Fitting the Foot

[dw]

^ Yes, you are absolutely correct and if I were not so focused on addressing nickb's issue with measuring and modifying a last i would (somewhat reluctantly) consider those issues important.

Of course, there are so many issues that come into play...most of which are fairly advanced concepts or a matter of intuition (as distasteful as that may be)...or maybe better identified as 'experience'...or even others that I am not all that facile with.

A whole book could be written about fitting...just my approach, nevermind yours...and this series of posts is already making eyes bleed everywhere.

[dw]

All of the following and maybe a lot of the previous, assumes a last model that is proportioned along the same parameters as my own lasts. Ie, that H-B and SLL, etc., are proportionally the same as the lasts I use--the models I prefer.

Fitting pt.IV

When it comes to comparing or transferring the data collected from the foot to the last, I think an understanding of Sabbage's Sectionizer is a good place to start...and, in my opinion, nothing less than critical. Not only does Sabbage give us an understandable 'system' of analyzing the foot, simply because it is a system....as opposed to a rule of thumb here or there or a melange of disconnected guidelines having no over-arching philosophy...but it is based on understandings which make sense, while being rooted in Tradition.

Sabbage tells us that you can divide the length of the foot into eleven equal section and that, in doing so, many of the salient features of the foot, such as the location of the medial ball joint will, all other things being equal, fall within a very tightly defined range...given that the foot itself is 'statistically average.' Sabbage suggests that on a statistically average foot, the medial ball joint will fall at eight sections from the back of the heel. Which in turn gives us the H-B measurement. Section 4 is close enough to the face of the ankle to be interpreted as the forward position for the short heel measurement; section 5 gives us the high instep; section 6 the low instep; and section 7 the waist.

Every shoemaker that ever was almost certainly bases most of his understanding of the foot on what he sees and measures in his own foot, at least at first. And what he sees in other feet as an extension of that knowledge...as a confirmation or a deviation. The biggest part of my appreciation of Sabbage is that my foot conforms to his theories; and more importantly, across nearly fifty years and a fairly broad spectrum of customers those concepts have been repeatedly confirmed.

So, if we know the H-B measurement from the foot, we can calculate, from the LOF, what a statistically 'normal' H-B should be and compare the two. If the measured H-B is something more or less than what Sabbage suggests it should be, it indicates that the foot has either long toes or short toes. At which point we need to examine the footprint more closely to confirm that observation.

Choosing the last in preparation for transferring the girths, is really the next step. But often what we think of as the right last turns out to be too large or too small and we need to change our minds. Very helpful in this selection process is a 'bottom paper.' I twigged onto bottom papers fairly late in my career but now consider them an essential tool. The bottom paper defines the bottom of the last, lengthwise, widthwise, and in terms of shape...specifically, the insole size and shape. Just laying an insole paper over the footprint can reveal a wealth of information about the suitability of a particular last. Bottom papers are available (for an additional fee) with any last you order, but you can make your own simply by taping up the bottom of a prospective last and trimming it to the featherline, before peeling the tape off the last and sticking it to a piece of manila folder.

Sabbage says that for a medium round toe, the last should be one section longer than the LOF. It gets tricky here because there is no real definition of "medium round" and I suspect it is different for every maker. My own definition is that it is the narrowest toe that does not cramp the toes of the foot or require a lengthening build-up to accommodate the toes. Again, Sabbage's rule is in agreement with Traditional conventions that have long dictated that for a medium round toed last, the last should be three full sizes longer than the foot. With each size being one barleycorn in length (or roughly 1/3 of an inch). And three full sizes equal approximately one inch. For mid range sizes, or according to Sabbage, one-eleventh (one section) of LOF translates, in mid range sizes, to more or less one inch.

So if LOF is 11" then each section equals 1" and the last...all other things being equal...should measure 12" from the featherline at the back of the last heel to the featherline at the toe of the last. This measurement is often referred to as Standard Last Length or SLL.

