miscellaneous tips, advice, and cautions

[das]

Jenny,

First, I'm with DW on that--dance pumps and light shoes often can be nicely done with no heel stiffener at all, if they fit closely/accurately enough round the person's heel in other regards. If the last itself does not have enough "swing" for your foot-shape, however, you'll always trod over the quarters to the inside--in that case the fault is in the last shape. Most of our historical shoes [18thc. men's] have no stiffeners, and they don't runover, crush down, or otherwise loose their shape in the back-part. But, these uppers are firm 5 to 6 oz. veg-tanned waxed calf too, probably more substantial that what you're using for uppers.

My suggestion is to experiment. Try the shoe with no stiffener first. If the quarters run over, sag, or don't stay in shape, go to "Plan B". Assuming these shoes are lined(?), cut a minimal stiffener out of a veg-tanned side leather--say 6 oz. Fleshy flanks or belly will do. Skive the edge as you said, pre-form it by wet molding it on the last, then insert it when dry between lining and uppers with a tad of all purpose cement (e.g. Barge) to hold it once it's set on the last. If this still doesn't stiffen the quarters enough, rather than going to thicker, harder leather, such as horse strips, I'd suggest trying the same routine, only use Hirshklebber paste on the both side of the stiffener when you insert it, instead of AP cement. Hirshklebber is water-based, natural ingredients, sticks well, and adds stiffness to the parts its used on. [Available through Atlas International: http://www.atlasortho.com/]--but it will stain some light or white colored uppers, be warned.

If the fleshy, flanky veg-tanned with Hirshklebber still isn't enough, I'd suspect there's something not right with either your last or your patterns. If you want to go thicker with the stiffener, the belly bits off your insole shoulder, stiffened with Hirshklebber should be plenty. DW's 10 iron sole leather counters are great for bullet-proof rock-solid western boots, but way too much in a dance shoe

[btippit]

Last makers and model makers still use heel templates to remove the heel dog and finish the heel curve area after the last is turned in the lathe. However, to my knowledge, as far as US production lasts go, these templates were never based on "types of feet". Instead they fell into categories based on types of footwear and heel height. The last industry is given too much credit if you start thinking that thorough studies of foot types ever were incorporated into the "standards" of last specifications. Remember, our customers, the retail shoe manufacturers were interested in finding a "one size fits all" standard for each type of shoe that would satisfy (if not delight) the mythical 80% of the population that was supposed to be "normal". I say "mythical" because I don't think 80% of the people I've met in life are "normal" in any way. If they were, they wouldn't be so interesting. They didn’t want to take the time or invest in the tooling to produce several categories of curved lasts, heel shapes, instep heights, arch types, etc.

But back to the subject. So you have these categories of heel curves based on type of shoe and heel height. You add to that, different companies wanting to put their own "signature" on the subject and you get some variations. Then you start having one last company being given a last to copy as a backpart fitter by their customer. This last was originally made by another last company and the production last being copied doesn't seem to fit any of the standard curves correctly. Sometimes, in an ill advised move, rather than logical assume that it was supposed to fit the heel curve for that category/heel height (which it probably came close to) someone in the model room would decide they had to 100% copy the heel curve of the last being given to them even though production lasts are produced in the hundreds or thousands of pairs per order and there is no way each heel curve, being finished by hand (often paid for on a piece work scale) is going to fit the template perfectly. On and on and on and you end up with what I've seen at every last company I've ever worked with....literally dozens if not hundreds of heel curve styles, many of which are duplicates or near duplicates of other curves on the rack with more new ones added every year. But trust me, at least not in last 50 years were many (if any) of these heel curves based on any foot type studies.

Jenny, in your case I believe a custom heel curve coupled with whatever magic you can achieve with counters, lining, and upper leather should do the trick and I wouldn't worry about anything the industry is using. If mainstream shoe companies were getting any of this right there wouldn't be so many people needing custom footwear and so many people making it.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!!

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[dw]

Jenny,

Horse is denser than cow/calf...for the most part--at least in my experience. But you could use a veg calf, as Al suggests.

Hard rolled means that the leather has been compressed under giant rollers to solidiy and, well...harden...the leather. Verey useful for loose fibered veg tans or even dense veg tans if you want something very stiff.

You've got the word "counter" correct...for some usages and some geographical locations/traditions. In my part of the bootmaking world counter is synonymous with "heel stiffener."


I have some very "expensive" dance shoes that have a very thin ...I'm assuming cardboard...counter in them. I think it's there more for appearances than actual function. Don't want to break up that leg line or ruin a develope'.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC


(Message edited by dw on December 23, 2005)

(Message edited by dw on December 23, 2005)

[Lisa Cresson]

Bill,
I read what you wrote and want to say it is neither my way or your way but both ways and I will explain this as the history of last developent with specific reference to western boots, and include the context within women’s footwear is sold.

What I say is true and includes what you have written about, that heel curve "IS" by last type, and is included by default. Except now, footwear is developed as a project based on average fit and style, and not so much by foot type being accomodated by width changes and foot length changes. At Joe Patrickus’ shop, I have seen the same style footware – 1940’s Western Last Co. models for the lathe with edges tacked up, that have completely different cone shape and angle as the width went from D, to E to EE for men’s size 8-8.5, so the style could be worn by different type of feet with the same comfort. These elder last makers knew a lot that is not considered important at present but I believe is responsible for people’s feet becoming a source of discomfort the more they wear modern shoes. My feet and Jenny’s are an example that show the effects of wearing footwear with a less that healthy fit. This concept, is that the heel curve is for the last type, and that the last type is designed to be comfortable for a particular foot type, average, high or low arched is not considered important now. To this day, I can identify lasts for a foot less flexible than, mine [forget the measures since we are dealing with feet of average measure but different arches and bony-ness, and toe shapes] which I will not even bother to try on since the proportions and shape are not right. Many women’s shoes in my size gap at the heel since the flex point is wrong location and, at the same time are too small in the toe box. Most people buy shoes too wide and too short. And everytime I read this and other discussion list postings I remember that the men who write about construction methods do not wear shoes with the same variety in toe and heel height as women must to dress in a way that is culturally acceptable. As I said, Carl Litche measures the heel curve with a carpenter’s tool comprised of metal pins that change shape to document the heel profile. He measured me twice.

