One "Last" Question

[das]

OK, first the nomenclature:

Shovers were used for high-legged pull-on boots only, and extended from the last's island down the instep all the way to the toe. Why? It's much harder to slip a last from a high-legged boot than a shoe, so added air-space was needed.

Instep leathers were used for lower shoes of all sorts, and only extended from the last's island to just below the joint line.

Lasts using either are termed "comb lasts"--solid, one-piece forms, cut rather low, flat and "dead" on top from the island to the joint line to allow for the bulk on top to be provided by these fittings (shover or instep leather)

Shovers and instep leathers were used back before two-piece "(scoop) block lasts" came in c.1810. They effectively turned the (one-piece) last onto a two-piece form to both ease slipping it from the boot or shoe, and to enable the same last to be used for multiple girths/widths for making ready-made or bespoke.

[nickb1]

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.

But in these cases are you not "treeing the tops" afterwards?
(I read you as saying that one could make pull-on ankle (or higher) boots on regular shoe lasts (ie not lasts with a high cone), with no shovers, without treeing the tops afterwards, so long as the patterns are good, incorporating the pass line correctly, correctly lasted etc.)
Not an entirely academic question as I have 2 pairs of Chelsea boots lined up for which I was planning to stick shovers onto the lasts.
Thanks,
Nick

[dw]

But in these cases are you not "treeing the tops" afterwards?
(I read you as saying that one could make pull-on ankle (or higher) boots on regular shoe lasts (ie not lasts with a high cone), with no shovers, without treeing the tops afterwards, so long as the patterns are good, incorporating the pass line correctly, correctly lasted etc.)
Not an entirely academic question as I have 2 pairs of Chelsea boots lined up for which I was planning to stick shovers onto the lasts.
Thanks,
Nick

Allow me to clarify my statements...

I have never made a pair of pull-on boots (unless you count Jodhpurs or Chelseas) on a shoe last; I have never made a pair of pull-on boots (unless you count Jodhpurs or Chelseas) without treeing them.

I always tree the pull on boots i make. They are side seamed, wellington style boots. And I always make them on boot lasts.

I never use an extension or a build up on the 'comb' of the last--that area of the last that runs from the top of the cone to the top of the heel--regardless of whether I am making a pull-on boot or a lace-up shoe. I never use and extension or build up on any footwear that I make.

I have been told that pull-on boots can be made on shoe lasts...using the same methods that i use. And with no extension on the comb of the last (what I want to call a 'comb-extention' and what I think you are calling a 'shover'). I have no experience doing this. I have no way to gainsay it. I have to accept the possibility. Whether the results would be recognizable to my eyes (or acceptable) is another question. Just as whether the results of my not using the extension of the comb is acceptable to yours.

But are English style riding (pull-on) boots made with lasts that are notably different than shoe lasts? Can they be?

In some respects, a last is a last--if the measurements are correct, including the short heel and the long heel and the high and low instep girths, there should be no problems...in theory. If only because...as I have tried to point out, getting all those parameters to synchronize is a delicate balancing act. If the instep girths are correct but the long and short heel measurements are not, the boot will not fit and may not even go on. Or be loose.

If all these measurements are: First, actually taken, and Second, accorded the respect they warrant, and Third, modeled into the last so that all are correct, the shape of the last should be not be significantly different from a 'boot last' which shares all the same measurements. This is why I think it somewhat less than "best practices" to not factor in the short and long heel and several measurements in the instep area...even if the shoe is to be a lace-up. And it's also why I think it remiss to ignore the short and/or long heel even when making low quarter shoes. I feel compelled to remind the reader that just because a customer can get his foot into a shoe or boot doesn't mean it fits. Maybe so, maybe no. But if, when a shoe is laced snugly on the foot, there is excess or the shoe cannot be laced any tighter (because the facing are butting up against one another), the shoe doesn't fit...by my definition, at least. Period. YMMV

Aside from the curvature of the heel, I suspect that what we call a boot last differs from a shoe last primarily for aesthetic reasons--to open up the throat of the boot. Perhaps the 'waist' or arch of the last is 'lifted' a bit more than typical shoe lasts. And that may make a significant difference...I dunno. I suspect it might make getting into the boot a little easier.

