One "Last" Question

[PhilipB1]

Phil, I think you asked somewhere about making a low heel on a regular last. I've been re-reading Tim Skyrme's book where it says that if you add material to the 'ball area of the last', on the plantar side, it effectively lowers the heel of the shoe. But then you have too much internal space around the ball, so ... when the shoe is made take it off the last and put it in the shoe! Sounds very ham-fisted, but could be an interesting experiment.

Nick, this is in answer to your Bottoming Techniques post. It's an interesting proposal, but it does sound a bit of a bodge. I've been advised by the last maker when changing the heel height of a last that all they do is change the bottom profile of the last for the new heel height; the top of the last stays the same. I'm still trying to see how that can be done and all the girth measurements stay the same. Perhaps someone can explain?

[dw]

Generally, speaking, to do that they need to cut the last somewhere behind the joint and reposition the backpart relative to the forepart...wedging, regluing, reshaping. That said, I suspect you need to be a bona fide modelmaker / lastmaker to do such work, with any measure of confidence.

But yes, IMO, that's the only correct and reliable way to do it.

[PhilipB1]

The last maker says they make a copy of the original last on the copying machine and then change the bottom profile.

The lasts in question are made for 19mm heels. Just before the current Bottoming technique discussion, I made a basic experimental Oxford on the lasts, upper in 1.4mm veg crust cemented to 4mm insole (no heel or outsole or stiffener) and have been walking around in them for a few days now, inside and out. The sole has flattened out and, despite my fears about the upper, there is no discernable distortion of change of fit. This is obviously a very flexible shoe but it looks as though I could get away with making heel-less or minimal heeled shoes on the last as it is.

[dgleeson]

I'm not sure how useful this information is Phil, but there's a company in the UK going by the name "The Last Shoemaker" offering dress shoes based on "barefoot" principals and with minimal heel height. Perhaps the makers might be interested in sharing some of their observations with you?

Certainly I'm curious to follow your progress on this, the whole barefoot shoe thing intrigues me greatly!

[carsten]

Maybe it is a naive question, but I will ask it anyway: currently I am reading"The manufacture of boots and shoes" from F.Y. Golding. He says that it is a good idea to take a plaster cast from the foot, when there is no weight on the foot to better study the various contours of the foot. Then In the measurement section he hightlights the benefits of the american measurement system for getting very good results. In particular he highlights the benefits of using the waist and long heel measurement (of which I saw @dw talking as well). Until now i mainly used a premade last that I have adapted to my needs with good results and quite a comfortable fit. Now, is it worth it or does it make sensr at all, to make a good plaster cast of ones two feet when standing at full weight and having the heel rest at the height of a later heel, add a toe allowance (i think it is supposed to be 2.5sizes), send the cast to the lastmaker and have him reproduce the cast as a last in wood or plastik? Should this not result in a perfect fit? What are the disadvantages - except for that one doesn't learn how to make a last according to measurements? Thanks, Carsten

[nickb1]

Hi Carsten,
Have a look at what Bill Bird has to say:
He's talking about the need for measuring by hand versus scanning, because of the need to feel the bone structure, but I think the arguments also apply in relation to taking the measurements from a cast.
Nick

[dw]

I thought the Bill Bird video was excellent. Well worth watching.

I do near-as-nevermind much the same...minor differences. And for many of the same reasons.

I use a pedographic footprint, which obviates the need to worry about how wide the pen is or marking the arch at a 45° angle. But I am trying to capture the same information...and, IMO, much more accurately.

I measure over the top of the middle cuneiform and over the top of the root of the fifth because I believe that nerve endings are more sensitive on top of the bones than in the spaces between the bones. I also measure weight off because I have done it both ways and come to the conclusion that measuring a foot with weight on results in a shoe that is too 'slack' initially.

But bottom line, we both end up with similar or compatible measurements, and I cannot find fault in anything he does or says.

And I too feel that scanning the foot or using plaster casts is a dead end. Both record a static ('dead') state of the foot. You will have noticed the way he pulled the tape measure when he was finding the joint measurement. He pulled loose, then he pulled tight, then he backed off to somewhere in-between. I do exactly the same. The plaster cast cannot do that, nor can the scan. Yes, it's a matter of judgement but what we are measuring is muscle tone, water retention, structural (skeletal) rigidity, etc.. All very important, even critical.

Of course, what is not being talked about...maybe in another video?..is how those measurements are transferred to the last. Or if the measurements are used 'as is' or something is subtracted to achieve a satisfactory fit (which, BTW I define as 'snug' not just touching the surface of the foot), etc.. These considerations are critical as well, but maybe somewhat idiosyncratic.

All that said, major kudos to him for recognizing the importance of the long heel and the heel-ball length.

FWIW, IMO, YMMV

[carsten]

Thanks @nickb1 and @dw . It is a very good video. Makes sense that a cast does not give a good result if the tape needs to squeeze the foot somewhat.for a good measurement. I was mainly concerned that the hight of the arch/ cuneiform might not be captured well enough with circumference measurements an a regular weight footprint only, but of course the line drawn at 45deg. Captures that to some extend. Furthermore I thought that maybe a good footbed for the longitudinal and lateral arches (pelotte) could be developed better by using a cast. This is because I remember that as a kid often casts were taken from my feet, when my parents ordered orthopaedic inlays for my shoes. This was a very common thing to do overe here in the 80ties, even if you did not have major problems with your feet. Now having kids of my own the orthopaedics of these days tell us that kids should not use inlays, for the reason of which few people use custom made footbeds... So what is right and whats wrong about the footbed I don't really know...... Anyway thanks very much fot your comments, they save me a lot of messy experiments...

