One "Last" Question

[relferink]

DW,

I must disagree with the idea that changing a measurement for a specific reason would add an element of "guesswork". The measurement is always taken static, once you start walking and the joints start moving the ball is the area of the foot where most movement takes place. A shoe would typically be more flexible than a boot, resulting in more movement in the foot. All this accounts for the extra room needed in a shoe last.
Additionally I take my measurements sitting down (the customer that is, not me) It may be different if one take measurements weight bearing. I don't know anyone that does but I'm sure somewhere someone feels that's the way to go.
The 1 cm extra room is not set in stone. It's a staring point, as needed it could go up or down. A narrow women's last would not get the same amount as an extra wide large men's last. Than again, the women's shoe is probably made of lighter weight leather than the men's shoe so that would compensate for the leather weight if the measurement were the same.

Some things seem to happen almost instinctively, funny once you start thinking about it how it all still makes sense.

Rob

(Message edited by relferink on October 11, 2006)

[dw]

Robert,

I apologize if this comes off a bit contrarian but it's an interesting discussion that I would like to explore just a tad further.

Three points:

(a) you say the shoe is more flexible than a boot. I can see that. But then the logic of it tells me that it might be wiser to fit the shoe closer than the boot (or vice versa)...not add more room to already flexible footwear. An analogy might be a soft cotton sock versus a stiff plaster bandage. Which could be fit closest to the foot without bidning or chafing? Thoughts?

(b) You say it's not "guesswork" (I suppose this is where I would have to disagree with you.) Maybe for someone who is as skilled and as experienced as yourself it would not be. But for the novice the question has to arise...what's the formula? You start with a static measurement and add what...reliably? A cm? Yet you say less for a narrow woman's last, more for heavier leather. How much more? How much less? Does intuition alone govern how much or how much less?

(c) Common wisdom (and old lastmakers) will tell you that the foot can feel one-sixteenth of an inch difference in circumferance. (that amount might not create discomfort but the foot can surely feel it) Doesn't one cm seem like a whole lot? I mean one cm is roughly equivalent to three-eighths....

Again, I apolgize for my tactlessness. I do not mean to challenge you but I have a hard time couching questions in any manner but straight to the point.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

(Message edited by dw on October 12, 2006)

[relferink]

DW, first off, don't let my long time to respond fool you into thinking I was unpleasantly challenged, in fact I like the exchange and explore this a little more. Trust me, I would let you know if you offended me an that would not happen by asking or an explanation. If only there was more time in a day to get to it all.

<a > Just the opposite in my opinion for a few reasons:
1. Since the boot does not have any form of closure such as laces the foot can not be held very tightly over the instep without making the boot impossible to get on. The foot has to be held in place by being slightly squeezed in the forefoot. Adding volume to the forefoot in the last would give the foot the opportunity to slide forward. A shoe on the other hand has a closure over the instep that holds the heel back but gives the forefoot more freedom.
2. Take a look at your foot, the metatarsals do not line up in a straight line. Imagine what happens when you bend your toes before you go to toe-off; the foot bends at 5 different, not totally aligned points. If you were to put hinges on a door in that same pattern you would not be able to open the door. In the foot it causes a shift in the bone structure that is functional since it locks the midfoot in place so it can carry a persons body weight when your standing on your forefoot before heel strike of the other foot. If someone loses the ability to lock the bones in their foot they put uneven strain on the ligaments and they can not carry the body in the long run.
The shift that takes place to hold the foot causes a mild increase in volume.
The boot usually has heel height and toe spring. Therefore the foot moves less and can be kept "static" during the gait cycle and thus needs less extra room, if the metatarsal joints bent very little the change in alignment is little.
3. Last but not least is the shape of the last. When I make a custom last it has for a good part the contours of the foot on the bottom of the last. Exception: from the ball forward. At the ball the edges are squared off and the forefoot is flattened out and elongated. The squared off edges take up space that does not represent the foot.


