One "Last" Question

[simcha yaffa]

Hi there again!
I wonder if it's possible to reverse engineer a shoe last:
step 1: taking a new shoe.
step 2: stiffening up the shoe with something like "Stiffy"

step 3: pouring into the "stiff shoe" some type of plaster.
step 4: after the plaster is dried, cut away the fabric of the shoe
step 5: 3d scan the plaster mold and bring it into the computer.


do you think this process will work... any recommendations?

another question (off topic) does anyone buy here from Vibram B2B catalogue, how can I order from them, is a small quantity also possible?
https://www.vibram.info/vibramrepair/ca ... 1&lingua=2

thank you for your time
simcha:)

[das]

This process is very similar to how lasts are "stolen", for lack of a better term, in the industry, so in theory it works. You will need to carefully line the shoe with cellophane or something so the plaster or resin you pour in doesn't become stuck to the shoe, then smooth and clean-up the plaster/resin form afterwards to get rid of any wrinkles it captured from the cellophane, shoe lining, etc. before you scan it.

Sorry, no idea on the Vibram B2B question.

[ArborCW]

Hi there again!
I wonder if it's possible to reverse engineer a shoe last:
step 1: taking a new shoe.
step 2: stiffening up the shoe with something like "Stiffy"

step 3: pouring into the "stiff shoe" some type of plaster.
step 4: after the plaster is dried, cut away the fabric of the shoe
step 5: 3d scan the plaster mold and bring it into the computer.

do you think this process will work... any recommendations?


simcha:)

I actually tried this about a year ago when I was trying to learn more about lasts. I took my favorite pair of boots (Alden Plaza last) and stuffed a bread bag into one of them. I next poured plaster into it, and by filling it about half way cast up to about the vamp point. I let it set over night in a "toe down" position, and on day two repeated the process. Without removing the cast of the toe, place a second bread bag and this time cast the heel. After I was done I trimmed the bags down and taped them together. Ultimately it looks pretty awful, but I am confident that were I to try it second time with an improved system like better/smoother bags I could replicate the last pretty accurately.

[dw]

I was reading a section in Golding the other day where he makes a distinction between lasting a shoe "hoisted" or "seats up." I have always hoisted when making pull-on boots...it's the way I was taught. And when I started making shoes, there seemed no reason to change esp. since several eminent shoemakers with whom I am acquainted also take that approach. It's an old and venerable technique most closely associated with bespoke work. But most European shoemakers even bespoke, last 'seats up...and that has always puzzled me.

When I started making shoes, one of my favourite makers--Jan Petter Myhre, out of Oslo, Norway--advised me to make the topline as tight as it could be made.

'Dead lasting' (seats up) does not facilitate a tight topline. On pull-on boots it makes for a loose throat and sometimes, in my experience, boots that don't sit down on the cone of the last as they should.

We all know that lasts come in many different shapes and intentions. But all require some provision to get the lasts out of the shoe or boot. Some rely on spring loaded hinges of one sort or another; others, often known as 'scoop cone' lasts, rely entirely on part of the last detaching and being removed in order to reduced the girth dimensions. Thus, at least theoretically, making pulling the remainder of the last easier.

Most pull-on boots do fine with almost any kind of last simply because the interior diameter of the boot in the area of the 'throat' (upper cone/comb...or just under the ankle bones) is actually as large or larger than the last is at its widest and largest relative to the cone and the heel of the last. So despite the fact that the heel of the last is at its widest and fullest at about one section (Sabbage's Section) above the heel seat, that fullness can pass through the throat fairly easily.

Shoes present a different problem especially if one is determined to make the topline 'tight to the last.'...as tight as possible, IOW. Because shoe lasts are almost always much narrower around at the topline level, pulling the topline of the shoe past the fullness of the last (or vice versa, depending on your perspective) is sometimes almost impossible and in many cases potentially damaging to the shoe.

I discovered this on one of the first pair of shoes I ever made. I was using the most common configuration of spring hinged last--where the last 'breaks' in the center of the backpart and the heel rotates forward and up. When I 'broke' the last and pulled the shoe, the backseam, despite a 'dogtail', ripped. Because I had lasted 'hoisted,' the heel of the last was too big to pass through constriction of the the topline created by that 'hoisting.'.

