Tools of the Trade

[homeboy]

Dee-Dubb,

Are you turning that "angled" bevel with a burnisher?
Thanks for sharing!

Adios, Jake

[dw]

Homie,

Yes.

Wish I had a bigger burnishing tool, but the one I have seems to work.

I think the key is that when you sharpen or 'join' the edge, you have to hone off the burr that the bastard mill file creates. You can't just use it 'as is' or turn the edge at that point. Simply because that burr is a bit ragged. So hone that burr off and then turn the edge. I suspect it is the only way to get a clean, sharp scraping edge.

I will say that I am inclined to use glass for scraping the grain surface of an outsole but only because the glass is not as aggressive as the steel...at least in my experience so far. That said the steel is fine for the coarser fibers of end grain, such as on stacked heels, and will leave the same sort of 'polished' surface as glass.

[dw]

Study in black and white.

Maker made steel scraper.

1) 'Planing" off the tops of lemon wood pegs. If you look closely you can see the shavings.

20190524_091013_2 (1024 x 768).jpg

2) Sharp enough to remove the scratches in a Vibram toplift--that's the 'black' material towards the middle of the scraper.

20190524_095900_2 (1024 x 768).jpg

[dw]

Yesterday, while burnishing the edge of a Lee Valley cabinet scraper that I rediscovered in the back of a drawer, I was holding one end of the burnishing tool and got my finger too close to the side of the scraper. The 'turned' edge cut me like slicing roast beef. Didn't matter that the turned edge was only .5mm wide, just a casual pass cut right through all the callus to at least 2mm in depth.

"It will cut!"

I guess that's one drawback of a steel scraper...it can be very sharp--as sharp as a razor blade.

After all these years using broken glass, who knew?

[dw]

More scraper love:

20190530_080547_2.jpg

20190530_075950_2.jpg

[nickb1]

Picked up the below on ebay described as an "antique cobbler's stamp". Looks very old to me judging by the handle, older than other tools I've picked up from late 19th - early 20th century. I'm reluctant to hit it too hard with a regular hammer, so would use a rubber one for this. Still makes reasonably crisp markings in a kind of flowering plant pattern. @das, could this be one of the stamps used to cover tack holes on the soles and heels of 18th century shoes, as described in Garsault (47A, 47B, p246)? Apologies for poor picture quality.

stamp.jpg

stamp2.jpg

[das]

Looks to me to more likely be a bookbinder's(?) stamping tool, used for heated embossing/tooling. Shoe stamps are generally symmetrical designs, asterisks, concentric rings, etc. and made to withstand a tap from a hammer.

[nickb1]

Ah well, it was cheap and still makes a nice pattern ;-)

[nickb1]

It makes sense that that the shoe stamps would be symmetric, since it would be difficult to get multiple stamps with this properly aligned. Resulting in a mess...
N

[nickb1]

But, for myself, the fudging looks too mechanical and not "bespoke' enough.

This is what I had in mind just now over on the other thread. Do you still think it looks too mechanical, when done perfectly? I agree pricking should be structurally better too and this is more important. I also know that without a lot more practice I'm going to get "babies" a lot (ugly double markings) a lot with the fudge wheel. they can be boned out but it's hard not to leave traces. Also some stitches come out different widths than others and there's no way to allow for this with the wheel. Re. technique of stitch pricking, I sensed on the last pair that I might need a thinner stitch pricker if I was to attempt more than 12 spi, as there is not much between the stitches that is left unmarked by the tool. Do you use different ones for different spi?

[dw]

@nickb1

Well, for me, the better part of wisdom is to view the context of such comments before I contradict myself again

And having done that, I guess I just have to point out that the discussion (and my opinion as expressed...lo these many years ago) was a bit more complicated than just about appearance. Yes, that was part of the issue but not all of it. And yes, my opinion...after all these years has evolved a bit.

When fudging is done well, it's a perfectly acceptable look and I've seen some truly fine examples of it. But the whole thing about heating the fudge leads to not running the wheel all the way up next to the vamp and that leaves a gap between the vamp and the ridges made by the wheel. Doesn't that look a little, oh, I don't know, 'incomplete'?

Point is, I'm not sure the two things are inseparable.

The only other thing I would say is to once again reiterate that in virtually every instance what factories and machines are doing is trying to imitate what has been done by hand. Sometimes acceptably, sometimes only to the extent that it deceives the customer. GoodYear welting looks like Handwelting(deliberately so--masquerading as) but falls short of the structural integrity and quality that has characterized bespoke shoes since the 16th century.

In the same context, I'm not against an expediency when it doesn't materially alter the end results--the quality.

