Bottoming techniques

[dw]

FWIW, the latest from finecraftsstudios is "Borgund (Norway), 11th century. Shoes type 10 from «Stepping through time», Olaf Goubitz."

[PhilipB1]

His shoes are for sale on Etsy, one shoe about the price of Olaf Goubitz's book. He is very highly rated.

One of the shoes I found referred to a book "Leather and Leatherworking in Anglo-Scandinavian and Medieval York", a pdf copy of which is on the internet. I've got some reading to do on this, but it's got various reconstructed shoes from around 10th-15th century including their construction.

One thing I noticed is that some but not all of these early shoes have the sole turning right up the back of the shoe (similar to a rocker heel on today's shoes). You can see it in the photos on this page: http://www.raisedheels.com/blog/?p=1126#more-1126
I wondered what this was for and why only some shoes have it? At first I thought it might be to assist with walking, but I'm also wondering if it might be some kind of substitute for a heel stiffener, or to eliminate a seam where it might potentially get worn away? Anyone know?

[nickb1]

@PhilipB1
Phil, I think you asked somewhere about making a low heel on a regular last. I've been re-reading Tim Skyrme's book where it says that if you add material to the 'ball area of the last', on the plantar side, it effectively lowers the heel of the shoe. But then you have too much internal space around the ball, so ... when the shoe is made take it off the last and put it in the shoe! Sounds very ham-fisted, but could be an interesting experiment.
N

[das]

Have a gander at Goubitz' book, but I think that extended sole, pointed up the back, was purely (mostly?) a Scandinavian feature not widely done elsewhere in Europe. As far testing first-hand how such things work or perform in real time? AKA history's mysteries. Now you're entering the world of experimental-archaeology--so make some Medieval lasts, sharpen your awls, and shout Tally Ho! And, if you're in a Medieval town that had paved streets, better make some pattens to wear over them, or you'll bruise the hell out of your feet, and soon realize why right-side-out welted shoes, adding an insole and allowing additional, thicker, outer soles took off in such a big way around 1500. And, the thicker/stiffer the shoe bottom is, the more an elevated heel adds forward "roll" propelling your gait, even if it precludes "toe walking" and induces heel-strike. IOW, how it changes the we walk.

[PhilipB1]

I ordered Goubitz's book last night. Duncan McHarg had also been suggesting I buy it.

It also occurred to me that the extended sole is just the right shape to alter the pattern of the one-piece uppers to form the heel bulb, so would produce a better fitting boot. Also worth saying that whilst the extended sole might be Scandinavian in origin, the Vikings were pretty efficient at invading and settling, taking their technology and ways of life with them; this includes much of England and quite a bit of Europe (including the Normans whom the Vikings conquered, settled, ruled over and subsequently invaded England again in 1066 - another Viking invasion). The York book makes reference to shoes found in the UK with this construction.

Re cobbles, we have country paths based on chalk and full of flints. I've tried those with thin soles and that was enough "experimental archaeology" along those lines! I fully appreciate the benefits of the welted shoes with additional out-sole.

[das]

@PhilipB1 Yes, the Vikings went everywhere, but did their pointed-up-the-back soles catch-on everywhere they went amongst other cultures, or linger after they left? Should have posted a link to our own HCC Librarian's magnum opus earlier too: http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-ca ... OEHOME.HTM

[dw]

Phil, I think you asked somewhere about making a low heel on a regular last. I've been re-reading Tim Skyrme's book where it says that if you add material to the 'ball area of the last', on the plantar side, it effectively lowers the heel of the shoe. But then you have too much internal space around the ball, so ... when the shoe is made take it off the last and put it in the shoe! Sounds very ham-fisted, but could be an interesting experiment.
N

Well, unless I am misunderstanding, I've never heard of such a thing. I really can't envision how that could possibly work... A-Z.

[nickb1]

Well, unless I am misunderstanding, I've never heard of such a thing. I really can't envision how that could possibly work... A-Z.
[/quote]

I agree, it sounds weird, but, there it is in the book. I can kind of visualise it but I guess it will alter other things, including the toe spring and creating a large thickness of leather under the balls of the feet.

[dw]

@nickb1

Well, I'm from Missouri (the Show Me state) so I'd have to see it. Bottom line...nothing about this, as it has been described so far, makes logical sense. Putting leather under the joints would do the opposite of lowering the heel height.

