DW,
I'd admire your tenacity, and am enjoying the fact that just because we're not on the same page with this, our conversation is not degenerating into a "is so!", "is not" skirmish of biblical proportions. What distinguished old snabs we are, able to flail away with such grace and gentility
First, let me say that I agree, Swaysland's two diagrams, showing the foot in a "bind" are *not* perfect, nor do they capture exactly what *I* see either. But, because I don't have drawing software, I can't draw my own illustrations. Let's look at your drawing: I *agree* that the foot can present itself to the bootleg in that position, momentarily, going on, but in my boots [those you made as well as my own], the foot is only at that extreme pointed position, briefly, a little further up in the leg, not so far in. By the time my toes would touch the insole as you've shown, my foot has relaxed back nearer its "L" shape. Also, where you show the foot presenting itself with the short-heel dimension going straight across the leg, I'm not saying "no", just that in what I've been observing pulling my boots on over the weekend, the bootleg is tight to the middle cuneiform, tight to the shin, tight to the bulge of the heel, but there is a little air-space at the high-instep, Hass point--IOW, it's not tight across the short-heel dimension, nor is my foot that pointed, that far into the foot of the boot. If I could draw it, I'd draw something that is somewhere between yours and Swaysland's--tight at instep, heel, and shin, but with air-space at the high-instep/Hass point. I'm not seeing the relevance of the "pocket" *below* the bulge of the heel, since by the time the foot moves another inch or so down, it's no longer fully pointed, and would require another diagram--besides by then we *agree*[?] that the bootleg is *smaller* than the SH
===================
"If they were...well, no wonder their boots were too wide in the leg! [ big grin ]"
==================
Let's not jump to conclusions here, nor convict without a trial. I said *Golding* gives me too loose a fit at the small, but I haven't put Swaysland 1891, or Swaysland 1905 to the ultimate test yet. In Plucknett's discussions, *he* says obviously Swaysland's 1891 system generated a very tight ankle, difficult to get on, and probably explained his [Swaysland's] revisions in 1905 to enlarge the area, while retaining the diagonal plug-ins: reducing the distance between the passlines, using the short-heel, *plus* an inch, rather than net, etc.
=======================
"And the boot itself is depicted as lifeless. It looks rigid. So in both of these illustrations we have feet that seem to bear only passing resemblance to real feet, wedged into rigid tubes with only a passing resemblance to real boots. [huh? ]"
=======================
I tend to agree with you here, from an art-critic point of view, except for the fact that at it's maximum extension, the foot *is*, effectively, a rigid object because it won't compress any further, it won't bend any further, it's just "stuck" *if* the leg's too small. Of course bootlegs can, some of them, stretch-out, deform, or be supple enough to ooch on like silk stockings a bit at a time. With baby powder for lubricant, and boot hooks, even first thing in the AM before they swell, feet *can* be forced into a very tight boot; but at this phase we're only talking about the standards and patterns. If the finished boot is going to be grain-in [i.e., slippery], 4 oz. buttery waxed calf, unlined, or if it's got good "draft" [i.e. elasticity--some will expand and contract 1/2" to 1" at the small], we can cut them even tighter still, but that has more to do with allowances added/deducted later, *after* the basic standard has been designed.
===================
"You may be correct. I am sure the case could be made, in any regard."
===================
I sure hope so
====================
"why not simplify the task and use a formula based strictly on the SH and plugged in perpendicular to the centerline of the leg? It works."
====================
This is exactly the simplification Golding [and Patrick apparently] *did* do--they abandoned diagonals. And, my whole line in inquiry started with Golding, who *only* uses perpendiculars to lay out the small, the results of which were too loose for my taste [and Lee Miller seemed to find the same]. Rees starts us out with geometric pattern design in 1813, with diagonals, and the taste for much tighter-fitting boots than have been seen in almost two centuries--sans zippers that is. Diagonal design-lines, or passlines, stay with us right up to c.1900, and even more recently with Sharp. Obviously there were two schools of thought here: the "diagonal school", evolved from Rees, and the tight-as-humanly-possibly "close boots", and the "perpendicular school", which is a relative late-comer on the scene, and which does not seem geared towards giving tight-as-humanly-possibly results, *without* fudging by adding or subtracting fixed amounts like +/- 1/2", 3/4", or even 1". It follows, in my mind at this point, rather than doing all of this adding-to/subtracting-from, maybe the net SH will work just fine *if* plugged in at a diagonal. The reason you achieve such a good, tight, fit at the ankle is because you add to or subtract from the foot's SH girth when perpendicular--you've made a "reduction" judgment-call. What if you could get the same results, or maybe better, by using the foot's SH, net, plugged-in at an angle? Your additions and subtractions, as fixed amounts, don't change for a size 4, or a size 14, do they? Do you get the exact same fit at 4 and 14 as you do around 9?
I buy your "bug" about how high the boot breaks, BTW, and will add that the higher it beaks at the instep [crimp point at tongue, etc.], the sooner the toes and the foot will "turn the corner" there and enter the vamp, and the sooner the foot will begin to right itself, so the "faster" the small of the bootleg can neck-in. A person with a low instep has the advantage getting their foot down a tight leg easier, but if the last is fitted low, to correspond with their foot, the break point will be lower [i.e., closer to the insole, not further down the instep], so it will take longer before their foot begins to right itself entering the vamp. And you're right, so much of this has to do simply with the type of boot being designed. The higher the topline at the counter, the higher the line of tension along lines F-H, or H-I--there is no give along the line of stitching--so, the lower the topline of the counter, etc., the easier it is to force into. Your boots, or even a backseamed boot with a 2" counter-height under the ankle, can be cut tighter there than one of Janne's with 3" to 4" high counters, for just this reason.