Pattern making

[dw]

Rob, Tim, Lance,

[warning: this is a little long...]

Thanks for your responses. I asked this question as a way to frame a "conundrum" (at least for me) regarding lasts...and in a round-about way I thought patterns might help me resolve it.

I am becoming a little bit discouraged in my search for a last to make shoes on. Like most who have been in the Trade a while I have some assumptions that I hold to be true. For instance, I believe that it is important to begin with the heel to toe measurement (the shank) from the foot and match that to a last, then the heel seat width as taken from a pedograph needs to be matched to the heel seat on the last. Because I have made boots for a number of years, I believe I need to have a measurement, taken in one fashion or another, that has been called the "long heel." I have taken this measurement from a spot roughly one inch above ground level on the back of the heel to the low instep (or middle cuniform). Others take the measurement differently--from the floor itself to the instep. It is a "diagonal" across the substance of the foot.

Regardless, the point is that in conjunction with the instep girth and an accurate heel to ball measurement, if this long heel measurement is correct, it will ensure that the foot is held securely (but not uncomfortably) into the back of the boot. Experience has validated this concept again and again across the decades.

I have to believe that a very similar relationship must exist to make a truly bespoke shoe as well. If the facings rise above the instep on the foot then the long heel must factor in as well as the instep girth. Yes, laces can cover a multitude of sins but how does one go about actually guaranteeing (as far as possible) a good fit for a customer if we don't know that measurement?

I built my first pair of traditionally made shoes on a boot last. many said they were pretty good for a first pair but they looked "odd" on the boot last. I knew that this would be the case, but not having a shoe last I went ahead...just for the experience. I was also told that they looked "choked." I had to agree and the fit seemed to confirm that as well (although I am wearing them). I believe this odd choking was because the cone of a boot last is "drawn" upwards and much to the substance of the instep shifted upwards as well. The boot last has too high a cone.

Now...when I got my first pair of shoe lasts, the cone was indeed much lower. But there seemed to be no relationship between what I would call "real world" feet and the long heel measurement on this model of last. At the best it was at least 2 cm (maybe 3cm) shy of what I would have seen/measured on a boot last. More importantly, it seems to me to be similarly deficient with regards to what would be measured off a foot even when...especially when...all the other data from the foot are in line with the last.

I believe one could make the case that a boot last has to fit as well or better than a shoe last...as there is no laces for adjustment. But, if we accept that premise, we also have to accept the idea that the long heel measurement does have relevance for the foot itself, no matter the kind of footwear.

To this point I have not been able to find a shoe last model that respects these critical relationships while simultaneously embodying the characteristics that would result in a stylish shoe that was not "choked" and/or did not look "odd."

Further, I am not sure if shoemakers, as a general rule, pay any attention (or significant attention) to the long heel ...and if they don't how they go about determining if the last will fit the foot, with any certainty.

So...anyone who can or feels moved to address any of this, I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW:

I am certainly not a lastmaker, and as you know I am pretty much a novice at all other aspects of shoemaking....

I have been measured by a few different shoemakers/lastmakers, and most of them did not measure my long heel, IIRC. When I get a chance, I'll check out my bespoke lasts from London and see if I can measure the longheel and compare that to my foot. (I'll try to measure it the way you do, for consistency -- can you help me locate the 'middle cuneiform'? Also, on the last do you do it by using Sabbage's Sectionizer, or do you try to mark the same point on the last as on your foot? I'll also measure it from the ground to my instep.)

If you know him reasonably well, you might also want to phone Carl Lichte and discuss this with him -- he certainly has studied and given lots of thought to lastmaking, so he likely can give you a well-thought-out perspective on this. FWIW, I think Carl may measure the LH (if my interpretation of my copy of his measurements are correct).

Also, the next time I speak with the lastmaker in London, I'll try to remember to get his thoughts on this matter.

My only speculation on this is that, if the girths and bottom widths are correct, then the fit should be good around the forefoot. Then, if the shortheel measurement and heel seat width are also correct, that would seem to ensure the correct fit around the heel and up to the top of the facings. Thus, perhaps the LH is redundant. However, given your reliance on the LH for boots, I wonder if my thinking is correct? If you have a boot last that is correct for everything but the LH, what does this discrepancy do to the fit of the boot? Also, if you need to modify the LH without changing any of the other measures, where do you add/subtract from the last?