I have the same trouble as Jenny in fitting heels, especially with athletic footware and low heeled footwear. And when fitting court shoes, the inside must be higher than the ouside for a good fit. Most court shoe heels could be a quarter inch lower at the heel top. This has nothing to do with the patternmaking process which is typically ‘off the last’ the shoe will be made upon. This is also why my order from you of wooden boot lasts was a size smaller, this was the only way to fit the wearer’s heel shape and then build up from there. DW's written literature speaks of this and I know from experience [footwear buying and observation of lasts] that custom heel curves are considered less important by modern last makers especially for women's court shoe based footwear. But a pattern that is too high up the heel back on the last is agony. In his book on modern shoemaking, Swaysland also discusses the type of feet and how to identify if a particular last would be comfortable or if leather-up or modification was needed for fitting. For the most part, men do not vary their heel height or shoe types as much as women and do not encounter the deficiencies in last design for women’s footwear, and in discussion my fitting/design issues are dismissed because there is no practical frame of reference for the information. And also, because women regularly buy shoes that do not fit well for the sake of style of the shoes. Most shoes do not sell at full price, so it is the bargain gene plus the design gene which results in shoe sales. Most women have shoes they can not wear comfortablly all day long. I do not know any men who have spent money on footwear this way.

As early as the 1800s feet fell into the identified types according to arch height. First there were five, now only three. These foot types are written about in Swaysland, as well as in other early footwear and last constructions books. Certain lasts fit certain feet better [not only the average foot here] and one of the fitting criteria is the arch height and the heel curve as well as the distance from ball to heel and the width of the foot/last at specific points. There is a class of feet known as average which is comfortable for most people and which is the fit approached by digitized last development. My research includes Master’s thesis papers written by last making software developers and one disappointing study in particular explains the method for reducing the fit points, which is why many court or slip on shoes gap on women. This gap is eliminated with shoes that tie, like sneakers and not encountered by men whose foot wear is loavers with elastic at the arch, sneakers and tie shoes.

My observations and the information that follows is specific to the class of lasts for western boots which started after 1900 and have been the source for modern lasts. Please be advised that I inherited a carefully selected group of western boot lasts for long feet, average feet, high arched feet etc. which Jim Bowman based his last making and riding boot business upon.
Digital lasts, which I have examined within and out of CAD programs are without the subtle anatomical nuances which provided a good fit back when lasts were developed by hand with the assistance of the wood-turning lathe. Eliminated for two reasons, to facilitate machine production and averaging the fit. The nuances around the cuboid bone with an arch that covered and accommodated this and the heel helped keep the footwear fitting on the foot as it changed shape when people walked. I have, but not here to post pictures, old wooden Nocona, and the factory digitized from the late 1960s and early 1970s plastic lasts.

Now, let me clarify the application of a specific heel curve for the benefit of a wearer. So, for example, when examining a western boot last whose design was clearly for a higher arched firm foot, the heel curve would accommodate a bony heel and likely be a bit high at the top. Thus, if the heel counter was made of material that had too little give or way physically too high, the result would be irritating to the wearer. Higher heel curves are allowed by factory plastic lasts to facilitate machine production and provide the average fit.

Right now, I have smashed [carefully] and added a heel pad within the lining to make a new pair of lovely low-heeled slip-on’s fit ME properly.

As I said, I have seen the collection of pre-cut, metal, heel dyes classified to particular lasts, which were designed for specific foot/last types and scaled for the size. I am NOT talking about custom modified lasts with leather ups etc. Western boot lasts have fit criteria which make them more comfortable to the wearer as the fit criteria are not found in commercially constructed purchased lower heeled footwear. The boot fit, when correct is especially comfortable because the boot vamp/heel covers arch with support, is close to the heel without being irritatingly tight or too loose, and puts the flex point in the right place and is wide enough at the ball and has a toe box with style that accommodates all toes without constraint.

I understand what you write about to be within the range of your experience in commercial last making, however I have and will continue to study the history of the origins of good fitting off-the-shelf lasts that commerical footwear companies abandoned cause the inventory was a money waster. The point of that Gilman I bought was to cut a last as close as possible to fit the needs of the customer, and with minimal added leather.

Best to you.
Lisa

[jenny_fleishman]

Lisa...WOW! I think I need to do a 6 month internship with you about heel counters!

It has always surprised me that although I have so much trouble finding shoes with comfortable heel counters, none of my female friends have ever complained about this part of a shoe being uncomfortable. My sister has some enlargement at the top of her heel bones (pump bump). In spite of this, her shoes don't hurt. Meanwhile, I have almost no visible enlargement, and I can LOOK at a pair of shoes and my heels hurt! (Well, OK, not quite.) So it is nice to find another person who has had a similar experience to mine with the heel counters/shapes. I was beginning to think I was some freak of nature.

How do you tell if a last is designed for a high or low arch foot? I've been looking at lasts on Larry Waller's site, walrusshoe.com. There are two styles that seem to fit my "comfort before beauty" preference. Style numbers are 1100 and 1200. One very noticable difference that I see is on the bottom contour of the lasts. Would the 1200 be for someone with high arches, and the 1100 for someone with low arches? Bill, and anyone else, please comment, too!

Another problem I often have with fit is that shoes often push my big toe inward toward the second toe, even with shoes that have a fairly wide toe box. I like my toeboxes to go almost straight forward from the widest part of the ball of the foot along the big toe. Which brings up a question re cowboy boots. They are often so pointed, that even if the toe box is lengthened to allow for a more pointed toe, I would expect that they would still push the big toe in toward the second toe because the inside edge of the toe box would still have to angle towards the point, and so may still encourage the development of bunions. On the other hand, I can't imagine any of you are making uncomfortable custom boots, so I figure I must be missing something in the fitting science. How do you make those pointed toes comfortable?!

Jenny

[dw]

I think the most important thing that needs to be understood in all of this is --one)...lasts are just a tool. A basis from which to begin. Insofar as the last maker can deliver a base that incorporates a variety of foot functions and topographies, the last need not...and as afar as I am concerned should not make any attempt to duplicate a specific type of foot, much less an individual foot. That is for the maker...boot or shoe...and it is a freedom that I, for one, cherish...in that it allows me to give my customer a level of personal service that even the digital last cannot duplicate. I have often said that fitting the foot is only half the fit--the other half is fitting the head!

And that brings me to the second point--this forum, while not exclusive of lastmakers (we welcome them) or harness makers (ditto) or anyone else...is for and about boot and shoemaking. I raise this point simply to underscore the idea that, in my estimation, Jenny's problems with the back of her heel are probably amenable to the kinds of modifications that any competent maker would make to a standard last. It is easy to get side tracked...and perhaps, paralyzed...as a result of losing one's focus. As a maker I subscribe to the idea that a competent maker can modify any last within three sizes short of the target (length or width) and achieve satisfactory results. This willingness and ability--skill, if you will--extends to foot anomalies, as well. It simply requires mindful deliberation and patience. And in the end, the rewards of pursuing such an intimate knowledge of the foot and foot structure...as it relates to footwear, far overshadow the results that might be gained pursuing the "perfect" last. As has been hinted by others in this conversation...there ain't no such thing! (although some are better than others).