Can a loafer be made on a last styled for an oxford? I've seen it done.

All that said, and my druthers aside...there may be many roads to it but there is only one mountain.

[dw]

I have to say one other thing here in reference to your questions at the Independent shoemakers conference.... even though it may appear at first glance to have nothing to do with lasts--

One thing I know for sure is that here are any number of different ways to make boots and shoes. Some may be easier, some may yield more certain results, and others simply address styling and lines etc..

I tell all my prospective students to study the shoes of makers they admire, and to listen to the reasons that a maker may have for doing something one way or the other.

Then choose one approach...one...and pursue it until you understand it and can more or less duplicate what you're seeing and what you like. Don't 'mix and match'. That's a sure road to frustration. Conferences and Guild meeting are great for a lot of reasons but the least reason is for learning and understanding really well. We come away with our heads full of ideas and if we are accomplished enough (or maybe just set in our ways enough) sometimes we can incorporate some of those ideas into our own making. But mostly not. IMO, it takes a certain already established mastery before you can really benefit and do that melding.

If you like the straight back look of some lace-up shoes...look to that maker for how to do it and why. If you like a lace-up boot to fit the natural curves of the foot in the heel and Achilles tendon area, look to Thornton and Patrick and...above all, don't try to conflate one 'system' with another.

If you like and understand the reasons for a build-up on the cone and heel of a last--a 'comb-extension'--go for it. As you may have guessed from what I've said, I don't see or understand the rationale.

Particularly, given where you live and the people you're talking to, I suspect you will find yourself a bit of a pariah if you choose to do it another way. That's been my experience to some extent. At the very least you'll have like-minded comrades to talk to, whose minds and rationales you understand or which resonate for you.

It all comes down to that. Finding a process that works and meets all your standards for beauty and fit and so forth. And sticking with it.

FWIW...IMO...YMMV

[PhilipB1]

Can a loafer be made on a last styled for an oxford? I've seen it done.

How do you last a loafer on an oxford last (and make it fit)?

[dw]

I asked first.

Like I've said, I've seen it done. (although I can't remember where). But if the long heel is correct and the waist is correct, why wouldn't it fit? I suppose you might have to thin the comb a little, depending on the last.

[PhilipB1]

I thought the question was rhetorical and you were about to spill the beans...

[dw]

I thought the question was rhetorical and you were about to spill the beans...

Well, it was rhetorical in a way. I am pretty sure it can be done and I am pretty sure I could do it. That said, I never have. I don't know what would be involved but I suspect long heel and H-B and just about everything we've been talking about would be.

Sorry to disappoint...

[nickb1]

If you like and understand the reasons for a build-up on the cone and heel of a last--a 'comb-extension'--go for it. As you may have guessed from what I've said, I don't see or understand the rationale.

Particularly, given where you live and the people you're talking to, I suspect you will find yourself a bit of a pariah if you choose to do it another way. That's been my experience to some extent.