Once we determine what the SLL should be, we can not only choose (tentatively) the last we want to work with but we can also calculate the H-B measurement on the last and compare it to that of the foot. Again using a bottom paper helps and let's us see exactly how the H-B of the foot aligns with the H-B of the last and most particularly how the ball of the foot sockets into the ball area of the last.

With a foot that is 11" long, HB should be at 8" (eight sections or 8/11ths of LOF). Because Sabbage tells us that we need to add one section to the LOF to determine the SLL, we now have 12 one inch sections. On a last that is 12" long the HB measurement should be 8/12ths SLL or 8". So 8" from the back edge of the bottom paper (again, along the medial side) locates the medial ball joint on the bottom paper and consequently on the last itself.

If the HB of the foot is more than 8" (or less than 8") we need to choose another last. So for instance, if the actual HB of the foot is 8-1/4" we need to choose a last that has an SLL that when divided into 12 sections yields a HB of 8 1/4"...each section being 1.03" (1-1/32") long. The SLL then would need to be be 12-3/8" long, even though the foot itself is only 11" long and Sabbage says that by adding one section to the LOF the ideal last would be 12-1/32" long. We need to choose the longer last to get the longer HB and if the forepart looks long, the last must be either altered to shorten the forepart or accepted "as is." If the HB on the last is not the same as the HB on the foot, the foot is not fit. Period.

The same concept is true, going in the other direction. If the HB on the foot is 7-7/8", for example. Only in this case we know from Sabbage, our measurements, and from the footprint that the foot has long toes. It has to...simply because the LOF is 11". In this case, we will need to find a shorter last and build up the forepart to accommodate those toes.

Having determined which size (length) last we want, we can use the last, or better, the bottom paper to determine the width. Again the bottom paper should be nearly congruent with the footprint with the exception of the featherline at the back of the heel--the foot itself does not have that 'corner."

I know this is complicated, maybe even too complicated for immediate understanding. But given that the human foot is one of the most architecturally complex structures in nature, this should not come as any great surprise. [And maybe I'm just too dern 'word-y'. But I don't know any other way to explain it, so that's what you get when you get me].

That said, once we have located the medial ball on the last and determined the correct size of last--the one we want to use--we can begin transferring the other measurements to the last. But I think that will have to be Pt. V

[nickb1]

All seems to make sense. Looking forward to part 5. Concerning the "corner" that the last has and the foot doesn't, I'm wondering why things came to be like that. Is this additional space the heel requires as the foot strikes the ground? Or because we like to have a feather edge there?

[dw]

Well, I can't really say how it came to pass--@das is the historian here. But if I had to guess...based mainly on my own druthers..I'd say it's for the featherline. The foot doesn't have any corners around the forepart or backpart.

Working on 5.

[das]

Did somebody say "historian"? I think the culprit here was the advent of stacked leather heels--hard to build a plumb level heel on an completely anatomically, radiussed, backpart (i.e. no featherline/corner, but rounded as the foot is). Lasts with such radiussed "corners" all the way around survive from the Medieval (pre-heels) period, as well as into the 1600s (the first phase of the stacked heel fad). "Cornered" featherlines become the norm on lasts, I'd guess, by the late 1600s. That said, many great West End bespoke lasts from the early-mid 20thc, also incorporate a very modestly radiussed featherline round the heel and into the waist, though not as pronounced as the Medieval and just post-Medieval lasts. These do cup the foot very well, and create no air-gap around the wearer's heel.

[nickb1]

Very interesting. So I'm tempted to take a pair of lasts and file away the "corner" as an experiment. I'm guessing that I would need a steeper and perhaps wider rand to achieve a level heel.

[dw]

fitting pt.V

Because, IMO, one of, if not the, most the critical aspects of fit is the HB measurement, it follows (and is consistent) that once we locate the medial ball on the last, the locations of all the other girths and measurements just naturally fall in line. This too is true to Sabbage.