I had this driven home again with a recent student. He had taken a class on how to 'carve' lasts from a rough block of wood. The lasts he made were beautiful and showed a great eye and sense of balance and symmetry. They were, however, scoop cone lasts. And even though the scoop cone was larger than usual, the swell of the last just above the heel seat was too large to pull out of the shoe. Nothing either of us --the "dumb (but experienced) old bootmaker nor the vigourous young student--could do, would budge it.

Now I know why hoisting has seemingly fallen into disfavour.

In all the shoes I have made with a tight-as-can-be topline, I never again experienced either ripped backseams nor stuck lasts. I am convinced that the reason I haven't is because I switched to another form of hinge--an older form, sometimes seen in late 19th and early 20th century books, and currently called an SAS hinge--wherein the back part of the heel moves forward (on an incline) and up, thus shifting the whole backpart of the last away from the heel of the shoe.

Just sayin'...and, perhaps, food for thought.

[amuckart]

Hi DW,

Can you explain (or point me at an explanation of) the difference between lasting "hoisted" and "seats up"? I'm not able to visualise what they mean.

Thank you.

[dw]

Hi DW,

Can you explain (or point me at an explanation of) the difference between lasting "hoisted" and "seats up"? I'm not able to visualise what they mean.

Thank you.

Don't know that I've ever tried to articulate the process without illustrations, but here goes...

When a shoe is lasted 'seats up' the last is placed into the body of the shoe such that the heel stiffener and the counter are in the position that they will be in when the shoe is fully lasted. Some makers drive a tack into the counter and heel stiffener to fix that position. And that tack almost certainly will have to go roughly in the middle(often top center) of the counter...so that it is forever a hole in the back of the shoe.

Then the first drafts at the toe are taken. This creates whatever tension, lengthwise, that there is ever going to be. At which point, all the rest of the drafts are taken until the process is complete.

When a shoe is going to be 'hoisted' the last is placed in the body of the shoe such that the bottom of the last itself is proud of the heel stiffener and counter. A tack may be driven into the lasting allowance but never into leather where it will be visible.

Then the first three or five drafts are taken--center toe, pulling fairly strongly; drafts two and three on either side of the toe, to keep it centered; and, often, drafts four and five at the medial and lateral joints, to pull the forepart 'to the wood.' Then the tack at the back of the heel is removed and the backpart of the shoe 'hoisted' (or the backpart of the last is driven) to bring the backpart of the shoe into its final position. At which point the margins (lasting allowances) of the heel stiff and counter are drafted over the insole and heelseat of the last and tacked / nailed down.

All this creates that tension along the topline I spoke about.

Does that make sense? Does this help?

Fig36new.png

[tomtimmermann]

I was just wondering if someone could comment on why most lasts are made narrow at the ankle bone. Is this to get a tighter fit around the ankle ? If I was to make my own last by casting the foot, what dimension would I use to shave down the last around the ankle area, and is it critical how far down to take this dimension. Thanks.

[dw]

I was just wondering if someone could comment on why most lasts are made narrow at the ankle bone. Is this to get a tighter fit around the ankle ? If I was to make my own last by casting the foot, what dimension would I use to shave down the last around the ankle area, and is it critical how far down to take this dimension. Thanks.

Well, the measurement (girth) around a circle can be exactly the same as the girth around an oval.

In many circumstances, esp. as it relates to shoe or bootmaking, however, it is the shape that matters as much as the measurement...although both must be in accordance with one another..

Then too, most shoes don't rise up far enough to encompass the ankle, or for the ankle shape or measurement to be a consideration. And those that do are, ideally, made to an ankle measurement. Those that aren't, are not intended to fit close to, or conform to, the ankle or leg.

All that said, almost all lasts are 'stylized' to some degree for specific reasons...like allowing the foot to get into the shoe or boot, for instance. Or projecting the instep higher...while still preserving the actual measurements from the foot...to create a pleasing shape to the shoe. Or adding 'toe spring' to ease walking and to control the amount of creasing in the forepart.

And perhaps not related specifically to your question, shoe lasts are often cut very narrow through the 'comb' to facilitate a tight 'topline.'

A shoe made from a plaster cast will not only look ugly (or at least 'homemade') but probably have problems that a shoe made on a 'professional' bespoke (made to measure) last will not have.