[nickb1]

@nickb1

Putting leather under the joints would do the opposite of lowering the heel height.

I feel as if I'm about to dig an embarrassing hole for myself, but in the spirit of devil's advocate ... Take a last and hold it in position as if a heel of the normal height for that last had been added, with the forepart touching the ground / table at the consequent point. Now move the 'heel' part downwards. The forepart must tip up, with the last pivoting somewhere behind the joint line. Adding material under the ball area would be a way of realising such a pivot. I think this is what Tim has in mind but the text doesn't go into detail.

[carsten]

Well - with this I might possibly join you in the embarrassing hole. But (excluding all other side effects) the same would happen in principle if you would remove part of the heel of the last - which results in a higher spring (higher heel of the shoe) instead of the opposite wouldn't it?

[nickb1]

Well - with this I might possibly join you in the embarrassing hole. But (excluding all other side effects) the same would happen in principle if you would remove part of the heel of the last - which results in a higher spring (higher heel of the shoe) instead of the opposite wouldn't it?

Not sure. My mind is boggling ;-) For sure it can't do the same if one is raising the heel height and the other reducing it ...

[dw]

When you lower the heel it is pivoting on the tread line, that's why the toe comes up. But if you put a build-up under the ball, all you're doing is raising the pivot point. Which, if the backpart is still attached to the forepart lifts the heel up as well. At least, if you want to preserve the relationship of backpart to the forepart.

It's two different things...if you're gonna drop the heel, why bother with putting something under the ball? Just drop the heel. A word of caution though--with build up or without, you cannot just willy-nilly lower the heel height without throwing off all kinds of relationships--the degree in the heel, the elevation of the waist relative to the back of the heel, the toe spring, the point where the ball of the foot sockets in at the treadline, how the weight of the body is distributed as it comes down the leg and is transferred to the balljoints via the calcaneous and the midfoot, the curvature at the back of the heel, the tightness or looseness of the topline in the finished shoe.

Some shoemakers may raise drop the heel a little bit...ignoring all those factors. It's generally thought that 1/4 inch either way is about the most the last can be fudged. And if there is no shank support and the original heel height of the last was minimal, maybe you can get away with it. The more structured the shoe that is being build, however, the more problematic it becomes. Whatever, it's brinkmanship and not 'best practices." IMO.

Take a piece of outsole leather, Hold the hast at heel height, put the leather under the whole last... the heel should still be at the same heel height as it was without the leather...and the relationships should remain the same--breast of heel to surface of leather as it was breast of heel to surface of table/shelf /floor.

The contours and topography of the bottom of a last, are not shaped the way they are out of whimsy.

IMO...take it FWIW.....

[dw]

@@das

You're probably as knowledgeable about this as anyone around...what's your take?

(thanks, btw)

[das]

@dw Same as you, adding leather/depth under the joints across the last bottom raises both the effective heel height and toe spring--not lowers them. I don't have Skryme's book in question to go look at--maybe it was a typo?

[nickb1]

@dw Same as you, adding leather/depth under the joints across the last bottom raises both the effective heel height and toe spring--not lowers them. I don't have Skryme's book in question to go look at--maybe it was a typo?

doesn't look like a typo! perhaps I have misunderstood, will double check.

[dw]

@das

[das]

Aye.

[nickb1]

OK I checked Tim's book and he only says this (putting stuff under the joints) *changes* the heel height. He also advises not to do it ...

[das]

Ah! Now that makes sense.

[das]

No longer have the "like" button on my reply screen???????????????????

[dw]

Well, It wasn't there early this morning but it is now...at least for me. Note that it's never there on your own posts.

[nickb1]

Never saw the 'like' button before, but now it has appeared. Mysteries of the php board ...

[dw]

No longer have the "like" button on my reply screen???????????????????

@das

Still missing? You did 'like' some posts this morning so I can't tell if it's a problem for you or not?

[PhilipB1]

Good to see the forum back up and running.

In the posts above @dw mentioned the early shoes made by the finecraftsstudios (https://www.instagram.com/finecraftsstudio/). In the shoe on this link https://www.instagram.com/p/CONPQkEnIKG/ (pictured below) there is a bead just where the upper meets the welt. Assuming this is authentic, I wondered what the bead is for and how it's done? Anyone know?