That is unless you want to be a lastmaker rather than a shoemaker.

One other, perhaps more controversial observation...there is an old, old saying that I think not only carries a whole lot of truth but is at least marginally applicable here: "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world." Putting aside all the more subtle and meaningful implications of such a statement, the obvious truth is that if women (or men, or anyone) consciously, or perhaps unconsciously, continue to choose footwear that is anatomically and functionally nothing short of bizarre...the results will continue to be nothing short of predictable.


another 2¢ for the kitty...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[btippit]

Lisa,

Well, I’m back from the holidays and even though I promised myself I would not be drawn into this discussion any further, I feel there are so many errors in your previous posting, not to mention what I feel are insulting comments about myself, that I can no longer withhold my rebuttal.

First of all, if you will note in my opening comments I was talking about US PRODUCTION LASTS and I stand firm on my statements. You can quote Swaysland, Golding, and all the Masters thesis papers you want to but there is absolutely ZERO evidence than “types of feet” have had anything to do with production lasts made in the US in at least the past 40-50 years and most likely before that. If there had been any such considerations then the shoe and boot styles on the shelves of the stores would have not simply been sized with numbers and a few width letters. You would have had choices such as “high arch” or “low arch”, “narrow heel” or “medium heel”, “short forepart” or “normal forepart”, “high instep” or “low instep”, etc., etc. These choices have not been available nor are they ever likely to be in the mainstream retail business. It is simply not cost effective for stores to maintain that type of inventory or for manufacturers to invest in the tooling required to make so many variations of a style.

By no means am I saying this would not be a good idea. It would be a GREAT idea....if it could work. But in the production and off the shelf retail world, it never has been achievable and it never will be. Thank God we have custom shoe and boot makers who don’t have the volume restrictions than tie the hands of mass manufacturers. Those are the only makers who will ever be able to utilize the ideas of pioneers such as Golding, Swaysland, or even more recently, Rossi.

The wonderful models you saw at Joe Patrickus’ shop and purchased from Jim Bowman DO NOT depict a beautiful adherence to any study of footwear types, at least not if they are production models originally designed for mass manufacturers. They simply are good looking models that “fit” whoever they fit because they were made to good specs and with commons sense. Even at that however, it would be foolish to think that they will perfectly fit everyone who has footwear made from them for the very reasons we have both pointed out. People have their “own thing” going on with their feet. Maybe it’s a high arch, maybe it’s a flat heel, maybe it’s a high instep but the chances of these angelic models producing a last by simple grading, with no custom modifications to fit these feet is about as good as the chances of my beloved St. Louis Blues making the playoffs this year....it just ain’t going to happen!

Also, if you saw a run of models that showed different cone shapes and angles (angles of what by the way?) going from width to width or from size to size, you saw models that had been modified. Any model maker who made an E width with a different cone shape than the D width on the same style would not be a model maker very long and other than holding to a steel toe schedule, there would be no reason to make a size 8 AND a size 8.5 model on the same style unless customization was going on and I doubt that these models you’re discussing were for steel toed footwear.

As for Carl Lichte’s use of the contour gauge to make a heel curve template from a foot, this is something that model makers have done for as long as they’ve been making CUSTOM models. However, for some types of footwear you’d better take into consideration the materials and construction involved and not just slap the exact same heel curve on the last that you have on your foot. You mention court shoes in your lengthy dissertation. If you don’t allow for extra padding in those types of shoes, especially at the top where you often have a padded collar, you will still have fit issues, even though the shoes are “soft and fluffy”. Plus, as I recall, you said when you purchased your one pair of lasts from me that the lasts Carl made for you were over a size too big, something that I had trouble understanding at the time and still have my doubts about.

Also, you mention that you purchased your lasts from me a size small to allow for build ups and other customization. I find that odd since you had no idea what the measurements (even the length) were. You simply ordered a size and said you would live with it, that you were mainly interested in seeing the style, since it was one of the legendary Krentler Brothers lasts from the 1940s.

Another disagreement I have with your posting is where you say that problems in fit can have nothing to do with pattern making since this is typically done “off the last” that the shoe is made on. Actually it’s done off the master size and graded, where problems CAN occur if allowances and grade breaks are not positioned properly but it can also occur on the same master size the original patterns are drafted on. Placing the vamp too far forward, the backheight too low, making the topline unbalanced, and a whole host of other things can cause problems even though those patterns may sit on that last like skin. It’s a long leap from a paper pattern to a shoe.

You also mention that “higher heel curves are allowed by factory plastic lasts to facilitate machine production and provide the average fit”. Again, there are several things wrong with this statement. First, it would make no difference if the lasts were made from plastic or wood. They are all produced on the same lathes and the heel curves are hand finished by the same workers with the same templates. Second, the higher the heel curve, the MORE DIFFICULT the machining. No last maker would make a higher heel curve if they could avoid it. And third, the SHAPE of the heel curve and the angle have far more to do with fit than the height since in most footwear the shoe is shorter in height than the last anyway.

I take GREAT exception with your comment that the approach of digitized last development only deals with the class of feet known as “average”. Digital last development is used for whatever the developer wants to use it for whether that be production lasts for mass manufacturers or custom lasts for individual makers. To say that there is a difference in a digital last as opposed to a manually developed last is ridiculous. That’s like saying someone can’t write as well with a word processor as they can with pen and paper. You also claim to have “examined” digital lasts within and out of CAD programs and that they are without the subtle anatomical nuances that provided good fit back when lasts were developed by hand. Nonsense!! If they were without these great features it’s because the last they were developed from was without them and whoever made them either didn’t take it upon themselves to enhance the fit or their customer never asked them to. On the other hand if they HAD these wonderful fit features it’s not because they were digitally developed, it’s because someone either put them in the base last that was digitized or added them after the fact in the CAD system. Being digital or non-digital hasn’t got a blasted thing to do with the quality of a last. It’s all about who is developing the last, with or without CAD!!

And finally you patronize me by saying you “understand” what I write to be “within the range of my experience in commercial last making”. For your information I have been doing this for over 31 years and with the exception of my four year hiatus to work for Lectra I have spent most of the past 15 years working with custom boot and shoe makers all over the world and even in the four years I was working for Lectra stayed involved in the industry and never really “left” last making.

My suggestion, as I’ve told you before, would be for you to take your Gilman lathe and finally make some lasts with it. Get some experience with some sawdust or plastic shavings. Make some lasts and then make some boots for yourself from those lasts and see how they fit. Experiment. See what happens to other areas of a last when you modify one area. Put all of your reading to work. Get your hands dirty making what you like so much to write about and then, just maybe, you’ll have some credibility on the subject.

