The Crispin Colloquy

Celastic. I'm sure you can find a better solvent than gasoline, I use acetone. I would also recommend leaving it overnight to dry

Celastic seems to be a controversial subject here

Although it doesn't compare to steel, a double layer makes a strong toe box,I use it for making wildland firefighting/work boots.

You can get it from most finders, in Canada from National Shoe.

In my opinion leather makes the best toe stiffener for dress or casual shoes, and I really enjoy shaping the toe.

Thanks!

"Altough it doesnt compare to steel..."

Are you saying you can somehow use steel for a to box? How would that be managed?

Well, this thread hasn't received any love for a long time.

Knowing that most early shoes were not lined, @das, I was wondering how, and when, the toe stiffener (and, incidentally, the heel stiffener) evolved? I suspect that most shoes and boots during the mid 19th century were sof toed. but earlier? later?

Thoughts?

DW,

I hope this mini-essay helps answer your questions. For every “rule” there were exceptions, so let’s call this the “lite” Cliff Notes version.

Historical Toe Stiffeners 101—The earliest I’ve seen date from the advent of the flat sharp-cornered square toes c.1660. For men’s leather square toes, stiffeners were often leather, lasted prior to lasting the (unlined) upper. The uppers were then lasted over them with a little paste smeared on top first, and there was no whip-stitching to secure the skived (cut) edge over the toes, so they often curled in and “hurt the foot” (see ‘AotS’). Women’s toe stuffeners, about the same date, were safely inserted between the lining and the “fashion” layer (usually textile)—what we know as toe “boxes” or “puffs” today—and sewn in with the upper during welt/rand sewing to the insole, like modern ones. When men’s high square (box toes) were fashionable, c.1680s-1750s (think the old Frye “snoot” boots only wider), those “boxes” were often built to, and directly off of an elongated extension of the of the insole’s toe (exceeding the last, folded up flat against the last’s toe). A separate “box” piece was then butt-stitched to that (I think we discussed this years ago re some similar western boot toe box technique?), and the uppers lasted over it. IOW, the square box toes were structurally part of the insole, not the upper, nor attached to it—a different critter entirely. Women’s 18thc shoes lost their square toes for pointed, then round/oval toes, w/ stiffeners (by then rag paper or cardboard) inserted between lining and out textile “fahion” layer. Men’s round toes (worn “forever”) were totally soft-toed (zero toe stiffeners)—whipped-in toe stiffeners have been recorded, but are the exception. This is how it largely remained until c.1800, when women’s went soft-toed too. Not until c.1820-40 were “some” men’s shoes made fully lined, and then they went to inserted stiffeners like women’s had. Not until after the US Civil War, and the wide-spread use of machine-closed uppers, did men’s fully lined uppers proliferate, and with them inserted stiffeners (“boxes”/”puffs”) at the toe. Previously most men’s uppers had been made of a single layer of stout waxed-calf, finished on the flesh (grain inward = self-lined). The only way to apply stiffeners was to whip-stitch them to the grain. The whip stitches easily wore through, the applied pieces came loose, so (un-lined) soft toes were are more practical.

Heel Stiffeners—These have a somewhat more ancient pedigree as, applied (inside via whip stitching), stiffeners of the quarters are noted in European Medieval footwear, and possible earlier (see Goubtiz, ‘Stepping Through Time’). This footwear was predominantly turnshoe construction, which necessarily used thinner more flexible uppers leather, requiring reinforcement and stiffening internally. While the use of low whipped-in side linings, around the quarters extending to the joints, sometimes to the very toe, might be classed with heel stiffeners, this form was more a 17th through early 19thc feature on men’s otherwise unlined uppers. Women’s shoes also made use of low side linings, 17thc-18thc primarily, but like toe stiffeners, merely inserted and pasted between the lining and outer “fashion” layer. By the 1700s men’s (waxed-calf) shoes gain “D” shaped whipped-in heel stiffeners per se, some extending into lower wings that became side linings. More rarely, others, had just the “D” shaped stiffener. Prone to wearing through, the whip stitches gave way, and mending such a failure “invisibly” on the inside was not easy. I would hazard to say most of the men’s archaeological footwear from 1700-1800 is waxed calf, and has few with “D” shaped heel stiffeners. More have just the low continuous (internal) side lining-cum-stiffener around the base of the quarters, but most were 100% un-lined in any way. After c.1800, men’s stouter shoes and “bootees” (ankle shoes) gain a “counter”, “D” shaped stiffener always on the exterior, stabbed not whipped, thus easier to mend. A little later these exterior “counters” became elongated, and were secured along the top edge and at each end with the side seams (stabbed). With the fully-lined men’s footwear of the later 19thc onward, “D” shaped stiffeners (leather or layers of stiffened cardboard) were inserted between lining and “fashion” layer like women’s uppers had been made since the later 1600s.