For instance, so many young shoemakers pick up replaceable blade knives (Exacto) and never put them down. To the extent that the blades are replaced often there is, on some level, no harm nor foul in that. But almost invariably those that rely on Exacto knives never really and truly learn to sharpen a knife. And because they never learn to sharpen a knife, the forfeit the perception--sound and vision, and the tactile control and refinement that come with mastering the skill of sharpening a knife correctly. And that bleeds over into the actual clicking and skiving, etc., regardless of the knife used simply because the motor skills haven't been honed much less the knife.

From my point of view, it's all of a piece--there's nothing really contradictory about any of it.

And FWIW, I use machines and hand tools and so forth...when I can and when the work calls for it. But I know how to sharpen a knife (I never use exacto knife) and even though I will use a skiving machine ever now and again, I know how to skive by hand and in fact regard the machine as incapable of doing as fine a job as I can by hand.

I'm not advocating some sort of 'purity' but rather a perspective and philosophy that puts the human perspective and human sensibilities first. For me that's the only way any of this makes any sense--to realize that machines can only copy. Can only pretend to something they can never be.

But in doing so, they all too often rob us of, not our ability to see (recognize and appreciate), but our incentive to do.

And having said that...I recognize that not everyone will agree--it's just my opinion albeit one steeped in over half a century of experience. YMMV.

[dw]

Here are some photos for your consideration:

This is a pricked up welt...one of mine (from a very, very long time ago:

prickedup2.jpg

Here's another of mine:



And another...not mine:

pricked up.jpeg

Here's a fudge job that bears no relation at all to the stitches:

fudging no sense.jpeg

And another fudged example that illustrates the gap between the fudging and the vamp.

fudge disconnect.jpeg

These are all from high end makers (well excepting the first) and I repeat, I've seen some really, really good fudging, That said, even in a relative vacuum for comparison, the pricked up shoes look a lot cleaner and 'more perfect' to my eyes than the fudged examples.

FWIW...

[nickb1]

@dw Your own examples are good ones to consider, thanks. The opposite of rough making, but not mechanical looking either.
For example, if I look at the top one long enough I can see that not everything is "exactly" the same width, but nor should it be if the stitches are not "exactly" the same width. At first glance they do look the same though. I can't help but find the effect more appealing than if they were all exactly the same width. In which case you could stare at it as long as you liked and not "find anything" really. (As an aside I'm reminded of what David Hockney said about painting versus photography. In painting he says if you look hard enough you can "see" the time that went into studying, composition and working up to the finished object. Which is why he found photomontage more interesting than straight photography, because time is brought back in.)
In aiming to do the stitches and pricking though, we are sort of aiming to get them "the same", and that's how it should be or they will look roughly made. In which case, is there not something paradoxical here? If one succeeded in what one is aiming at, getting them all the same, it would not "look hand made" any more, which was my worry about the Fukuda example. So perhaps one is not aiming to get them exactly the same? Maybe only as similar as is humanly possible with some natural variation? Perhaps if I had the Fukuda example to hand I could see it was hand made after all, and it would be revealed as all the more appealing for it.
Perhaps I have had too much scotch at this point, or rather bourbon ;-)
On the not going up to the vamp, I see Viktor Schesniuk is selling a stitch pricker designed only to prick up the welt immediately surrounding the stitch, so going neither to the back nor the front area of the welt.
In your examples the separating line between the stitches looks very fine - as I said I don;t think I can use mine at more than 12 spi. I guess if you have too thin a tool though you risk damaging the welt - how do you get this balance right?
N

[dw]

@nickb1 Well, for me at least, getting it as perfect as possible by hand is the whole point. "As possible" will vary according to the skills of the maker.

I think the crux of the matter is not to make machine standards the 'gold standard.' I mention this...I dwell on it, I rant about it...because I suspect for most consumers it already is.

I occasionally look in on another forum--a very high end men's wear forum--and until about five + years ago, a good many of the most respected members really had no inkling about the differences between GYW and HW. Most considered GYW the epitome of Traditional shoemaking and the pinnacle of quality in men's shoes. Ignorance, yes. But it behooves us to remember that ignorance is lack of knowledge and nothing more. These people...most of society come to that...were so captivated by the PR and the hype bandied about by cachet brand manufacturers (virtually all of whom make GYW shoes and tout them as "highest quality" and "traditional craftsmanship") that they never even considered there might be something else. They had bought into...as almost all of us do to one extent or another...what I call the 'factory mentality" Bought in lock stock and barrel.

And when we buy into the hype and the pretense and the deceit, even to, maybe especially to, the point of deceiving ourselves, we lose the ability to see and appreciate objective quality. Or excellence...when it is presented to us.

