pointed knife, than wiggle the channel", means that he does cut a channel on one side.

Nasser

[paul]

Nasser,

There does seem to be a little cunfusion circulating. I make my insole like DW has illustrated. And I do not cut my inseam stitches with my outsole stitcher. That's not to say I won't, maybe I'm just stitching further away from the vamp than DW describes. Maybe I'll see how close I can get.

Al's description of his insole feather seems to be flush with the last feather edge and then pounded with the pane of his hammer to give him something of the same effect? That's what I'm not clear on.

Thank you tho,
Paul

[lancepryor]

Nasser:

The quote you cite from Al is in reference to cutting a channel on the outsole. What DW's pictures show is the cutting of the insole, and whether a feather is cut or not.

DW:
If I read Al correctly, I think your picture perhaps lacks a bit of a feather in Al's case -- I would think the combination of the skived edge and the hammering of the edge would give something of a feather, whereas your picture just shows a very slightly angled skive. Perhaps just a limitation of the drawing program you've used (?).

Al: perhaps you can clarify what you mean by this: "the ancient sloping feather, reduced by beveling-off by cutting, then by hammering it thin with the pane of the hammer" Let me see if I understand what you do: Let's say you decide on a 3/8 inch feather (for a certain portion of the insole). So, first you simply skive the edge, with the skive starting at 3/8 in from the edge; then, you pane this same 3/8 inch area to compress it and finish the feather? A couple of questions: how thin is your skive at the edge of the insole? e.g. Do you skive to 1/2 thickness, to a specific thickness, or what? Next, when hammering, do you try to maintain a slope/angle on the feather, or are you sort of trying to make it more level (i.e. trying with the pane to sort of create a notch, but without using a insole/feathering knife in order to do so)? Finally, assuming the feather retains the slope/angle, where do you try to have your holes exit the holdfast? If it's at the 3/8 inch point, isn't it kind of difficult to get a deep enough hole through the holdfast while still exiting at the 3/8 distance? If you shoot for something closer to the edge, thus giving a stronger stitch, then how do you avoid having the inseam to far out relative to the vamp?

Thanks,
Lance

[dw]

Nasser,

As I mentioned in a previous post, Al gave me a one-on-one demonstration of how he did (note the use of the word "did"--he may do it differntly now) this technique. The illustration I have provided does show the "channel" on both methods...as Paul said the channel is the inner cut/groove/edge of the holdfast.

Paul, Lance,

Well when Al showed me this he did use the pane of the hammer to create a slight...I emphasize "slight" depression in the feather to establish where the awl would come out. But as I recall (and at my age recollections can be suspect) there was never a long bevel and the depression that was created in the feather was almost incidental. And the insole was shockingly (for my untutored eyes) thin...so thin that I think that a long bevel would create the very problem I was discussing with Larry. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Al didn't mention that very thing to me at the time--I picked up the theory somewhere, and not from first hand experience.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dearbone]

lance.

I ask you to read the quote again in it's content.than let me know if he was referring to the insole or the out sole?

Nasser

[das]

Fellers, fellers.... Puuu-lease. I'll try to bring an insole done "my way" to OK, (TSA goons allowing), or just make one up out there. Can't see the photo DW posted, so I'm kinda blind on this.

Yes, there is a square, plumb-cut insole too, but that's under-cut narrower than the last, and sooo old-fashioned (c.1600-1750s) that I doubted any of you would want to use it.

Yes, I forgot the other outer sole channel cut straight inward from the edge and lifted up, but these were developed to hide MacKay sewed soles (chain stitched) and incorporated a groove under the flap, etc., so I did not think it was fair to mention them in connection with welted work.

[dw]

Here's another place where confusion rears its ugly head. This is probably my fault for not adhering to strict terminology. There is a standardized lexicon--a set of words that have been used in the Trade since time out of mind. But so few of us anymore have been trained in the same traditions that often we don't use the same language to describe the same thing.

The channel that Al was talking about (and he can and should correct me if I am wrong) is indeed an outsole channel. It may be done several ways--as both Lance and Al said, straight down, almost horizontal, and at an angle.

But although if memory serves me right...now that I think of it...Al did not cut a channel in the insole when he showed me his method (leaving the inside stitches aloft), many of us do cut a channel and bury the inseam in it.

So, maybe for lack of a better word "channel" describes several different things and several different applications although they are all cuts made into the leather for the purpose of insetting the stitching.

That said, thanks to that old bugaboo semantics, we are getting somewhat far afield of the original question and purpose of the discussion...which was to determine the best way to go about insuring that the inseam was not going to be cut by the outseam all while preserving a fairly refined welt.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Here's maybe a better illustration of what I was talking about as far as different methods is concerned...the curved lines, on either side, indicate the path of the sewing awl and the thread for the respective methods.

7975.gif

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[das]

Well, sort of...

My feather is wider and more of a sloping angle out to the feather-,line of the last, and if the insole will bear it, I do usually cut a vertical channel on the inner border to define the holdfast. My awl-path is not quite as deep as you show, but let's wait until Guthrie

[dw]

Al,

My apologies...I was hoping you'd clarify that for me. Memories aren't always reliable. But while I still have that insole around here somewhere (haven't seen it since the move, however) that's what I remember it looking like...kind of.