[amuckart]

Hi DW,

Can you explain (or point me at an explanation of) the difference between lasting "hoisted" and "seats up"? I'm not able to visualise what they mean.

Thank you.

Don't know that I've ever tried to articulate the process without illustrations, but here goes...
[...]
Does that make sense? Does this help?

It does make sense and it does help, thank you.

[PhilipB1]

DW, would it be possible to post a picture of your trigger (SES) last that you refer to in various posts, showing the mechanism and the last open? I'm sure it must have been posted before, but I can't find it.

Also, I noticed that patches (build-up) on lasts are often coated with a shiny layer, which Jake referred to as "press cement". I found in the Toe Boxes topic it is also known as Celluloid Cement. So I wanted to ask why it is used and what it does? Is it just for plastic lasts, or wood as well? Is it optional or should it always be used? And is there an alternative, as I can't find it available in the UK?

[dw]

@PhilipB1 Here you go:

SAS_last(1024_x_768).jpg

SAS_last_sprung(1024_x_768).jpg

Celluloid or 'press' cement was used back when outsoles were mounted using a sole press...before contact (All Purpose) cement really caught on. Even in the mid to late 20th century, it was often used to cement the splice on half soles esp. for competition work--it wouldn't heat up or come loose when sanded.

It is made of cellulose acetate, IIRC, and acetone. Some western bootmakers would melt old movie film in acetone and use it to harden toe stiffeners. Early in my career I did the same although I got my cement from a wholesaler.

Celluloid cement is hard yet flexible enough not to be brittle and completely impervious to moisture. Made a good sealant/hardener for toe stiffeners and for build-ups on lasts. And it dries / hardens quick.

I quit using it for good some time ago as part of my quest to get away from toxic chemical. i use Herschkleber for toe stiffeners even though it isn't waterproof and I use water based sanding sealer and varnish for build-ups (Enduro was the brand when I last bought it but I think the name has changed). Takes longer to dry but once dry is near-as-nevermind waterproof. It is often used on pool cues, as I understand it.

[PhilipB1]

Thank you, that's very helpful. I'll see if that sort of mechanism is available in the UK.

So the press cement / varnish is to make the leather patches waterproof, more permanent and presumably makes it slightly easier to get the last out of the finished shoe. I'll investigate the varnish option.

As far as I can tell Hirschkleber seems to be standard for toe and heel stiffeners this side of the pond.

I also notice that the lasts on this forum are mostly plastic. In the UK it seems the bespoke trade use mainly wooden lasts. Are there any advantages / disadvantages of either?

[dw]

I also notice that the lasts on this forum are mostly plastic. In the UK it seems the bespoke trade use mainly wooden lasts. Are there any advantages / disadvantages of either?

The general consensus among many of my peers, and the old timers I looked up to...including my teacher...was that when wood lasts get wet, they swell. I suspect that wet lasting is more prevalent among western bootmakers, probably as a function of less precise patterns or maybe just habit. Then too, wet leather slides across plastic far more readily than wood.

Myself, I never noticed a difference or never noticed a downside to using wooden lasts even though I do last boots wet. (I last shoes spritzed only.)

That said, most of my lasts are plastic. And the best part of it is that plastic lasts tend to be self healing. I've got old wooden lasts that look like they've been routed out in the waist but which I suspect have not seen much, if any, more usage than my plastic lasts--the worst of which could last another 40 years, I'm sure.

Carving lasts from scratch is not as prevalent in this country as it is in the UK (although more and more are studying it). The last turning lathe was invented in the US and most contemporary makers start with a standard size last and add build-ups and modifications to achieve fit. I am convinced that this approach is every bit as accurate and suitable to bespoke fitting as carving from scratch. In fact, I seldom see the hand carvers taking as much time with such niceties as footprint, heel to ball length, or girths (esp. the long heel), etc., as I do...or as I would think necessary. In the right hands, it's magic, but not a magic that I have much confidence in. And confidence is probably the better part of mastery.

Also, I believe that plastic lasts are cheaper and much easier to manufacture...and the wastage can be re-cast and recovered, IINM. There is an environmental issue, as well--modern last companies...at least here in the US... complain bitterly that they cannot get suitable wood for turning lasts. Of course, they're talking about large, large, freight car size quantities, not onesies and twosies like most makers who carve by hand.