All that may sound a bit contradictory but it's not really. And the real point is that when we are seeking quality...whether it be as a maker or as a consumer...it's not good enough to absolve "rough work" as charming or somehow excusable because it's "hand made."

Once upon a time shoemakers did 64 stitches per inch, by eye and by hand on both uppers and welt. And it was not only damn near perfect, there was/is no machine that can come close...and no machine standard to compare it to.

[nickb1]

I think the crux of the matter is not to make machine standards the 'gold standard.' I mention this...I dwell on it, I rant about it...because I suspect for most consumers it already is.

For sure. I've seen a bit of the discussion on Styleforum and am convinced by your arguments that GYW is structurally inferior. I wouldn't want to make e.g. spi the demarcation for handmade however, as suppose someone did come up with a machine capable of doing e.g. 80 spi.? It would be brave to claim this is impossible as an engineering feat, (probably it's in no-one's interests to pursue it however). That argument is in that respect a hostage to fortune, it seems to me. What machines can't ever do IMHO is exercise e.g. judgement, care or taste - I don't buy that "artificial intelligence" is really intelligence, ultimately it's a biological matter. Accordingly, when you see this in a piece of work you get the sense of connection with a maker. It's judgement and care to make the stitch pricker align each stitch according to its specific characteristics.
It's an enjoyable theme, but venturing to discuss it with you, after having made a mere 6 pair of shoes (and a pair of prototype 'flip flops'), I get the feeling that I am all mouth and should spend more time making not musing! So I'm going to get on and make my girlfriend some flip flops. Imperfectly for sure... Incredibly people charge $300 for leather flip flops. Which makes me think if I can figure out a way to hand make them in a few hours this would not be a bad thing to master.
Best,
Nick

[dw]

There's an old saying: "The teacher learns twice." Meaning that when you articulate a technique or a thought process or even a point of view, you distill it and clarify it in your own mind. And in the process, you add to, or deepen, your own understanding.

I suppose I (we) could go on and on. Every time I post one of these, I mull on what has been said for hours, sometimes days; and always some other point or some additional nuance/ understanding comes bubbling to the surface.

So thanks for the discussion.

[nickb1]

Likewise; a very enjoyable and worthwhile discussion thanks. I''ll be pondering how best to characterise the appeal of handmade without falling into the folksy trap of "the charm of rough work".

[dw]

Well, briefly...it's just different. Every machine made article is a clone of another. Endlessly--ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Hand made is always a little different. Not necessarily irregular or crude or rough. Mastery is in the recognition and appreciation of details (spacing of stitching, alignment of pricking, etc.)--it's 'hand made' not 'home made.'

[carsten]

There are probably lots of drawbacks about it, but so far (being a hobbyist), I have built up my workshop by buying used machines. Once I saw that someone posts an add, that a shoemaker workshop is getting dissolved, that’s where I would go and get my tools. Usually the kids of a deceased shoemaker would sell the stuff, not knowing anything about it and be happy to get rid of everything. So, I usually raked in some extra tools that I did not intend to buy in the first place. Here are some that I picked up, which I don´t really understand what they are good for. Assuming they are all for shoemaking, that is.....

IMG_20200819_103615.jpg

First, I picked up some 280 tina knifes that are toothed. The previous owner hat at least 5-6 of them with teeth cut into the blade this way, so he was surely using them rather often and for a special purpose. The only thing I can come up with is that this might be used for cutting the hard outsole, since the Rodi circular knife also has teeth. Does that make sense?

20200819_104349(4).jpg

Second, this tool looks a bit like an edge trimmer, but exhibits no cutting blade what so ever. I therefore think that this might be a tool used for pricking the welt. However, from what I gathered so far, these have only one dull blade that is pressed into the welt where the thread goes through the welt. This one, however has two dull ridges, leaving two parallel lines in the leather if pressed into it. But in this case it could be only used for one certain spi. For smoothing an edge I think it might not be well suited, because of how the ridges are aligned to the handle.

IMG_20200819_103744.jpg

Third, I found this tool providing three holes. I wonder if it was used to guide an awl and / or aligning the stitches along the welt, when sewing on the outsole in the right distance from the upper? But then why would the third hole go through it diagonally?

IMG_20200819_103818.jpg

And the last tool is quite long and has a spring loaded bold, which drives through a hole. My guess it is that it might be used to drive nails into the heel. Put the nail into the hole, set the tip of the tool in the right position and drive the nail into the heel by hammering the back of the tool so that the piston launches the nail into the leather, while the shaft guides the nail to keep it straight. But then again, I would think that this is always easier, holding the nail with the fingers in the first place.

