One "Last" Question

[dw]

I think it's as much a question of heel height as anything but it does, sort of, speak to the issue of high comb (ankle) lasts, the only reason to build up or extend the comb of the last is to spread or 'tree' (kind of) the tops above the ankle. With a pull-on boot, the vamp, if made correctly, sits low enough on the last that the cone tends to spread the throat area as wide as it can be spread...which, in turn facilitates the entry of the foot. Look at some of the photos (in the Gallery) and at least on mine you can see / visualize the cone of the last and it's well up into the leg of the boot. In my 'method' the tops should 'break' at the high instep--which, depending on the model and maker of the last, is usually about 3/4" to 1" below the top of the cone.

[PhilipB1]

Can I check I've got this correct.

If I want to make a low boot about ankle height, laced (might be Oxford or Derby or Chukka), then I don't need to do any of the build up as for example shown in this link: https://www.instagram.com/p/BqXSjCxHwhO/

I can just take a well fitting shoe last and extend the pattern up round the ankle, as per Thornton, Jones, etc.?

Have I got that right? Aren't the Thornton et al patterns designed for lasts with build up?

[nickb1]

Hi Phil,
I'm hardly an authority as you know! But that's what I did, having been told it was OK, and it worked fine, so far for 3 people. I can't comment on the pattern-making, but I did send in the short heel measurement along with the last. There's a discussion on James' blog about whether the heel build up is necessary when using a shoe last. Carreducker don't use them, it seems.
Nick

[dw]

@PhilipB1 I don't think that the Thornton patterns are meant to be used with the kind of build up you see on Templeman's last. I am pretty familiar with Thornton as well as Golding (having transcribed some of them for the Guild) and IIRC, such build-ups are never mentioned by either writer. Although I've never made a lace up with Thornton's patterns, I've used several patterns from his books (jodhpurs, George boots, etc. ) and never needed the last build-ups.

As well, I have made a fair number of lace-up boots using a different patterning system (again I refer you to the Gallery) and never used the last extensions.

But Templeman is a very good shoemaker...among the best in the world...and it is undoubtedly a solid approach. although I cannot give you a reason for it.

Maybe it comes down to something else--for instance I last 'seats up' (I always get confused about that...guess I have a mental block) and hoist the shoe into position after the forepart is drafted, and I'm fairly certain that's a pretty obscure and unused technique among British makers.

Also many of the British lasts tend to be relatively straight in profile at the back of the heel. Again, my own approach / experience suggests that makes the last easier to pull from the shoe but results in a relatively looser topline.
I dunno.

Bottom line I think you have to try it both ways butf or me, I can't find a good rationale for the last build-ups.

[nickb1]

Bottom line I think you have to try it both ways butf or me, I can't find a good rationale for the last build-ups.

Is it possible your lasts are of a different form to the ones used over here as shoe lasts? If even the tongue on an Oxford or Derby is not extending to the where short heel girth is at the front of the ankle, (on mine it's about an inch away), why would much attention be paid to that portion of the shoe last, if it is included at all>? Given also that the less cone is included the more scope there is for the last to fold forwards at the hinge.

[PhilipB1]

Thank you, both.

I've read the Carreducker blogs that Nick kindly alluded to:
http://carreducker.blogspot.com/2013/01 ... -boot.html
http://carreducker.blogspot.com/2013/06 ... tings.html

It's a pity they didn't follow through on DW's request to show how to use an Oxford last for loafers.

In essence James is saying:
1. The short and long heel and ankle measurements are used to fit the last.
2. The rear build up seems to be to facilitate maintaining the boot's back of ankle shape. Whilst not necessary, it will give the nicer curve that is preferred.
3. For the cone build up above the instep, James says this is "essential because when you are putting on boots (specially those with no fastenings, laces, buckles etc) you need to be able to get your foot into the bed of the boot, but they must be snug enough to hold the foot". Again it is also used in lasting to help maintain the correct shape.

I'm guessing here but it looks to me that, apart from the above reasons, the cone build-up might also provide space to facilitate ankle flex which might be more important in the stiffer boots with lots of stiff facings/lacing and perhaps less so in e.g. cowboy boots made of very thin supple leather like kangaroo?

I know James does the cone build up as he's showed me them in his workshop. It's part of the tradition of shoe/boot making, at least in the UK, so there must be a good reason for it (as DW would say). I've also been told that you need a boot last (or last modified for boot) before you can do the boot design, this by Fiona Campbell who is a highly regarded and experienced shoe design practitioner and teacher.

Incidentally, looking at the boot design in Thornton, page 74, you can see the extra cone build up incorporated in the pattern where the tongue raises above the dotted line (VT), whereas in the shoes the tongue adheres to the VT line of the mean forme.

