miscellaneous tips, advice, and cautions

[nickb1]

So anyway here is a "solution"(?) that I've been playing around with for a while. Mind, it is still kind of in the "developmental" stages and what is depicted here is just the latest prototype.

Using this technique, the last can be modeled to the exact measurements of the foot and, as a consequence, a perfect fit and a perfect "look" obtained...no matter what kind of shoe is being made--oxford, derby jodhpur, chelsea , with only one last for the customer.

I've been trying to get my head around this ... is this right? Since the upper is lasted around the extra thickness, not over it, the facings won't close fully when the shoe is laced on the foot. So it seems this is a more controlled way of leaving the facings slightly open when lasting the shoe. Whereas for e.g. a Chelsea boot the extra piece is simply omitted. How to decide on the dimensions of this extra piece though? And what about oxford laced boots (balmorals)? Would these require a more extended insert?

[dw]

Best way to explain it is to say that the last should measure the same as the foot. This is the only way to make a pull-on boot that fits in all the critical dimensions.

But when making shoes, if you make the last to the same measurements of the foot and then last it with the facings laced or sewn together, the facings will close up on the foot just as they were closed-up on the last.

When the shoes are worn for any length of time the leather will stretch some esp. the shoe is laced snug ...as I believe it should be. Soon you will never be able to pull the laces of the shoe snug or as close around the foot as they were initially. So some allowance must be made for the stretch of the leather during wear.

Many makers want to see roughly a one centimeter gap between the facings--I like that distance myself, some may prefer a little less or a little more.

But if you lace the shoe up, prior to lasting such that it has the facing gap, and if the cone of the last is not flat and straight, the facings will conform / curve to the shape of the cone...esp. with oxfords. That looks like crap IMO.

So, for some makers the solution is to make the last undersized in the instep and waist (?) and just last the shoe with the facings tight together.

But if you want to make a chelsea or a johdpur then you need to add material to the last to bring it back to actual foot dimensions.

It's a pain...why not make the last correctly in the first place? such that the measurements equal the foot? Then the last is good for what ever style you make.

The pieces shown in my original post are for oxfords. For Derby style shes or boots you could do much the same thing but suspect you don't need to extend it--the control relates to the last and the lasting. Up the leg the facing gap will be whatever you designed it to be if you actually measure the leg and take those measurements into account. For many years, I deliberately made lace up boots that had a relatively consistent and constant facing gap of one half inch all the way up the leg. I felt pretty good about that.

[nickb1]

Thanks @dw , I get the problem. Probably I'm being dense but I'm not yet seeing how your addition helps with this aspect though:

> if you lace the shoe up, prior to lasting such that it has the facing gap, and if the cone of the last is not flat and straight, the facings will conform / curve to the shape of the cone...esp. with oxfords.

I see that e.g. Nick Templeman's Oxfords are presented on the last with what looks only like 2-3mm of gap at the top. Perhaps the leather is pre-stretched or otherwise stiffened at the facings so it won't wear too loose? Or the last is undersized as you suggest, then built up as necessary to have different styles made.

[dw]

I see that e.g. Nick Templeman's Oxfords are presented on the last with what looks only like 2-3mm of gap at the top. Perhaps the leather is pre-stretched or otherwise stiffened at the facings so it won't wear too loose? Or the last is undersized as you suggest, then built up as necessary to have different styles made.

If the facing conform to the curve of the last over the instep, it will never 'present' correctly. It may fit OK (i dunno) but it will always have that curvein the edge of the facings.

I admire Templeman's work but I've never seen any facing gap in his shoes. That said, the leather may be pre-stretched (I doubt it) but it is pretty much a standard to reinforce the facing area with another piece of leather behind the eyelet holes. Makes no difference--the shoe will still stretch unless the owner likes all his shoes to fit like loafers.

When I use the little 'devices', the edges of the facing slip into the 'rabbet' on either side of the thick(er) wedge shape. The facings are laced tight and this snugs the edges of the facings up tight against that wedge and forces the edge to be straight.