I look forward to learning others' perspective on this.

Lance

[lancepryor]

DW:

I checked my Koleff book on lastmaking, and he DOES use the LH, as well as the SH, in the checking of the last. He measures the LH from the bottom of the heel to the same bone as the instep measurement.

FWIW, he uses the SH measurement also in the initial development of the last profile, by having the top of the cone 45% of the SH measurement [described as "1/2 of the SH - %10 of the 1/2 SH measurement"] up/forward from the base of the heel at a 37 degree angle (the angle is measured using a line from the ground @ the toe end of the last to the heel). The SH measurement on the last is taken to this point on the cone throughout the refinement process, and so the SH point is always on the cone (this despite your long-ago observation that the bottom of the ankle/the true SH point isn't on the last, but rather up in the air).


He does not use the LH in the profile development. Note also that he does not give a precise methodology for locating the instep/LH position on the cone of the last when it comes time to measure it.

Lance

[artzend]

DW,

I was taught that the LH measurement is only useful in bootmaking, not shoemaking. The only use I had for it was to work out the pass line for the foot through the boot leg. I also only used the short heel line for patterns when I used the geometric method.

Tim

[dw]

Lance, Tim,

The instep point on the foot...what I refer to as the "low instep"...can be found by feeling the top of the instep. About half way, there is a bone--on some people it's more prevalent than on others--what folk used to call the "washerwoman's bump" or the "surfers knob" because prolonged kneeling would cause a calcium build-up there. This is the middle cuniform.

I have always taken the long heel from one eleventh of the foot length (Sabbage's "section" ) up the back of the heel to the middle cuniform...or more succinctly, one inch up the back around to the instep point. But I do believe it can be taken from the floor to the instep although the two methods will not yield the same result. At least one of our regulars here, takes this approach.

Once the last is configured to reflect the proper long heel (and Golding, I believe, references the long heel, as well) then I do not use it in patterning for shoes or boots. I do use the short heel to pattern the tops for boots. But, in my opinion, the short heel is of little or no importance to the fit of the shoe...or a boot...simply because no part of the foot is covered or held in, by leather over the short heel. [ On a lace-up boot, a case can be made to the contrary but there are laces to adjust for this. ]

Aside from the technical reasons to take the long heel, my basic philosophy is that the more data the maker collects and can incorporate into the geography of the last, the better the fit...and more importantly, the more certain the maker will be in achieving a fit "right out of the box," so to speak. But if you can locate...even roughly...where the instep (middle cuniform) is going to be on your standard, try drawing a line from that point to the heel seat point. If leather is going to be covering that line in its entirety (or even mostly) then the long heel is a factor. It must be. To ignore it is to leave fit up to the laces. [please refer back to the beginning of this paragraph where I say that this is "my basic philosophy." Clearly someone else may see it differently. )

As you mentioned in your previous post, Lance...if the heel to toe is correct, and more importantly, if the heel to ball is correct, and then the instep girth is correct, then long heel measurement will very probably be close enough that you can, indeed, leave it to the laces. Although I, personally, am not comfortable with that notion.

I have made a couple of fitter's models now using this concept and I am convinced that it is a valid one...just as much for shoe as for boots.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[artzend]

DW

I always used the floor to around the middle cuniform to get the long heel and think that it is important when fitting a foot to a boot leg but to try to match it up to a last was something that I never had any luck with because, I think, of the difference between a foot and a last.

It was no use when doing shoe patterns so, unless I was making boots I just didn't bother with it.

Sorry I can't help any more than that.

Tim

[lancepryor]

DW:

Just to circle back once more for the sake of clarity.

On the FOOT:

For the SH, do you measure from the ground under the heel, or do you measure from 1 inch up the heel? If from 1 inch up, do you still go around the point of leg/foot intersection?

Likewise, for the LH?



On the LAST:

Where do you measure the SH to, assuming you still use the 1 inch up the heel point -- or do you not measure the SH on the last?