So I'm concluding that for a low angle boot like a Chukka, I can just use the shoe last; I can optionally put some extra build up on to facilitate lasting as per James blog but it's not essential; and I will need to try out the pattern, not just on the last put on the foot before cutting and making a proper pair. With a fully laced Derby/Oxford ankle boot, I'm going to have to experiment further as DW says, but it looks to me some build will probably be needed unless I can make a very flexible boot.

Just on DW's seat's up lasting. This is the way I do it and it's also the way James Ducker does it and teaches (forepart of shoe first, then pull down the heel to get a nice stretch and keep the top line tight). Given that James learnt his shoe making at Lobb's it might be reasonable to postulate that it's the way Lobb teach and is therefore in use by many in the West End trade (given the number that seem to have served apprenticeships at Lobb's). Perhaps one to ask Nicholas Templeman (also a Lobb man)?

[nickb1]

Hi Phil,
I think James taught me the "hoist method"! And this was also used by my other teacher who worked for Lobb for a long time. The forepart is roughly lasted with 5 nails but all the while the back of the upper is pinned midway up the heel. When you're happy with the forepart positioning and that it's pulling flat at the joint you pull the upper down into place at the heel. This creates a lot of tension ("lines of tension") between the heel, instep and joint. It also helps force the lamination of the layers with paste that makes a hard heel cup.
Nick

PS re-reading your post, we're describing the same method, but I think this is the hoist method. If I'm right "seats up" doesn't start with the upper pinned up the last at the back. If not, what is the hoist method?

[dw]

@nickb1

Well, I am a Sabbage advocate. And the way in which I see the last and translate measurements from the foot to the last, the short heel on the foot can almost never be found on the last--It is higher than the highest point of the cone...not by much but still up in the air.I am sure that's the reason many shoemakers disregard the short heel. But, it doesn't explain why so many dismiss the long heel when making shoes. I suspect that the major difference between the lasts I use (and prefer) and at least some British shoe lasts lies in the heel curve rather than the cone of the last. Even my boot lasts (made for pull-ons) has a more pronounced curve than some lasts I've seen. My shoe lasts aren't much different in that regard but narrower in the 'comb.' Again to ensure a tight topline.

But even putting aside, for a moment, the fact that there is a relationship between foot size, H-B, long heel and instep girths, the original question was about high top shoe (or boots) and the short heel is, or can be seen as, a significant factor in making the patterns for all such whether they be lace up or pull-on.

And, to come back around, if only because there is that relationship, the short heel measurement can be ...at the very least...a sort of cross check for size and accuracy when modeling the foot...ie. making/modding the last. In that same vein, like all the data we collect, taking and knowing the short heel can alert us to aspects of the last we intend to use that we may never have noticed otherwise. For instance, if the short heel from the foot is smaller than the short heel on the last it can indicate that there is too much wood in the heel...perhaps the heel seat width is too large. Or larger than will result in a really, really good fit. Of course, paying attention to the footprint and particularly the heel seat print, will often tell you that as well, but not always.

That said, if finding the short heel on the lasts (even if topologically it ends in mid air) is possible, and it is, why should we so cavalierly dismiss such an important piece of information? .

[dw]

@PhilipB1

Well, Different strokes...but as much as I admire James, again I would refer you to the Gallery knowing that I do not use the instep or heel build-ups on either pull-on boots or lace-ups. People have often commented that I seem to get a deeper (some would say more "pleasing") curve at the back of the heel on my pull-on boots than is ordinarily seen. I think that's true. but you will have to judge for yourself...but know it doesn't happen by accident.

And I will tell you, FWIW, that I seldom see a better curve on lace-up boots that I can achieve. So much so that I almost cannot relate to how such boots are made these days, and deeply dislike the 'lines.'

As for a boot last, I use a boot last one that was originally a Krentler Brothers last and used by a rather famous bootmaker in Texas whose name was Arch LaForce. The heel curve is not as straight as most common boot lasts and, of course that contributes to the lines of the boots.

Ultimately, however, getting into the boot is more a matter of the patterns being correct and the pass line being positioned correctly as well as the 'rightness' of the lasting--where the boot breaks/ the tops sit on the last.

Finally I would like to see that illustration/pattern from Thornton. I am pretty familiar with Thornton, for all the reasons I mentioned above, and don't remember it. Can you take a photo with your phone and post it here?

FWIW...

[nickb1]

That said, if finding the short heel on the lasts (even if topologically it ends in mid air) isis possible, and it is, why should we so cavalierly dismiss such an important piece of information? .