Reflecting on all this, I suspect that in some sense, lastmaking is seen as a separate Trade here in the US, at least that's the way I view it. I suspect that not being as integrated with, or as dependent on, the outworker system, as makers in the UK, for instance, most makers in this country probably feel that adding another related-but-not-directly trade only takes away from the time and ability to master compleat-ly (all facets), the one they are already involved with--shoe/bootmaking. I think back on my career and while I sometimes regret that I do not have those carving skills (if only because I like working with wood) I have to wonder what part of my skill set I would have traded for the carving? Maybe my skill and understanding of full wellingtons?

Someone in another forum suggested that UK makers rely on the outworker system because no one person has the time to master every part of the process. While you can argue that and point to exceptions (who were...and are...really and truly Compleat Shoemakers) the point is I never felt I had the time to start from scratch (without any formal training) in another Trade. And my journey didn't brook shortcuts or diversions. I was all I could do to achieve the competence I needed in the basic skills of the Trade.

[PhilipB1]

I suspect a lot is down to economics. The working bespoke trade we have today in the UK is a remnant of how things were 100 or so years ago, when hand made shoes were the norm at a certain level of society and there was much demand. I'm speculating, but I suspect the old model still works well for the independent shoemaker as well; it's probably more profitable for an independent shoemaker to make up 2 or 3 pairs of shoes than to make one complete pair from lasts on-wards. There are certainly shoemakers who can do everything (including lasts and uppers), but are there any that do it as a matter of routine in the UK? Maybe in other parts of the world different economic models work and you do get complete shoemakers - what about the Japanese makers, do they do everything?

Also I suspect the clients like to see a wooden last. The company who made my lasts say that wood is used for bespoke work because its easier to make changes, particularly take material off. They say its quite common for bespoke lasts to be sent back for changes (rather than the shoemaker doing them), so you can see the last makers are driving the use of wood (that's only for bespoke).

I'm told that shoes are mostly lasted dry in the UK bespoke trade (not even spritzed), the pattern and somewhat pliant leather doing the work rather than the shoemaker. My limited experience consisting of rather thick leathers so far, for which I find some vamps (e.g. Derby or one piece Oxford) need a little encouragement to sit down but my 2 piece Oxford sits quite happily on the last and needs no encouragement.

When I get a chance, I'll try a plastic last. Thanks.

[dw]

Well, horses for courses?

I don't really know how the Japanese makers do it. From what I see it's workshops (small simple factories although I hesitate to call them " factories'). Which is what I thought the Trade would have been like in the UK 100 years ago...moreso than outworkers. But I don't really know the history in that regard.

And while we can speculate about who the shoemaker is in an outworker system or whether such a system isn't just a deconstructed factory, the real question esp. on a Forum such as this one and among individuals just getting into the Trade or learning is "What do you want?" "Why do you want to make shoes?"

Why do any of us make shoes? Is it for the money? Is it for a sense of belonging? Is it for a sense of achievement? For the journey? The 'Master Game', perhaps?

OK, so yeah, maybe we're getting pretty far into the weeds, but although it is not as easy as the words nor always successful, shoemaking...any craft pursued for its own sake, for mastery ...has the potential to be a vehicle to higher consciousness, if only in unguarded moments.

IMO...YMMV....

As for the clients liking to see a wooden last...well, I could understand that if we were talking about shoe trees but, while I'm not secretive about it, neither am I in any rush to show the customer the last. It's a tool just like a hammer or a knife. I don't necessarily display them for the customer either.

That said, having worked with both wood and plastic I have to take issue with the suggestion that it is easier to take material off a wooden last...half dozen of one six of the other, as far as my experiences reveal. If anything, it's just the reverse--it's harder to put a functional, stable. build-up on a plastic last than it is on wood.

Finally, I would beg your indulgence if I wax too philosophical sometimes: I'm 74 years old and have been doing this for over 50 years full time...every part of it by my own hands...and rightly or wrongly, I feel entitled to random, unsolicited bursts of reflection.

[PhilipB1]

The one thing I've found out in life is that the more I learn, the more I know there is yet to be learnt. So I'm more than happy to read your reflections and pick up as many pearls as I can.

Also, you are a "Seanchaidh" (had to look that up), so it's part of the job to wax philosophically from time to time.