Speaking of which, if we again look at the diagrams in this thread, the most important concept is that each section is equal to the other. So whether we measure the foot at arithmetically correct intervals or across bones and other features (that come close to being at set intervals) the fact that they are at equal (more or less) intervals is important. Sabbage is fundamentally a very simplified grid system--the very same kind of thing...or at least a precursor...of what a digital scanner does. [parenthetically, after WWII, Dr. William C. Rossi formulated the much the same grid concept (in much more detail) in his book Podemetrics.

When I measure the foot, I place a length of masking tape over the instep and as I locate the various locations for taking the girths measurement, I indicate where the tape measure has crossed the instep. The result is a series of marks that are pretty much equidistant from each other and resemble nothing so much as the intersection of the perpendicular section lines with the profile of the foot in Sabbage's illustration.

I mention this because an interesting phenomenon occurs: Even though the foot has been divided into eleven equal sections, when we extend perpendiculars to those sections the distance between them (at the instep) stretches. This is because the instep is fundamentally the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle. And to further complicate things the cone of the last is, as mentioned previously, at an even higher elevation relative to ground than the instep of the foot. So where the the perpendiculars intersect the cone will naturally be even further apart than on the foot.

The upshot is that the maker cannot use the absolute length of the sections to locate the girths. We can't even use the marks from the masking tape, as is, to locate the girths. However, we can use that self-same information with a leap of faith and little judicious 'fudging.'

So, what I do is draw a line on the medial side of the last that starts high on the medial ball and angles upward, essentially bisecting the medial side of the last. The rationale is that this line represents the actual height of the instep of the foot if it were superimposed over the last.

This done, we can then measure the distances between the marks we made on the masking tape and transfer those measurements to the side of the last along the line we just made. Then, with the last at heel height, we can extend those marks vertically to the top of the cone. It's important that the last be held at heel height and marks be vertical or perpendicular to ground. (see illustration below).

[In theory, we could also find these top-of-the-cone marks from simple perpendicular extensions of the baseline sections. Although I've never been able to completely reconcile that theory with what my 'gut' tells me.]

And having done that, it is fairly straight-forward to check the last girths against the foot girths ...with one caveat--a tape measure is all very well and good on the relatively 'giving' flesh of the foot but much harder to use to check the girth on the last--the tape itself is often somewhat rigid and the edge can make reading the tape awkward to say the least. Consequently, I use a string. I can wrap the string around the last at the girth marks, pinch where it closes up, and then compare that to a ruler.

The results tell us where the last is 'over' and where it is 'under'. Build-ups are required where the last is under, and cutting away substance where it is over. But caution should be exercised here--as hinted at in a previous post, it is not just a matter of slapping a build-up on willy-nilly. Look closely at the outline and the footprint. Just because a last is under' in the high instep girth, for instance, doesn't automatically indicate a build-up on top of the cone. Sometimes the foot itself will have, relative to more common configurations, considerably more substance on the lateral side...right where the root of the fifth is. The foot comes in many different shapes and configurations, that's just one example. Only study and a persist and mindfulness will answer.

last_medialinstepline.jpg

[dw]

fitting pt. finis

One other consideration that I have been asked about many times. A consideration that many never even take into account (esp. shoemakers) and that's the short heel and how to determine what the SH on a last is for the purposes of comparing it with the SH on the foot. When we make a pull-on boot, the short heel from the foot as well as the short heel from the last are critically important. The short heel from the foot must be factored into the throat of the boot to allow access for the foot. And just as importantly, a correct short heel holds the foot back and prevents the foot from sliding forward. In the absence of laces, only a correct short heel ensures a fit.

When I first started making...and many, if not all, bootmakers are trained this way...I was taught to plug the short heel measurement from the foot into my top patterns. You see variations, in the literature, of this concept in almost every discussion of 'long work.'

