[This message was moved from The Art and Mysterie to inaugurate a new sub topic. --Admin]

It seems to me that this section of our colloquy is for Full Wellingtons, and I have to say this style boot is interesting, to say the least.
But, could we also use this section for a discussion of the Tejas Boot? There are only 7 references to this style boot on the search and really no discussions of the features or construction.
I am about to finish my first attempt at this style and would like to hear from all who make it. I made it to fit myself, a size 12, so not danty, by any means.
DW, I really appreciate the help you were to me awhile back on the phone concerning the Tejas. I know I'd never have gotten this far without your help. And where was that picture you showed last spring of the Tejas with the exemplary back seam? I can't find it!

I expect to be inseaming and bottoming on Monday, but then I will be getting started on a pair that will entail alot of carving and coloring.

I'm encouraged by my results so far. Who else makes this style, and is willing to contribute to the discussion? Any of you old pros?

PK

Paul,

I'm not expert on this style of boot. I do it. And sometimes I do it really well. But I've never given it my full attention and I'm less sure about it than I am my dress wellingtons. Bear in mind, however, that the Hollywood style boot is conceptually very similar, if not identical to, the English riding boot. So, there is a wealth of information out there...both at home and abroad. Now we only need to lure the true professionals into range and we'll descend on them like crows on roadkill and pick their brains clean. Bwahahahaha !! [That's a joke, people!]


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Paul & All,

Personally I'm quite fascinated by the Tejas boot in so much as it does parallel the back-strap boots. If you've read all the variations on pattering and fitting English riding boots discussed on here [somewhere]--pass-lines, how tight can you get the ankle, etc.--I don't think it would hurt to toss the Tejas in too.

Seems to me that for "English" [no matter where they're made] riding boots, the patterning starts with that cut in mind; whereas the Tejas is derived from the side-seamed wellington cut, just all the draft reductions are moved to the back seam. From what I see this does affect the cut and fit of the boot, and the results are often trimmer and "tighter" looking than the bog-simple "English" pattern.

One guy in Virginia would like to see ya'all out west weigh in on this, post some patterns, and chew over the fine points. I'll take notes

DW,

Not to belabor the dreaded "Orange Peel", but if a slip of paper X" long wraps around the heel of a last, ending exactly at two spots each side [like the side-seam]; if you cut a piece of 5oz. to the same length, it won't reach the spots. Then, if you cut a piece of soling, and lay the same piece of 5oz. on top, it will fall even shorter. The up-shot: allowances have to be made for the thickness of the uppers, plus the thickness of the stiffener. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Remember the postings a year or so back? How long a strip of material does it take to cover a 3" dia. pipe? It's longer than 3" as its thickness increases.

Al,

Re: Orange peel effect. Agreed. But I acknowledged, about four posts ago, that the thickness of the heel stiffener would affect the final location of certain elements of the shoe/boot. A thicker heel stiffener will surely affect where the ends of the tabs lie. What I'm not so sure of is whether the relative thickness of the heel stiffener will affect the *fit.*

When you design a shoe with a lining you have to design the quarter lining different than the quarter itself....because of the orange peel effect. You have to design with the thickness of the heel stiffener in mind otherwise you'll end up with a lot of surplus army goods in the leather that covers the heel stiffener.

When you design a pull-on boot...at least the way I was taught, and, I suspect many cowboy bootmakers do...the patterns we have, usually have the orange peel effect implied. For instance, if you design a paper top pattern to measurements that you know will work (important point), and then cut both top and top liner to those exact measurements...and *then*...assemble the tops inside out, for one reason or another the orange peel effect becomes virtually moot. And without significant features such as tabs, etc., to locate with any precision (the vamp of a boot is essentially featureless), why worry? The fit won't be affected.

Then again, if you always use the same thickness of heel stiffener (within an iron or two) what discrepancies do exist in the location of such features as toe stitching, or foxing, etc, will be almost negligible and easily compensated for. What I'm getting at, as sidebar to my main point about fit, is that whatever effects that the "dreaded orange peel effect" has on shoes is either already built into the patterns for boots or beside the point.

Alright, that's *my* story and *I'm* sticking to *it* except to say one thing...I don't know squat about making shoes compared to you and some others posting here. So take what I'm saying with a large grain of salt.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

Ah the "fit". I see. Yes I agree--the last controls the container-shape or interior volume no matter whether the pattern allows extra for the thicknesses, "Orange Peel", etc.

My point was, regarding the "wow" we're seeing in some boots, is that the finished boot legs may not be big enough for the lasts [or trees], because of the accumulating thicknesses of leather. The last remains constant, but the thicker the aggregate uppers are--same pattern--the harder it will be to get them around a given last, hence the potential for over-straining the leather and pulling seams, etc., out of whack.

On second look at your green boot, the "wow" seems to happen right where the outside portion of the pull strap is brought through to the inside making a nice lump. Because of that lump inside, the leather of the boot-leg wants to bridge...that is, using a traditional "fitting tree" that's solid underneath.