das,

Thank you for that. It's funny how things we take for granted get their start. I was surprised at your reference to "cardboard" or "rag paper" toe stiffeners going back to the 1700's and similar heel stiffeners in the 1800's. 21st century, even 20th, I could readily imagine but 18th?! It boggles and disappoints me a little.

That said, I wonder if the tendency of oak tanned leather to bleed when wet might have had something to do with it? Esp. with brocades and tapestry type textiles.

Anyway, it good to have this addition to the knowledge base.

Maybe this will be of interest: https://blog.nms.ac.uk/2020/08/07/using ... ury-shoes/

And yup, leather stiffening bits under the textile uppers, or even light colored leather uppers, would have stained them badly.

@das Re: "rag paper"

This is where waste material and off cuts from the textile industry were combined to make a new material, rather than the cotton and linen being thrown away and wasted.

Sounds rather like 'shoddy.'

I though I just post a quick update on my last slippers, where I had tried to stiffen the felt-lined toe box by means of a starch solution. Since the felt lining I am using is quite thick (3-5mm) I did not want to use an extra leather stiffener to avoid that the toe area looks too bulky. Therefore I tried to use the same technique to stiffen the toe area like usually felt-hats are stiffened.

Well - I have to report that although the toe caps were initially really stiff they quickly became soft again by simply wearing the slippers (while my hat didn't and is still hard like a wooden panel....). The toe boxes are still in shape- since they are glued to the upped leather with HK- but are now far less stiff than a real leather stiffener.

In a way I tried to copy a Felt-Hafflinger House Slipper that I have, which is felt only and does not have any toe stiffener.

Should I go with leather stiffener after all, even if the felt lining is 5mm?

This is way above my pay grade but my wife likes soft toes on her shoes. She'd really rather have no toe puff at all but just because the very idea horrifies me, I insist on adding some sort of stiffener. Ordinarily my toe stiffeners are about 4mm thick cut from insole shoulder. For her shoes, I just cut a toe puff from 2 ounce veg tanned lining leather and make the shoe as usual...mounting the stiffener with HK.

What is 2 ounce? .8mm if I'm not mistaken.

None of her shoes have collapsed in the toe which annoys her a little bit and surprises me. She could stamp the toes flat if she wanted but I am quite certain that eliminating the weight of the toe sitffener is at least part of her goal.

Anyway...probably not much help but, maybe...?

Thank you @dw

Good idea to use only a very thin stiffener. Will try that for my next pair.

>What is 2 ounce? .8mm if I'm not mistaken.

Thanks for that too.... I guess this is something I will never get used to. My brain only works in mm and I admire americans for their ability to use fractions and units.. 15/16 of an inch + 3/8 of an inch for wrenches, ounces for volumes and thickness..

My mind just blank... :-)

carsten wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:01 am Thank you @dw

Thanks for that too.... I guess this is something I will never get used to. My brain only works in mm and I admire americans for their ability to use fractions and units.. 15/16 of an inch + 3/8 of an inch for wrenches, ounces for volumes and thickness..

Well, American or not, ounces and irons are central to the shoemaker's lexicon...and the Traditions. I have a very hard time with millimeters--I have to look it up on the 'Net every time.