I fully acknowledge that this is being written from an emotional standpoint but trust me, I gave myself 48 hours to calm down and tried not to think about it during Christmas. However, I simply could not leave such uninformed opinions on the forum without a rebuttal. Obviously I don’t expect to receive any additional orders from you and I’m truly OK with that. If I’ve offended anyone else with my tone and that costs me business, I will just have to suffer the consequences but I will NOT let a bunch of loose cannon babbling lead anyone astray when I and quite a few others who have remained silent know better. My only apologies are to the forum administrators and if I’m banned for this outburst it just means I will have more time to make lasts.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[btippit]

DW,

I do not disagree with you that the final fit modifications need to be done by the maker, the only one of the "triangle" who has had the wearer's feet in his/her hands and actually measured them. (What the wearer does with his/her own feet in the privacy of their home is none of our business right?)

With my "semi-custom" and "true-custom" options (more details on the website soon), I just offer a way to get the last closer to where the maker needs it, thus saving him/her time that could be spent making boots or shoes. I don't expect them to do absolutely nothing to the lasts, even the "true-custom", although in reality this is a possibility.

These are just options and there's always the base size option to those who just want to order something and not know (especially if it's their first order on a style) how much they will have to build up or, God forbid, grind off.

Something for everyone...I hope.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[dw]

Bill,

Understood. I readily acknowledge that you are at the forefront of a "new wave," as who should say. That said, I am skeptical that even a "true custom" last, given the state of the art...as well as all kinds of less tangible factors, can fulfill 100% of the expectations of someone hoping to avoid getting their hands dirty. But that's just me--someone has to pioneer the concept...and I admire you for it.

Myself...I am, admittedly, a bit of an old fogey on the subject and while I am pretty conversant with the computer and tech toys, there are some areas of my life where I may have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. No reflection on you or your lasts--you know I am a devoted fan.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[btippit]

DW,

Thanks but I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with your stand on the "true custom" issue. I don't pretend to think I could possibly nail every measurement, arch height, bunion shape, or forepart pronation 100% the way the maker will want it. All I offer is my ability to take the information given and supply a last that is far closer to the end objective than the starting point would be by just ordering a standard size. I couldn't read the maker's mind and duplicate every leather buildup or grinding wheel removal whether I did it by hand or on the CAD system. By the same token, I doubt that any maker would duplicate the effort 100% if there was some way to erase his/her memory after they've customized a last and have them do it over again.

The Sistine Chapel could never be copied exactly even if old Mickey Buonarroti could be brought back to attempt it. There's no such thing as an exact duplicate of a last or exact copy of a pattern (when either is done by hand) and no two last makers or boot makers would ever create a complicated work of art exactly the same. However, if I can save makers time spent in modifying a last so that they only need to tweak it to get where they want to go, it gives them more hours to create the works of art that I will never be able to even consider making...the boots and shoes.

On the other hand, it's much easier for me to just grade a size and produce that so I don't frown on that work at all. Heck, I'm in no position to frown on ANY work!

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[dw]

Bill,

And again, I know that the work you are doing is not only valuable but, as I said, "the wave of the future."

I guess it comes down to the way I was trained...at one point, a custom last for every customer...even if it has to be tweaked...has its appeal. On the other hand, I couldn't store all those lasts. The way I learned and have operated for the last three decades is to re-use lasts over and over again. A standard 9D will fit a hundred customers with "tweaking" (although admittedly sometimes more than a "little" tweaking) whereas a customized 9D (would it still even, technically, be a 9D?) won't fit but the one customer.

If I have to "cut" a last, I will then dedicate that last to that particular customer especially if he is satisfied with the fit. But if I am just building up on various surfaces, I can peel those build-ups off and re-use the last for the next 9D that walks in the door.

So there's an element of economics in play here.

Beyond that...and I raise this issue just to see what your response will be...I am a bit leery of ordering a "custom" last and having it not fit the customer. Even though we communicate and you have gone out of your way to understand my methods and accomodate me, inevitably something will get lost in the translation. You aren't seeing the foot; you aren't pulling the tape measure; you cannot be in my skin as I deal with the order. And every maker does it a little different. So if a custom last falls short in some way or the other, then...worst case scenario...I have to order another custom last with no more guarantee that the fit will be satisfactory than the first time. It's a terrible burdan to lay on you. But more than that...ultimately, I have to be responsible for fit.

With a standard run of lasts I have an almost infinite range of permutations and possiblities for fit to choose from--if a 9D proves too wide in the heel, I can step back to a 9B and build up the forepart. Where do I go from a custom 9X that is too wide in the heel? Another custom 9X? This is starting to get a little scary! A custom last is very like a "cut" last--it is one thing and one thing only and there is no reliable set of parameters from which to extend its range. No progression of widths or girths.

Don't take any of this seriously...as I said, I'm a bit old fashioned on this issue and might never be convinced. Even so, on a theoretical level at least, I'm facinated by the possiblities and hope to see you bring it to full fruition in my lifetime.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[jenny_fleishman]

Question re last styles...At some point I would like to have a run of lasts in a variety of sizes that I could customize for friends or make demos on. On walrusshoe.com there are two styles I'm looking at..the 1200 and the 1100. The 1100 has an edge because the run is only 20 pairs, which costs less and requires less storage space. Looking at the bottom of the two styles of lasts, I see that the contours of the soles are quite different, particularly in the arch area. Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of the two different styles, or what types of feet they are for (high vs low arch I'm guessing?), and how versatile the styles might be?

Jenny

[btippit]

DW,

First, the answer is “no”, it would no longer be considered a 9D, at least not for the original style. If however, all I did was reduce the short heel and narrow the heel seat (something that I do on virtually every customization or semi-customization of a stock style it seems), then this could then be considered the 9D “narrow heel” or renowned “combination” last. Then, “stock” sizes could be ordered on this new, better fitting version. (More on that in my next post.)

OK, back to the subject at hand. You raise a valid point about being able to pull build ups off and reuse the lasts. However, many of my customers are able to get anywhere from $150 to $200 or more for a last fee. With that money in hand it sometimes seems beneficial to them to pay the extra for a semi or true custom last and spend less time on it than building up a stock last knowing they’ll be taking the build ups off again just to start the whole process over. Plus, with the grading charts that I can now offer showing the 5 key girth measurements, heel to toe and heel to ball length measurements for sizes ranging from 1-24 and widths from AAAA to EEEEEE, you can take even a fully customized last and know what the measurements would be if you ordered any of those sizes. So you can take a last you had me fully customize for your customer “Ned” and compare its original measurements (before you tweak it) to what your new customer “Joe” needs and then tell me to grade a last for “Joe”, for example, ½” longer and ¾” bigger on the ball than Ned’s last and you will know exactly what all the measurements will be from the chart so you can select the amount of grade on the length and ball you need to get you to the best starting point with the least amount of work to do. Of course these charts are available for standards styles as well. Since this is a simple length and ball grade and there is no customization on my part, you will only pay for a standard size.