Thanks for the advice... but ... a couple of things! Firstly, I don't really understand the rationale for the build-ups. So I can either follow the crowd or try to figure things out. I've never been one for purely following the crowd. In the meantime I'll continue to use them just to be on the safe side, given I can see a rationale in a sort of margin of error kind of way.
Secondly, I;ve already hinted at this, but I've always been tempted to swim against the stream when I have doubts about where the stream is heading. In my day job this has indeed resulted in something of pariah status - not quite but let's say I have inadvertently offended people sometimes at personal and professional cost. Looking back, I wouldn't do it any other way, it would have been false of me not to say and do as I did, though I could have been more mindful of the risks.
One of the things I like about HCC and your posts in particular @dw is the willingness to question things and work them out from something like first principles. There are several things I do differently to what I was first taught, some picked up from subsequent teachers and the rest from this forum. I feel we have lost a lot of traditional knowledge, much of which existed as an oral tradition / practice. Given that, it's not necessarily disrespecting traditional knowledge to depart from what one was taught. Just one example: I no longer score (groove) the welt before sewing. A guy did this by accident in an evening class. The teacher's response was "well where are the stitches going to go?" He had no choice but to continue in that vein and it was fine. The teacher then asked around and found there were some professional makers not scoring the welt, and who said not to do so as it may weaken it. From that point on he stopped scoring the welt. The default is and must be to do as taught, however, but not unquestioningly.
At the moment my theory for build-ups for low / ankle boots made on shoe lasts is that they are there as a safety net to ensure you can get your foot in given various mistakes that can be made. Perhaps prompted by the division of labour common over here between pattern makers, closers and shoemakers and frequent use of outworkers. It was opined at the conference by someone that ought to know that this division was encouraged not only so that each operation could be expertly conducted, but to make it harder for folks to set up independently. An implication of this theory is that there won't be a clear rationale for the build-ups. I'm also still curious to know whether or not they feature in any of the older texts.
Another question I raised (at the conference last weekend), prompted by this forum, was about the contemporary vs traditional currying of veg tanned uppers. Nobody seemed to know much about it. I didn't want to labour the point because people are inevitably sensitive about questions raised re. things they make a living from, and veg tanned uppers are now 'in vogue'. This is why seemingly technical questions in e.g. agriculture quickly become ideological. But it seems to me these things need to be raised ... ;-)

[dw]

Understood...

Several probably gratuitous comments:

First, I make my own welt (as many do) and I do groove it. Probably a lingering influence of repairing shoes both before and after i learned to make. Most makers (around) the world are using AP to mount outsoles. I wish I didn't but "if wishes were horses..." and when it comes time to replace the outsole, it is very difficult to separate the outsole from the welt. Many makers carefully insert a short bladed knife in-between the welt and the outsole and cut the embedded stitches. If the inseam is proud of the flesh surface of the welt it is extremely vulnerable. I suspect the welt also flattens a little easier if it is grooved.

The outworker system is a bit of a conundrum, IMO. On one hand, there is no question that it keeps people employed and and that it can produce some fine work. On the other hand perhaps some of those being employed might not actually be employable in any other context.

I am not surprised at the idea that it discourages people from setting up independently. Nor that there probably is no clear rationale for the comb extensions. Even in the most ideal situation--where every maker in a factory accepts and works from the same "first principles" (I like that concept and terminology)--there will be variations and differences in both perspective and approach. Even under the best of circumstances, if there is no clear 'shoemaker' there can be no clear vision or rationale. It would, almost by default, come down to "my mentor did it that way so that's the way we're gonna do it."

And that brings me to the thing that puzzles me the most: In an outworker system, who is the shoemaker? From my perspective, the outworker system looks indistinguishable from a deconstructed factory. Great for the system, great for turning out more shoes than might otherwise be made but, IMO, not so great for either nurturing the skills of the individual, nor for ensuring that the Trade itself, is preserved or even respected.

If no one makes the whole shoe from start to finish, it begs the question: "Can anyone make the whole shoe from start to finish?" Who is the shoemaker, IOW?

And that question begs another(or so it seems to me): If a firm, or more to the point, an individual maker wins a competition or gains some sort of recognition for his or her work...work that he may not have done entirely...is the recognition deserved? Or more specifically, is it more appropriate to recognize the whole team? Maybe every prizework award ought to be legion--six blue ribbons instead of just one.

It is a question that I think deserves to be answered, but in my experience, few want to ask. Much less contemplate.

IMO...FWIW...YMMV

[nickb1]

If the inseam is proud of the flesh surface of the welt it is extremely vulnerable. I suspect the welt also flattens a little easier if it is grooved.