You measure the LH to the point on the last representing the middle cuniform. But how do you locate/place the cuniform on the last? e.g. do you try to mark it on the tracing, and then measure forward a like amount on the last, do you use Sabbage's Sectionizer (IIRC, section 6 would correspond to the cuniform), do you do a profile tracing and use that to measure forward from the heel, or do you do something else?

Certainly your philosophical view that the LH on the last should correspond to the actual foot makes sense to me, but I guess ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so the actual experiences of others is something I look forward to reading.

I guess one way to do things is to try to make similar shoes on two lasts, one that is modified to fit the LH measurement, and the other that is not. It would be interesting to compare the actual results in terms of perceived fit.

Lance

[dw]

Lance,

On the foot...I measure SH from corner of the heel to the inside corner of the leg/foot. For LH I have been measuring from roughly one inch up the back of the heel to the middle cuniform....mostly because it is a hard angle to measure from the corner of the heel. But After talking to Rob, I tried measuring, with the tape and while the foot was "grounded" but no weight, from the corner of the heel (a little under--so that the edge of the tape is right at where the foot is touching the ground) to the middle cuniform. I actually like this method real well as it has a certain consistency.

On the last I measure the SH from one inch up the back to the high instep. My thought is that if we could "profile" the length and angle of the short heel as we measure it from the foot (the end point is almost always in mid air vis-a-vis the last) and then pivot it so that the heel-end point rises one inch above the featherline of the last the leg-end point will drop down to rest roughly at the high instep. This has worked for me for nearly three decades...giving me a perfect figure for top layout and a perfect fit on the cone of the last. As a a side benefit I could take anysize of my lasts and make a standard size boot from the last alone--no foot-- which would sit and look and fit exactly like my custom boots. And yes, despite what I said --in theory only--I do take the SH from the last with the intent of ensuring, through choice or build-up, that the SH on the last is identical to the SH on the foot.

As for the LH....finding the (low) instep point is a bit of a trick. It is not hard but the theory behind it, while sound, I beleive, is a little comp-lex. But fundamentally it comes to this: I place a piece of masking tape over the foot when I measure it. Then as I find and measure the girths I mark where these girths are located on the top of the foot (on the masking tape, naturally). I must be very careful at this point to locate the center of the medial ball joint...on the foot, on the work-up, on the masking tape. Then I must be just as careful in selecting a last that has a correct heel to ball length and from there it is just a question of precisely (as precisely as I can) locating the medial ball joint on the last. Then the distance from the ball joint mark on the masking tape to the low instep mark on the masking tape is transferred to the medial side of the last in a line roughly bisecting the distance from the bottom surface of the last to the top surface. That mark is extended straight up while the last is at heel height and the mark is made on the top surface of the last...in this case the cone of the last. That's where the middle cuniform is located. And from there either method of translating the LH measurement to the last works fine...although as I said they will be different numbers.

Other critical locations...such as ball, waist, and high instep are treated in the same fashion. The odd (and serendipitous) thing about it and the thing that nearly convinces me of "divine intervention" is that these divisions are almost always pretty close to being the equi-distant. And what's more conform closely to Sabbages Sectionizer.

Naturally experience with this technique is the key but in my opinion, it requires less "interpretation" than many other approaches. Of course...your mileage will vary.

If there is some part of your question that I did not answer completely or that you don't quite understand, don't hesitate to ask again.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW:

Thanks for the detailed response, would like to follow up with a couple of question, mostly because I'm not 100% sure I understand all of your terms.... I apologize for my obtuseness.

In going back to your old Sabbage's Sectionizer posts, I interpret your use of 'low instep' to be synonymous with the middle cuniform... is that correct?

Also, in reading your discussion of the two ways to measure the LH -- if you measure it your 'old' way (from 1 section up the heel to the cuniform), then you are measuring on the LAST to the low instep. If you do it the 'new way,' on the foot, are you measuring on the last also from the base of the heel?

And, as for the 'high instep' on the last, are you identifying this by going 1 section back from the low instep point (which location you described in the previous post), or somehow else?

Given your use of the SH in doing your boot patterns, it makes sense that measuring this and applying it to boots made for stock lasts would yield a consistent look. Obviously, the system works well for you.

