Bottoming techniques

[das]

Yes, I miss the "thumbs up/like" button, but it may be a buggy feature. Looks like a typical 16th/early 17thc welt. The "bead" as you call it forms because the insole has no feather, just a square-cut edge, and the welt, made of thinner uppers-weight leather, just rolls into that configuration because of the way it lays. Goubitz illustrates this form of early welt well in exploded diagrams BTW in 'Stepping Through Time'.

[carsten]

If I am not mistaken it looks similar to a "Bozen" - welt from Minke. Such leather welts being sold prefabricated at: http://shop.minke.de/de/?cat=c284_Rahmen-rahmen.html

[PhilipB1]

I've got the thumbs up button. Never had it before.

@das Thanks. My copy of Stepping Through Time arrived the other day, so still much to read. I've managed to find the picture of the welt construction. I'm wondering about trying it - Is it a good construction, suitable for modern day use?

[das]

@carsten I'm not on Instagram, so cannot go look further at the shoe, but it's welt looks structural/functional. The Minke "Bozen" welt on that page looks like the kind you cement in "for looks" (i.e false welt), not structural welts sewn then stitched with sole.? Your PM is "on hold" in the system and not viewable yet.

[das]

@PhilipB1 Hope Goubtiz gives you many hours of enjoyable reading and gazing at those wonderful drawings. That 16thc form of welt was a dead end on the family tree of shoe construction in the "early modern" era. I've made them on repros when appropriate, but as for functionality IMO the thicker, flat, modern welt's best, as is the insole with the tapered feather around the edge, inset holdfast back from the edge, acts as a spring allowing the uppers to flex upward gently at the juncture with the welt-sewing, not strain and pull right at the sewing stitches as the earlier one does.

[carsten]

@das You are right, a lot of the welts from Minke are just for looks. The Bozen and some others, however are full leather welts and (I think) can be used for regular sewing as well: Here is what came out when I tried to sew it. The other welt is leather as well an carries some fudged pattern- which I did not use yet.

Not sure about the PM - I think it should be out by now. I only wanted to suggest to clear the cache of your browser. Maybe that brings back the likes/Thumbs up option in your replies.

[das]

@carsten Ah. Now I see what you mean, but I'm still pretty sure the shoes Philip posted have the rolly 16th welt construction creating the "bead" effect.

[PhilipB1]

@das Thanks for the advice. I will follow it. From my so far relatively light browsing of Stepping Through Time, I can see lots of shoes and techniques that look interesting so it's good to know which to avoid.

I also wanted to ask about the bottoming technique on a pair of red shoes I posted in #174 of "Historic techniques and Materials" pages a while back http://www.thehcc.org/forum/viewtopic.p ... 973#p42973. Can you enlighten me what construction they would have?

[das]

@PhilipB1 Lots of the historical construction "work" fine, but not as well as hand-sewn-welted c.1900 IMO. Those red babies are in Northampton Central Museum, have examined them personally. They're made turnshoe with covered heels. June Swann calls them "possibly seaside wear", from Antony House, Cornwall.

[Amasiah]

i have an shank issue... how to avoid the shank from pushin through the inside of the shoe
i have as an insole a very thick and stiff leather but it's not enough to avoid that...
should i use a different material as an insole or just the way i fill between the shank and the midsole would be the problem?
i'm just starting out and tried 2-3 things but always have the same issue!

[dw]

Post a photo. Given what you describe i cannot imagine what is causing the problem. I've never had anything close.

[Amasiah]

you can see a bit... though not clearly but you can definetly feel the shank through the insole and i use some pretty thick leather...

[dw]

Well, we need to see the shank--how it's shaped, how it's mounted in the bottom construction, etc..

Beyond that I have to say that the insole looks like it is curling and wrinkled. It looks flimsy to me. I use 9 iron insole shoulder (veg tanned like outsole but unrolled) although I have, on occasion, used 6 iron. If the shank (what's it made of, what does it look like?) is bent to the shape of the bottom of the last I don't know how it could be felt by the foot.

[PhilipB1]

@das Thanks for the information about the red shoes a couple of weeks back.

I wanted to ask about heel stiffeners. I'm wondering how thick I need to make them and what they are really for. Sorry if this is a naive question.

Historically heel stiffeners appear to have started being used from around the 11 Century. Initially it looks like they were whip stitched - I would guess without paste - is that right? - and I assume if no paste, then the heel had quite a bit of flexibility? So why did it become important to stiffener the heel?

Making dress shoes, I'm pasting several mm of carefully skived shoulder (usually) between lining and upper, which makes for a very stiff heel. But I wondered why we have such a stiff shoe heel?

I've got commercial chukka boots made of Kudu, where the heel is only stiffened with an additional layer of Kudu. The heel is pretty flexible, but very comfortable and I have no difficulty going for long walks in them. I've also got a pair of canvas shoes where the heel comprises two layers of canvas which are not at all stiff (and which can be folded down to make a slip on shoe if required). Again (surprisingly to me), these seem to be fine for walking in, including cross-country (with the heel up).

I can see that the you don't want the heel to stretch otherwise you loose the fit, but I'd be interested in any thoughts as to why heel stiffeners became so stiff, what the purpose of the heel stiffener really is, and how much stiffening we actually need.

[das]

@PhilipB1 All very good questions, but over several centuries equally hard to explain in brief. Heel stiffeners vary widely from minimal to barely internal backstraps whipped-in, or low side linings round the heel, Medieval to early-modern, and come and go in frequency of use. Before the 1500s shoes were made inside out then turned (turnshoe), which affected not only the type, but thickness of the uppers and any internal stiffeners. In the late 1600s when the "early modern" shoe develops fully, and welted construction(s) dominate, plus settle down into an orthodoxy, uppers thickness begins to steadily increase, commonly one single layer of stout "waxed calf". Late 1600s-1700s heel stiffeners took several forms, or were omitted altogether--rarely if ever the large "D" shaped things we insert/paste between the lining and fashion layer, nor are anywhere near as thick/rigid as we make from insole flanks or outsole bellies today.