Somewhere along the line, however, I got to wondering what I would/could do if I wanted to make a 'standard size' boot--I would not have a short heel measurement from an actual foot. And that led me to wonder ...and eventually come to believe...that the short heel on the last must be near-as-nevermind the same as the short heel on the foot or the fit will be compromised. As far as I know, few of my peers, regardless of how talented they are otherwise, can take an ordinary 9C last, for example, and determine what the short heel measurement is. And most, if not all 'shoemakers' (as opposed to shoemakers who all so do 'long work') don't even think about the short heel. All of which, to my mind, falls well short of understanding.

But there is a method to determine SH from the last that I developed independent of any other influence. I have often regretted that I did not include this information when I wrote the book, but while simple in concept, I didn't really know how to explain my thinking on the subject or even whether it would be suitable for a novice, simply because I have never run across any other author or shoemaker who has dealt with the issue. Having said all that, I am also not sure that every model of last will yield to this technique.

My thinking...my approach...relies heavily on Sabbage and to a small degree the concept of the 'grid.' The way I measure feet and the way I transfer those measurements to a last ensures that my girth measurements are, despite being closely associated with salient features of the foot, spaced evenly apart--along the extended 'hypotenused' sectiosn. If we superimpose a profile of the foot on a profile of the last, it quickly becomes apparent that while we can find locations on the last that correspond to most of the girths on the foot, there simply isn't enough last to find the front of the ankle (where the SH is taken). [There are exceptions...some makers carve or build up lasts through the top of the instep and into the ankle in order to make high lace up boot.]

So, if there is no location on the last that can be associated with the short heel on the foot, what can we do? Well, we know from Sabbage that all our girths are separated by a roughly equal amount. It follows then that the high instep should be one section down the cone of the last from where the SH would plug in if it weren't 'up in the air." If we visualize the side of the foot superimposed over the side of the last and further imagine a line along which the SH girth is taken, and then we imagine rotating that line around some central pivot point such that the back end rises up the back of the heel of the last one section, the forward end should drop down one section to the high instep mark.(See illustration below)

If we drop a string loop that measures exactly the same as our SH measurement, around the top of the last such that one part of the loop lays over the HI and the other touches the mark one section above the featherline at the back of the heel...and there is no slack nor shortage...the SH of the last should be close, close enough for fit and comfort.This is a very difficult measurement to take because of the angles involved and the slipperiness of the last. So I look to just see the string hitting these marks, not necessarily wrapping around the last to any degree. That said, there's probably some room for adjustments based on the tension on the string loop, etc.. Not to mention the results from any fitter's model.

It should be noted that there is a balance here between high instep girth and the SH girth--one or the other can be off while the other is dead on. That's an indication that any build-ups or reductions made prior to checking the SH are in the wrong place.

The long heel, if it is wanted...and I do, is both measured and transferred to the last from the one section up mark on the foot / last to the middle cuneiform / low instep. And the same 'balance' criteria apply vis the LH and the LI.

Beyond that--a caveat: These illustrations are just my 'fanciful' drawings (although they are based on a layout very much like Sabbage's using my own LOF and SLL measurements scaled to the drawings). It should be noted that there may be some distortion and depending on the size of last (as well as the block it was turned from), features such as the hinge may be in a different place relative to the rest of the last than is depicted. Your high instep mark may appear to be further down the cone of the last than is shown (mine usually are).

Finally...or coming close...there is lots more that can be said; lots more than can be, and perhaps should be, factored in...some of it 'ineffable', as who should say--gut feeling, instinct. And not everyone will do it this way. Or consider my attempts at codifying this process, useful. Not all lasts are equal. No two feet are equal, even on the same person. However, referring back to earlier posts (mine especially since it's my process) about fitting in this thread and referencing Sabbage at every turn, can fill in a lot of the blanks.

I have never tried to lay it out like this before--the auld wisdom about brevity and time applies to years of time not weeks. That said, it works for me...I can honestly say just about every time...and if it doesn't, the reason is usually pretty apparent. I hope it helps. No guarantees.

last and foot2.jpg

Tioraidh...