Also, FWIW, I messed around with Koleff's approach to applying the SH measurement to the last profile -- his angle of 37 degrees (which works out to around 43 degrees relative to the ground for a size 8 shoe on a 1 inch heel) clearly touches a point on the last well forward of where the SH actually is measured on the leg/foot -- for my foot and measurements, this would be around 1 'section' forward of where the SH is actually measured on the foot/leg. In that way, his approach actually sort of mirrors yours, except that he still measures the SH from the bottom of the heel to this point. [It might be interesting for you sometime to try measuring the SH from the heel seat to a point on the top of the cone 47 degrees forward from the heel base -- ie. 90 degrees minus the 43 degrees that Koleff's approach yields -- since the 43 degrees is the interior angle, ie. toe to angle to cone --, and seeing how this measure compares to your approach to the SH measurement on the last, as well as that of the foot].

Koleff's approach to doing the profile also yields a cone that is well above the profile of the actual foot, though perhaps once one starts to 'work' the last, the cone might be lowered to get the measurements into conformance with the actual foot measures.

Lance

[dw]

Lance,

In going back to your old Sabbage's Sectionizer posts, I interpret your use of 'low instep' to be synonymous with the middle cuniform... is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

Also, in reading your discussion of the two ways to measure the LH -- if you measure it your 'old' way (from 1 section up the heel to the cuniform), then you are measuring on the LAST to the low instep. If you do it the 'new way,' on the foot, are you measuring on the last also from the base of the heel?

With regard to the LH, the way I measure it on the foot is the way I measure it on the last. The "old" way was actually devised because it was hard to measure it accurately on the foot any other way. When I measure the last however...regardless which measurement it is, I use a string rather than a tape measure.

And, as for the 'high instep' on the last, are you identifying this by going 1 section back from the low instep point (which location you described in the previous post), or somehow else?

Not purposely but that's the way it usually works out...close enough for gu'mint work, at any rate.

I have always liked the Geometric approach...I started out with a system adapted from techniques that BATA developed. Then I evolved my own. Then I tried Koleff. Then I mixed and matched (always risky but it seemed to work) Finally, I tried Sharpe...now I am convinced that for men's shoes, at least (haven't tried any women's shoes) the mean forme method is the way to go. Anytime you can design patterns directly on a 3D representation of the last itself, you've got to be miles ahead. Currently I am using Sharlott's canvas draping technique to derive formes but I have taped, tacked and cut windows in the past. Parenthetically, it might be mentioned that it is Koleff himself, if I recall correctly, who talks about making formes with linen.

BATA had a formula where for every degree of heel height the angle of the heel, as well as the angle of the joint line, was varied. I always thought that made eminent sense.

Again, though, I really like Sharpe and I think Patrick (Modern Patternmaking and Design ) is probably very similar.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[danfreeman]

Going back just a bit--I see Berluti wasn't the only one to beat me to the 1-piece upper crimp board--DW, I briefly thought your photo was of my shoe, but it obviously preceeded mine. I have often crimped shoe uppers in the past, or a simplified variation therof: stretching the vamp across the last before cutting it to its final shape and sewing it to the quarters. This is especially helpful in long vamped shoes and low boots, and on lasts that are deeply curved.

I feel that the vamp point should be where you want it to be--you're the designer, and many factors affect whether a shoe looks balanced or not; the vamp point is one of them, and you can control it, and this can help you. The factory often uses the 2/3 rule: measure from counter point to toe point (ignore bridging) with the centimeter side of the tape; then flip the tape, and measure the same number of Paris Points from counter point to where the tape crosses the centerline you've drawn down the front of the last. A useful guide. But never fail sufficiently to allow for the forward pull of lasting when designing the pattern--locate the desired vamp point well behind its location on the forme or standard--often 1/4 inch or more.

Lance, your whole-cut uppers can be lasted if you use Allen-Edmonds (presumed) method: a very dead last. This will make a good-looking shoe as long as it is not worn, or worn by a slim, eel of an AAA-foot. On most feet, the stays would gape, and the vamp break area would be loose and prone to wrinkle.It might be possible to crimp the assembled upper (see DW's last photo), but I think you'd have to crimp first, then cut.

The instep and long heel measures apply to shoe last fitting just as they do to boot last fitting; usually, but not always.

[dw]

Dan,

I hope to catch you in a "forum" mood...