I stand corrected, you are probably right to call it "guesswork" as is the whole process of fitting shoes. Let me explain what I mean by that: more money has been spend on finding a way to make computers make custom fitted lasts than all the HCC members combined are likely to see in their lifetime. (unless Bill Gates has suddenly developed an interest in shoe and boot making ) Programs are developed to take anywhere from 8 to hundreds of measurements of a foot. So far no one seems to have figured out how to achieve a result that is comparable to that of a skilled craftsman. Are we so much smarter than computers, well that would be a whole new topic but I don't think that's it. It has to do with very hard to quantify intuition. Taking up to 10 measurements of the foot, a tracing and the memory of the foot as we have once seen it seems to allow us to make a good fitting shoe / boot. Don't ask me why this number added to the measurement is 1 cm and not X% of Y or something like that. When I started making lasts I would try both ways, stay true to the measurement and add the 1 cm and still not end up with a fitting last. It's so much more complex than 1 cm. but over time I have found that keeping the 1 cm as a rule of thumb works very well. Like all the "advise" I put out there, this is what works for me. In some cases I have tried other ways and found my way the best and/or easiest. Other times I have had no reason to do things different.
To come back to your questions, how can you tell a novice what "the formula" is? I don't know, other than advise them to take a close look at industrial lasts and industrial shoe / boot construction. Not because it can not be done better but consider that before a company commits to a last to make many many shoes on they have done some homework and know it will fit enough people to allow them to make back their money. Once they have taken a close look at those lasts, start experimenting and develop their own style. At that point all we can hope for is that they are smarter than we were and figure out a formula that makes sense and is based on more than "guesswork".

Again, this is what works for me, it's not just the measurement, it's how I select my leathers, make my patterns, prepare my footbeds, last my uppers, select my toebox and heel counters, construct the shoe and finish them. Also remember if you make a boot a sixteenth tighter you customer can feel it very clearly, you already work tightly on the foot. In my shoes I choose to give the forefoot more space without giving it so much that it may shift sideways.

One last parting thought. Last week I was fighting with my sewing machine, it had started to skip stitches and just did not seem to be running right. It would be fine for a while and suddenly act up at the worst possible time. I could not find anything wrong with the needle, bobbin, hook etc. It took me the better part of a day to fiddle with it. In the end I felt if I put the needle feed bar a little lower it could catch the threat better, made the adjustment and now it runs beautiful. Did I adjust it because it did not catch every time I looked at it as it was opened up? No, it was just one of these intuitions that seemed right. I would doubt you will find this adjustment in any manual since there are a million things that could be wrong and need fixing before you get to this "simple" adjustment". Same with the extra room at the ball of the last, there are a million different ways to shape a last but come to the same measurements. The way I get to the volume is based on experience and by lack of a better word "intuition". I guess that's why it's called a craft and a skill, not a trick.

Rob

[paul]

Lisa and Jim,

In the above conversation, from back in the summer, you both mentioned that you'd reduced the throat measure to deal with the low instep- flat arch.

About how much? And from the throat line only? or did you take some from the bell line too?

TIA,

PK

[bultsad]

Paul,
I measure and cut different from the method that you have learned. I have a metal stick that I use as a guide to cut what you are calling the bell line. It is set on the throat measurement and then the bell or curve is built right into the guide.
I use the heel measurement to establish the throat cut. Then the high instep is used with other information gathered from the foot to choose a last. The experience I have with this type of foot is that the length of the foot is out of proportion to the heel and high instep measurement. This is what necessitates cutting down the cone of the last to make the fit. I would say that I do not really reduce the measurement. I just cut it to size and it is proportionally smaller than a similar sized last for a normal foot.
I have only run across this problem twice in 15 years. As luck would have it, I was at a Christmas party last night and the guy with this problem was there and wearing the boots I had made him about 5 years ago and they looked to be fitting and wearing just fine.
Jim

[dw]

Paul,

Well, since I think we do things pretty much the same, I'd say that before you reduce the throat line you need to determine if you want to reevaluate the short heel.