[dw]

Very interesting. So I'm tempted to take a pair of lasts and file away the "corner" as an experiment. I'm guessing that I would need a steeper and perhaps wider rand to achieve a level heel.

Never found that to be true, although @das could better address that issue--he is a fan, if I'm not mistaken.

[das]

"Fan" might be too strong a word, but I have made myself very nicely-fitting shoes, on old West End lasts with radiussed wait-heel-seat. They were sewn-seats, no rand, the outer edge of outer sole is paned-up to hide the stitches (a visual gallop through Golding would illustrate better than I could describe). A thick split lift had no trouble leveling the convexity of the outer sole, to plumb level, in the heel seat.

[nickb1]

@das Split lift, that's what I had in mind. They call it a rand in Vass's book. I like the way the heel is cupped on e.g. Birkenstock sandals or sports insoles, so this is appealing. I've been putting the split lift on first rather than peening up the sole to form the heel seat, and found it easier to control the shape of the heel this way. Is there a reason peening the outsole would work better?
Incidentally, the way I was taught, and I think everyone who is learning from west end shoemakers is currently being taught, is to build the entire heel with nails. I'm inclined to think after reading some of the discussions on the forum that this is not the way to go and will try pegging the split lift and lifts from now on, to avoid anything conducting moisture from the foot into metal parts in the heel. On the shoes I already built I'll be putting in a sock part under the heel to try to mitigate this. Thanks everyone for making such information available.

[nickb1]

@dw Thanks so much for laying all this out, it reads like a tour de force. I look forward to trying this out. My fiancee will be my first victim!

[dw]

@dw Thanks so much for laying all this out, it reads like a tour de force.

Yr. Hmb.Svt.

[das]

If your lasts are radiussed round the back part to create about the same "cuppiness" as a Brikenstock, you should be fine. English was not Vass' first language, and other of his terms are a bit off as well. In a sewn seat construction, you sew round the base of the quarters/insole as you would for a welt (but there is none). Afterwards you stitch the outer sole and split lift on, passing the heel awl down behind each sewing stitch so the stitches interlink, then exiting through the split lift. In order to hide all this sewing/stitching, you must pane/peen the outsole up into a "L" lip to hide it all. If you want to use nails, at least use brass ones--iron nails in oak bark/veg leather will corrode and cause the leather to go brittle and crumble away. Wood pegs are preferable IMO.

[dw]

If you want to use nails, at least use brass ones--iron nails in oak bark/veg leather will corrode and cause the leather to go brittle and crumble away. Wood pegs are preferable IMO.

Trouble with 'brass' nails is that while they may make you feel good, truth to tell, most brass nails that are intended to be used in heel stacks are, in reality, brass plated steel. Not all, but solid brass nails simply don't have the structural rigidity to be driven through several layers of high quality outsole leather. I have several pounds of the old square shoe nails in solid brass...I keep the nail pullers close at hand when using them (usually only for repair) and/or treat them like pegs--using short sections that only have to penetrate two layers.

Even those fancy lasting nails that come in the round tubes, are copper coated steel/iron.

[dw]

Just in passing, if I can shoe-horn in this belated observation...the shoemaker doesn't just fit the foot, he fits the head. He has to. Someone who wears penny loafers for an extended period of time will not be immediately comfortable with the way I fit for pull-on boots. That's why I use a 'fitter's model', always. Don't let the customer's perceptions override the fundamentals or what you know is a correct fit...at least not without explaining what the consequences can be. But do listen to whether he/she is comfortable or not.

That's not to say that the customer isn't properly fit in a snugger pair of boots or shoes ...I would guess that roughly 80% of people walking around today are misfit in one or more...or all...their shoes. This can range from misfit in the H-B, to an imbalance between the SH (or LH) and the HI or LI, to insoles that are too wide or two narrow. And maybe the most common--simply too loose. If the maker is not mindful of these issues, the customer certainly isn't gonna be.