I'm not advocating the use of such devices...I saw a problem (a very, very minor one, admittedly), I came up with a possible solution. I thought it might help some who recognize the same problem.

But that said, it's a bootmaker's solution...your mileage may vary.

[nickb1]

Ok this makes sense, thanks. The difference between just leaving a v-shaped gap (for Oxfords) and your solution is that in the latter there is some pressure imparted along the edge of the facing towards the edge of the device. I made just 2 pairs of Oxford pattern shoes so far and on the first one the laces closed after a few months, so now I'm wearing them with thick socks. On the second I left a larger gap, about 1cm at the top. The laces don't close and yes, there is a slight curving effect. Not sure how it's gone on the Balmoral boots but they had a similar gap too. I guess if part of the motivation for fully-closed is marketing, one could just take material off the shoe tree to have them closed for pictures?

[dw]

Sometimes when an oxford that has been lasted with a curve in the facings is laced over a smaller shoe tree or even over empty space, the curve remains--the shoe will never close up right. So much for marketing purposes. And either way, the curved facings can cause a buckling or distortion of the instep of the shoe.

I see shoes presented with zero gap between the facings--almost certainly lasted like that. And I see shoes presented with a gap--again almost certainly lasted that way. But I don't see very many of the latter simply because the facings are almost always curved--and it looks terrible...IMO. So, I doubt that lacing them over am undersized shoe tree is the solution...not in my experience at any rate.

All that said, British lasts in particular are a little strange, IMO...viewed in profile, the heel curve is often more like a boot last, with a very straight profile and almost no discernible 'heel cup.' The cone of the last tends to be the same way--flat and straight. I don't believe that this profile model is an accurate representation of any foot, but esp. with the cone of the last, the more the profile can be flattened (while still coming to measure) the better, in terms of how well the shoe will present.

As for the straight heel--I'm against it on lace up shoes, although it makes getting the last out of the shoe much easier.

[dgleeson]

Apologies if this is the wrong topic, I couldn't identify a more suitable one. I'm currently preparing my first set of heel stiffeners. I've soaked in water and then wrapped in newspaper and allowed to dry, instructions were to allow to dry to 80%. In my excitement I never took a dry weight of the leather, so have no way of gauging % dryness by weighing it's current state.
Anyhow, my next instruction was to remove the surface of the skin side using broken glass. After a frustrating experience trying to break glass, I now have a handful of suitable pieces (and a cut thumb!) and have started removing the skin.
However it's coming off very slowly, and what's coming off more closely resembles mud in texture than leather. It's quite gungy. My suspicion is that the leather is still too wet. Should I leave the leather to continue to dry or is the gunge to be expected when scratching the surface off mellowed leather?
I've succeeded in lightening the colour of one of the stiffeners, but the grain of the skin is still visible so I suspect I've not managed to lift enough off yet.

[dw]

Usually, if you let veg tanned leather come back to a 'dry' appearance, that's about right. If you press it or hammer it and water comes out of the leather, it's too wet.

If the scrapings are like mud, it's probably at least a little too wet. That said, scraping it in that condition, while not ideal, will not hurt the leather.

[dgleeson]

Thanks dw, that's helpful. In the end I left it out overnight to dry, I suspect I've probably left it out too long now and gone too dry. It's in the fridge at the moment and I'll see how it fairs tonight when I return to the scraping.

All part of the learning experience...

[dgleeson]

Rather a dumb question from me here...
I'm currently learning hand welted construction, but having never done anything similar before my skills are non existent. Thus each new technique I learn, I inevitably botch it the first time or two before getting the hang of it.

This has lead me to be concerned for my beautiful premade uppers & Bakers insole and soling leather which I'm a little uneasy ruining on my first pair. Particularly when I'm unsure whether the adaptations I've made to the last will result in a good fit.