In other words, after you get done modifying the last, remeasure for the short heel. If you then decide that because you've cut down the cone of the last, the short heel on the last is now smaller than you were previously assuming, well, you'd have to change every measurement on your tops pattern (with the possible exception of the top line) to reflect a smaller SH. That means that the passline would be smaller and the bell line would be smnaller and the throat line would be smaller. And if you use the pattern to re-draft the side line for a smaller throatline, you'll automatically reduce the bell line even if you don't make any adjustment to the passline.

Now, having said all that, if you are absolutely certain that the Short Heel measurement you took off the foot is correct, then you should choose a last that comes very close to that measurement (ideally spot-on or just a bit shy) to begin with.

In other words, in a perfect world, the SH from the foot and the SH from the last should be identical before you start modifying the last in any way. This isn't all that unrealistic given that you can choose the last--you're never forced to start with too large a last.

In my experience, if you are gathering the information about the foot that you should be gathering--ie. pedograph, all girths, shank lenth, stick, etc., you may have a clue (or clues) somewhere in that data that will help you to choose a last wisely and not have to grind away at topographical aspects of the last that can never be perfectly re-created.

For instance, the pedograph will show you how wide the heel is...if you choose a last with a narrow heel (to match the pedograph, you'll end up with a short heel that is smaller than if you had chosen a wider last. Choosing a narrower last will usually mean a smaller high and low instep girth, as well. Right there...in the choice of last alone...I've eliminated 90% of the necessity to grind the cone of the last.

If you are gonna grind the last, however...if you feel you have no choice...consider your customer first: what does he look like? Is he short and stout? Tall and lean? These are clues to body (and bone) structure. Grinding at the side of the comb can address someone with a very light ankle structure and reduce the short heel measurement without having to cut the cone. And more importantly, may reflect the actual foot better than addressing the problem somewhere else. Building on the sides of the comb is one of my favourite ways of addressing the need for a larger SH when rest of the last seems right..in such cases, when I envision the customer he is almost always heavily built and the ankle can be expected to be corresponding heavy.

Does the pedograph indicate a high arch? Grinding out under the arch of the last, or along the sides of the cone, will reduce the girth measurements. Without altering the shape and profile of the cone. And again, model the foot more closely.

So there's another approach...one that (since we share a methodology) presumably has somecommon aspects with the way you are fitting up and cutting out.

I'm not saying that grinding over the cone doesn't work or must never be done but in a lot of years of making I've not run across all that many lasts/feet that I needed to grind. I take a conservative approach in that respect.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[sorrell]

Paul,
I have to admit that I just arbitrarily change the short heel measurement for this type of foot. I usually take off about 1/2". So if their heel measurement was 13 5/8" I would write 13 1/8" and use that measurement to make my top pattern. So that would of course affect the throat line measurement.

I have three customers so far that I've done this with. I've made sure to keep a record of not only their true measurements but also what I ended up doing with the last to make it fit. They all tended to have a really wide flat lateral arch. I fit them best by choosing a last that was the proper length and heel width, but the heel measurement was always too big. So I ground some off of the top of the cone (to bring down the heel measurement and because their foot was flat there). This ends up taking some off of the instep measurement too, which really doesn't need to be reduced. It does however need to be repositioned. I end up adding to the lateral side of the last to add both width and girth to bring it back up to the correct instep measurement.

I'm not particularly proud of any method that involves grinding on a last or changing an actual measurement and replacing it with guesswork. However, this has worked for me and I'd do it again if I felt it was necessary.

Lisa

[dw]

[note...I edited the 7th paragraph in my post above--just didn't proof read it well enough, I guess]

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[shoestring]

Question,I understand the need for measuring of the short and long heel.Do one have to measure the heel width at the seat from the outside around to the inside of the foot?In order to get a better fit in last building or ordering a custom last. Thanks

Ed

[dw]

Ed,

Personally, I think it is critically important to measure...or at least address...the heel width. I think it makes a world of difference. the foot begins at the heel not at the ball. Short heel will be tied closely to heel width; long heel will be tied closely to heel width; and the high instep and low instep will vary with heel width...all of this give us a great deal of flexibility when choosing a last to fit a particular customer--it allows us to dial-in the last in a way that failing to take the heel width into consideration will never do. In my mind failing to consider the heel width reduces fitting to a game of guess and by golly.