So, let me ask you two quickies...I have gotten a little chary of a high cone on shoe lasts if only because that's a good part of what distinguishes a boot last from a shoe last. And I received what I would sincerely say was some constructive feedback to the effect that my shoes looked "odd" or "choked." But let's say you have decent shoe last and the instep and LH need to be increased...maybe like myself, the customer has a narrow heel but a wide forepart and as a consequence you have begun with a narrow heeled last with the aim of building up the forepart rather than cutting the heel of the last. .

Where would you put the build up such that the long heel and the instep are increased but the cone is not raised significantly?

And my second question...I have built a practice shoe on a slip cone last and my whole cuts on a spring last. In both cases, it was harder to get the last out than I expected. Subsequent fitters models (very simple unlined shoes) have actually ripped out at the back seam. I can't see any other way to remove the last without creating that extreme stress on the back of the heel as the wider portion of the last is forced pat the narrow part at the topline...but I'm open to any advice about how to get the last out, if any is to be had. Seems like pulling the last on a woman's court shoe, for instance might ruin a delicate shoe.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[big_larry]

Friends,

I have been caught up with the ferver to make a pair of shoes using the pattern formula. I admit right up front that I have made several errors in construction and I am in no way trying to compare my work with the "Masters" or even other beginners.

I would like to add one small piece of data that might contribute to the general body of knowledge. My new shoes were made on a "roper type last" that I purchased from Larry Waller. I am thrilled with these lasts because they allow me to fit folks with diabetes and folks with special foot problems. I like a 1-1/4 heel and they will make either a boot or a shoe equeally well. The shoes look like "Doc-Martins" with the spacious frontal toe and foot area and the 1-1/4 inch heel. I used pig leather to make the counter, mistake, which is not anywhere a good as oak tan.

I have a wonderful run of "Jones & Vining" lasts that I use for almost all my western boots. I am in the process of purchasing another run to modify the pointy toe for square and more rounded toes. If I make another pair for myself, I think I will try the Jones and Vining western last with the rounded toe. They produce a boot that doesn't look so wide. Appearence is important to me. I can still use a wider build-up heel and have the compact look of the western vanp, with out the pointed toe.

Well, the point of this humble entry is to critique the final shoe product. They are made of black buffalo from Carlin' and they look very nice. They take a shine that is "wonderfull." I personally prefere a higher back and a more concave counter or heel socket space. The pattern book I use is probably geared more to style, and in my case does not totally fill my wants. I am now going to modify my scientific pattern and add at least one inch of counter or inside heel area height. I will try to blend this in. I am also going to add a little frontal height, about 3/4 on an inch, to accdomadate a fifth lace hole. I know and value the scientific pattern formulas but in the final analysis it is my opinion that it is OK to modify the pattern to your personal preferances and to get the "feel or fit" that you want. Please accept my stated opinion as just one mans thoughts with no need to convince or suggest that you should do anything different.

Thank you for tolerating me. Your friend, Larry Peterson

[danfreeman]

I sometimes have to raise the cone to meet a big instep measure, and I take advantage of the opportunity to move it inside, if it's a symmetrical-coned factory last. Of course, this makes lasting more difficult, and many clients just love that long, smooth vamp look, so it's often called for. A high instep shoe looks okay when it's on the ample foot. This is why I've sometimes, in the past, pre-crimped vamps only, before cutting and closing. My "new" idea was incorporating it in a whole-cut upper. The forum can be a humbling place. And I know it's "wrong," but I've cut down many last heels after fitting models told me that once again, I'd misrecorded data, and such alteration would result in a fit.

The trouble with shoes is, you can actually SEE how they fit around the topline.
To me (via my teacher, Calvin), "choked" means coming too far up the last cone or foot. Lasts are difficult to remove from shoes whose vamp point (opening) is too far back, or if the topline is too high, front or back or both, or if the counter point's too high--shoe lasts often have it marked--try it. Toplines are often best lower than you'd imagine.

Occasionally I'll saw off the corner of the last heel & secure it with screws into the top of the comb. Removed before pulling any style last, the result is a much smaller last to remove; the block falls out easily.

Dan

[dw]

Dan,

Thanks for the swift reply.

