Bristling at the very suggestion

[Mike Strong]

DW,

I was sure that you taught me that. Please foregive me. Now I'm really messed up. Becasue I'm not sure where I picked up inseaming from the outside in. But, not to fear I'll try a pair tomorrow from the inside out and sew towards myself. Thanks Mike(Maybe I'll get it right)

[crispinian]

DW et al,

I can't recall seeing reference to inseaming "blind" in the early writings. Devlin, however, talks at some length about the technique of blind stabbing, which he insists is an ability posessed only by British shoemakers. <shrug> Blind stabbing is the execution of a stabbed seam without the benefit of actually looking to see the bristle as it comes through the left side of the work, the shoemaker instead using only the sense of touch to locate the bristle and pull it through---a skill best learned, he notes, at an early age when one's sense of touch in the fingers is most acute. Devlin waxes near-poetic about the process (as he is inclined to do) saying,

"This is called blind stabbing, and when the boy has obtained in it any high degree of proficiency, such as is generally acquired by the apprentice of the boot-closer, is certainly the most beautiful process in the whole trade; regular, easy, and rapid, and to the eye of the spectator a matter even of marvelous description."


Not that this has anything to do with the subject at hand, exactly, but I thought you might enjoy another Historical Moment. <smile>

Rusty

[D.A. Saguto--HCC]

DW,

As for my two cents here, I wouldn't call this "blind" inseaming, or "blind" welt sewing, just inseaming or welt-sewing without "holing" first. I sure wouldn't say "blind" stitching, because "stitching" is what holds the outsole to the welt. The bit that attaches the welt to the boot is "sewing" [not stitching"]

The only two cases I know of where "blind" is used to describe sewing [or stitching], is "blind stabbing", where you pierce [not punch] a hole with a straight stabbing awl somewhere on a boot leg, and work with one hand down inside to catch the bristle and feed the inside one out. And a "blind rand", where your finished stitch is hidden down behind a roll of leather--but you get to see it while stitching it.

As to tapping the welt and upper firmly down into the feather [outside channel you're calling it?] inch by inch as you sew, yes. That's one of the tasks the pane of the shoe hammer is ideally suited to. I settle my welt down into the feather with the hammer just ahead of where I'm sewing.

While we're playing true confessions, I learned the "bad" habit of sewing *away* from myself before I got served my apprenticeship, and fall into it from time to time if I'm not paying attention. It just seems so much more natural to me, but maybe that's from sewing cloth, or using a sewing machine. I have always sewed welts from the inside, going outward. Since the "half-cast" knot is formed on the "off" or exit side of the stitch, and we want that extra knot on the welt-side to reinforce it, how can we half-cast if sewing from the outside going inwards? We are all using a half-cast, right?

[D.A. Saguto--HCC]

Rusty,

Opps. There I go, replying to postings from my inbox, instead of reading the Forum first. See Rees for the "blind rand". But these are the only two instances I recall of "blind" being used. One for a stitch you can't see one side of while making it, and the other for a stitch you can see while making it, but can't see after it's done and covered-up.

Is it just me, or is anybody else here cringing at "our" apparent willingness to confuse the word "punching" with "piercing"? I hope nobody is actually removing a plug of material, as in punching, to make a stitch-hole. And as for "pre-holing", this seems redundant--"holing" is making the holes ahead or time, no "pre-" qualifier needed

[dw]

Al,

Well, see that's why I invoked the "history gods (small "g" ). I thank both you and Rusty. Although I think your further description;;;

One for a stitch you can't see one side of while making it"

pretty well describes what is going on when we sew an inseam without holing it.

As for the terminology...for the most part, I know better but I don't always hold myself to it. When you are discussing a technique such as this...especially long distance, text only, no illustrations, etc....and especially, with folks who care more about the understanding the concepts than being precise, it's either that or stop discussing altogether.

In my case, I do know that "stitching" is correctly applied only to the "outseam" (is that a good word?). I do know that "punching" is *really* off base. I do know that the "outside channel" is properly called the "feather"--although I was under the impression that "outside channel' was an acceptable if not wholly respectable alternative. In my defense, I did not use either of these terms first. I only picked them up in response to the remarks of others and as an aid to communicating with them without getting into a whole side issue regarding the lexicon--that's not my job...someone else will have to be the keeper of the glossary.