I'm not saying we should :-) That's why I sent it to the pattern maker. I recall my teacher asking why I;d sent that measurement because the pattern maker would "take it from the last".
But I struggle to think what it means for a last, the cone of which stops short of where the short heel should be located anatomically, to "have a short heel measurement". This is implied by what you just said too, it seems. We'd be imagining material that isn't there? If the cone is stopping short of there perhaps that explains why people find it necessary to use the shovers? Maybe also, if with ideal patterns and ideal lasting shovers aren't necessary, having a klutz like me lasting and a third party doing the patterns the shovers are needed! I think easy on a Chelsea boot with the elasticated sides to pull too far in under the heel when lasting. I tried to position the shover so that it curves up where the ankle curves up with the girth from the heel to that point.
N

[dw]

@nickb1

Well, first, I am just using the pronouns "we" or even "you" in a 'universal sense...I don't mean specifically you or him or even you and me.

This is kind of hard to explain but I will try:

I suspect you (specifically and universally) need to be on more than passing acquaintance with Sabbage. See viewtopic.php?p=3027#p3027.

I believe that on most lasts the high instep is at section 5. That puts the short heel terminus at section 4 in mid air above the cone of the last. And that's been my experience.

When I measure the foot I see a rough 1 inch between the ball, waist, low instep, high instep and short heel point--a 'section,' in other words. Again, this is all consistent with Sabbage. I don't force that distance but I almost always see it. Of course it varies with the size of the foot as sections are expected to--sections being longer for larger feet, smaller for smaller feet. But the fundamental point is that the waist will be one section above the ball. the low instep one section above the waist and so forth. And the high instep will be found one section below the SH

When we measure the short heel we run the tape around the outside corner of the heel and around the inside corner of the ankle. The outside corner of the heel corresponds to section 0 on Sabbages Sectionizer. The inside corner of the ankle corresponds to section four. Superimpose a line (a 'vector) from 0 to 4, on a profile of the last, and the terminus at 4 is in mid air...as we have stipulated.

But what if we pivoted that line so that the point at section 0 rises up the heel of the last one section? That would drop the terminus point at section four down the cone of the last to section 5 or the high instep.

If we measure the SH on the foot and transfer that measurement...exactly...to a piece of, for instance, 12 cord stitcher thread, we can create a loop from that thread and drop that loop over the cone and comb of the last. And if everything is correct, the loop will settle such that it hits the high instep and the point at the back of the heel of the last that is one section above the featherline.

This works. It works on my boot lasts and it works on my shoe lasts. It simply works--always resulting in a roughly accurate (depends on how one measures and how one transfers the SH meas. to the stitcher thread and where one has located the high instep and so forth) reading of the short heel measurement of the last. (I told you this would be hard). Ideally...if the last is correct...the short heel measurement from the foot and the short heel measurement for the last will be near-as-nevermind identical.

Using this method and combining it with a long heel measurement and a high instep measurement and a low instep measurement and a H-B measurement and so forth, I can get really good fit on most feet right out of the gate for pull-on boots...which, as we have stipulated, have to be exact from the get-go because there are no laces to make adjustments after the fact. And it works on shoes as well--oxfords and derbys, chelseas and jodhpurs.

And that, my friend, is no mean feet/feat.

[nickb1]

@dw I think I can visualise that! Thanks... But on this basis, if the SH "on the last" were say 1/4 inch less than the SH measure for the foot, would you add a shover for a boot?

[dw]

But on this basis, if the SH "on the last" were say 1/4 inch less than the SH measure for the foot, would you add a shover for a boot?

Well, if by "shover" you mean a build-up, I might. But it might not be on top of the cone (which is where a Traditional shover would be). I might, for instance, widen the heel a bit or lengthen the last by adding a build-up at the back of the heel. As I mentioned (and it is one of the hard and fast understandings that I believe in and preach,) all these girths and dimensions are related...and changing one often changes another.

There are only a few ways to change the short or long heel without changing the instep, as well.

Truth to tell, it is a rare shoe/foot where the short heel on the last has to be accounted for. That's why it is so easily and often dismissed. As you yourself pointed out, the topline of a shoe rarely, if ever, rises to the level where the SH is a factor.

And on a pull-on boot, the vamp 'breaks' upward into the top at about the same place the top edge of the facings would be on a shoe. So again, in terms of the foot inside the shoe or pull-on boot, the SH at least seems almost beside the point.[On a pull-on boot the SH is absolutely critical for making the tops pattern and for creating enough leeway to allow the foot to slide into the boot. So much so that many bootmakers cannot make a pair of boots without a SH measurement. And where can they get that if not off the foot?]