And so it is a long bevel from the edge of the insole. I am almost sure you warned me about the edge of the insole getting so thin that it would roll up inside the shoe, though.

Of course your insole wouldn't be near as thick as mine and aside from the depth of the awl-path, I'm sure there are other inaccuracies. But the illustration was a quick and dirty modification to one that I drew for my book.

Sad to say, I don't think I'm gonna make Guthrie. I kept holding out hope (for myself) but my Danish student will only have left that week...my daughter is about to have a baby and my in-laws are coming soon after.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[romango]

Al,

If your hole exits the insole close to the feather line isn't there a big risk that the stitch will show on the outside of the shoe?

I was thinking that an advantage of DW's approach is to pull the stitches under the insole to a greater extent.

[tjburr]

DW,

Probably not the place to put it, but since I am from Texas I have been able to plan on going to Guthrie. I was looking forward to meeting you and sharing a wee dram

Some other time though.

Terry

[tjburr]

Since this has been such a good conversation I thought I would ask if anyone has tried a slightly different technique.

I first seen this on a pair of historic shoes in a museum. The effect was quite interesting and I had considered trying it out, but I have not had time.

I then seen a similar picture in Stepping through Time.

The following is a rough drawing.

7977.jpg

I will try to find a picture of the one in the museum and post it as well.

Terry

[tjburr]

I went looking and unfortunately the pictures of the original shoe did not show the welt that well. Next to the original was a reproduction someone had made. The pictures are not great since they were through glass and they did not sell a book with pictures from their collection.

7979.jpg

7980.jpg

The reproduction itself was quite extraordinary though.

Terry

[tjburr]

Sorry about the size, and even at that they did not show up as good as on my monitor.

Terry

[amuckart]

Hi Terry,

I've built a pair of shoes with that construction. Not the most elegant things in the world but they were my first right-side-out welted shoes. The problem I had was keeping the outseam stitching close enough to the upper not to have a huge chunky welt sticking out all around, I don't feel they came out terribly well in that respect. The topline is also too high all around to look quite right, but the person they were made for has quite high insteps.

I would love to see more pictures of the shoes you've posted, they are a style I'm quite interested in at the moment.

Here's a picture of one of the ones I made.

7982.jpg

More on them can be seen on my blog at http://wherearetheelves.blogspot.com/2007/10/early-16th-century-low-shoe.html if you are interested.

[das]

DW,

Yup, and longer sloping taper to the feather, i.e. a wider feather than you drew. Of course they can get too thin at the very edge and curl up inside the shoe and hurt the foot. This is why I create that slope, now, more by beating it down with the hammer pane, than pairing away the leather's thickness. I do a few sweeping cuts to establish it, then (while damp) tap it down thinner with the hammer. This firms it up and tapers the feather further without weakening it.

After that treatment on the feather, and a shallow vertical channel cut on the inside border of the holdfast, once the insole is holed, the holdfast actually raises up some and looks more like an architectural ridge, higher than the unmolested surface of the insole bottom.

Sorry you won't make Guthrie. If I make an insole there, I'm sure somebody might snap a picture that we can post here. Otherwise I'll be glad to send you a made-up insole, so you can see exactly the effect.

[das]

Rick,

No snub to DW or his little sketch, but don't go by that. My sewing stitches "exit" as far from the edge of the insole as with his "stair-step" feather. Nope...nothin' shows.

[das]

Terry,

That is the early (est?) form of (right-side-out) welted construction (as opposed to turnshoes with welts): no feather to the insole, and a thinner (uppers weight) welt that rolls up, then down to form a flat welt at its edge, reminiscent of the earlier "rand" used on Medieval overshoes. In fact some scholars are convinced that shoemakers stole the welted construction for shoes from the Patten-makers who used a similar technique for making the platform-soled overshoes. This was the big change in technique from turnshoes to welted (made right side out) that took place late in the 1400s or in the 1500s.

The repro with the "Cow Mouth" toe, or is that and "eared toe"?--anyway--does not incorporate the under-cut insole that refined the whole look by the 1600s. In your sketch, if you bulge the uppers out instead of them going straight down to the inseam, cut the insole 1/4" to even 1/2" narrower than the last's feather-line, no feather at all, and go from there, the finished effect is not unlike a "modern" welted shoe; however, in wear, you end up walking over on the upper somewhat. This makes it an historical technique that I don't feel is very well adapted to modern use really, but it's fun to do and faster because: 1) there's no fooling around making a feather; 2) the insole edge is just cut plumb; 3) the welt is thinner leather so it's easier to manipulate, especially around the toe; 4) and the stitching-stitches can be tucked well under the uppers around the forepart=no wide shelving-out welts seen on the finished shoe, and 5) the chances of cutting through the sewing-stitches with the stitching-stitches is minimal.

The "first" feather on the insoles of welted shoes was indeed the sloping feather I've been discussing (c.1600-1750). It seems to come in (on Anglo-American and British) shoes right around the 1750s for men, but I've noted "under-cut" insoles (no feather) on into the later 1700s as well--the "new" method did not take hold over night.