I know the Mallory stretchers well BTW, and because there's no "wood:" [aluminum] down the open gap at the side, it throws my whole theory here into a cocked hat, except for maybe the 19th c. boots that "wow". Opps

DW,

"The Immanence and Glamour", how cool is that! Great sub-heading title. I just hope all my boots of this style will be worthy of posting on such a lofty site.

Al,

I guess you've given me some more 'search' words to use on the archives. Thank you, I will. I'm really all questions at this point, but I tried approaching the making of the top pattern from Koleff's Dress Knee Boot instructions, and it seemed to me that the tops were going to be huge! I guess I lacked confidence in my understanding of the instructions. However your acknowledgement of the 'trimmer and tighter' look of the Tejas over the English styles seems to confirm my concerns, but I remain open.

DW,

From what I understood from your instructions, what I've done in my own case is to use the SH + 1/2" at the Pass line 3" above the throat line, and SH -3/4" at the Throat line. (I've got my fingers crossed here.) Since the boots are only 10" tall, I just followed this line up from the throat line measurement with a slight curve touching the Pass line mark and continuing up to my 10" top line. This top line is much greater than my leg measure at 10", but, of course, I was going to have to get my SH past that point, so it could be no smaller that, eh? It worked out to 15 7/8" while my SH is 14 3/4".
You said I just need to dive in and make a pair. So I have. So far so good. I'll post a picture of my 'try boots' shortly. The soles are drying!

PK

Paul,

Well, off the top of my head, I believe that's the same set of measurements I use. Sounds like you have the general idea with regards the top and the back seam I usually run a straight line from the top down to the passline. Fundamentally, I am trying to configure the final shape of the top so that my trees will give the boot a crisp straight shaft from the top down to roughly the passline area and then the tops will suck in at the sides (that draft in the tops will "move" around to the sides" to give the boot a "waisted" look in the throat.

Something to think about...if the boots don't sit quite right on the cone of the last, either adjust how wide you cut your tongues or how wide you spread them when you mount them on the top. Do that before you change the top formula.

Looking forward to seeing a pic!


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Al,

I see your point about "discovering" a "wow" while treeing. My question would be...I seem to remember some folk here actually cutting their tops undersize and then treeing them to size. I don't do that...for good or ill...my patterns are actually created with critical measurements already built in as well as allowances for seams etc.. What's more I tree just to bring the top leather to taut. I never tree the boots to stretch the tops.

So...in comparison...wouldn't the chances of creating a wow be greater if you cut the tops undersize?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

It was just a theory

So, here are three shots of my first Tejas (I prefer Tejas to Hollywood in a single word reference, if you don't mind). I hope it's OK to post the pics here for ease of observation.

{image}
{image}
{image}

They fit! And, what's more, they go on with that "POP!" we all listen for. However refinement is obviously necessary. My biggest concern at this moment is the fact that my customer is asking for a 14" boot! Carved and colored! That's how we come to this style in the first place. So therefore it'll be laced top and back rather than stitched up the back. (That's why I practiced the lace up the back on these. Seems like there needs to be a binding at the junction of the piping here but it doesn't apply to the first next pair so that's a problem I can address later.)

Now as to my concern. DW, I think you might have addressed it when you mentioned 'treeing'. On this next pair the calf measures at 17 3/4" and that's gonna make for a big flair at the back seam. Is treeing what'll eliminate that and bring the 'draft' around to the sides as you mentioned? This pair of my own are a little uncomfortable at the top line, but then I'm not accustomed to wearing a 10" boot. (Even the 10" White's that I work in I don't lace up all the way.)

As to your other point to watch for, how the boot sits on the cone of the last, I don't know if I totally understand everything about the tongue and it's relationship to the cone at this point, but I did take care to lay the tongue on the lines created by the template from your patterns. That seemed to result in the necessary amount of fullness at the high instep for my foot at least. Is that what you're talking about. (I've been meaning to ask for more information on this subject, but I don't want it to get lost in everything else I need to know right now.)

There are questions about assembly also but I'll hold back for now.

PK

Hey! Where's the pictures? Dang it! Here's another try.

Paul,

Hey! I wish my first pair had been that good!! Not too shabby, my friend. And they look like they're sitting on the last just about right, too.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Al,

I know...but it's *all* theory, isn't it? I mean, I've yet to meet anyone who actually has been to the top of the Mount and reeived the "Word" firsthand.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,
Thank you for the compliments. They only look as they do because of your generous instructions.

I've still got the concern of the size of the customers calves in relation to the treeing you spoke of a couple of posts ago. I've attached the pattern for his tops.


As you can see the back seam really flares out compared to the other picture of my top pattern. (These are half patterns, obviously).

If I understood you properly, when the boots are put on the trees, I'll be able to shift the 'center line' and bring the draft around to the sides so that all the calf measure is not located at the back. Is that correct? If so, then do you think I need to make allowance for that in the curve of the top line? Be cause that'll shift too, raising up at the back, right? And I'd want to dampen them some too wouldn't I?

This first pair is not as extreme, and it doesn't impact the centering of the boot much. But I'm sure the taller tops with bigger calf measure will.
I look forward to your reply,
Thank you, PK

Paul,

No problem...glad I could help.