You've given me a big boost of confidence with your advice about adding to the top of the cone. I have been fiddling with an Allen Edmonds model that has a pretty wide heel relative to the overall size. At least that's the way it seems to me. This resulted in me ordering a very narrow last, in order to get the heelseat width correct and the cone was so far shy of both the instep girth as well as the long heel measurement that I have been struggling to find the proper placement of that extra substance and still avoid distorting the geography of the last.

Your remarks vis the last being hard to remove when the topline is too high or the counterpoint is too high were interesting. I think that might be a lot of the problem. I can't envision exactly how you are cutting off the heel and re-attaching it to the top of the last. Sure would like to see a photo of that. I(t might be something I would like to try. Does it work on spring hinge lasts as well?

PS...I don't think there is anything wrong with cutting the heel narrower of you can do it with some control and precision...except for the fact that the last in question, for all intents and purposes, now needs to be replaced. It's just a practical matter--although when it comes to student, I would strongly caution those with little experience and less money to not be hasty. But, that said, I'll cut a last before I'll wait six weeks to two months to get one that I then have to build all out of proportion. That's what I should have done with this AE last--ordered for the forepart and cut the seat. But who knew?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

DW and all,

This measurement business has been on my mind for some time now, ever since DW came with the question why his long heel measurement was so far off on a shoe last I've been stumped and without a good explanation. Reading and re-reading the posts of the last week a few things come to mind.

First and most important, I measure the last in the exact spot I measure the foot. The location of the measurement is not awfully important to me, sometimes I take one, sometimes two instep measurements. What I do find critically important is to mark the precise location of the measurement and use that EXACT location to use that measurement on the last. I let the foot dictate how many and where the the measurements are taken, I'm just there to record them carefully.

The measurements I take for my shoes are slightly different from the measurement one would take for boots, I take two ball measurements, mostly since I deal a lot with forefoot deformities, a single measurement from the 1st MPJ to the 5th should do fine in most cases.
Than I take a waist measurement and one or two instep measurements. When only taking one it would typically go over the middle cuniform, when taking two, the low instep would be slightly below the middle cuniform or over the “bump” as described by DW before. BTW, I know that to be an exostosis of the dorsum. (bony prominence on the top of the foot)
The high instep would be where I project the shoe to end, anything higher would not be useful to me anyway.
The long heel goes from the bottom back of the heel, letting the tape rest on the ground to MY high instep (where the shoe will end). On the last I measure the exact same spots.
When going for a heel over 15 mm (1/2”) I prefer to measure the foot on heel height. In fact it is probably good practice to always take the measurements on heel height but for a low shoe you have some lead way.

So when I read how DW takes the measurement, than moves the tape and marks out the measurement in a different angle on the last it surprised me. I have not explanation why it has worked so well for him for so long but I can see a lot of pitfalls using a method like that.
One of the reasons it may have worked is the way you measure the foot, off the ground, freehand so to say, in this position you probably resemble the heel height of a Western style boot. When dealing with a lower heeled shoe you loose that advantage.

The look of the shoe made on the boot last looked “choked”, thinking it over (that only took me 9 weeks) I think it is mostly caused by the heel height and the cone bring rounded slightly towards the top. Looking at the picture of the shoe on the foot I don't see that “choked” look anymore.

To add more volume to the last without building up the cone to much, you should also widen the flanks of the last, from the narrow heel to the wider ball they should form a flowing line. As I think I mentioned to you before I would have started with a last that was not solely based on a heel measurement but more an average between the measurements that way you would build up some in the front and cut the heel some. As things are now I would build up the flanks leading up to the cone, trying not to build up the cone itself to much. Adding some volume to the flanks may also make it easier to get the last out as you lead up to the wider forefoot.

Just my

Rob

[relferink]

BTW, when selecting a last the heel seat measurement is something I do not even consider as stock lasts simply do not come in any decent selection of front / back width combinations. Besides the heel seat width is probably the easiest to adjust without the risk of changing the look of the last totally.