But it is not a complicated process to use the heel width. All you really need is a pedograph , an ink imprint of the weight bearing foot, and the proposed last. The feather line in the heel--from one side to the other--should match the width of the imprint in the heel. Of course there are all manner of nuances and even refinements that can be brought to the process, but that's basically it...you'll be surprised how often it will make the difference in which last you start out with and how you go about fitting up the last to accommodate a given foot.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[paul]

Ed asks a good question here, about ordering lasts. This is such a difficult element of our trade to get a handle on.

In my reading of posts on the subject, and conversations with Bill Tippet, I have not seen that heel width is used when ordering. I have taken to sending a copy of the pedograph in with the other circumfrance measuements. I don't know if Bill uses the heel width in his analization or not. Maybe Bill will comment on that.

ED, I can say, that just as DW describes, and others have commented on, when one has an inventory of lasts, in a certain model number and various sizes, that the comparision of lasts to the pedograph imprint, will make it alot easier to choose which last is best.

But of course, for those of us without an inventory to choose from it becomes a bit more problematic, as they say. But I've been having pretty good success with the info I send to Bill when ordering.

[paul]

Excuse me Bill,

It seems like alot of us might benifit from your perspective on this discussion. Here's a question that ties together both of these two threads on heel widths and ordering lasts.

Since it has been agreed by several amoung us, that the width of the heel impression taken from the pedograph,
is in some way related to the Short Heel measure, is there some way that this mathmatical ratio, may be used by those of us who don't have an inventyory of lasts, whereby we may place orders for lasts more accuratly?
Given, of course, that we know the lengh information?

The usefulness of this information is also born out by the pair of lasts on my bench right now.
They measure 2.125" wide, feather to feather in the center of the heel seat.
The measure across the impression on the pedograph is likewise 2.125". The short heel is 13.625" from the foot and 13.5 from the last.
I ordered this last from Bill giving him a copy of the pedograph and the circumfrences for the all of the usual, the B,W,Li,Hi,SH and LsSH.
This last measure, the Last Short Heel, is one that Bill and I have agreed on as the closest he can come to our SH.
It does not replace anything in the ordering process, and is not used in patterning,
it only adds to the information I share with Bill that he can reproduce on his lathes, and is another check on the placement of the bubbles, if any.

I will have only a small amount of work to do on these lasts, to bring the instep to ball areas, into agreement with the foot.

This is one of Bill semi-custom lasts.

But Bill, my question has to do with actually using the heel seat measure in placing the order with you. Do you have a table for that?

PK

[btippit]

First things first. Chuck and Robert (and all), thanks for the "welcome back". I've missed being here, but I realize that was my own choosing. Robert, I think I owe you an email response too. I'll get to that soon.

Now to the subject at hand. Paul, I can't believe how timely this conversation is. I'll explain why at the end of this post. To answer your question, yes, one of the tables on my grade charts is the heel width and that is really the heel seat width, based on the width of the last bottom, featherline to featherline in the heel. While you supply me with the girth measurements you might not have realized that in the process of choosing which size to start with before semi-customizing your pairs, I also measure the width of the heel on the pedograph and this number is related to the same area on the heel seat width of the last.

First and foremost, I determine the length of the last based on both the tracings and the pedograph, plus the toe extension (dependent upon the toe width of the style being ordered). This give me the numerical "size", for example, size 10. Then I take each girth measurement from the various pages of the Excel spreadsheet grade chart and see which width of size 10 would be the best to use (closest width without exceeding the girth of the foot). Of course now I usually have a range of widths, different for each measurement location. I then choose the best width to start from (usually the narrowest) and grade that specific size. For example I may grade a size 10B but need a lot more girth in some areas while being pretty close in others.