And the other thing about all that is that young feet are numb feet....usually. A young foot can take a lot of abuse and be fit up so egregiously poorly... and live through it--experiencing no problems until much later in life. Women, for instance, are not born with fallen metatarsal arches and most aren't even aware that they have metatarsal arches... until, after years of wearing high heels, they start having real and often irreversible pain.

[nickb1]

If you want to use nails, at least use brass ones--iron nails in oak bark/veg leather will corrode and cause the leather to go brittle and crumble away. Wood pegs are preferable IMO.

nope, no more nails for me. I have a couple of big bag of pegs and no excuse not to use them. Only nails in the toplift perhaps.
N

[das]

Nick--Great! Yes, use the pegs then. DW--never had any bending problems with 9.5/8ths, brass, "heel" nails from D. B. Gurney, but then I used a very slim peg awl to make pilot holes too, not all the way through, but maybe halfway.

[dw]

DW--never had any bending problems with 9.5/8ths, brass, "heel" nails from D. B. Gurney, but then I used a very slim peg awl to make pilot holes too, not all the way through, but maybe halfway.

Yeah, using the awl is the key with the shoe nails too. But even though gurney ar my 'go-to' guys, I've never seen the heel nails you mentioned.

[nickb1]

Nick--Great! Yes, use the pegs then.

Are there any tips already here somewhere on how to substitute nails with pegs please? I was thinking of just doing the construction I'm used to but with pegs instead of nails for the heel area and lifts. Based on test split-lift plus insole scraps, I'd imagine pegs every 1/4" or so around the split lift angled slightly in. Plus maybe a second row straight down. Then the sole on top of that with a horsehoe of pegs angled slightly in. Both of these with shorter pegs, which look about 5/8". Then come 2-3 lifts with 3 longer pegs, which look about 11/12" in the middle in opposing triangle patterns. the last of these also with a horseshoe of pegs near the outside. then the toplift.
I'd be putting some beeswax on the pegging awl but just to help with getting the awl out. And setting the blade so that it's about 1/8" shorter than the pegs. And having the lifts slightly mellow for skiving but drier than with the nailed construction to help the pegs grip.
Thanks!

[das]

DW--You have to ask for them, they're not "usual" production for retail, but they used to keep them in stock for sale To Corcoran (Cove Shoe Co., PA) for attaching jump boot heels. Same proportions and configuration as steel "rubber heel nails", just in brass, smooth not corrugated. Sold in 9/8", 9.5/8". and 10/8", though I think the 10/8' were called something else, these have actual heads on them.

Nick--I bet if you searched "pegging" on here you'd have a week's worth of reading. That said, my only tips:

1) Plunge the pegging awl into a cake of beeswax at each go to lube it. I have a 4" x 4" x 1" deep low walled compartment on the surface of my bench filled with beeswax (melted then poured in) just for this purpose. Same goes for all awls (sewing, stitching, stabbing, etc.).
2) Number of pegs/inch depends... If you're using all-purpose cement to affix your lifts, less pegs per/inch. If you're using paste, more, but every 1/4" sounds a little extreme--maybe every 3/8" to 1/2" apart on the middle lifts--more "for pretty" on the top piece. Around the edge, across the breast, arranged down the middle however you like.
3) Since you should peg (settle and level plumb) each lift on one lift at a time, not as a group of pre-stuck lifts at once, I've always found +/- 5/8" pegs OK. To me 11/8' would be overkill.
4) I peg with the lifts almost, but not entirely, dry--one hole, one peg at a time. Opinions vary, so do results. Pegs swell, yes. But the more they swell, the more they shrink back smaller than their original dimensions when dry too. What's key is to use a pegging blade that's smaller than the peg, IMO maybe by 50%. Think "square peg in a round hole", as tight as poss. and you should be fine.
5) Without fiddling with setting and re-setting the blade in a haft, try making wee spacer washers out of scrap sole leather to shorten the effective length of the blade, quickly, to the exact depth you want, just a bit shy of length of pegs being used.
6) Depending on your peg wood (lemon wood, birch, maple, etc.)--I only use maple and birch--you only get 2 whacks. The first is light to set the peg point straight into the hole, the other firm, to knock the peg fully in in one blow. More than that and you risk splitting the peg or mushrooming the head. And yes, some will fly off across the room until you get the knack of it (correct angle and force of last blow).