A further question on lasts. I've so far been making Norwegian welt shoes and have added some patches around the front of the lasts to make a little more toe room. I'm wondering if these patches ought to be removed or reduced if I make a normal welted shoe (normal holdfast with feather)? My reasoning is that the inseam on a Norwegian welt is through the side of the insole which clamps the upper firmly to the side of the insole. By contrast, with a normal holdfast the upper is clamped under the insole and the upper is free to more away from the side of the insole a little, perhaps by around an 1/16" to 1/8". I checked this theory on GYW shoes and you can feel the gap open and close at the side of the insole in the vamp-toe area, which I can't on my Norwegian welted shoes.

[dw]

First, I thank you for taking the time to "look up" and recognize the Seanchaidh bit. You're the first one to point it out.

As far as your concerns about the buildups, I don't see why you would need to remove them. If you need the extra room, taking them off will only cramp the foot regardless of how the shoe is constructed.

I don't have a ton of experience with Norwegian, but in theory, the inseam on a welted shoe is no less firmly attached to the insole than Norwegian construction. If, for instance, you cut off the feather on the insole before hand welting, the inseam would end up being identical to the Norwegian.

I, for one, think that the inseam being under the edge of the insole protects it and is more conducive to a good fit than Norwegian. The weight bearing surface of the foot--the plantar surface--is virtually always narrower than the foot as a whole. So the foot / shoe should, to some degree, overhang the welt. This is particularly an issue if the insole is not as congruent with the footprint as it should be--if the insole is wider than the footprint, for instance.

That being said, GYW is not...in my book...any kind of standard worth making a comparison to. Certainly not to Hand Welted...if only because of the nature of hand wax and the extra-ordinary tightness imparted to every stitch while HW'ing. If the insole is good quality and the feathering and channeling done properly, and the inseam stitches spaced correctly and tightened down with vigour, the kind of nebulous connection so characteristic of both the materials and the process of GY, is near-as-nevermind avoided.

FWIW...

[PhilipB1]

I've been thinking much about the last post.

And also experimenting a little. I've put together some sample in-seaming to compare the normal welt (with feather) and Norwegian welt (no feather). Observing how the different in-seaming affects the upper, both are attached equally firmly as you say. However the Norwegian welt encourages the leather to be more upright (perpendicular to the insole), whereas with the normal welt the upper wants to be more opened out. The effect is small and obviously depends on the flexibility of the upper/lining, but the normal welt will be sympathetic to the overhang of the foot more, whilst the Norwegian will give a tighter feel, at least until it eases with wear.

The shape of the feather (or lack of it) is obviously important here. I keep seeing a chamfer or bevelled feather in historic shoe making and in books (e.g. Golding Vol IV page 33). I wondered why this seems no longer to be used, or when it might be used?

Your comments about the overhang made me realise I need to understand how the last should be sized according to the foot, rather than just buying a last and doing some trial fits at the lasting stage. I'd like to understand what build-up/reduction I would need to convert a stock last to a given foot. Hunting around, I've come across Golding. Volume 1, section 2 (the making of lasts) and Volume 4 Section 8 (Fitting up of lasts) seem to cover the subject. Before I get too involved with these, I wanted to ask if Golding would be considered good (or best) practise or if there are better places to look?

Golding shows how the last should be adjusted for different types of shoe. Is it normal to make adjustments to the last buildup, for example, between a normal wingtip and plain toe Oxford, or if using thicker or thinner leather?

Looks to me like its one thing being able to make a shoe, an entirely different thing being able to produce one that fits.

[dw]

... but the normal welt will be sympathetic to the overhang of the foot more, whilst the Norwegian will give a tighter feel, at least until it eases with wear.

I can/t see how...mechanically that would be the case. The last dictates the fit and feel... doesn't seem likely to change as long as the insole is cut the proper width.

The shape of the feather (or lack of it) is obviously important here. I keep seeing a chamfer or bevelled feather in historic shoe making and in books (e.g. Golding Vol IV page 33). I wondered why this seems no longer to be used, or when it might be used?

@das would be the best person to answer this not only because it relates to historical shoemaking but because AFAIK, he still does it that way.

Your comments about the overhang made me realise I need to understand how the last should be sized according to the foot, rather than just buying a last and doing some trial fits at the lasting stage. I'd like to understand what build-up/reduction I would need to convert a stock last to a given foot. Hunting around, I've come across Golding. Volume 1, section 2 (the making of lasts) and Volume 4 Section 8 (Fitting up of lasts) seem to cover the subject. Before I get too involved with these, I wanted to ask if Golding would be considered good (or best) practise or if there are better places to look?