So my current plan is to make a sacrificial trial shoe in lower quality materials, so that I learn the painful lessons on less valuable materials. Ideally I'd like the trial shoe to be wearable but if I totally ruin it, it's not as great a loss as losing the good materials. Currently thinking of an unlined Chukka to cut down on stitching time as I'll need to hand sew the upper (no machine).

My issue is that I have detailed instructional videos on handwelted construction, but I don't know what the options are for something more basic (perhaps involving a lot of glue). Is stitchdown construction a good choice here? Or perhaps people can share their experience of "quicker" construction methods that dont's require high quality insole leather.

[dw]

You're on the right track with the trial shoe. A couple of thoughts, however (and they are thoughts/observations--generalized not personal):

First, if it were me, I'd build the trial shoe in the same pattern as I intend the final shoe. Second, I would handwelt the trial shoe.

You're right--it will take more work and time...esp. if you don't have a sewing machine. But think about what you're doing or trying to do. Aren't you trying to learn shoemaking? How do you learn? How does anyone learn esp. if you have no teacher? The answer is you learn by doing.

All learning and, by extension, all skill is rooted in/founded upon practice.

If, ultimately, you want to make an oxford, your trial shoe should be an oxford. That way you not only practice the skills you need to make an oxford, and, at least incrementally, refine those skills, you get insights into how an oxford is put together, how it is supposed to sit on the last, how it fit, etc.. More importantly, you discover the surprises and pitfalls that await you before you commit to the good leather.

In a sense, you're are rushing things if you're skipping over the tedious and onerous parts. Taking shortcuts. Doing that only establishes certain parts of the process as onerous and tedious and forever locks you into that perception. And in skipping over parts (even if you are already wonderfully skilled) you lose or miss out on the very lessons you need to work with certainty and mastery. If you don't learn to sharpen a knife, for instance...really sharpen it well (that's only learnt by practice) you will never develop the fine hand movement or wrist control or the audio and visual clues that you get from learning to sharpen a knife...and that are critical parts of other processes and other techniques. Not the least of which is clicking itself.

You lose nothing by handwelting even if it is only a practice run...nothing except time. And if you don't have the time--time to learn; time to do it 'right', time to reinforce the muscle memory of how tight to pull a stitch, etc., what do you have time for? "Speed kills"--It kills mastery, it kills quality, it kills nuance, it kills appreciation of the materials, it kills the reason to make shoes by hand in the first place. Most of all, it kills mindfulness.

I tell my students "do it again...and be grateful for the practice."

[dgleeson]

Thanks dw, really appreciate the reply, and I'm totally on board with the ethos of it. Indeed, I've no issues with the time aspect, I understand these skills can only be learned by "doing" and my interest in shoe making is primarily in the doing I.e. it's the process of learning how to make a pair that motivates me rather than the final product. So I totally agree there's no substitute for sinking in the hours to learn the necessary skills.

But perhaps I have too much respect for the raw materials? Essentially I look at the pre-made immaculate uppers I have, the insole leather, and the soling leather and I think "hey this material costs a lot of money... am I going to make a nice pair of shoes out of it!?" And honestly for my first attempt I think that's surely unlikely!? So my hesitation is more centred on preserving the "good stuff" until I've had a shot at it with more expendable materials.

I can certainly see how making a different pattern could be unhelpful, but unfortunately the final pair is based on a "pre-closed" upper which I've bought.
I can make a fitting pair with this upper I think, by lasting it onto the insole and using some sort of holding stich (prior to trimming the insole), in order to gauge fit but I'd thought that maybe making some sort of "quicker construction" trial shoe that I could walk about in would give me more complete feedback on how the last fits my foot?

[dw]

@dgleeson

Well, I do believe and teach it that you can't be afraid of your materials.

But at the same time if you have pre-made uppers that are very high end, I would think that would be yet another good reason to make a pair of oxfords out of lesser quality leathers first. To understand, and iron out the kinks, and up your skill a bit more. And that way you'd end up with two pair of oxfords and a more than commensurate increase in skill.