[admin]

@das @nickb1

I understand how this thread on Fitting the Foot evolved to encompass pegging. However, as Admin I would be remiss if I didn't encourage some sort of rationality and organization. It is for that reason I am moving this discussion (eventually all of it as relates to pegging) and hope that further input regarding pegging be addressed in its new location.

Go here: viewtopic.php?p=42791#p42791

[bcFour]

What, if any, are ways to tackle pinching over the big toe as the shoe flexes?

backstory: was working with someone and their trial shoes, made with excessively cheap 3-4oz leather, stiff and heavily finished grain. Had the good rush of air sound as they put on the shoes and first words were that they felt cozy and snug in a good way. As I ran my thumb across the vamps there was no bow-waves and they felt sock-like to me. There was excessive pressure on the pinky toe which I will make accommodations for, but over the right big toe the crease in the leather pinched and was said to be (...naturally...) uncomfortable.

is this something at a nicer leather will take care of on its own? Is this excess room or not enough room? orrr??

thanks!
Bob

[dw]

@bcFour

Little late on this...apologies.

I'm going out on a limb here but I suspect the problem is too much room over the toe. It is the inverted crease/pipe that is putting pressure on the toe. Reduce the room over the toe and you reduce the amount of leather available to form that pipe. The result is smaller, shallower creases and no tendency/ability to exert pressure.

[nickb1]

So, this is my first attempt to apply something like @dw 's method for sister #2, for whom I am making a pair of ankle boots, I sent foot drafts (done with vertical pen) along with HTB, LOF, ball girth and short heel measurements to the last manufacturer, asking them to pay particular attention to the HTB measure. The lasts, which I think have a medium round toe, came back and are spot on with that measure, which was identical for L&R feet. The ball girth also seems about right, though this measure is 1/8" different between L&R, the R being larger.
Re "Sabbage's sectionizer", it's been specified on the board in relation to mens' shoes and the convention of adding 3 sizes to the LOF measure to derive the 1/12 sections. But I take it that we are trying to add 1/11th of the LOF measure. Should this be any different for a woman's foot?
Applying this, the LOF measure is 9 3/16 inch, adding 1/11th of this length we get approx. 10". divide this by 12 = 0.835 of an inch for the section length; 8 of those yields 6.68 inches for the predicted HTB measure. The actual measure 6.625" ie 6 5/8", which is within 1/64" difference. So this all makes sense to me.
The next thing I am trying to do is to see if the feather edge of the last accommodates the tread line or is too narrow anywhere. I'm comparing the last bottom pattern to carbon paper drafts on which I also took vertical penline drafts:

DSC00431.JPG

The left one looks fine re this aspect, the right one seems to require building up. Curiously the ball girth measure was only 1/8 of an inch different between L and R feet, but the carbon draft seems to indicate a more substantial build up on the right last is required. The carbon draft contains information over a larger area; it seems the small toe flares outwards, which is above the ball girth measure, so that makes sense too. Incidentally my own right foot does exactly that, so it may be a family trait.
I'm wondering whether to put the additional width purely on the outside joint, which would be quite a lot there, 1/4" at the feather edge:

DSC00435.JPG

or whether some of the width could be added instead to the medial side, at the the large toe:.

DSC00436.JPG

Perhaps that would interfere with the fit on the medial side, the way the foot sockets in? My plan is to try an initial fitting with the lateral side built up only, but such that the ball girth is only expanded by 1/8".
Grateful for any feedback.
Nick