[nickb1]

Of course, what is not being talked about...maybe in another video?..is how those measurements are transferred to the last.

He shows that (more or less) across the other videos - if you look at his youtube channel he's done a set on making a last, starting from a block of wood and using these measurements, as part of an introduction to orthopaedic making. I don't think you could really infer from that how to do it on a stock last though. So your account on these pages remains unrivalled

[dw]

If you use a pedographic footprint and the correct girth measurements ....and a good, shoulder leather insole...the footbed should, for most people, take care of itself.

For the simple reason that it is the weight and moisture from the foot itself that creates a footbed--almost the definition, in fact..

Rough rule of thumb--a foot with a low arch will usually have a low instep. And vice versa. And as long as the insole is not significantly wider than the footprint (or narrower) the shoe will fit. Sometimes, with some feet and some leathers, the shoe will need to accommodate itself to the foot initially but it will fit and it will function correctly.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[carsten]

Thanks @dw , so also no "pelotte" ? (Sorry currently on vacation and can't look up the right word in english) Its the teardrop shaped foamy inlay right behind the ball- I'd guess maybe max 5mm in height. Sometimes instead of a foamy add-on, I saw it already accomodated as a cavity in the last to be filled by the insole, backed with an extra piece of leather on the backside.

[dw]

@carsten
If you have foot problems--orthopedic, medical problems, such as a fallen metatarsal arch, well you might need to accommodate them. But I am hard pressed to figure out how that enters into this discussion.

That said, and FWIW, some fallen metatarsal arches can be ameliorated to some extent by exercise. I am a case in point. I have found that 'pelottes' were more hassle than help...and sometimes, if not placed with absolute precision, actually a 'hindrance.'

[carsten]

@dw , well I was once told by a shoemaker that this would form part of a good foodbed and therefore should be part of a good shoe - others said like you, if you have a healthy foot don't worry about the foodbed. Now after your comments, it seems to me that "footbed and pelotte" are more a selling arguments than a requirement for a shoe. Thanks for the clarification. To me it had always been a contradiction, that on the one hand walking barefoot should be the best way to reestablish a healthy foot but then on the other hand a footbed should be required either by inlays or by integrating it into the last.

[carsten]

Maybe it is a naive question, but I will ask it anyway: currently I am reading"The manufacture of boots and shoes" from F.Y. Golding. He says that it is a good idea to take a plaster cast from the foot, when there is no weight on the foot to better study the various contours of the foot. Then In the measurement section he hightlights the benefits of the american measurement system for getting very good results. In particular he highlights the benefits of using the waist and long heel measurement (of which I saw @dw talking as well). Until now i mainly used a premade last that I have adapted to my needs with good results and quite a comfortable fit. Now, is it worth it or does it make sensr at all, to make a good plaster cast of ones two feet when standing at full weight and having the heel rest at the height of a later heel, add a toe allowance (i think it is supposed to be 2.5sizes), send the cast to the lastmaker and have him reproduce the cast as a last in wood or plastik? Should this not result in a perfect fit? What are the disadvantages - except for that one doesn't learn how to make a last according to measurements? Thanks, Carsten

Turns out that there was no need to ask this question. Frank Plucknett wrote already 1916 in his book "Boot and shoe manufacture"
on page 16:


Nevertheless, thanks for your kind replies .... Plucknett was somewhat more direct ....

[nickb1]

Because of the cod oil (oxidizes permanently in the leather), "waxed calf" partook not only of being tanned, but "oil dressed" as well (oil dressing was stand-alone method of making leather too, e.g. chamois, buff, etc.). A good place to start on currying shoe uppers, pre-chrome tanning, might be this work: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... =1up&seq=9

Because cod oil seems to have these special qualities and quite a few applications, I've been looking around for some decent stuff. Unfortunately it seems to have gone the way of a lot of things, and is mostly not the real deal anymore. From what I can ascertain almost all products are heavily industrially processed so additives are put in to replace vitamins the processing destroys, and to prolong shelf life, either for the health food market or for the pet / equine markets. Sometimes it's not even cod but cheaper fish such as pollock. J.R. Baits and Lures does not advertise an "unrefined" oil any more on their website. "Pure cod liver oil" only means it is not mixed with other oils. I sent them a mail about this and await a response. In the UK the thing I found that looks most unprocessed and that you can buy by the litre, a cloudy "pure cod oil" (by Ourons) with no flavourings has preservatives added. Since these are also described as "antioxidants" my guess is that they could interfere with the oxidising process. The only authenic ("unrefined") product that seems available is an artisanal Norwegian oil ("Rosita") that costs, wait for it, around $50 per 150ml! As opposed to around $15 per 1000ml for equine products. @das do you have a view whether added antioxidants are likely to spoil the oil for leatherwork purposes? Or do you know a plausible alternative to the seemingly demised JR Baits and Lures product? Thanks.

[dw]

@das is out-of-country right now. Somewhere in Eastern Europe? Doing nefarious things, no doubt. I think two weeks until he returns was the last I heard ...a day or so ago.