That's the way I'd do...that's the way I did do it, many times.

[carsten]

@dgleeson except for the forum also I did not have a teacher and did not get a chance to make a course. So I can somewhat relate to your thoughts. On my journey of shoemaking I was talking to different shoemakers, that do shoemaking as a living. Some told me making uppers is an entirely different profession and shoe makers don´t do that anymore, some use shoemaker knifes, others cutter knifes, some use simply bees wax as a hand wax others break their head about a good recipe, some sew with needles others with bristles. So there are various perspectives out there, some of which are not best practice and it is difficult to sort them out without a good guide.

I e.g. used to think what is the big deal about the Tina knifes and knife sharpening? Cutter knifes were not available to the old masters, are professionally made and are sharp, so why waste my time with sharpening and not simply use those?

Even though I had always sharped our kitchen knifes, I had to learn that I never knew how sharp a knife can be, until saw an old master effortlessly sharpening his shoemaker knife and shaving the hairs of his arm with it - something I was never able to do before, because I did not know that it was possible, so I had always stopped sharpening them when they were still fairly dull and therefore did not provide an advantage over the cutter knife.

Now I know how to do it and only use shoemaker knifes. Meanwhile skiving the leather is like cutting through butter, whereby the edges have improved significantly. So although maybe @dw ´s answer was maybe not the one I was looking for, when I was at your point, I do think by now that patience is really rewarded in shoemaking. Having a pre-made upper is a good reference point, which I would try achieve making my own upper.

For what it is worth: Since almost nobody knows anything about shoes anymore, I made the experience, that even a flawed shoe can still be a rewarding success when you wear it. Nobody notices the flaws except yourself. Maybe I am wrong, but If you look what commercial shoes are on the market, I suspect one discovers not all of them are perfect either. Good thing is that leather shoes do last long so, sinking another week of work into them is not so much if you compare it to their lifespan.

[das]

DW did a wonderful job of describing how this all ebbs and flows, I have very little to add except: if your immediate goal is merely to test the fit of a new or unknown last before sacrificing your pre-made uppers, we do often make a "test-fitter" shoe. These are much as you describe, just cheap (unlined) upper leather and a cement construction in sole and heel. You may also use them to test out your actual cutting-pattern when in doubt, or just make a simple 1-piece upper, with only a back seam and a slit down the instep to add some lace holes. They're only good for maybe 15 mins wear before they stretch out, but you can mark on them where your foot and last don't agree, or poke holes through the upper with a sharp awl to mark the last reinserted inside where an adjustment is needed, etc. While "test fitters" don't build shoemaking skills per se, except maybe for accurate lasting of uppers and getting the sequential pulls down, they are an accepted way to pre-test a last for a good fit or needed adjustment before committing to making wearable shoes on it. I actually adopted the use of "test fitters" from DW 25-30 years ago, and have taught all of my apprentices to make them whenever necessary. No matter how excellent your uppers, other materials, and hand-sewing are, or develop into, with any shoe the "last shall be first" and fit is everything IOW.

[dw]

One further point that, pardon me, might be a little awkward--if you make a pair of shoes from scratch the patterns need to be made from the last. Derived from the last, and all the measurements you've built into the last. That's a somewhat unique but critical perspective--"the last comes first." Using a pre-built set of vamps is putting the cart before the horse as who should say.

Consider (my commitment as a teacher is to help students and others who are interested not just to do the work but understand how to think about it) what you might learn by patterning the shoe off the last. So much...so much.

And then, if you build the shoe from your own patterns, so much more.

Almost as important, when you are done you will know, without question, who the shoemaker is.

[dgleeson]

I e.g. used to think what is the big deal about the Tina knifes and knife sharpening? Cutter knifes were not available to the old masters, are professionally made and are sharp, so why waste my time with sharpening and not simply use those?