Having said that, I honestly don't mind being hauled back to the straight and narrow. Philosophically, at least, I am in complete agreement with you regarding the need to be true to the distinct terminology of the Trade. (And I hope we will all keep capitalizing the "T", too. )

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[D.A. Saguto--HCC]

DW,

===========
"In my defense, I did not use either of these terms first. I only picked them up in response to the remarks of others and as an aid to communicating with them without getting into a whole side issue regarding the lexicon..."
==========

No defense needed ol' bean, it's just that slippery slope, which gives us such awkward inventions as "out-stitched" for "stitch-downs", and a host of others . Like a year or more back when Marc first told us that shoemakers' wax was called "coad" at some period [which was it?], and folks on the Forum picked up using it as though it was contemporary, instead of "wax", because it's a cool-sounding [admittedly] word hoary with age. Likewise, "cere" meant to wax or to smear with wax, and "lingel" meant a waxend, but we won't make ourselves more "understanded of the people" by saying "cere our lingels with coad", anymore than if we revived Latin shoemaking jargon. Just me ranting on a pet peeve

We'll pretty much have to explain ourselves and our processes in detail to anybody outside the Trade, or just getting into it, anyway--and I submit we ought not boggle their minds with convolutions, gerunds, and malapropisms. It's hard enough keeping the old "modern" terms/definitions straight that pertain to the type of 'making we're doing, like "sewing" versus "stitching", "channel" versus "groove", "inseam" versus "outsole-stitching", "welt" versus "rand"; or those naughty Briticisms/Americanisms that face us like "closing"/"binding", "blocking"/"crimping", "stiffener"/"counter", "bootleg"/"shaft", etc.

[dw]

Al,

Admittedly, this is kind of off topic but if it takes off, I'll simply move it. In the meantime, I have to say that while I agree with you 99% I don' t see anything wrong with using words like coad. There are lots of different types of wax...even different kinds of wax that might be termed (by stretching) "hand wax." That's the reason I picked up on "coad"--it's very specific, it's legitimate and it's very useful in conveying an idea clearly. Can't ask anything more of language.

As a self described "writer," I have a rule of thumb...try not to use the same terminology over and over again in the same paragraph. It tires the eye and bores people. That makes it hard to be strict with the terminology. If someone uses the word "punch" rather than "pierce" and we both know what is being described...AND, we know that there is someone who will step in and remind us that the terminology we are using is incorrect...I just write it off as people talking, that's all. And I will often pick up on the same terminology just to make that connection with the other fellow.

It's also hard to know what usages are the result of sloppiness and what are the result of cultural drift...Briticisms to Americanisms, Australicisms vs Briticisms vs Americanisms and Texacisms versus everybody else! [ducking and running] But to some extent while such eclectic terminology ought, simply for the sake of posterity, to yield to the correct terminology, it nevertheless has a certain claim to legitimacy just by virtue of its currency, don't you think?

As long as the Trade itself has some enthusiastic adherents, the language will continue to evolve. And that's probably as it should be. We wouldn't want it to end up like Latin. If the language can't evolve then "coad", "cere", "lingel" and "snab" are all just as legitimate as wax, smear, thread and cobbler.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[Tex Robin]

DW,
Yes, I did catch that one and it would be one to duck and run on in my humble Texicist opinion....TR

[dw]

Tex,

Well, I knew you'd catch it and I knew you'd take it in the right spirit. But just for those who aren't quite as quick as you are, let me assure you that while it *was* a joke, it wasn't a criticism. Texas has enough cultural drift vis-a-vis the rest of the country to almost *be* a country in its own right. At least as much, perhaps, as Australia from England. In fact, if I remember my history correctly, Texas was a separate country from the US for a brief period just before it became a state.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[texrobinboots]

DW,

Yes, Texas was the Republic of Texas for 9 years after Sam Houston defeated the Mexicans...TR

[RileyCraig]

Tex, DW

I, along with everyone else, have been following this debate on whether to pre-punch the hold fast,inseam from the inside our the outside, and really....WHO CARES? Both methods get the job done. I have to agree with Tex, if you are going to have these week-long debating seminars, pick a subject that will help us green bootmakers out here. Tell us approximately where the throat of the boot should be on the cone of the last before hoisting the heel...this is a major problem for some new bootmakers, as it makes a difference as far as the tops are concerned...they can lean too far forward or too far back, etc., etc.

Good Bootmaking

Riley Craig

[fjones]

Al (and gang)

First, a word of support for DW regarding - “this is kind of off topic but if it takes off, I'll simply move it.” Yes we are, and you have my vote.

Now, I am going to put on my industry hat (ducking and diving) in here.