I then modify the last to however close the order called for. As you know "semi-customized" just pretty much guarantee no grinding off and I will try to get as much girth as possibly to reduce your build up time without me spending so much time on the last that I'm losing money. For "fully customized" lasts (MUCH more expensive) I do my best to nail each measurement, again erring on the small side to keep makers from having to grind.

Typically, the heel seat width and the short heel girth are the "Achilles heel" (pun fully intended) of this process. They are usually the largest areas on the last, relative to the same spots on the foot so most of the build up work, whether yours or mine is from the High Instep forward.

Now for why this is so timely. I am in the process of having a web based application written that will allow people to go on my website and search within a style for the closest size. You will be able to enter a style number, and then fill in a table with as many of the measurements as you want (B, W, LI, HI, Last SH, heel width, heel to ball length, overall length, and ball tread width). This table will have built in ranges within each measurement that can be modified after the results come in to narrow the field of sizes down to the closest one. You will also be able to see the measurement of the resulting size in each area to know how much work will need to be done.

At this point the customer can decide whether to order that size and finish the job him or her self or order a "semi" or "fully" customized last from me.

I hope to have this feature up and running shortly after the first of the year. It will be a fee based service but should actually save time and money by allowing the maker to avoid either the extra expense of me doing some customization or the time and expense of doing more than necessary in the shop. To avoid compromising the non-profit status of this forum, anyone interested in more info on this service can contact me privately.

As usual, I've turned a short answer into War and Peace. Sorry about the length.

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

[tomo]

Hey ya Bill,

Good to see you back on deck.
Are you gunna change your by line to "The Last Man STILL Standing"?
more power to y'awl.
T.

[djulan]

Bill,

At last we hear from you again!

Your choices are well respected and I celebrate your reply in the forum (I'm not alone, surely)! Your knowledge is not readily available, if at all, anywhere except from you. Welcome back,friend. And thanks for sharing.

David Ulan

[btippit]

Thanks Tom. The addition of "STILL" isn't a bad idea considering I was never really down, just under the radar.

David, I appreciate your kind words too, though I'm not the sole (yet another pun!) possessor of this kind of info. Just perhaps more willing to try to use the technology available today in conjunction with the traditions of the past than some other last makers. I believe one of my 400+ Inbox emails is also from you. I'll dig it out of the pile and answer it tomorrow. Just got back from another St. Louis Blues hockey defeat. New coach, same results. When does spring training start again for baseball? Between the Rams and the Blues it's going to be a LOOONNNNGGGG winter in St. Louis.

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

[paul]

Bill, thanks for all that. I'm excited for you and your plans for your web site. Sign me up!

Ed, order with confidence, my friend.

DW,

So, the pair that I'm fitting up right now is for the fellow with the flat arch, and it so happens, he's my first FW customer! So obviously, I want to get it right the first time.

On close examination of the last I ordered from Bill, I will not be grinding any off this last, it just needs some bubbles in the arch, which will bring it to the right circumfrence, and fill in the area that will be occupied by his arch, since it's so flat.

But I wonder about how it will be for him passing down into this boot. Do you think I should just go with the program as you instructed or reduce the pattern some for his foot configuration? Is the break at the throat what we're talking about here?

Another puzzeling thing about this fellow's foot, is the placement of the marks on his tape from the measureing process. I laid it down the length of his instep and marked the B, W, Li, Hi, and SH as usual. The curious thing is how short the distance is from the Ball to the SH. It's only like 3 5/8". And I double checked it. On the last, it's closer to 4".

This raises a couple of questions. One, which I have discussed with Bill, is where does he measure when he compares what I send him with what he knows. And he once again supports the observations of Sabbage, of course. But why should this be such a shorter distance? When I lay the tape along the medial side of the cone starting at the ball, it falls way short of the high instep of the last.

I get it that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and his instep is so flat it could be that, but it doesn't compute.

It's kind of hard to describe this one, but what do you get from this?