Any source of information is going to add to your knowledge. Any effort to fit the foot will add to your experience.

Golding shows how the last should be adjusted for different types of shoe. Is it normal to make adjustments to the last buildup, for example, between a normal wingtip and plain toe Oxford, or if using thicker or thinner leather?

I like Golding a lot. Still go back once and a while to reference something. But while I have run across that idea before, I don't subscribe to it. If the last is correct--as identical to the dimensions for the foot as possible (and still be a last)...the fit should be governed more by the last than the leather or the patterns. Some styles of shoes may need a different last even for the same fit...or so I've been told (and then told differently). For instance, a loafer may need a different last than an oxford, etc..

Looks to me like its one thing being able to make a shoe, an entirely different thing being able to produce one that fits.

"Making boots (or shoes) is dead easy--it's just muscle memory. It's the fitting that is difficult and that's a lifetime study." (DWFII) The foot is one of the most architecturally complex structures in nature. It has (some say) five arches that distribute the weight of the body. I don't know what the ration of the plantar surface of the foot to the body mass is or even how to ask that question, but it has to be quite gobsmacking. Somewhere I read that when a woman wears a high heeled shoe, she strikes with the same pounds per square inch as the Empire State Building. The foot controls the balance of this giant swaying edifice that rises above it. And it changes with age, environment, weight...and the very act of walking. And so forth....think about it, it's not simple or easy. If it were, everbody would do it.

The name of the game is fit. Nothing else matters really.

[anakim]

I have only made shoes so far, and have a question regarding boots:
Do workboots fit tighter around the top of the foot than a cowboy boot?
It seems that in particular, workboots come in at the achilles tendon, more than cowboy boots. This makes sense as workboots tie up, whereas there has to be room to pull cowboy boots on.
Why do photos of boot lasts for sale (and ones I've seen in the store), only have the foot part? Is the shin part only used for cowboy boot/riding boot making? I may be thinking not of a lower leg shaped thing, but of a concave/saddle shaped board that the upper of the cowboy boot is formed over (which I saw on the forum but cannot find now). Is this necessary for other types of boots? I think because the seams (and opening) on a workboot allow for shaping, this is not necessary. Is there any add-on necessary for boots that only cover the ankle, or do I just make my pattern fit my ankle and then let it hang over the top of the last?
I plan to make a pair of workboots that just cover the ankle, using shoe lasts. My plan is to build up around the top of the foot, where the shoe normally has to cinch in, to make the last a little more boot-like there. Reason: I already have a pair of excellent wooden lasts, that I've painstakingly adjusted to fit me, and don't want to go buy plastic boot lasts and have to re-fit them. This is probably sacrelidge...

[PhilipB1]

This is an interesting question. Not sure if this has been covered in previous posts, but I'd very much like to understand exactly how to build up a shoe last for ankle height boots, particularly how to work out the thickness of the leather build. Any help on this would be much appreciated.

[dw]

@anakim, Most lace up boots that I have made are made on a foot only last. The legs are shaped by the patterns you lay out. IIRC, Golding and /or/ Thornton detail the layout of boot tops and never mention or make allowances for an taller last incorporating the ankle and leg. I suspect that some forms of ankle high shoes that are elastic sided or closed with a strap (jodhpurs), maybe even George boots or chukkas would benefit from a ankle last but theoretically, such a last is not needed.

I have made all those boots and never used anything but a standard shoe last.

That said, the lines of the boot as well as the fit of the boot will benefit greatly from good and precise patternmaking. On Derby style boots, I want to see a rough half to three quarter inch of gap between the facing all the way up. and on oxford style lace ups never less than three-quarter inch above the ankle.

I am near-as-nevermind certain that all boots that rise above the ankle benefit from patterns that closely follow the profile of the foot, ie, do draw in at the ankle. Thus forcing the tops themselves to be more centered over the high instep than over the calcaneus as so many commercial boots tend to be.

If you look at some of my boots (in the Gallery( and look at vintage boots and study Golding and Thornton, the boots look like feet in profile rather than "L" shaped boxes. And none of that requires an extended last.
Hope that helps.