Blind is a term widely used in upper stitching (fitting, closing, sewing - pick one you like) to describe seams where the sewing is not visible in the finished product. probably the best example is the classic “Blind Seam” used as a feature on men’s classic footwear.

2190.gif

The attached illustration is from the “Concise Shoemaking Dictionary” and is used with permission of the publisher of this neat little book (details are on www.shoepatter.com).

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com

[dw]

Riley,

See my answer over in "Rants, Rationales and Suppositions" > "Food for Thought"

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[Mike Strong]

DW and ALL

Inseamed a pair of boots today. I sewed them from the inside out with the toe facing me. I was a little rusty at first but I'll really picked up as I went. DW I'm not sure where or how I got started sewing from the outside in but I picked it up somehow. As soon as I started today it came back to me just like you taught me. I didn't pre punch the holes and didn't seem to have any problems hiting the feather line. The welt sewed down nice and tight and ran very stright around the boot. I did make my own thread and enjoyed making it. Till next time Mike

[dw]

Mike,

Whew!! I was beginning to wonder if somehow I had let you down, Mike. I mean if you teach a student one of the most fundamental techniques in bootmaking and he comes away completely misunderstanding, it reflects badly on the teacher, I would think.

Anyway, good on you, Mike.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[jonathon]

Tex.
Glad to think I could be of service.

Cheers.
Jon.

[jake]

To All,

As I mentioned previously, I inseam from the inside out, starting on the left with the toe towards me. I also "pre-hole" my insole.

Yesterday I inseamed a pair of boots from the outside in, and did not "pre-hole" the insole. I also started on the right instead of the left. I will have to say that I'm very pleased with the results. The welt is nice and straight, and my stitches (3 spi) are more uniform than usual, especially around the toe.

Maybe some of the talk about "pre-holing" for students is correct. Once you've made boots for awhile, it's easier to know "where" you should be with the awl.

[dw]

Jake,

Hmmm, veddy interestink. Of course you can't tighten the stitch down as well, sucking it into the welt and drawing the welt into the feather--you don't have that outside thread in your right hand, anymore. How did you compensate for that?

I've repaired a lot of boots using that approach and I just don't think I could get used to it for any "serious" work. But one of the main reasons I went to holing the insole is that some of the insoling that I use can be kind of tough. The "Baker" is a joy but with domestic leather even bellies can sometimes be a problem. I don't know if it's the tanning or what. I've looked closely and it's not the density of the fibers but I have nerve damage in the palm of my hand from poor awls and hard leather. What's more, I like a fairly wide holdfast on the theory that the more substance under a stitch, the longer it will last and wear. So I don't want to try to force the awl through the insole leather when I'm trying to place the stitch.

It also occurs to me that when a maker has enough experience to place stitches "blind" --from the inside or the outside--he has enough experience to hole the insole at three to the inch...even around narrow toes. But, especially around problem toes, the outside in approach might make it a bit easier. 'Course you could always start out inside out and switch as you rounded the toe....

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[Tex Robin]

DW, Jake all,

I think the way you learn something is probably the best. But I prefer my way because it is the absolute fastest way and it is tried an proven to work. I don't pre-punch, though I was inseaming a pair last night that were a booger. The toughest insole of the bunch and pre-punching might have eased the operation. But like I said it is the way I learned.

DW, I always build up the back of my awl so it will be easier on the palm of my hand, The way they are made they are murder on the nerves . They could cause CTS. You can mold some epoxy on it to make it larger.

I also have a question about punching the holes . I don't punch the holes. The awl is designed to cut the holes with a wiggle as you push method. I suppose that is the way others do it ? When I inseam, I also never drop either end of the string. I hold them in my fingers. And with my method I can inseam one boot in ten minutes and that is pulling each stitch tight with the wrap of the awl handle. And I know my inseams are good because I repair the most of them myself and I get to examine them when re-soling. I never have to re-stitch them unless some guy decides to wear into the stitches..and everybody hates for some guy to do that.

I know there is that question of would the slower method be better, but in my nearly 50 yrs now of seeing it done in my early yrs as a boy and up to now , I have never seen any bootmaker ever use any other method other that the inside out method. I have seen a few makers that pre-punched but the majority that I have seen use my method. I know you are saying ,aw he doesn't know what he is talking about but when you are my age you will have bootmakers saying the same thing about you. There is always someone that will argue with experience.