But changing the short heel on the last very often changes the long heel on the last and that might very well be critical because almost every shoe and every pull-on boot covers the LH dimension and must accommodate that measurement in it's entirety.

So if you think about all this... you might wonder why all the fuss esp. when it comes to low quarter shoes. But to begin with the original question was about 'high quarter' shoes (if I can coin a term) and beyond that, in a perfect world what we are doing whenever we 'adjust' a last for whatever type of footwear, is 'modeling' the foot in the last. Understanding that concept, absorbing it invariably leads to an impulse to not only gather as much information from the foot as practically possible but to make the last be a stand-in for the foot in every way possible.

The more congruence the last bears to the foot the less smoke and mirrors...which as delightful as they may be, will blind the maker as surely as the client.

[carsten]

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I will dare to add a comment - since I recently also have carefully tried to get into the topic of boots. As you know, except for you guys, I have been more or less on a one man endeavor so far- I guess there are areas where I might be very far off without knowing – I might even put a frown on some faces without intention. So I apologize in advance...
When I started out making shoes, I expected to find patterns like the ones my mother had used for her dresses when I was a kid - the ones that look like a subway map and have tons of lines large sheet of paper for different sizes, which you trace onto the cloth. I quickly learned that such patterns are not available for shoes.
So being inspired by the book of László Vass, and having neither heard of this forum, Thornton or Golding yet, I developed my patterns so to say live on the last, buy simply drawing the wanted pattern onto the taped last, cutting of the individual pieces and added some allowances. (BTW – this kind of works doesn’t it?).
Just recently after finally -and in light of Frank Jones Pattern cutting book- understanding what Thornton meant by standard length I developed some standard Oxford patterns according to Thornton and the recently discussed Siebenlehn method.
I dare to say that to me it seems that the lining thickness is generally not a dominating factor in pattern design. Maybe it is too early to say for me but maybe high build up boots (having a wooden lower leg as well) have an advantage when making boots with thick fur/felt lining, which requires much larger uppers, since the facings move out very much due to the thick lining. Presently I think that it has an advantage to develop patterns for thick lining shoes directly on the last, more specifically on a temporarily lasted lining – which has quite larger dimensions than the foot. This way one might ensure easier a uniform facing distance above the insept. (?)

[PhilipB1]

DW, here is the Thornton chukka pattern. It's based on the Monk. You can see the dotted line extending under the tongue which the tongue follows in all the shoe patterns. In this chukka pattern the tongue starts to diverge right from the beginning of the cone. Does this imply a boot last with more cone / build up on the shoe last?

Thornton Chukka.jpg

I wanted to check my understanding about whether I can use a shoe last for a lace up ankle boot. If the shoe last conforms to the correct size (short heel, long heel, heel to ball measurements), does that mean I can use it for a boot successfully?

As you suggested, I've browsed the gallery over the weekend. The boots are gorgeous and I do agree with you about your heel line. How do I achieve these lines? Is there somewhere with a pattern from which I can start?

[dw]

Does this imply a boot last with more cone / build up on the shoe last?

I do not think so. Thornton is the starting point for my George boots...ie. my pattern are near-as-nevermind the same. And I've never used an extension on the cone of the last. Nor at the heel. I suspect, that if Thornton intended a build up he would have drawn it in much more explicitly.

I haven't got Thornton in front of me, but I think you have to go back and look at the way Thornton lays out the standards for derbys and oxfords.It's a temptation to skip ahead right to the chukka pattern or the lace-up Derby boot but doing so misses the fundamental suppositions that underlie his approach. IIRC, that straight line running along the top of the cone is there in every layout. If you go back and follow along as he makes the standard from mean formes, you'll better understand where it (and he) is coming from.

Could be wrong, but like I say that's the way i see it and that's the way I do it. If I'm wrong, well, I'm from Missouri--you have to "show me."

[PhilipB1]

Which are your George boots? Are they the ones in Gallery post 513 which I particularly liked?

When I started out making shoes (not that long ago), I used Thornton for my pattern making. Thus I followed instructions to produce the mean forme, made standards and patterns for the Oxford and Derby and made up the shoes. I had to modify the Thornton parameters sightly for a more modern shoe design, but have served time on those models.

I did skip the Monk. With the Thornton Chukka, I got as far as making a pattern, then making an upper to test the pattern on a shoe last. I made some blocking forms to make the curve in the vamp/tongue and also to form the heel/ankle shape from a single piece of leather (so no heel seam), which all worked ok. But I got stuck with the top of the boot; it looked ok but I had no way of knowing if it would fit, short of making a pair. So that's as far as I've got with boots.