[dw]

Rob,

Well, there are several issues I need to respond to. The first is that I guess I was mis-reading the data that Bill provided me on the AE last--the only bona fide shoe last I have in hand. This was in no way Bill's fault, simply one of those personal idiosyncrasies of technique that led me to misinterpret the heel to ball figures for a given size. Once I got past that...and figured a way to translate from my figures to his, and vice versa...I found that in the size last that actually I need, the discrepancies (from what I expected) were not so great. Nevertheless...it is an ill wind...I learned a lot about the distribution of substance on shoe lasts versus boot last from trying to bring this undersize last up to my specs--knowledge that I wouldn't have had and that I do treasure given the way I approach modifying a last.

When laying out a standard from a mean form, I find that the top of the facing is very close to where I would find the high instep on a last. If you are surprised at why my method of transferring the measurements to the last works (and it does), I offer this rationale: look at the best shoe last. It roughly resembles a foot. But unless it is derived directly from a plaster cast of the foot, only roughly. The cone of the last on this AE model is literally a ridge running down the dorsal surface. No such ridge is apparent on the foot--at least not on any foot I have ever seen. That suggests, to my way of thinking, that the form of the last has been distorted upward for esthetic reasons.

But if you regard the foot at rest, on the ground, as somewhat like a water balloon and you make marks on the dorsal surface of the balloon an even inch apart, and then lift one end of the balloon to simulate heel height and squeeze the volume upward to form that ridge, I would expect to see the distance between those marks to be affected. Wouldn't you?

Additionally, Sabbage's Sectionizer seems to speak directly to this---a look at the diagram of the foot divided into 11 equal parts indicates that the divisions are at ground level. But Sabbage extends those divisions upward. It is no great insight to see that on the angled dorsal surface of the foot those sections will be further apart from each other than at ground level. It's simple geometry.

So, you have the distortion of the dorsal surface of the last relative to the foot (and boot lasts are much more distorted relative to the foot than a shoe last) and you have the heel height.

Experience has shown me, over the years, that taking the masking tape and laying it on top of the last leaves every girth measurement shy of where it should be on the last. The closest you can come is to affix the tape to the work sheet and hold the last over the tape, aligning the location of the medial ball joint on the last over the position of the mark we made over the medial ball joint on the masking tape and then, holding the last at heel height, extend every mark upward to the dorsal surface of the last--just as it is depicted in Sabbage's treatise. The more closely the last conforms to the actual foot in terms of topography the more likely that the the placement and method with which you measure the foot will conform to the placement and method by which you transfer those measurements to the last.

Then too, I have found...for boots...that measuring the foot with the weight on inevitably results in a loose fit. Again, we don't have any laces to adjust fit after-the-fact.

Bottom line, however (aside from the fact that I was taught this way) is that it may all very well be just something that has evolved with me and/or is boot specific. Like muscle memory--something that cannot be taught and may not translate. Nevertheless as I proceed along this new path, there are admittedly a few things that have me momentarily scratching my head but with my own foot at least, I have found nothing...not even a whisper...to suggest that my assumptions will not apply...at least in my hands.

Finally, I want ask you--if you start out with a last that is relatively close in girth and in the LH, yet is too wide in the heel seat...I know you would not hesitate to cut the heel seat narrower (a reasonable approach)...how you would go about narrowing the heel seat,while simultaneously maintaining the curves and the shape of the last, all without affecting the long heel? Because if we assume that, say 3mm needs to be taken off each side of the heel seat and we take that amount off equally from the featherline to the top of the cone/comb, it will reduce the long heel measurement no matter how you take it. A least that's the way I see it. Or would you simply confine your cutting to the width of the featherline, leaving the width of the heel above the featherline intact?

PS...right or wrong I am very sculptural in my approach to modifying the last. I believe in the fair curve and in respecting the topography of the last, almost to the point of obsession. If I can't build up the last so that it has the same "look and feel" after modification as it did before, I will suspect that I have done something wrong.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

FWIW, here are a few photos of a fitter's model I put together today. I post them for comment and critique as they are lasted on a modified boot last set for a one inch heel...very modified--I went from a 7C to a 7EE in the forepart and in doing so, I essentially I shifted all needed substance to the medial side of the last rather than putting it on top of the cone. Of course some went along the lateral side too because my foot is wider than a 7C but this last looks like a shoe last...as I think you will see.

If they fit good I might have them turned for my personal lasts since I think I like a one inch heel better than a five-eighths inch heel.