And if you really want to see some fast bootmakers, you need to go to one of the shops in S. Texas and watch one of the Mexican craftsmen work. They learn only one operation and after doing only one thing for 40 yrs you get really good at it. It would amaze you how fast their trained hands can work. And I know some will argue that taking your time will get the job done right but if you do it right in the first place, then speed will come and then you can move on to something else with that extra time .....TR

[jake]

D.W.,

Well.....I knew you would be the first to respond! (Big Grin)

I guess I improvised on the pulling with my right hand "into" the feather. I would like you to know that I've started doing one-handed pushups---with my left hand to solve this problem (smaller grin).

I've always thought that the most important area in the inseaming process is "entering" or "exiting" the feather right at the corner of the rabbet. This leads to most importantly a tighter stitch, but also to a straighter welt line. It's less important where the awl comes out on the inside channel, not that I'm careless where it "exits" or "enters".

he has enough experience to hole the insole at three to the inch...even around narrow toes

I would tend to agree. I forget who said it, but inseaming without "holing" first, allows you to tighten everything down, and then proceed with more accuracy on obtaining 3 spi. In other words, during the tightening of the stitch, things tend to move, especially if you are inseaming from the inside out. Your awl tends to move everything outward. While awling from the outside, you can use the insole to push against........make sense?

I like a wide holdfast also. Mine normally runs 1/2", and like you, I don't utilize a slant cut for the inside channel, but a shallow vertical cut with a rip stop, progressing to a french edger to create a shallow wedge shape depression. Just enough depth to create a "ditch" for the thread to lie into. Inseaming with a damp insole allows me to pull the thread even deeper during the tightening phase.

Now, I know you have some of those famous Dick Anderson's awl hafts. I know you sharpen your awls. And I also know you wet your insole prior to inseaming. I betcha you'll have no problem awling from the outside in without "holing" first! (Big Grin.....by the way, how do you guys make those funny faces?)

One last comment, I only wanted to emphasize that I'm trying new techniques discussed on the forum. I've always tried to keep an open mind. I may not stick with this new approach, but I thought I would give everyone some feedback with my results.

[fjones]

Jake

I find your experience, inseaming from the outside inwards and with no pre-holing, very interesting. The fascinating thing is perhaps you would never have tried doing that if it was not for the discussion here on the Colloquy.

Speaking as somebody who was heavily influenced in my early days by repairing, I have always worked from the outside in. However, as you imply it is something that is not easy for the newbie to master. In my case I cut my teeth on repair work, using the existing holes etc. So when I progressed to inseaming new footwear I not surprisingly used the same approach.

Maybe this means I should try working from the inside outwards with the insole pre-holed ? Hmmm . . not sure about that (grin)

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com

[fjones]

Jake

Apologies for stating the obvious in my last posting. I had not seen your follow-up but hey, what’s the saying “Great minds think alike”. (smile) I don’t have the funny-face graphics either.

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com

[Tex Robin]

All,

I forgot to put something in my last long winded post.
One of the most successful bootmakers in the State of Texas was Ray Jones of Lampasas. He churned out 24 pair of boots every week for years and get this, *He used an inseaming machine*, and hey, he learned the trade in England, I have been told!

And although they may not have been the most shapely, they were the toughtest things you ever tried to wear or repair! His reputation is legendary and he is the most copied bootmaker in the State. There are at least three makers that make a boot that looks exactly like the Ray Jones Boot...TR

[Tex Robin]

Hey, Frank and Jake ,

The Smileys are simple. You just go semi-colon ) for a smile and semi-colon D for a DW grinney. And there are some others in the instuctional part of the CC..TR

[jake]

Frank,

No apologies needed! Great minds? Well, let's just say I'm not going to argue with you! (big grin)......speaking of which, maybe these "smarty-pants will let us in on how you make those funny faces)

But you're right Frank, I wouldn't have ever tried a new technique if it hadn't been for The Colloquy. I just can't say enough about it. We have a great bunch! Most people lay their work and ideas on the line for everyone to scrutinize. It makes a person think "why" he "does" what he does.

One final point that I didn't incorporate in my previous post. Awling from the outside, if you know where your feather is, gives you an opportunity to hit the corner of that rabbet I was talking about. It's pretty darn hard to hit that spot awling from the inside. Most of the time I could actually see this corner (I know....I peeked!). I don't believe I lost any of my lasting tightness during this process either, because I was pulling lasting tacks as I went. The leather is good and tight on the last.

Tex,

Actually, I "wiggle" the awl as I push also. And I would never argue with you, or even dare to insinuate you don't know what you are talking about! (grinning) I have too much respect for ya.

Hey.....thanks for the "funny-face" info. Got it while I was typing this.

Adios