Even though I had always sharped our kitchen knifes, I had to learn that I never knew how sharp a knife can be, until saw an old master effortlessly sharpening his shoemaker knife and shaving the hairs of his arm with it - something I was never able to do before, because I did not know that it was possible, so I had always stopped sharpening them when they were still fairly dull and therefore did not provide an advantage over the cutter knife.

Now I know how to do it and only use shoemaker knifes. Meanwhile skiving the leather is like cutting through butter, whereby the edges have improved significantly. So although maybe @dw ´s answer was maybe not the one I was looking for, when I was at your point, I do think by now that patience is really rewarded in shoemaking. Having a pre-made upper is a good reference point, which I would try achieve making my own upper.

My knife sharpening is certainly something that needs work, but not for want of trying! I've got the knife much sharper than any of my kitchen knives... but sharp enough to shave is a distant dream! I'm considering investing in a set of water stones as I think I've hit a limit with the method I'd originally learned (I've a board with a sandpaper like substance on one side, and a leather strop with compound on the other). Patience is luckily one of the few virtues I can claim, lacking in natural aptitudes for pretty much anything I've long learned the values of slow and steady.... I'll get there eventually with the knife sharpening and hopefully the ancillary skills!

DW did a wonderful job of describing how this all ebbs and flows, I have very little to add except: if your immediate goal is merely to test the fit of a new or unknown last before sacrificing your pre-made uppers, we do often make a "test-fitter" shoe. These are much as you describe, just cheap (unlined) upper leather and a cement construction in sole and heel. You may also use them to test out your actual cutting-pattern when in doubt, or just make a simple 1-piece upper, with only a back seam and a slit down the instep to add some lace holes. They're only good for maybe 15 mins wear before they stretch out, but you can mark on them where your foot and last don't agree, or poke holes through the upper with a sharp awl to mark the last reinserted inside where an adjustment is needed, etc. While "test fitters" don't build shoemaking skills per se, except maybe for accurate lasting of uppers and getting the sequential pulls down, they are an accepted way to pre-test a last for a good fit or needed adjustment before committing to making wearable shoes on it. I actually adopted the use of "test fitters" from DW 25-30 years ago, and have taught all of my apprentices to make them whenever necessary. No matter how excellent your uppers, other materials, and hand-sewing are, or develop into, with any shoe the "last shall be first" and fit is everything IOW.

Thanks das, that's precisely my main concern, I don't know how well my last will fit and so I'm a little hesitant to "ruin" the uppers before I've a better idea. I did try on a pair of shoes made on the same last, so I know the original last to be too roomy across the forepart of the foot, but too tight on the small and large toes. I've made adjustments to the last, but having never done this before I've no idea if they've improved fit. A futher benefit of a trial / fitter shoe would be to practice the lasting pulls on some lesser leather before tackling the good uppers.

I've a couple of questions though if I may? What is it that causes the unlined fitter shoe to stretch out after 15 minutes wear? Is it simply the quality of the leather? Also, are you aware of any article or resource that describes the construction of such a shoe? Primarily how the upper is attached to the insole and what bits need gluing vs stitching.

One further point that, pardon me, might be a little awkward--if you make a pair of shoes from scratch the patterns need to be made from the last. Derived from the last, and all the measurements you've built into the last. That's a somewhat unique but critical perspective--"the last comes first." Using a pre-built set of vamps is putting the cart before the horse as who should say.

Consider (my commitment as a teacher is to help students and others who are interested not just to do the work but understand how to think about it) what you might learn by patterning the shoe off the last. So much...so much.

And then, if you build the shoe from your own patterns, so much more.

Almost as important, when you are done you will know, without question, who the shoemaker is.

The uppers I have were indeed made for my last, although I have made some adjustments to the last, hopefully they will not have affected things too much. When making a bespoke pair, would you typically need to remake the pattern after adjusting the last following a test/fitter pair?
I definitely agree on developing your own patterns to round out the learning, that's a little bit why I was hoping to do a trial shoe was to get some practice with that side of things as well. I have a copy of the Tim Skyrme book and the Frank Jones pattern cutting book, and have been studying both ahead of making the cut and ordering some leather.