As for the maker being the final point of responsibility for fit, you’re absolutely right about that too. However, I still contend that if we exchange all of the measurement information and I send the maker several screen shots showing the last in different views with the measurements marked on it, he/she will have a pretty decent idea of what they’re getting and will certainly be able to ascertain whether it’s close enough to tweak or not. It will certainly be closer than the 3 size window you speak of. But, I’m starting to make this sound like a hard sell here so I’ll stop. It’s really just up to you guys and gals. I’ll make the lasts any way you want me to. No one’s wrong. No one’s right. Let’s just hope in a few year’s someone’s left.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[Lisa Cresson]

Dear Bill Tippitt and DW;

In the prior posting DW explains how many different foot types are accostomed to buying a 9D commercial shoe, and his fit experience shows where the last needs customization. This perception on the part of the customer as to their 'shoe size' simply validates my point that modern lasts/footwear are designed to fit many feet. Geez even the Brannok devices separate athletic shoes from dress shoes for both men and women. So if that customer usually wears a 9D NIKE or ADDIDAS sneaker... is he right or wrong about his 'shoe size' and right or wrong to expect customization if he ordered custom cowboy boots whose fit is without laces? I think DW is correct about every millimeter of leather he adds to the last.

Six of one, and half-a-dozen of another; half-empty vs. half-full. If it were possible to say the same thing in different ways your responses to both my postings are exactly that. The issue appears a moving target of sorts, from what is a 'true-custom' fit, to the value of new lasts against older lasts. My points remain the same, that much is to be learned about good fitting footwear from the old handmade lasts and that commercial footwear is a disappointment, especially for many women.

The primary goal of US commercial production lasts designated for factory use, is to fit as many people as possible with as few inventory sizes as possible and use as fewest component parts as possible. Fashion, or copy-catting designers is simply a way to move the inventory. But no good business plan involves huge quantities of inventory that have little market appeal or fit. The shoe industry is designed to make money, and dropping prices based on drop in production costs puts hundreds of shoes under $60 on sale in the face of the millions of middle class American shoppers. Money must keep moving.

The purpose of the older wooden lasts was to fit people as well as possible, depending on the type of foot, and understanding that all footwear, made in batches as needed due to lack of machine automation, was to fit as well as possible. Shoes were made to last. And good fit was not an accident, it was the result of study and analysis such as the US army study of foot toe shapes, lenght and girth measures, and outlines, and the cult around the FAGUS company in Germany.) Anyone who wants ISBN's send me an private email.

Feet types were more specific before 1950, with far fewer fleshy flexible feet to be sure. People, clothes, and shoes are all bigger now. Modern footwear is wider. Digitized last development speeds the production process but only very few companies offer custom measure last development, and even fewer for women. Most just make custom designs for women.

ALL western bootmakers I've met covet the wooden lasts for fit and style. There is no comparison between the NOCONA style 20 plastic from J&V in 1965 and the wooden from 1940 that was the original. All the subtle nuances offering good fit on the cuboid bone lateral side are straightened out.
My research shows that there were some intiutive genius model makers out there who knew through experience and instinct what made a shoe fit well, and look good way back when we did not have computers to change toe boxes automatically. This fit and appearance combination was the result of handling the model and working in three dimensions. The work of these artisan and craftsmen model-makers led to the success of companies like Florsheim; et al.

The computer speeds up the process but the flat image on the monitor leaves alot to be desired. I wrote a 3-D modeling book a few years back and know from experience the 'approximation' given to the user by wireframe and low-resolution rendered previews is not the same as something tangible.

Bill, BLAST at whatever you want, and when you say you "take exception to..." feel free to create the feeling you are offensed where no offense was intented. Some of your remarks are extreme, and never could I nor would I personally dismiss all the industry roots, scholarly study and research that has put the industry in the main stream of the US and world economiese. The Chinese has special interest in keeping manufacturing up for our companies, and these shoes are made automatically, right?

What we have now in terms of last development tools gets the job done, but it is the way the tool is used, the majority of the time to make a last, is dedicated to a style and the remaining shape is mitigated to work on the shoemaking machinery. My closet is full of them, and Jenny's feet bear the wounds. Modern footwear is often a fitting disappointment. What you might do in your laptop with last modelling software is not immediately available as try-it buy-it footwear for most of us.

And to all you men who so quickly scoff at the fit and foot problems of women, remember that I own and wear more shoe types that you would ever be brave enough to put your foot into.
A western boot with correct slippage allowance in the heel and corrrect instep fits so much better than any pump or court shoe could with the same heel height that women are expected to wear for dress or business. [I have not yet met a heterosexual man who did not like a woman's high heeled pump]. In upscale department stores, Taryn Rose™ the podiatrist shoe designer has a line based on a 2 inch heel. Her pumps run long in the toe and narrow at the ball. Base price $450.00 for a sandal factory-made.

One thing is in arguable, ill-fitting footwear changes the feet of the wearer, expecially under 25 years of age. The New Yorker Magazine this past October 2004 ran an article from eastern European shoemakers complaining how the cheap footwear from china was hurting the feet of school children, too wide at instep, and too short in the toe. I encourage my sister, even if her daughter has her heart set on Target Brand Barbie sneakers and MaryJanes, to buy them long enough in the toe with the flex point at the right spot. She goes one step further and buys the next half size larger so the day the first pair are too small, the new pair just the same fits.

You may think you argue a point that over-rides in some way my quote of your own information, but really it is simply reinforcement. I hear your reluctance to match the computer model guaranteed to fit well to the customer measure. I agree with your measure of 'semi-custom last' being close, a bit shy, but never more in circumfuerence than the customer's measurements. DW has the same approach beginning with the heel.

Bill, I invite you to be my first customer when I begin to make artistic samples within the year, or open an independent shop should my weekly lottery ticket become a winner. As I said, before no offense intended. Custom shoes fit better and customization is an art; best applied to the object instead of it's digital approximation.

Happy New Year to All!

[das]

Jenny,

If Larry's game, you'd be better off getting a single sample of each style you're considering buying, and evaluating them in person to make your decisions. Check them for exact heel-height and toe-spring against the style/type of shoe you want to make, etc. I'd look more for the amount of "swing" [medial "inflare" shape so as not to clip the big toe]. Look for the greatest "inside cone" orientation, and over all the more anatomical shaping. From the tread-line [ball] on back to the heel, the more the last looks and feels in the hand like a human foot, usually the better-fitter it is, as most of the "style" is only in the toe and forepart. Photos are often not enough information. Since they are old factory production last runs, I doubt if they were intentionally designed for foot "types" in any respect, but rather shoe styles. That said, I've never seen production lasts where the arch it too high, mostly the opposite. However, in "no" cases [well, very few] do you want the arch of the last to be as high as the arch of the person's foot, or they will feel like they're standing on a log pushing up into the bottom of their foot. And, unless there are mitigating health issues, overly high arch support via last's curve, only "invites the dis-use of muscles". The foot has tendons and musculature to "support" that arch, and too much mechanical "support" weakens them--like wearing a girdle or corset weakens ones ab and back muscles, etc. Don't over-do arches

[das]

Lisa,

Even though I was not involved in the earlier conversation on this, let me toss out a few thoughts:

1) I've handled and studied probably more old lasts (1600s-today) than most of you have had hot dinners In designing individual lasts, or last models for multiple-pair runs, there were/are ever two "paths", i.e. you are either *starting* with a person's foot (custom, a la Carl Lichte, et al.), or a generic idea of a style or look you want in finished footwear (JV, Sterling, et al.). Bespoke/custom lasts are terrible fitters for anybody but the particular client--usually. But, well-designed production lasts can usually be nicely tweaked for excellent bespoke fitting--it's easier to take a last in one direction than the other. The earlier 20thc. lasts you like (I like...we all like) have more anatomically-correct architecture, very pronounced, some are even wonderful pieces of sculpture in their own right (find some c.1900 "Redifer" or "Van Pelt" lasts). But, wildly anatomical lasts, dramatic curves and hollows, sweeping cones, or severe "swing" or inflare medial shaping, all complicate(d) line-production in the factory, as well as pattern-making/uppers fitting. IOW they might be great basic last shapes for tweaking into custom fits, but they were slowly "dumbed-down" by the shoe industry over time to shapes that were easier for mass-production techniques (and worse for fitting). Today we have shoes that look more like boxes shoes come in, than shoes. Similarly, lasts as forms to create a container-shape (footwear) can likewise go but down two paths: a true "fit", or a highly tolerable generic container-shape. In regards to the latter and the industry, it's a matter of a container shape that most feet of a given length and width can *tolerate*, than what bespoke makers would call a proper "fit". It might help clarify the issues here if we stayed clearly with one kind or the other--bespoke fitting, vs. generic container-shaping.

2) Wooden lasts are not as important to a good fitter as the period in which they were made--wooden lasts continued right up into the 1960s, though I've seen few lasts designed after c.1940 that were worth more than their weight as firewood. And, as far as women go, there is little evidence that I know of to suggest that their feet even form a "type" different than men's. If women's footwear is perceived as miserable, the fault is more in the shoe designs (and the lasts made to create those designs for mass-production), than anything inherent in the lasts per se. Yes, generic feet have changed over the past 100 years with racial and ethnic diversification, plus the ever "fattening" population, so stock lasts from the 1900s might be a failure to use for a 2006 production run.

3) The Munson US Army last from WWI (superceded in c.1963) is the only one I am aware of that was designed from the feet of soldiers with no regard to fashion, but the US Navy last from the same date (R&D/background unknown) is, likewise an excellent last. After WWII, when the US Army re-evaluated soldiers' feet through anthropometrical survey, the results were a disaster, e.g "geometric grading", the MKIV and V lasts, and the crop of awful-fitting boots our solders have worn since c.1964. IOW, all that effort didn't improve the lasts--it actually made them worse.

4) And don't do guy-bashing/baiting *sigh*. When it comes to feet we're pretty much all quite the same anatomically in or pedal extremities. There is no evidence I'm aware of that suggests there even ought to be different lasts for men/women, assuming they're both wearing the same style shoe or boot.

[btippit]

Jenny,

Everything Al says about the two styles you're looking at is true, in my opinion. The arch shape on a production last might be designed to fit a unit sole or perhaps includes an allowance for a post applied insole with some minimal arch support built in. All of this is from the whim of the designer and has nothing to do with "foot types". You just won't find that consideration in any production lasts, regardless of when they were made, how they were made, or what they were made from. That same "type" of foot that buys the athletic shoe is going to buy a dress shoe, a casual shoe, perhaps a sandal, some slippers, a pump, and maybe even a western boot. I can assure you there will be no similarity between any of those production lasts and I don't think there ever was.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[lancepryor]

Al, I find your comments very interesting and informative (so, what else is new?).

Your observations beg a question for Bill. Bill, in your library of last shapes/forms, how many of those lasts would originally date from the earlier periods which Al cites, ie. before 1940 vs. after? What has been your personal experience about the fitting characteristics of last designed during various decades?

And, for Al, could you provide any more specificity around what, in your experience, comprised the 'dumbing down' of the lasts? Was it primarily the move toward a homogeneity in the shape of the lasts (i.e. a move toward the median/'average' foot), so that people with even slightly unusual feet could no longer find ready-to-wear shoes that fit? Or, was it the loss of the anatomical features (e.g. a cuboid bump?) that has rendeder the more modern lasts less worthwhile? And, if the latter, could you cite which feature(s) you have observed to make the biggest difference?

And finally, a question for either of you, or anyone else. What is/are the primary benefit(s) of a last with a very inside cone?

Thanks in advance, and Happy New Year!

Lance

[das]

Lance,

Thanks. Glad my arcane info. is useful--I've got enough of it certainly.

As for the "dumbing-down" of production lasts, short of writing a book.... basically the main two driving factors seem to me to have been: 1) removing any/all extreme anatomical architectural features on the lasts to make pulling uppers on [by machine] quick and fast with less effort; making lasts less left and right in bottom shape, the upper patterns could be draughted "straighter", or even "straight"--making left and right patterns and press-knives require more work, care, expense, etc., (the "straighter" the soles, too, the more economical they are to cut exhaustively as well) and 2) the boxier the container shape internally, the more feet of the same length and width can fit into it without pressure here, there, or the other place. That equaled fewer "mis-fits" (a better tolerated shape). The more specific the last is to a given foot (real or generic), the less likely it will fit others. The bottoms have gotten pretty dead these days too, but I think that has more to do with the change over from Goodyear welted with leather bottoms, to unitized bottoms, cemented constructions, and contoured inserts (the anatomical contouring and architecture has been removed from the last bottom, and made into an insert!), however, lasts in the 1960s were getting flatter, before all these cushy inserts were the rage.

Another factor that affects many aspects is the change in "foot culture", by that I mean, we are seeing--and in most cases are ourselves--the last generation to grow up wearing traditional leather soled, non-padded footwear. Sure, some might have worn "Chucks" or "Keds" in the summer, but mostly any of us over 40-45 grew up in leather footwear without padding. "Gen X", "Gen Y" "Gen Next", etc., have all grown up wearing trainers/sneakers etc., and their feet just feel "uncomfortable" (perception of alien environment) even trying on non-padded footwear, just as many of us feel "weird" in the overly-padded current styles. I can't even walk well in thick neoprene rubber wedge soles with a leather insole--I feel like I'm walking on top of sponges. I could go on about childhood conditioning of the foot's proprioceptors http://www.ca.uky.edu/agripedia/glossary/proprioc.htm, but at the end of the day it's just what you're used to wearing, and have come to prefer. The footwear industry had responded by designing some shoes that look more like traditional footwear, but incorporate the loose non-committal "sneaker" fit, excessive padding, and all that for the "sneaker generation", and lasts have followed suit.

My 2 cents on "inside cone": it's more anatomical, therefore a better fit. The primary tendon that runs down your instep to your great toe goes at an angle forming the highest (dorsal) ridge down the foot. Better it would be to ask, "why have a center-cone last, it's at odds with anatomy?". Center-cone lasts are easier to design patterns to, easier to pull uppers over by machine, and are less "committal" in fit, and they are notorious lousy fitters

[jenny_fleishman]

Arch support, padding...To get back to "Miscellaneous" topics, I am interested in the difference of opinion on how much padding shoes should have. Feet were not designed by nature to walk on pavement, so it would seem some padding/shock absorption would be beneficial. Do you find as shoe/bootmakers that the type of feet people have (fleshy, boney, etc.) and a person's age are any predictors of how much padding they will prefer/find comfortable? Are there pros and cons in terms of effect on the feet or gait?

I'm also interested in the arch support issue. How do you determine the optimal amount of support? I gather if it's too much, it would prevent the foot from flexing normally during a stride. In fact, wouldn't ANY arch support interfere with normal flexing? On the other hand, I have heard opinions that lack of arch support (particularly for those with high arches), leads the feet to fatigue more quickly. I have high arches and my feet do tire quickly, so this is not hard to believe!

Jenny

[das]

Jenny,

Not to monopolize your posts--and please, chime in Forumites--but to throw out more thoughts...

Padding/shock absorption: "How much is too much under foot?" I think only the individual wearer can answer that. "It depends...", on what you're used to. As for me, an 1/8" of Poron under a leather heel-sock is quite enough, with a 5/8" leather heel and 9 iron rubber top-piece. Others require a full Poron sock, plus a Neoprene crepe sole 3/4" thick. I just depends... I'm 50, a slim build, and while not athletic, I like to walk (on pavement).

As to padding elsewhere in the upper, like around the throat, I think it's a de rigur gimmick borrowed from trainers/sneakers. If the top-line cuts into your foot the pattern's wrong, or poorly cut, and being mitigated by padded collars etc. IOW, fix the pattern and drop the fluff.

My thoughts on arch-support I touched on earlier...if the person feels "let down" in the arch, or "tired", add a tad of support just until it feels better, but don't over-do it or you'll bring the arch down by supporting it artificially and weakening all the muscles/tendons. If I was feeling peevish, I'd say the prescription for tired arches is do more walking to build them up, or shed a stone or two

[jenny_fleishman]

Thanks DA...in my own defense, I could stand to lose 5-8 lbs. max, and I walk a lot at work all day!

re too much padding...am mainly concerned about the metatarsal area--does too much padding not support the bones enough...

[das]

Jenny,

Wasn't trying to imply you were....you know. It's just that 9 out of 10 folks these days seem to be carrying a bit too much weight

In the met. area padding is again "what feels good", however too much underfoot and energy is lost in gait. The forefoot and toes need a firm surface to roll and push off for the next step, and if too much energy is lost, by transfer to sinking down into padding, than it fatigues the feet faster.

Some interesting discussions, albeit from youngsters in the military:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/boots.htm

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:dToTIwb00VMJ:www.specialtactics.com/ubbthre ads/showflat.php%3FCat%3D0%26Number%3D24073%26Main%3D23999+proprioceptors+combat +boots&hl=en

[btippit]

I apologize for the delay in responding to several posts. I had a rare visit from a customer yesterday (don’t actually get to sit down with most of you) and have been buried preparing a couple of presentations. So this will be an attempt at a catch all.

Lance,

First, to answer to your question about the history of my lasts. Almost all of the shoe lasts are from the 70s or later. The exceptions would be the Munson, a few men’s oxfords, and some of the period lasts I have for reenactors. I have a nice collection of proprietary styles that all have the features we covet and they MAY be released for anyone to buy at some point next year. I’ll announce it and post them on my website if that happens. By the way, the long awaited digital catalog is probably a week or less from being posted.

As for the Western Boot lasts, I have the 8261 which was made by Krentler Brothers and also Western Last in the 40s and 50s and I’ve got several Lucchese lasts and some others that, even though they may “technically” be from styles adopted in the 60s or more recently, they have the very nice anatomical features that we all like in Western Boot lasts so they’ve got good genes. I also have a number of styles that I got from what was left of E.J. McDaniels’ inventory at Omega lasts. I don’t have the history on most of these but like the Lucchese lasts mentioned earlier, they are obviously based on older, less “factory friendly” shapes.

Concerning the feedback I’ve gotten on fit, since everything I did when I had The Last Word was just graded to a specific size, with all of the customization done by the maker, I don’t think they were looking for fit from me so much as just a good starting point. However, the tendency was always that once someone purchased one of the “classic” shapes, they seldom came back for a more generic last unless there was a heel height restriction or some other reason that just made it easier for them to modify a factory type last. By FAR, the Lucchese types (including other styles with similar shapes) were my best sellers. The two best selling “factory friendly” lasts I had were my version of Tony Lama’s R-Toe and also their Roper last. However, I had cleaned out the backpart a couple of widths before I digitized it to reduce some of the heel slipping. If I had known then what I know now, I’d have whacked away at the short heel too. I should also mention that the many lasts I sell to DW’s students from his line of styles also (obviously) fall into the “classic” shape category but that’s a given.

Whether it’s been a standard size or something I’ve customized to whatever degree, I’ve had nothing but positive feedback on the lasts I’ve sold in the past year but, as DW says, the maker has the final responsibility for fit so he or she will have “blessed” the final last before anything’s made on it anyway.

For shoe lasts I have some pretty good fitters in both men’s and women’s but having lost my database before returning to last making, I have to go by memory and the crude visuals I get from the old files before converting them to the new CAD so it’s a long process to dig one up, as many of you have found out. With enough good fitters converted now on most types of footwear, I can just do style and heel height modifications in most cases and avoid the long process of converting the old styles unless someone’s wanting something they bought from me before.