I guess the Tine knife I could always get back to a regular blade, but is it worth keeping any of the tools? So far I have not used them at all – I wonder if I am missing something.

IMG_20200819_103851.jpg

Last question: how do I sharpen an edge trimmer like this one?

Any input greatly appreciated. Thanks, Carsten

[dw]

First, I picked up some 280 tina knifes that are toothed. The previous owner hat at least 5-6 of them with teeth cut into the blade this way, so he was surely using them rather often and for a special purpose. The only thing I can come up with is that this might be used for cutting the hard outsole, since the Rodi circular knife also has teeth. Does that make sense?

No idea. Maybe @das could identify their use?

Second, this tool looks a bit like an edge trimmer, but exhibits no cutting blade what so ever. I therefore think that this might be a tool used for pricking the welt. However, from what I gathered so far, these have only one dull blade that is pressed into the welt where the thread goes through the welt. This one, however has two dull ridges, leaving two parallel lines in the leather if pressed into it. But in this case it could be only used for one certain spi. For smoothing an edge I think it might not be well suited, because of how the ridges are aligned to the handle.

I'd vote for stitch prick--they were made as doubles to set widths--ie. 10 spi etc..

And the last tool is quite long and has a spring loaded bold, which drives through a hole. My guess it is that it might be used to drive nails into the heel. Put the nail into the hole, set the tip of the tool in the right position and drive the nail into the heel by hammering the back of the tool so that the piston launches the nail into the leather, while the shaft guides the nail to keep it straight. But then again, I would think that this is always easier, holding the nail with the fingers in the first place.

Good chance you're correct. As good a guess as any, I suppose. Esp. on women's wooden heel blocks, it is sometimes it is hard to nail into the insole and heel block through the heel and esp. with wood blocks impossible to nail from the outsole.

Last question: how do I sharpen an edge trimmer like this one?

You can buy 'thread' of varying diameters that is impregnated with carbide grit. I don't remember what it is called but almost any industrial tool outlet (Grainger?) will know. I've always made my own by waxing some stitcher thread or even parcel twine and then rubbing it across a dry Norton sharpening stone. Make sure that it is taut and, of course, pull the tool along the twine in one direction only.

[carsten]

Last question: how do I sharpen an edge trimmer like this one?

You can buy 'thread' of varying diameters that is impregnated with carbide grit. I don't remember what it is called but almost any industrial tool outlet (Grainger?) will know. I've always made my own by waxing some stitcher thread or even parcel twine and then rubbing it across a dry Norton sharpening stone. Make sure that it is taut and, of course, pull the tool along the twine in one direction only.

Thank you DW - this is very helpful!

[dw]

Thank you DW - this is very helpful!

Yr. Hmb. Svt.

[nickb1]

Regarding awls, I've not been able to find the ideal "mushroom" shaped ones at a reasonable price till now, but I see Victor Shesniuk has started selling them at Starko tools. However, it's quite easy to modify a nasty-shaped Barnsley awl to achieve the nicer rounded end, just with a bit of scrap insole or soling leather:

awls.jpg

The middle one has the original flat profile that digs into the hand, which can cause nerve damage. With the rounded end I can push harder and the awl is going clean through the holdfast without much effort, and no pain at all. A costless tweak with some glue and skiving and it's all so much easier ...

[carsten]

One secret solved.

Further up in post viewtopic.php?p=42992#p42992. There is a tool having three holes, one of which is going diagonally through the tool.

Thanks to Gav Nicola (https://www.instagram.com/gav_nicola/?hl=en) now I know what this tool is good for: Making leather shoelaces.

One hole cuts the thong, and the one opposite of the cutting hole is supposedly for polishing the thong after waxing it. Maybe the other two on the wide side can help to bring the laces into an even round shape.

This thing has spent years useless in my toolchest, now finally I know what to do with it.

[carsten]

@nickb1 posted further up at post: viewtopic.php?p=42906#p42906 an embossing tool and occasionally I see people posting other heated embossing tools for decorative purposes on Instagram, so I though why not design my own branding stamp to mark my uppers.

Before I get scolded : I don't expect this to be the best treatment of upper leather but I thought to give it a try.

Except for decorating the heel section I don't remember seeing much embossed work on uppers and now I got a feeling why that is so: nicely branded areas almost vanish if the upper is lasted damp. In my case I tried to put the branding (of 2,5cm diameter) on the facings in a distance of 2-3 cm to the lacing holes.

Is there any trick that can be applied to keep the branding in tact during lasting or are there types of leather better suited for his purpose than others? Hot branding after lasting does not seem to be a good idea, because the surface is no longer flat.

Thanks, Carsten