[dgleeson]

You're on the right track with the trial shoe. A couple of thoughts, however (and they are thoughts/observations--generalized not personal):

First, if it were me, I'd build the trial shoe in the same pattern as I intend the final shoe. Second, I would handwelt the trial shoe.

I'm curious also DW about why you'd handwelt the trial shoe? Aside from the time involved, I was under the impression that in order to cut the holdfast into the insole I required insole leather of sufficient quality. I have enough of this for a single pair, so will inevitably be needing more at some stage. My thinking was that if I acquired some lower quality (i.e. cheaper) insole leather for the trial shoe it wouldn't be an issue as I was going to use some form of cemented construction. In that way I don't "waste" the good quality leather on the trial shoe.

[dw]

Well, I wouldn't use my prime Baker shoulder for trial shoes. And in fact when I make what I call 'fitter's models' (same thing as your trial shoe), I do cement construction, partial lining, and a throw-away outsole--every thing is throw-away, in fact, except the insole.

But I have been making shoes and boots for 50+ years. I was only suggesting that you hand welt because at the stage of the game you're in, you can only gain from practice/experience...ie.: "Be grateful for the practice."

And for what it's worth, many European and Japanese makers (high end makers) make what is fundamentally a complete and high end shoe--good to excellent quality uppers, full linings, toe and heel stiffeners, and handwelting. And then cut the shoes up during the fitting to see how the heel of the foot fills the heel seat, where the medial ball joint sockets in the shoe, and where the toes lie relative to the edge of the insole, etc.. That suggest (at least) that even these highly skilled makers see some continuing benefit in 'running the whole course.' In 'practice.

Not written in stone.

[das]

@dgleeson From what you say here, I'd go with a "test fitter" entirely out of lesser "throw away" materials to verify the last's fit before using your good pre-made upper. These are 100% un-lined, no stiffeners, etc., which is why the uppers stretch out after a little wear around the shop--tailors call similar trial garments a "sloper" or a "muslin", just to test their pattern and fit on the customer before cutting into the best "goods" the suit will actually be made from. Any book that illustrates cemented construction will guide you fine here, just omit nailing heel, cement them on.

DW, School me here, I've never known any makers (in the UK at least) who make such elaborate, fully-functional test fitter shoes, then cut them apart. Nor remember reading of such a thing in any of the old 20thc texts. It wasn't until we got together and into the weeds on Western bootmaking, actually, that I ever heard of such a practice outside of tailoring ("slopers" & "muslins"). Having now done it for a few decades myself, it's a handy thing, but as far as I can tell it's a New World innovation in shoe or bootmaking?

[dw]

@das I don't think it's a 'new world' thing at all. I don't know of any makers, this side of the pond that do that. In fact, just making a fitters model is considered 'cheating' or somehow less than 'manly' in some circles.

But I see these cut trial shoes on Styleforum and on Instagram fairly regularly.

I have to admit that I tend towards the 'tough guy' approach myself and don't see the necessity of cutting a shoe apart...provided the measuring and fitting system is coherent and logic based and the maker has hands to feel. But there are makers out there that are even more persnickety that I am.

BTW, I don't feel qualified to school you on anything...not really.

[das]

Maybe some of the makers on Style Forum might tell us about the Old World origins? How widespread is making test fitters in the custom cowboy boot world?

[dw]

How widespread is making test fitters in the custom cowboy boot world?

AFAIK, I was ahead of the curve with 'fitter's models' in the Western Boot community. (To some insignificant but lingering derision).

To this day, the only cowboy bootmakers I know of that consistently use fitter's models are myself and some of my students.

So...I dunno...

[das]

And you learned it from.....?

[dw]

Either I just came up with it...or I picked up the idea from shoemakers. It was half a lifetime ago.