[nickb1]

This is an interesting question. Not sure if this has been covered in previous posts, but I'd very much like to understand exactly how to build up a shoe last for ankle height boots, particularly how to work out the thickness of the leather build. Any help on this would be much appreciated.

Hi Phil,
James Ducker has a blog post or two on using shoe lasts for boots. It seems to me that if you are using an Oxford pattern or Derby it works just to use the shoe last as-is. This is because you can always get your foot in with the facings opening up. And it makes a snug fit. With a laceless boot it's different as you probably wouldn't get your foot in this way. You need to make "shovers" and I think there is an allowance to be made for a "pass line" on the patterns. I made small shovers for Chelsea boots using scrap 9-10 iron insole leather, and just did a fitting to check I could get my foot in OK. Probably only needed small ones because of the elasticated sides, probably there is more to it with cowboy boot styles.
Nick

[dw]

Well. it's very true that making a pull-on boot requires a degree of precision and mindfulness that is not always attended to by makers who specialize in low quarter shoes. I can't think of the last shoemaker I talked to who gave any weight to the long heel or the short heel.And the heel-to =ball measurement is, as I have often said, probably the most important piece of information we collect--so fundamental to the shape and dimensions of the foot and so often overlooked.

Additionally, when making a pull-on boot, the maker needs to understand these fundamental relationships between various parts of the foot as it relates to the last. It is perfectly possible to make a shoe that doesn't quite fit and get away with it simply because the adjustments inherent in the facings cover a multitude of sins. But there are no facings on a pull-on boot and no after-the-fact adjustment possible. One either gets it right or one doesn't.

What bothered me, after I began making men's shoes, was that few if any of the 'methods' (much less the practitioners of those methods) spent much time or energy considering parts of the foot that are critical a real fit, nevermind to making a pull-on boot--the short heel, to begin with; the long heel; and the heel-to-ball measurements. I have seen too many shoes where a gap behind the heel the width of a pencil was touted as a 'correct' fit...for a shoe. A little thought and logic will soon reveal the problems with that concept. If the foot is not held securely into the back of the shoe, preferably before the facings are fully closed, it might as well be a heel-less slipper.

A maker can have all the measurements from the foot correctly transferred to the last...esp. with regard to the measurements going up the cone of the last..and find that the shoe doesn't fit. It doesn't fit because the heel-to-ball measurement is unknown or incorrect. It doesn't fit because the long heel measurement is either unknown or improperly located on the last. These two aspects of the foot (and by extension, of the last) are interdependent. If neither measurement is taken...or taken into consideration...it might as well be a coin toss.

Of course, some makers can dismiss such data by relying on instinct and years and years of experience, many...maybe most...try. But why? The foot is there. The last is there. the maker has a tape measure in hand. If the data is not collected it cannot be used.

When I make men's shoes I take those measurements off the foot and I transfer them to the last. I do not make the last undersized. I try to model the foot into the last as accurately and precisely as possible. I end up with a last that can be used for oxfords, derbies, chelseas, jodhpurs and so forth. As is. Without shovers. I have made chelseas (see photo in Gallery) without shovers. And the instep is snug over the foot and the foot held securely into the back of the shoe...and once the foot is in the chelsea the elastic is completely relaxed--it is there only to allow the foot to enter the shoe.

When I make a pull-on boot such as a dress or full wellington I also factor in the short heel measurement when drafting the passline on the tops. Again, the short heel, the long heel and the heel to ball measurements are all directly related to each other--get one incorrectly placed on the last and everything from the back of the heel to the waist will be thrown off.

IMO...FWIW...YMMV

[nickb1]

And the heel-to =ball measurement is, as I have often said, probably the most important piece of information we collect--so fundamental to the shape and dimensions of the foot and so often overlooked.

HTB was omitted when I had lasts made for myself, by well known bespoke makers who shall remain nameless ;-). I guess they weren't taught to include it. It's included as a key measure in the book I have on orthopaedic shoemaking. I know a tiny bit better now thanks to your efforts in response to my naive questions about fitting.

I'm not sure how I could have managed without shovers in my own case, though. IIRC I don't think the cone of the last quite extended to where the short heel is. I did give this information to the pattern maker when I sent them the last, without shovers.

One thing I don't yet understand is why a "boot last" apparently has a different shaped cone to a shoe last.