So ... there is a rationale for scoring the welt!
OK, I'm tempted to re-reconsider ... Yes, the sole stitches will be very close to the welt stitches, so you are right, especially if it's likely the shoes will be repaired by someone else who is oblivious to the fact you did not groove the welt.

Concerning veg tanned uppers, do you curry them yourself as @das has done, or apply some particular finish to help water resistance?

[dw]

Not sure what the word "curry" means in this context. Is it some sort of Indian stew?

I don't use as much veg tan uppers as @das does, although I would use more if it were more available over here. That said, I don't do much to them that i wouldn't do to a chrome tan upper. That said, most of the vegtan I've seen and used, has been made to look like chrome to one extent or the other. Some of it even has a finish already on it.

Again, I'm not knowledgeable enough to make worthwhile comments. @das is probably your guy.

[nickb1]

As far as I'm aware it means dressing the leather with oils or other fats after tanning. Was mostly done with cod or whale oil and mutton tallow, which then oxidised and bonded to the fibres. Now seems to be almost universally done with rape seed oil, which washes out, does not oxidise or bond, according to @das, and is therefore not as good a processing ...
And yes it's also an "Indian stew" or Anglicised version thereof which I will be enjoying this evening hopefully ...
N

[dw]

So...not fond of curry but that's just me.

I figured as much but when you visit other forums and see posts by people who are not shoemakers or who are neophytes, all to often you see words bandied about incorrectly (been guilty of it myself).

I used to dress my insoles with warn lanolin and occasionally with cod oil.

But uppers? No...unless they are meant strictly for work or casual. The veg I see or use is usually intended as a 'dress' leather. So i don't want the oil residue on the leather where it would interfere with waxes and polishing.

[nickb1]

That makes sense. But leaves me wondering. How, back in the day, when veg tanned uppers were all that was on offer, they treated the leather after tanning for dress shoes and boots? Maybe @das knows? For personal use I wear dress type shoes for work but also cycle to work in them etc, and have to stomp around quite a large campus so they are exposed to the elements quite a lot. If I were to use veg tanned uppers I'd be interested in experimenting with cod oil, as suggested elsewhere on the forum.

[das]

All I can toss out here, the longest-lived 100% veg-tanned uppers leather in use before and after the introduction of chrome-tanned leathers in the 1880s was "waxed calf", and in the UK it was curried with cod oil and sheep's tallow from around the kidneys (harder). 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

[nickb1]

Well, that looks like quite a book...

[das]

Deep into the weeds you go

[nickb1]

If you like and understand the reasons for a build-up on the cone and heel of a last--a 'comb-extension'--go for it. As you may have guessed from what I've said, I don't see or understand the rationale.

Particularly, given where you live and the people you're talking to, I suspect you will find yourself a bit of a pariah if you choose to do it another way. That's been my experience to some extent.

@PhilipB1 @das
Newsflash: here it is from the West End:
Dominic Casey is a bespoke maker who does everything apart from raise the beast and tan the leather (patterns, uppers, lasts, bottom making). "If you cut the patterns properly and block the vamp, no need for shovers on the lasts."
So, "shovers", sensu build-ups on shoe lasts for boots, are really only for margin of error it seems?

[dw]

Dominic Casey... "If you cut the patterns properly and block the vamp, no need for shovers on the lasts."

Bears repeating....

[SharonKudrle]

For Boots?

[dw]

For boots...in my opinion / experience as well.

[Amasiah]

hello i'm searching for an ankle boot pattern with 2 straps instead of laces for men or for a free software that would allow me to make one,

[deadfisheyes]

I recently switched from using the hinge last to the removable cone last. Embarrassing question here, but how do you put the removable cone last back into the shoes?

[carsten]

Not sure if this is the correct way but I have used a metal shank as a lever to push it in, where the inside of the heel stiffener is the counter point of the lever. Like this I got the last back in without damaging the heel section. I also saw sombedody using an extra thick custom made steel shoe horn.