[dw]

@PhilipB1

Yes, that's these: viewtopic.php?p=29713#p29713

But these are also from Thornton's pattern:viewtopic.php?p=32057#p32057

As well as these:viewtopic.php?p=32621#p32621

and these: viewtopic.php?p=37037#p37037

these: viewtopic.php?p=38054#p38054

these:viewtopic.php?p=40992#p40992

And these which I thought were one of the nicest pair I've made:viewtopic.php?p=41101#p41101

and these: viewtopic.php?p=41353#p41353

All from Thornton's patterns.

Not to mention (from geometric patterning)

One of my students: viewtopic.php?p=38531#p38531

Another student: viewtopic.php?p=40252#p40252

[nickb1]

Just came across an old post on here from Frank Jones. He says the Thornton book and the like were used alongside college classes - without which practical instruction they present difficulties to the reader. When Thornton's book was published there were more than 20 such colleges! When Frank posted in 2005 there were 2. AFAIK there are now ... none!
We have lost so much. Not only re. shoemaking, there is now almost nowhere you can study e.g. breakmaking. It used to be in every local college. The craft guild of bakers has now admitted supermarkets as "members" thanks to the decline in the traditional trade ... brought about in no small part by them.
Respect to you guys for working this stuff out from a 1950s text book designed for use alongside college classes ...
Nick

[PhilipB1]

Yes, it's sad, but the shoe industry has changed so much. Courses and apprenticeships do still exist. The ones I know about are the London College of Fashion (where Fiona Campbell teaches shoe design) and Northampton College. Fiona likes Frank Jones book so maybe Thornton is no longer in use.

I was looking at Frank Jones' book this morning and his Derby boot design is based on a shoe last, whereas his pull-up boot design uses a boot last. So conformation of what you've both been saying.

DW: I wanted to thank you for all those links. Collectively they are inspirational and I will be having a go at some boots with both Thornton and Jones (maybe even Koleff if I can ever get a copy of his book).

One more question on lasts. I have lasts made for 3/4" heels. Can these lasts be used to make shoes with lower heels, perhaps half this (3/8") or even lower? My cursory experiments suggest the top-line is going to be stretched when the lower heel sits flat on the floor. Or do I need to buy different lasts for the lower heel?

[dw]

IMO, the heels of a shoe cannot vary much if at all from the heel on a last. If you want a 3/8" heel you need a 3/8" heel last.

That said, I never vary heel height from what the last was designed for, so this is just hearsay from good makers--but for shoes/lasts with heel heights 1" and below, some makers will omit a shank support or substitute hard soling leather for metal. In such cases, I've been told and i don't see why the heel on the shoe couldn't be dern near anything you want it to be (below 1", of course).

The patterns and the lines may be a bit distorted...look a little 'off'... but I doubt foot health will be affected.

[nickb1]

I can't find a good rationale for the last build-ups.

I raised this question at the recent UK independent shoemakers conference. I don't think it was answered clearly but all of the panelists (in the bootmaking session) were advocates of shovers if making a pull-on boot on shoe lasts. Doesn't mean that's correct of course... I wonder if history could help here? Are there "shovers" in any of the historical sources? There are some in Garsault but not for this purpose and not of this form, more for adapting a last for different feet IIRC. Another suggestion is that if you don't use shovers you would have to tree the boots afterwards to get the right shape. I'm not convinced about the argument for shovers, but a little nervous to try them without in the face of the apparently unanimous pro-shover united front over here ;-)

[nickb1]

Also if I may, @dw , in the "lasting" thread post 756? you say:

>A boot last will have a higher cone, generally speaking, and the heel profile will be less curved. ...

>A "shoe last" can be modified to make a pull-on boot...just as an oxford last may be modified to make loafers or slippers...but doing so isn't for the faint of heart or the untutored. Sometimes it involves cutting away or shifting substance such that the last is permanently modified. And without an appreciation for the complexities of the last...the shapes and proportionality...the last itself can be virtually ruined.

It could be that this higher cone is what people are trying to achieve with the shover? But if the last measurements were correct to begin with, I guess that would imply taking material off elsewhere to maintain the correct measures.

[dw]

Well, not according to the photo that was posted (or was it a link?)...although traditional shovers were used to add substance to the instep and or the girths all the way to the joint. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) they were attached to the top of the last with string. Then the shover could be easily removed and the last used for a smaller size foot.

@das would know as much about this as anyone.

[dw]

I could almost buy the argument that if you use shovers, it obviates the need to tree the tops. Almost. But at least it is an understandable rationale.

Again, I have never used a shover. All I can do is point you to work that I have done without a shover and you can judge for yourself.

In the end, you gotta go with what feels right to you.