PK

[dw]

Paul,

First, if I were you I would remeasure your customer. Four inches to the SH point should be, if my early morning thought processes are all up and running, just about right. Three and five-eights is too short unless the foot is real small. It's not consistant with Sabbage, either. Somewhere, somehow, either you placed the tape measure incorrectly or you're interpreting it incorrectly after the fact. Is it possible that three and five-eighths is actually the distance from the ball to the HI?

Remember that there's really two things going on here--one, (from me and Rossi) we are looking to established a "grid" of sorts (of course it is extremely modified...truncated, if you will) and as part of that "grid" we want to measure around the foot at regular intevals (that's the "grid" part). We could use quarter inch intervals, or half inch intervals, or...

But (and here's the second part..from Sabbage) instead of some arbitrary interval we are theoretically using "Sections" as intervals. Now it just so happens that Sabbage postulates that significant features...such as the medial ball joint, the waist, the middle cuniform, the root of the fifthy, the short heel point, will all fall more or less on a section. Which suits our purposes just dandy.

And each section is...what?...one-eleventh of the length of the foot (very regular) and usually roughly one inch give or take some (also can be seen as one-twelfth of the last).

Finally, it should be said that despite the regularity of Sabbage and the concept of "griding," it's still feet we are dealing with here and not a static object--these relationships should be observed and not striven for...or contrived.

At the same time, observations are all we have to collect data about the foot. And while we must not let contrivance dictate to us, nevertheless an observation can be a clue that something is breaking down in the process. In other words, as I measure I observe and reassure myself that the marks on the masking tape are regularly spaced and consistant with the foot size and what Sabbage leads me to expect. And...if the marks on the masking tape are not regular or not consistant with the size of the foot, etc., I immediately suspect that I've done something wrong.

This last observation applies after the fact as well. If that distance from the medial ball to the SH is smaller than is consistant with the size of the last and what Sabbage might lead us to expect...the first thing to do is to look for error in the way the data has been collected.

Of course, if you make a fitter's model you can always make adjustments after the fact--without any reference to measurements at all...

As for reducing the patterns...I'd wait until you had the results from a fitter's model--using the system "as is" (always a good idea until you feel you completely inderstand what is going on) before even thinking about changing it.

Hope all this helps...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[paul]

Well, that's what's so screwy. While I don't know all that you say for myself, I do know that from what I understand.

So, I have had him come in to be remeasured. And, even looking on the outside of my measurements, I still have 3 5/8" from the ball to the SH, on the left. And even that's generous! On the right foot, the first time I measured him, the measure was 3 1/8"! The remeasure was 3 3/8". It doesn't make sence.

And don't forget, this is a very flat foot. I just went to the contour outline of the instep I did of his right foot, while standing against the face of my bench. I did my best to line up the sections with those from the pedograph. Then measured from the 8th section, the ball, back to the break at the ankle, and it measured 3 3/8". I broke the whole drawing down into Sabbages sections and the high instep, section 5, ends up at the break at the ankle, while Sabbage shows it ought to be between the section lines. It's as if everything is a half section off.

SO right now I'm thinking I'm going to make up his fitter and see what I see. And hopefully see what I did wrong.
Surely I screwed up somewhere, but I'll go with it. That's what fitters are for, eh? I've read this thru several times now and it still seems screwy.

Bill, This fellow would be a good candidate for your scanner. I wonder if I ought to look at that?
PK

[dw]

Paul,

I think your idea of going with the fitters model is the best, but remember that Sabbage is just a guide not a commandment.

The main idea...one that I wanted to get into a bit more with my last post...is that of the "Grid." Fundamentally, if you could take a snap shot of the foot from the top, and one from the side and one from either end and super impose a piece of transparent graph paper on each of those snapshots, you would get a facsimile of a three dimensional grid. Still with me?

Rossi claims (and I personally find his logic compelling) that if you could then count the number of squares at any one place, going from floor to instep, or from toe to heel, or across the heel (just some examples)...in any one of the three dimensions or all three at once, you would never need to apply the tape measure to the foot at all. And essentially this is what a foot scanner can do.