This first shot shows the way the shoe is sitting on the last...pretty good in my estimation, no choking that I can identify. The pattern lines are just sewn onto the vamp to get a feel of where they will end up on the last and how they look in terms of balance.

5737.jpg

This second shot shows the facings head-on. Even though this is a fitter's model, I beaded and partially lined the shoe under the facings, and added a tongue. I was experimenting with using the lining, uncut, as a way to control the facings. I did a quick job on it and it is a little uneven but if I can trim it cleanly when I pull the last, the concept will have proven itself

this fitters model has a pre-formed, but unlined heel stiffener...lots more than a simple fitter's model might need, but hey, I'll take the practice on any one of these techniques where I can get it--and if not on a fitter's model, when?

5738.jpg

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW:

I think they look very nice, particularly in the profile picture. As I stare at it, perhaps the vamp point is a tiny bit low to my eye -- how long are the facings above the vamp point?

In the second shot, looking at the medial line of the toe-to-vamp it looks a bit unusual, probably because the mass has been put on the inside of the cone -- it's probably a function of the angle of the picture.

Also, I think I prefer a straight line for the eyelets, but that is just personal preference.

Thanks for posting this.

Lance

[dw]

Lance,

The vamp point and the facings are to Sharpe exactly. I am sure that the facings are right at about three inches but it was done in metric--cm's & mm's--so I really don't remember.

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to in the second shot but as I stare at it, I think the photo has sort of warped the perspective a bit.

As for the curved eyes...well they sure look good on Gaziano's shoes. Personally, I haven't formed an opinon one way or the other yet, although I am tending towards the curved line.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[big_larry]

DW

I am impressed. I want to ask you about the "lace up" fit. I opened the laceing wings into a "V" on a pair I made, to allow the laces to tighten the shoe and hold the foot in place. The question is whether the fit is just perfect for the foot or does the lacing wings spread a little when the foot is inserted? Please elaberate a bit on this "fitting" and the role laces play as the shoe form fits (break in) or loosens a might. Thank you for sharing.
Your friend, Larry Peterson

[dw]

Larry,

Thanks.

To tell the truth I would prefer to make the last a little shy of the measurements over the instep and have no gap whatsoever between the facings. That's what this was intended to do--I sewed the facings to the linings with no gap at all between the edge beads but the facings pulled apart during lasting. I'm still "playing" but I have no real solution to keeping the facings together...yet. Maybe it can't be done.

But, in my limited experience, if you leave a gap, the facings will not last straight but curve away from each other. I don't know a solution to that either.

That's one of those "three things" that I'm working at improving for the next pair.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[shoestring]

DW,

That's impressive the way you modified that last.You answered a question that has been circling in my head about building a fitter should I or not place a counter in,with that said you are well on your way.As for lasting the facing in most photos I seen the facing had strings in during lasting to keep them closed during that stage.Maybe that will solve your problem,just a thought.The 1" heel was considered a gentlemans heel when I lived at home, (N.O.) and during that time we all though we were sports.

Ed

[dw]

Ed,

Yeah, I've laced them up prior to lasting...sometimes with laces, sometimes with left over inseaming thread, sometimes just packing twine. And Lance actually jump-stitches his facings together.

I guess it doesn't matter in the long run but I don't like the way laces tend to stretch the eyelet holes and leave an imprint on the vamp. So I thought I would try this.

Next time I'll probably use some narrow veg kangaroo lacing to lace them up...that will at least lay flat, and properly conditioned, may not stretch much.

As for putting a heel stiffener in a fitter's model...well, it has the advantage of giving a truer fit and a truer lay of the shoe on the last--truer to what the actual shoe will fit and look like. But since I don't really line the fitter's model, the heel stiffener has to be pre-formed. Then the problems begin because cementing or gluing the heel stiffener to the upper can make it hard to hoist if you take too long. I was using Hirschkleber and it "sets" (at least partially) pretty fast. I had to spritz water down in-between the upper and the stiffener to get the upper to move when I wanted to hoist the heel.

I mention all this trivia simply because someone might have already come up with a solution to the problems I have encountered or maybe my experiments will suggest a solution to someone else. All part of the learning process.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC