The Gentle Craft

[pablo]

Mr.Cesari,
Since you possibly have not had enough time thoroughly study the article by Dr. Grigorio Riello to respond to Ms. June Swann's unflattering
review( via Saguto ), I'll add some observations
that may "right" the Riello "mess" a little:
1. The article deals with the innovation and marketing efforts( such as they were in those days) beginning in 1815. Substantial data is offered to identify that AFTER the Napoleonic wars various moves and counter moves were conducted by France & England to win the trade
war by employing footwear style and fashion and
lower price advantages.France paid lower wages and England levied high tariffs to help offset them.
2.Dr. Riello used charts to illustrate the amount of duty charged to keep French footwear out -
1816 to 1819 ... 142% ad valorem !
3.A chart shows that only 15% of the imports( to Eng) were boots ( French & other countries combined).
4.That the influx of foreign goods was impacting even the "mere seller of the cheapest sort of article, such as are manufactured in Northampton"-
quote from J.Devlin 1838.
5.The right/left labels issue was plainly dealt with by- " an important competitive advantage for French shoes and was traditionally maintained as a French innovation even after it was applied by English shoemakers ".
6.The ballet shoe type topic Swann critiqued was in the article under the topic of marketing innovation. Dr. Riello gave examples , in this case ballet shoes, of a new neo-classicism fashion that took hold across the continent and those type shoes became part of that fashion. Another example Dr. Riello used in this category was how historians have tended to be "object" oriented and that he was focusing more on the "revolutions in consumption".

Overall, the article seemed to deal fairly with the expose of French advantages and innovations
as they manuvered to gain market-share in England between 1815 and the rest of the early 1800's.

Mr. Cesari, I am sure you can add much more.
pablo

[das]

[proxy posting for June Swann, in which she writes]:

"French imports [were]not a problem in England till c.1830, so some references quoted
irrelevant. Theirs then indestinguishable from ours, apart from cheaper pattern. England
had been putting labels in shoes from early 18th c. It was just that Paris had been fashion capital since 1660."

[marc]

Gentlemen (and Lady),

If I may may a small suggestion. Admittedly, I know virtually nothing about this particular period and the specifics of the Trade during this period. Clearly there is a disagreement here, and certainly the evidence demands a close examination, but clearly the disagreement is between Grigorio Riello and June Swann. We might want to leave it between them. While I haven't read the article yet (and probably won't be able to get a copy of it until after Christmas -- a little known quirk of Interlibrary Loan departments is that they frequently shut down in December for some time), my suspicion is that the answer may not be as clear cut as what we have seen presented here.

If we want to have or are expecting a formal debate or exchange of information regarding this topic, then we might want to be careful with email, since the stuff that Al's forwarded from Ms Swann appears to be more written as an informal email rebuttal, and not really geared towards a formal debate. By the same token, Dr. Riello's position has been presented third parties - one of whom admittedly (and fairly) wasn't finished with the article, while Papblo seems (to me at least) to have his own bias against the English shoemaking tradition.

As much -fun- as email fights are to watch from the sidelines, I have to wonder if this is really a ditch any of us wants to die in here?

Anyway, just a suggestion.

Marc

[Linda]

I would like to know where I might find a list of the various logos that are used on custom riding boots.

[dw]

Linda,

Welcome to the Crispin Colloquy.

I don't know if I can help you...I don't know if anyone can. Part of the reason is that I'm not sure that bespoke (custom) bootmakers are all that concerned with logos if you see what I mean. I've been making boots (not "riding boots" if you mean English boots) for thirty years threabouts and I've never had a logo...nor thought I needed one.

You might do a search on Google...that's the only thing I can think of.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[dai]

Raised Pallet Floor

I see in old paintings that shoemakers (and in one instance a tailor, who was already sitting on a high table) worked on a raised floor like a wooden pallet, close to a window. Why? Was this floor to raise the worker back into the light, who was obliged for other bootmaking reasons to sit on a low stool -or for some other reason?

[das]

David,

You're very observant. Those old pictures of shoemakers at work on raised floor platforms--mostly 1600s[?]--I've interpreted just as you say, to raise the workman up into better window light. Tailors sat cross-legged up on big tables right in front of windows for the same reason--whence their nickname of "table monkeys". Another possibility, because ours is such a sedentary trade, in the days before decent heating, old European floors could be cold and damp, that it got the guy up off the floor.

I worked for years on a concrete slab floor in a semi-heated basement, and just sitting sewing all day in leather soled shoes really got to my feet.

[das]

Proxy-Posting From June Swann in re Riello:

"I've now also got copy of the Riello Textile History article. Poor chap. He just did not bother to try to sort out which were men's and which women's footwear, whether the 'leather manufactures' are boots, shoes (?or gloves or something else irrelevant to subject). Although he only illustrates women's boots & shoes with textile uppers, it doesn't seem to have got through to him that that's what most of the imports were.
One table 'Boot & Shoe Making', has 'quality' heading: from 1st - 6th. 1st being at rate of 5 pr per week and retail price of 14/- has to be men's leg boots. 6th @ 16 per week, retailing @ 5/- is just about the price of a pr of woman's (I found 4/- for women's cloth shoes). Nor has he seen the number of prints showing French women 'cordonnieres', and I shouldn't think he got to handle many of the ballet-type silk shoes which any fool could make. Also claims the French shoes were more fashionable, when your average man-in-the-street can't tell the difference between the French and English. I can: at least, the French were usually straight, with no back seam. But when we got to make French shoes, did we make them like that too? I'm sure we could have found a few straight lasts. He doesn't know you don't need a pr of straight lasts to make a pr of straight shoes, nor how little money you then need to set up.
He has no idea that English shoes had labels in from at least 1740s (that's what survive), and thinks French invented them end 18th c. He does not know how biased Devlin was, condemning everyone when Brummel-style work went out of fashion; nor that he only needed least excuse to wander about, to France etc, rather than work. Certainly no one went to France to learn how to make the women's silk shoes: we made them better fit. And if he'd looked at the French-made man's knee boot in N'ton Mus., he wouldn't think their leather was marvellous either.
The whole thing to be treated with caution, until someone who knows what to look for goes through all his sources again to decide whether M/F, B/S, leather/textile uppers, and whether made by men or women. You can't just lump it all together and treat as the same statistic.
June"

[hugh]

This is probably an obvious question: with regard to cowboy boots, how much in the way of styling in particular but technique too, can be traced back to European roots?

[dw]

Hugh,

I'll take a shot at this one even though I'm probably not the most knowledgeable--history-wise....

Depending on who you talk to, the answer is "probably everything"--from the most fundamental techniques to the artwork on cowboy boots--has its origins in Europe or European culture...and most notably German and English culture. If you think about it, we are, as Americans, like it or not, primarily a western European culture. Our artistic sensibilities and the way in which we approach problems all tend to be based upon generational biases.

For instance, there are only so many ways in which a heel can be built. We don't do it like the Persians did it--with horn or wood--we do it like the English and the Germans did it.

And the same can be said about inseaming, lasting, stiffening the toe or heel, and so forth. The same can even be said about the tools we use. Not quite related but in a similar vein, look at European woodworking tools versus Japanese or oriental woodworking tools. The difference...and the distinction in their origins...is immediately obvious.


The classic "box toe" is another good example. It can be found in shoes and boots from Germany well before the "cowboy" era. Today, cowboy boots are probably the only form of footwear where it is still to be found. But it is worth remembering that most, if not all, of the original "cowboy boot" makers were Germans, who immigrated into the Fredricksburg area of Texas early in the 19th century. Roots.

With regard to styling and other "artistic" considerations (you mentioned eagles in your private email)...again, cultural biases and what we teach to our children (and have ourselves been taught) with regard to what is attractive or not, form a pretty consistent esthetic in our society. Motifs that seem unique to a region or subculture can very often be traced back to long forgotten heraldry or artwork brought to this country by our ancestors. Your comments regarding the Hapsburg eagles (13th to 20th century) and the 1792 Washington family eagle (which became the Great Seal) seem spot on to me. Certainly there are many ways to depict an eagle and the spread winged, head to the side, bilaterally symmetrical pose is hardly natural to the bird itself. Beyond that, the Washington eagle is nearly a dead ringer for the patterns used on many inlaid boots and even the ones that differ seem to "borrow" the theme.

Bottom line is that I reckon there's little that is really new in the world.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[hugh]

DW



Do you think cowboy boots are unique?

[das]

Hugh,

Sorry I can't compose a longer reply, as this topic has interested me for quite some time too. I think if you search the Forum archives or the "Forum I" CD, you might find related discussions. If we break the "cowboy" boot down into its basic elements, like DW's suggested, there are tantalizing antecedent examples of almost each one, and curiously, mostly of central and eastern European origin, derived from western Asian styles. The direct connections however, say between 16th c. Polish boots, 15th c. Hungarian boots, and 1880s Texas boots might be hard to prove, but they are suggestive of some "communication" or survival of both technique and motif. The basic two-piece whole front boot known in the Anglo-American world as the "Wellington" since c.1815, started life as the "Hessian" in the 1780s-90s[UK], with some credit to the colorful side-seamed military "Hussar" boots, with fancy top-lines, adopted by European armies in the later 1600s and early 1700s, which was adapted directly from the Slavic boots of a few centuries earlier. And, of course the four-piece, side-seamed "dress" Wellington, is a variation--the oldest pertinent one I can think of off-hand is c.1550 from a well in Prague Castle, Czech Republic.

The high, square blocked "domed toes", supported underneath by constructed toe boxes DW's mentioned, evolve in 17th c. Europe, hit their peak across Europe around 1690-1730s for both shoes and boots, then start passing out of style for shoes, except in Germany where they survive up into the 1770s--longer there than anywhere else in Europe apparently. Interestingly, shoes lost this toe-style first--it lingered a bit longer in riding boots, and Continental boots in particular. IOW, the German-speaking bootmakers who migrated to Texas were *generationally* closer to the last bootmakers known to use this style/technique, suggesting a possible connection. And, possible connections, I think, are all we're going to get.

Other features, such as brightly and contrasting colored leathers, flamboyantly embroidered legs, fancy-cut, peaked, and scalloped top-lines, and even the pairs of finger holes for pulling them on--and nearly always with side-seams--all can be found on western Asian and eastern European iterations of boots from at least the 1500s onward. The origins of high, stacked, leather heels that taper in shape for men's boots, leads us back directly to what was known in England as "Polony" or "Polonia" [Polish] heels in the 1600s--another eastern European link. The chunkier [not tapered] heels of later 18th c. jackboots, in French "cabriolet" heels, were described as stacked leather "and always high...". The "first" heels, originating in the Near East [Turkey, etc.], are more confusing, but as DW's mentioned, consisted of "hook-heels", iron shell-heels, and other odd stuff. So, it's probably only safe to say, our high stacked leather tapered heels trace back to the "Polony". Before that, it gets murky.

[dw]

Hugh,

Of course they're unique. That said, I think you're drawing me into another conversation...one I'm not sure has either a definitive answer or, more importantly, needs an answer. But...

Suffice it to say that nearly every aspect of a typical cowboy boot has been borrowed from boot and shoemakers. Putting aside the ornamentation for a second, the classic cowboy boots is still a "wellington" boot, no matter how you make it. Every technique, with the possible exception of some very incidental "innovations" (read "short cuts") has its roots in an earlier time and place. And for the most part those techniques have changed very little...even in isolation. This *can* be documented, as I'm sure you know. Having some (by no means expert) familiarity with the "literature" and history, as well as an intimate knowledge of the work itself, I can't think of any single essential technique being used by cowboy bootmakers (no matter who it is) that doesn't have a "paper trail" leading back to well before the "West was Won."

As for the artwork...well, my own personal opinion is that ornamentation--no matter how well executed and beautiful--and Art (with a capital "A") are two different things. But that is probably neither here nor there. More to the point, if we look around the world we see real examples of unique artwork. Where motifs are used in a consistent manner and speak of a very different set of sensibilities and esthetic values than those in other cultures. Think of Japanese artwork for instance. Or Moroccan artwork. Sure, if we really get to digging we can probably find all sorts of evidence for cross-cultural "contamination" --from China to Japan, for instance, or from the Greeks to the Moors. But for a cultural esthetic to really achieve its own unique identity, it needs time and isolation. Just as wine needs time and isolation to develop a unique character. And, looking at it as objectively as I can, I'm not sure that 120 years and no cultural isolation to speak of, establishes a unique esthetic. This is especially true when, artistically, the present is seldom more than a recapitulation of the past. Heck, after more than twice that long and some geographical, if not total cultural isolation, we are only recently seeing the emergence of what might accurately be called a uniquely "American" sound in music.

Finally, I must make this point...the final page has not been written. A hundred years from now we may look back and be amazed that people like myself didn't recognize the singularity of the cowboy boot (although as a cowboy bootmaker, myself, I might take issue with that characterization). On the other hand, we may look back and weep for "lost worlds." Because in the end, cultural isolation not only generates unique forms, it can, very often, result in cultural extinction.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[hugh]

One more question. German or english influence. Which influenced the boot making or shoe making traditions in the US?

[dw]

Hugh,

Maybe Al will get in on this too...he's much more savvy about this stuff than I am.

As for influence, certainly the English have had as much or more influence on shoemaking than any other source. This is probably due to the fact that 1) we are an English speaking country and have been for better than 200 years. 2) The original 13 colonies (the original United States, IOW) was settled mostly by English/Scots and Irish settlers. At one time shoemaking and the allied trades employed more men than any other industry in America. Naturally, that influence would spread and spread west as well. 3) At one time England was considered the center of western shoemaking.

As for bootmaking it may again depend on the nationality of your teacher's teacher. But some of the above again comes in to play. German was not spoken much outside of enclaves. Because of that it is only natural to assume that the techniques weren't disseminated as widely.

Once upon a time several of the folks who started this forum sort of tongue in cheek referred to the "old guys...the "dead guys" ...as "boot gods." "Shoe gods" may have been more appropriate and yet just because of that little thing called "language" and the fact that almost all of the accessible literature is of English origin, as long as it was understood that it *was* all sort of tongue in cheek, it wasn't totally inappropriate in my opinion. You see this over and over again in history...the dominant language is the dominant culture and vice versa. As a nation and as boot/shoemakers we owe a lot to the English.

It's well to remember, too, that the wellington boot, arguably *the* immediate forerunner of the cowboy boot, was made popular by Sir Arthur Wellesley--the Duke of Wellington, after all. An Englishman if there ever was one. And as the leading figure and victor of the Napoleonic Wars, Wellesley's boots became immensely popular and fashionable almost all over the western world...including the US. The Wellington boot was nearly *the* man's boot throughout the 19th century.

Anyway, hope that helps...there's all sorts of documentation in this regard, most of it English and most of it "self-promoting" it's true. But there *are* German texts out there...not many but some...and even here on this forum, when a member offered a photocopy of Probst (a German book on boot and shoemaking from the early 19th century) to any taker, I think I was the only one who took him up on it. I also have a copy of Max Sahm's book but have seldom if ever had anyone interested in a copy or, more importantly, getting it translated. I guess the interest just isn't there.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[das]

Hugh,

Just another short-shrift answer. I've been studying archaeological footwear found in N. America for 30-plus years, as well as surviving historical footwear preserved in museums, etc. Stuff dating from c.1610 on up. I've also looked at relevant items in museums in the UK and Europe.

There is no simple answer. But, I don't see any difference in US/UK footwear before c.1700. From 1700-1800 there are regional differences--German-settled areas in PA in VA have heavy German influence, as similar stuff from French Canada, has French influence. The "back-county", also, showed its isolation from the mainstream, but nothing that "caught-on" or went mainstream later.

An American "vernacular" in footwear seems to be generally noticable by around 1780s-90s, but nothing really unique until 1800 and after when American shoemaking/bootmaking starts to reorganize, mechanize, and feel comfortable being different. None of these changes happened over night, or all at once, but this I hope gives you some idea.

[dw]

Al,

Writing my response, I got to wondering....by the time of the American revolution, the British crown was German wasn't it? My hazy memory tells me that George--mad George of the blue urine--was of German decent. So that led me to wonder how much cross-cultural exchange there might have been between England and Germany. How much difference do you see in the footwear coming out of Germany and England say 1700 to 1900?

That said, and the question posed, I may be one of the few if the only cowboy bootmaker who regularly uses a German style inseaming awl--the sickle awl. And I've been toying with putting the fleshside of the insole to the last. The word "rahn" is German for welt or strip...something like that...isn't it? I'm just trying to pinpoint the more obvious German influences on bootmaking in particular but shoemaking as well. Maybe there are others?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[das]

DW,

Aw geez man... Let's see... William of Orange was dragged over in, what, 166?, he wasn't English. Then the Georges, I, II, III, and IV--Hanovarian Germans at first.

English footwear was impacted throughout history by foreign styles/tastes, starting with the Romans, or before. The high stacked heels and high blocked square "dome" toes came over to England with the new monarchs [W&M]and court styles.

As to German footwear 1700-1900, I can't say as I seen that much, not enough to tell you much. I have seen Germano-American shoes, c.1750-1800 from MD, PA, and VA--all very suggestive of their Rhine Valley origins. Even a few from the 1830-60 period from Richmond, VA, found in canal boats closely associated with German immigrants brought over to build and operate the canal, that's "foreign looking".

[plugnickle]

DW,
Here is a link to a free online translator that may assist you in the translation of the documents that you previously mentioned. The site includes typing or cut/paste data entry, to include the document being translated.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V4CB257A2

Steve

[dw]

Steve,

Thanks, Steve. I have several links of the sort and even used one extensively to communicate...pretty clearly, actually but to no satisfactory result in the end...with a Swiss firm regarding awls. I ran across a number of problems in the Translation both coming and going but I got my point across, I think. So did they--they didn't want to deal with greedy Americans (not a slam...I wanted to buy a hundred of their awls at a time and they were worried they wouldn't have enough left for Swiss makers.)

The trouble is that there are so many words that are specific to the Trade that are simply not included in the databases of these translators. Even paid native speaking translators often have trouble with these terms.

BTW, for those interested or mildly amused by this conversation...I have something that may be of considerable interest I will post later this evening or tomorrow. Look for it.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Al,

Thanks. At least you confirmed my memory about the Hanovers. I thought that might be the name but I wasn't sure. I knew it wasn't Tudor or Stewart!

BTW, I've never seen "bulldog" pincers (shank lasters) used or illustrated in the German tradition. Have you? Maybe they never developed anything similar?


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[plugnickle]

DW,
Sheesh, talk about taking care of your own.

Steve

[dw]

Steve,

I know. They had many sizes and several models but two different "makes"--one old stock, hand-made and beautiful and one more recent, obviously being stampeded out...not even as good as the Kings that Barnsley was selling. When I reduced my quantity, while specifying the older awls, they ended up not even answering my request for ten of three sizes.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Despite a poor head for dates and events, this subject tremendously fascinating to me. I enjoy peeking back in time to see where it all began.

In that spirit, then, I offer the following:

Bear in mind and accept for the moment, that "cowboy" boots as we know and envision them--a four piece, side seamed boot with bright coloured tops and multiple rows of fancy stitching --did not appear on the scene until well into the 1900's. And a date of 1915 is probably pretty near the mark.

Prior to that, "real" cowboy boots (or maybe another way to say it would be the boots of "real" cowboys) were plain black or less often brown affairs almost certainly some variation of the the full wellington (a two piece boot) that was the standard issue for cavalry officers during the 19th century and especially post Civil War. Any examination of the surviving record--whether old catalogs, old photos or museum artifacts--will bear this out.

So what are "cowboy" boots? Are they a distinct, totally unique form factor that sprung up whole cloth in the South Western part of the USA? Are they a unique "Art" form? Or even a Unique "craft" form?

Look closely, if you will at the following photograph....

This is a side seam boot with a vamp with a vamp tongue, a counter cover with the hint of a counter cover tongue, a side seam with a side welt, and what is clearly a "half box toe. If I understand the description, the boot is red leather with a green top binding on the shaft. It has multiple rows of fancy stitching and they lay across the sideseam from each other in the same way a modern cowboy boot would. In fact, the tulip near the center of the tops, is a dead ringer for a stitch pattern that was, and is, in common usage for cowboy boots.

3025.jpg

The boot was made in the Balkans, in Siebenburgen circa 1900, if my translation is anywhere close.

Is it a cowboy boot?

Sure, it's possible to fault the heel. And quibble about all kinds of immaterial details. [And isn't there a boot, made for Elizabeth Taylor, I think, in the "Art of the Boot" with a similar heel?] But, the fact remains that there is no real, significant, *conceptual* or esthetic difference in this boot and a modern day "cowboy" boot.

So is it a 100 year old cowboy boot? Made in Transylvannia perhaps? Clearly not because context, is everything, isn't it? Or is it? Most of the boots we make today are not made for real cowboys either. So...

????

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[das]

DW,

Very good, and yes, the distinction needs to be made as you have done, between the cattle-drivers' boots of the late 1860s-70s--the "first" US western cowboys--and the Tom Mix Hollywood "cowboy" genre.

Just what do we mean by "cowboy" boots anyway? Context is all-important. Didn't you pass along something to me that included interviews with the ol' guys who rode on the first drives, many of them "broke" Civil War vets. seeking work, who admitted that they mostly wore army surplus bootees [laced ankle boots] and not even the pull-on wellingtons? As the work became more lucrative, specialty bootmakers popped up on the KS end of the cattle trails to help them spend their new-found money, by offering fancy boots like the Coffeeville style?

So, is a "cowboy" boot whatever a cowboy wears, or is it rather a specific type/style of boot in the popular mind? And at which date?