Now as we use and apply this concept, it means that where we measure the foot is actually not all that important. If we start at the toe end and measure evenly around the foot at quarter inch intervals, we can closely model the foot...topography and joints not withstanding. Of course this is a severe truncation of Rossi's concept, working in one dimension rather than three, but valid nevertheless. The point is that it is the grid and the intervals between the grid lines that is important.

So I use Sabbage (or something like it) for intervals on my grid rather than a quarter inch graph paper...that's just me and although I think there are good reasons to use Sabbage it is not the only way or even the only interval that can be imagined.

My only thought on this, and maybe the most important point, is that whether you use Sabbage or not, the interval between grid lines (and the girth lines) be consistent. If you are going to use quarter inch intervals some cannot be quarter inch and others half inch. So too with Sabbage...theoretically...if the foot is eleven inches long, each interval, each grid line, each girth line will be one inch from the last.

Now if my math is correct, if the short heel on your customers last/foot is three and five-eighths inches from the ball, then the intervals between girths (using Sabbage as the interval) is seven-eighths inch and the overall length of the foot cannot be much more than nine and five-eighths inches long.

I wish I could help you more but unless his foot actually is that small, there's something awry and it very well could be just the nature of the structure we deal with--the foot. Sabbage is wonderful but God didn't consult Sabbage when he created feet.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[paul]

DW,

I understand your point about the grid and that where we measure is not that important as long as it is consistent between the foot and the last. I wish I could get to Bills scanner sooner so we could add that information to this conversation. Because I do have a feeling God and Sabbage may not be on the same page with this fellows foot.
So, I'll dive into the fitters model and get back to the group.

What a puzzle!
Thank you for working with me on this one.

PK

[dw]

Paul,

I just had a thought (it might be early morning madness but nothing ventured...)

Let's go at this backward, just for the sake of curiousity...how long is the foot you are dealing with? What is the stick?

Oh, and what is the distance from back of heel to medial joint?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[paul]

Good!
I wanted to go here yesterday, but I didn't want to wear out my fingres.
Again, this is my FW customer and I remeasured him using "your" board whe I got back from your instruction. SO, I just so happen to have what you're requesting.

The stick on the Left foot is 10 3/8", aka 263mm. Shank 7 11/16" slash 195mm.
For the Right foot it is 10 5/8" or 269mm, And 7 13/16" slash 198, respectivly. (here let me try this out)


RL 10 5/8" / 269mm 10 3/8" / 263mm 7 13/16" / 198mm 7 11/16 / 195mm



I await your line of thinking...

PK

[dw]

Paul,

Well, the more I think about this the more I realize that I really can't contribute much at this remove. I'd have to see the foot and watch you measuring to know what's amiss...if anything. And just for the record, the only reason I introduce any doubt about your procedures at all is that you are fresh from a seminar here and may not be wholly comfortable with my approach yet.

That said, using Sabbage and given the figures you gave me, and taking an average of the lengths of the foot (which I would not necessarily do in real life) each section would be just a hair over 15/16 of an inch long...in the horizontal plane...and section 4 (the short heel end point) would be three and three quarters of an inch (already more than your three and five-eighths) from section 8 (medial ball). But again, in the horizontal plane.

But!! The top of the foot is by necessity at an angle to the horizontal plane and that's where the masking tape is placed. Because of this angle, each one of those sections will elongate some, as will the distance from the medial joint to the SH, just as the hypotenuse on a right triangle will be longer than the long side of the right angle. So, I would expect each section to read something on the order of one and one-eighth inch on the masking tape and the short heel end point to be at four and a half inches.

Now, it very well may be that the fact that the foot has such a low instep will alter those figures but my first ...and admittedly blind, uninformed, guesswork...thought would be that the short heel end point on the front of the ankle is, for one reason or another, located too far forward.

I hope this makes sense (or helps in some...it makes sense to me but I'm not fitting that foot.

Great table, BTW...I love to see folks making us of the features of the forum.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[paul]

DW,
I'll make a fitters model and see.
Thanks for the time.
PK