Al’s comments about why lasts were dumbed down is dead on to me. Most production pattern engineers that I know of work with half of the flattened shell and just do a mirror of it to get the other side. It sounds crazy but with those nearly symmetrical lasts it doesn’t seem to cause too many problems for the manufacturers. The customers who wear the shoes probably would have a different opinion. I would think that would be a difficult thing to do with something like the Munson or one of the classic, inside cone, boot lasts. When I’ve flattened a last and sent 2D draft patterns to customers I always do both sides. I can leave them separated or pivot them so they simulate one piece.

I think someone asked me if anyone has ever asked us to do an inside cone last for when I was at JV. We actually did get that request. During the “comfort craze” of the 80s when you couldn’t get too much bottom contour or cushioned inserts in a shoe (for marketing purposes anyway) we did get some requests for inside cone lasts. We called them “natural” lasts because of the anatomical feature. I remember Wilson and some of the other model makers making several styles but honestly, I can’t remember what companies they were for. I do know that if any of them went to production they didn’t last long and I’m sure it was because of complaints about pulling the uppers over an offset last, factory rejects, and piece work. So, “comfort” became much easier to achieve by just putting pillows in the shoes and rounding the bottom.

I hope I got everything. If not, as the local sports teams are all saying, “wait ‘till next year”.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[das]

Bill,

Your last post was great. I feel validated at least on my impressions of "inside cone" especially.

Having been a hand-laster (and hand- everything else) lo these many years, I finally ran some English style riding boots (1930s factory patterns) through a fully mechanized 1930s machined-equipped riding boot factory for myself to get the experience Gads, it was like being a newbee all over again. The last I used was a "600", one of those nice riding boot lasts Bruce Graham was digging out of that old factory in NE 5 years back--Dan, you know the ones. Anyway, the last has a good inside cone--my guess on dating is 1930s--and enough medial "swing" to suit my quirky taste. I tried, the factory owner tried, and in 30 minutes neither of us could get the pair of boots tight to the wood on that last by machine. In the end I hand-lasted them. It became clear to me then, why the radical anatomical architecture we know and love was phased out--machines are so limited in what they will do, even with adjustments and experienced operators, it slows things down.

Obviously Munson lasts were made to be "factory friendly" in their day, but I haven't seen any modern Munson last boots where the vamps have been lasted tight to the wood either. Cove Shoe Co. in PA still produces many Munson boots of various forms--even WWII mil-spec ones for reenactors--and they are all loosey-goosey across the vamp, or pulled over crooked. Either the lasting machines were better adjusted in the days of yore, or the operators knew tricks we don't, or they kept lasting pincers and bull-dogs handy to do a good final pull-down before the boot went into the side-stapler. A few rolling racks, each filled with a "case" of boots to last, though, is a daunting sight when backed up like a train at your station, especially if as in the old days you're getting paid by the piece, and hand-lasting them would kill you.

Even by J. Korn's day (1950s), in his updated edition of Golding, left and right formes, patterns, and uppers were still considered "normal", and so we might assume the inside cone production lasts, in the UK anyway--Frank, thoughts?. June Swann has often cited 1964 as the year when shoe mfg. in general went "terrible" in the UK, and things got cheap/cheesy. Why 1964 I can't say. In handling 20thc. US-made shoes, my impression is that many of the older firms making traditional Goodyear welted Oxfords, etc., stuck to their old lasts, and old ways up through the "Diaspora" of off-shoring the 1970s and '80s. Firms like Nettleton, Florshiem, Wrights, and so on...., their shoes from the 1970s were almost identical in quality to their work from the 30s and 40s, except the leather quality had declined.

A few thoughts on anatomical architecture on the bottom of lasts:

The two most important details I've seen in last bottoms that I would unreservedly support as key to a good fit, is a radiused feather-line, i.e. no sharp corner around the edge, from the ball back around the heel, and some hollowness in the middle of the treadline to mimic the contour of a well-worn leather insole under the met. heads, i.e "foot bed". Both of these features were common enough in West End bespoke lasts for hand-sewn, and the contoured "footbed" bottom can even be seen in better factory lasts before c.1950.

I designed and modeled a hybrid "hand-made" last for factory use for large US shoe mfg. a few years ago, based on certain traditional principles to try. The radiused feather-line was rejected by them because the factory line-workers would have no idea where exactly to set the pre-cut insoles, and the rounded feather-line would not support the shoe for feeding through various seat-nailing/stitching machines--the factory needs that "corner" as a platform around the heel seat pure and simple.

Excavations or hollows in the middle of the ball, too, presented them problems--though harder to figure out why, since Wrights and other mass-produced shoes had them 50 years ago. The biggest problem there, I learned, was the blocking tacks they use to hold the insoles to the last before and after lasting. They drive these with the heads flush to the surface(!), then pull them out later. Cove Shoe has one station that does nothing but pull tacks and check insoles to make sure none are left in for fear of law suits. It's harder to get a hold of tack heads that are down in a depression, plus it makes bottom-filling/leveling more problematical unless they are using smeared-on cork paste--and most have given that deadly stuff up for pre-cut foam fillers.

These are just a few practical issues that tell us why factory lasts have gone the path they have. In short, *everything* about a last's architecture affects it's suitability for line-production in a factory in some way, no matter how insignificant, and *anything* about a last that might add another step, complicate, or slow down the line production is seen as "bad", no matter how it might improve fit.

True, some of the "vintage" factory lasts seemed to be a better blend of both worlds than what we've seen in the past 50 years, but two things are key here IMO:

1) The operatives in the factories are not what they used to be 50-100 years ago, many came from some background in hand-shoemaking. My first teacher had grown up making hand-made shoes in Italy, and when he immigrated to the US in the 19-teens(!), he went to work as a line-laster in a shoe factory in NY. Golding, or one of those dead guys, also mentions that the best machine operatives to recruit were the former hand-sewn men, as they knew what good lasting, sound sewing, and solid finishing looked like, and could come closer to that standard on a machine than somebody without that background. That whole skill-pool is dead and gone, and the attitude towards quality in factories is no longer what it was even 50 years ago.

2) Face it, the customer-base, too, has declined. The global "democratization of taste" has lowered the bar for absolutely every manufactured article, from shoes to setees. Quality and refinements people in our parents' and grandparents' generations took for granted in mfg. goods, is simply beyond practical retrieval, much less commercial viability to replicate. And with the exception of a handful of "elites", alternately worshipped/scorned by the masses today, the bottom-line is, nobody cares enough or can discern the difference to make a market in and of themselves. I'm sure people said the same thing in 1706, 1806, and 1906, but truth be told, in each instance to some degree they were quite correct in their observations. Tastes change, and the material-culture of every era reflects it. Not to name names, but the bench-mark standard we might think of re hand-sewn footwear for the past 100 years, ain't making up to the standards they were even in the 1970s, when many of their workers were still ancient men who knew their trade inside and out. All we're seeing is the passage of time...now that we've lived long enough.

Here endeth the lesson.

Happy New Year one and all!