With regard to treeing the tops...when I lay out the pattern for the tops, I find the center of my layout and use that line as the reference point for the top line. In other words, I do not draw in a line perpendicular to the center fold and call it the "top line." As you mentioned, that will make your tops tree out higher in the rear than in the front.

In fact, I design all elements, ornamental or otherwise, off that center line.

Hope that helps.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Paul,

With regard to the top line on a stovepipe top: two photos that might help a bit...the first is the pattern itself. This shows the slight raising of the topline we talked about.

The second shows the boots almost fully closed. Notice that what almost looks out of place on the pattern is "of a piece" in the "finished" boot.





Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Paul,

BTW, if you look closely at the top of the pattern on the right hand side, you can see the "original" top line--at a 90 degree angle to the centerline...

Hope this helps...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,
Well you certainly have a nice clean, flat top to your stove pipe. Which makes me think I'm doing something wrong.
As for the center line buisness, and my design pattern, only the family crest needs to be 'level' or 'centered'. And that doesn't seem to present any complications, as it will be directly over the tongue. The rest of the design is 'organic'.
However, your top line is much different than mine.

Considering how yours looks with that contour, I'm not so sure about my own, now. But when I tape the back and open up the 'cylinder' it sits flat on the bench, with no peaks. Is mine going to be much higher on the sides.
What am I not aware of?
PK

Paul,

quote
Is mine going to be much higher on the sides.
What am I not aware of?
/quote

Probably not. Depends on what you're looking for/at, I suppose. What I'm doing is sort of optical illusion. I think that a stovepipe top that rises just slightly in the front and back looks flatter than a similar top that doesn't rise. Again, I think it's optical illusion. I also slightly "french" the breast of my heels--cut them slightly concave. To my eye, it looks straighter than if they actually were cut straight.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

I get it. I don't know what I'll do with it just yet. But for now, you can bet, I'll at least be chewin' on it.
Thanks for your interest.
PK

I was talking to Al recently and the topic of the recent movie "Master and Commander" came up. While trying to find a good picture of the shoes for the crew I found this and thought I'd toss it out in case there was any interest. Any idea who made them? How accurate they are?

Marc

Marc
I'm going to stick my neck WAY out here and say that I think the boots are pretty accurate but on the wrong feet. For all its myriad faults as history - don't even ask! - the producers spent a lot of bucks on props and costumes, hired a lot of period craftsmen from the re-enacting/living history community and got them generally right. [See the Yahoo "War of 1812" for a REALLY exhaustive autopsy, if you're interested. ]

Dress regs for the Royal Navy called for buckled shoes but the boots are a standard gentleman's riding boot from the period, often seen with a lighter coloured top cuff. Presumably a captain could get away with wearing "sea boots" if he wanted to and certainly, Crowe is "badly dressed" in other ways: waistcoat showing, stock loose, and so on. This, of course, is 'cause he da star, not 'cause the advisors got it wrong. The constant curse of the movies for historians: "WE know it's not what you (tech/historical advisor) say is right, but it's the look we want." Grin, gnash teeth and cash cheque.

My tuppence worth
Peter Monahan (1812 cobbler)

Curiously, from what I'm told "badly dressed" is a pretty good description of the character of John Aubrey from the books, so it might not be entirely Crowe's doing. And thank you, I went through the archives for "War of 1812" group last night - the major critique was fascinating.

Marc

Hi, I'm curious about the "Master and Commander" boot shown above.
1) How is this boot closed? What kind of machine can be used to close this kind of boot and exactly what kind of seam is it.
2) When and how is the counter stitched in?
3) What is the historical/functional purpose of the top cuff. I can't imagine that it is only cosmetic.
Thanks for any infomation. I'm a beginner and I'm working my way through D.W. Frommer's book and about to last my first pair - but I'd really like to try making a pair of equestrian boots someday.
Tom Mickel

Thomas

I'm going to stick my neck out - again - on your M&C boot query. Master Sagudo will steer us right if I err. The boot Crowe wears is based on a very popular style of riding boot from the period and, yes, the top is just cosmetic.

t had been the custom in an earlier time for horsemen to wear up to and over the knee boots which could be turned down when they were forced to "hoof it" themselves. This would show a lining, perhaps in a contrasting colour.

By 1812 the boots are far too tight to do this and the construction of the boots makes it impossible to turn the cuff up, but the style was there. Called "buff tops" they seem to have varied from a real white - for dandies who never rode, I surmise - to a variety of buff and browns which contrasted with the black boot. I think coloured -other than black - boots were a largely Continental abberation. I suppose the top cuff might have helped them wear but that was almost certainly a bonus, not a plan.

I mention this because I've gotten a number of orders from fellow "living historians" (re-enactors)who want regular top boots retro-fitted with buff tops so they can look spiffy on the field and in camp .

These boots were always closed by hand and may still be by purists (Messer Sagudo?). The ones I know of being made up here in Canada are mostly McKay stitched, so they only look right if you don't pick them up.

Hope this all helps.
Peter Monahan, cobbler to the nobs