Having made and worn 18th century buckled shoes on nearly a daily basis for 30+ years, when made of firm veg-tanned waxed calf (grain inward so there's no friction from the stocking foot pushing the quarters down), and fitted correctly, I've found no real advantage to any heel stiffeners or lining bits--they neither tend to sag back there or get that "beef roll" around the base like modern shoes (thinner uppers) with insufficient stiffening will develop. If one pronates or supinates and tends to walk-over their shoes at the back, some stiffener may be of some use I suppose. So, in short, heel stiffening is not necessary if the shoe design, fit, and uppers firmness and weight are stout enough to do without one IMO.

[nickb1]

So, in short, heel stiffening is not necessary if the shoe design, fit, and uppers firmness and weight are stout enough to do without one IMO.

I guess the corollary to that is, if you want a thinner upper as is the norm on dress shoes nowadays, or chrome-tanned, you'll need a rather stiff stiffener to prevent that "beef roll" developing over time ... ?

[das]

Yes sir, sagging and that resultant "beef roll" round the base of the quarters is the biggest issue sans stiffener in my view.

[PhilipB1]

Yes sir, sagging and that resultant "beef roll" round the base of the quarters is the biggest issue sans stiffener in my view.

@das Thanks for the reply a couple of posts up. What would you consider a reasonable thickness for a veg tanned upper that would be strong enough to avoid the sagging / beef roll?

I was wondered about the base of the heel. Modern lasts have a heel profile which is clearly designed to give a good looking shoe. The heel forms quite a sharp angle at the bottom where it meets the sole, whereas the heel of the foot is very rounded at it turns into sole. When the foot sits in a shoe made on a modern last there is a gap between shoe and foot at the bottom of the heel (I've just made up some a pattern-test shoe without stiffener and can clearly feel the gap when I prod the shoe, but can't feel it on my foot). I'm wondering if this gap is what causes the sagging / beef roll? I also wondered if lasts used for 18 Century shoes are more rounded at the back of the heel reflecting a real foot and thus avoiding the sagging? When begs the question, would a last that was rounded like the foot avoid the sagging?

NB I noticed that Duncan McHarg just uses one layer of veg crust kangaroo for the heel stiffener (pasted between kangaroo uppers and lining). That's around 3mm thickness in total. From his shoe renovation on Facebook, he doesn't appear to have had any sagging as such after extensive wear.

Also, I wondered if the 18th Century shoes have any form of toe stiffener?

A last question, waxed calf seems to be very hard to buy; where do you get yours?

[das]

@PhilipB1 Waxed calf I use is around 5-6oz. thickness, which I think is 2.2-2.4(?) mm. Last currier making this in the UK was Dickens & Bro. in N'ton (went out 3-4 years ago), who dressed it on East India kip--the good dense stuff. Guarding my last stockpile of that still. The back of 18thc lasts are ramrod straight up from the feather line to the island, no anatomical curve or rounding at all, but for some reason they're not susceptible to the "beef roll" in the weight above. Generally speaking 18thc vamps are soft-toed, no stiffener. Being unlined waxed calf for the most part, the only way to affix one would be whip stitching on. In wear the stitches wear away inside and the stiffener comes loose and curls down, becoming an incurable subject.

As to waxed calf today, one of our members in Pennsylvania is having good success currying it on some nice veg-tanned Swiss calfskins for the historical repro market over here, but the cost is rather high. PM me and I'll put you in touch if you like.

[SyLibby]

As to waxed calf today, one of our members in Pennsylvania is having good success currying it on some nice veg-tanned Swiss calfskins for the historical repro market over here, but the cost is rather high. PM me and I'll put you in touch if you like.

@DAS,

Id like to learn more about that as well. On a side note I'm finally getting to visit Colonial Williamsburg tomorrow and hopefully Sunday. Really looking forward to it.

[das]

@SyLibby PM me and I'll pass along the current Currier's contact info. Not sure where the shoemakers are currently set up at at CW--the Shoe Shop on Duke of Gloucester Street is still closed AFAIK. Covid has had them all scrambling around on odd schedules, but I'd start at the Armoury adjacent to the Anderson Forge.

[PhilipB1]

Quick question on holdfasts (normal modern stepped holdfast). I wondered if the channel that's removed between the feather edge and the start of the holdfast is made deeper if the leather that's sandwiched under the welt is made thicker? For example, the toe stiffener would add extra thickness (assuming no side lining) - would the outside channel be cut deeper around the toe?

[dw]

FWIW, I have seen the feather cut wider in areas where extra leather in the form of a stiffener is being added, ie. around the toe and somewhat in the waist both to make room for midliners and to hide the stitching under the upper a bit.

[PhilipB1]

Thanks. Yes, the wider cut around toe and waist is what I've been taught (toe for the stiffener and the waist to pull the stitches under). But I was wondering about the depth of the cut. The reason for asking is that the extra thickness of the toe stiffener seems to result in a slightly raised welt and hence the need for more filling in the toe area. It's not a big deal, but I just wondered in case I could cut deeper and avoid some filling (I'm using around 1/4" insoles).

[dw]

I don't cut the feather itself any 'deeper'.

But yes, the welt seems to be raised but a little judicious trimming and hammering seems to take care of that.

If you analyze the path of the thread and the build up of extra material there, I suspect you will see that we can be considerably more aggressive trimming the welt and upper leather above the inseam than one might think.

In any case that's what I do...and I've never had a problem with the inseam failing in the toe.