Pattern making

[dw]

It seems like all the master shoemakers...and my erstwhile mentors...are off on vacation. But I'm going to ask this question anyway because it's bugging me...


I'm using Sharpe and Patrick, more or less simultaneously, to create mean formes and patterns. I have a very nice last of venerable provenance, but no matter how I do it--paper or fabric formes--my mean forme has a rounded cone. Both Sharpe and Patrick illustrate a mean forme with a very straight cone shape. Such a shape would be easy to design to but no last that I've created formes for has had that shape.

The problem comes when you want to lay out a pattern, say for an oxford, on that mean forme. I assume we do not want to design our facings with, or parallel to, that curved cone shape.

So how do you "straighten out" the cone? Draw a tangent from the vamp point to the most forward part of the curve? Or do you cut part of the curve off? If so...How much?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[lancepryor]

DW:

Why wouldn't you want the facings to be cut with a curve, if that is how the mean forme comes out? I would think that, if the tape pattern comes off the last with that curve, when the upper goes back on the last the facings will lie flat and parallel, since that is obviously how the pattern was when you cut if off the last. Making the facings straight will either involve leaving too much leather somewhere, or not enough somewhere else (or both), and I would think this would make the lasting more difficult. I have a pattern someone made for me (by an experienced shoemaker), and the facing have a bit of curvature to them, so I assume that is okay. I also have some other patterns, made by the UK closer I've watched, who cut the facings straight, but probably for the sake of efficiency in cutting the upper and closing. I guess if I were going to cut the facings straight, I'd split the difference and have the pattern try to minimize the deviation from the actual mean , so in some areas you'd be cutting too small, and in other areas too big (but what do I know?).

lance

[dw]

Lance,

Well, heck, I don't know...the way you describe it makes perfect sense. And I really don't know.

But I found, especially making a full cut oxford, that cutting the facings on a curve shows up in the finished shoe--the facings, laying on top of the cone of the last, or on top of the instep of the foot, look like they've been cut on a curve. They tend to "curve" away from each other especially at the top of the facing. Straight cut facings stay straight, curved cut facings tend to stay curved.

Is there a way to cut curved and end up straight?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[frank_jones]

DW

You say “I'm using Sharpe and Patrick, more or less simultaneously, to create mean formes and patterns.” Later you imply you are producing, “--paper or fabric formes--”. The Pattern Cutter’s Handbook heavily promotes the use of masking tape to produce the mean forme. In fact, masking tape formes were used throughout, when producing the main ‘style’ chapters. If you are producing your mean forme from inside and outside formes using plain paper with slots cut in them, that could be a factor in you getting a mean forme which is significantly curved in the facing area.

There is also another possible factor which could be relevant. The book assumes the Oxford patterns in Chapter 3 are produced using a Standard as the step to get from the mean forme to the sectional patterns. Again, your posting/s could be read to mean that you are working direct from the Mean Forme to the Sectional Patterns, but I might be wrong.

At the risk of being pedantic, can I highlight two items from page 25 and page 27 of the book which might be directly relevant. I think they are both self-explanatory.

Page 25 - the lower illustration is :-

7177.gif

Then at the top of Page 27 is the almost complete Standard :-

7178.gif

Finally you say, “I have a very nice last of venerable provenance”. Having looked at all the above again, I wonder if the problem could be a result of the last not being a typical shoe last. Then, what is typical!

Frank Jones
frank.jones@noblefootwear.com

[dw]

Frank,

Thanks for your response. I am quite familiar with the diagrams you posted. They , as you said,very clear. Your being involved with Patternmakers Handbook is one of the reasons I am relying upon it. I hardly ever look at Patrick although there is one thing he does that I like.

He proposes a formula to determine how high up on the cone to make the top of the facing...from V to F, in other words...rather than just a stock measurement as in Sharpe...if I recall correctly.

So...I am using Sharpe almost exclusively to create the mean forme. But, as your illustrations so clearly show the mean forme that is derived from the last used, is nearly ruler straight from V to the top of the cone. If mine were like that I wouldn't even be asking the question.

And that brings me to your final point. I hear you. But the last I am using...speaking about...is a bona fide shoe last. A West End last, in fact.

I have tried the tape method and it is very good. But in my experience (and take that with a grain of salt--I don't have much, in other words), the results are not significantly different than can be obtained by the fabric method. (I don't really like fiddling with the paper method but occasionally I will double check the fabric formes by setting up a slotted paper forme).

To me the fabric method makes a lot of sense. I use a heavy weight canvas. My rationale is that it comes the closest to duplicating the forme that I would derive off a last if I were to use leather to make formes. And if I made leather formes, wouldn't I, couldn't I, expect them to come the closest of any method of all in duplicating what leather will do when lasted?

One thing that I am doing for myownself...which probably isn't strictly kosher...is that I have made my last a little under measure at the instep. Partly because I don't want to distort this last too much trying to model my foot too closely. So when I make up the standard I don't inset the VF line at all--I just figure on lacing the shoe with the facings tight together. In trial shoes this has worked admirably, and eliminates any guesswork in getting the facing just so apart.

Thoughts or further thoughts?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

DW,

No sure you were referring to me but no vacation here, the flue bug found another able body to take for a ride.
For what it's worth, I try to keep my facings straight wherever possible. Obviously I don't know how rounded the cone is on your mean forme but be careful giving in too much to the rounding. As you already indicated, a curved cut is hard to straighten out.
If you keep the facings straight don't middle to much, it's better to keep the facings below the mean forme line. If you middle, the extra material that falls outside the mean forme on your pattern will be hard to disperse. If you consider wet lasting you should definitely not have a problem bringing the facings together.

BTW, I don't own Sharpe nor Patrick, what does Patric use as a formula to determine the length of the facings?

Rob

[dw]

Rob,

I'll try to scan in my mean forme tomorrow. I changed the last between yesterday and today. I'm still gonna have a rounded cone shape on my mean forme but not near as severe as before. The problem lay up above the instep girth (or more specifically the low instep girth). When I filled in the hight instep to meet my measurement there, the cone straightened out some. I didn't think it was all that important because the facings generally end at, or just below, the high instep mark.

Patrick says the facings should be 1/4 SLL + .6cm from V. Sharpe says 3" from V...period. In the earlier part the process Sharpe says the lasts being used are 8's and that certain proportions can be expressed by a fixed figure, plus or minus say, 2mm for each size difference from 8. But he does not qualify the facings figure that way--it's just 3". And one is left to wonder if 3" might not be too much on a size 6 for instance.

Thanks again for your input...helpful as always.

Hope you feel better. Stay away from little kids...they are notorious vectors of pestilence, every one. Once we sent our kids packing we have been relatively cold and flu free for years. (knock on wood)

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

After making the modifications to my buildups on my last the cone on the mean forme is much straighter and I can clearly see that there would be little or no problem with straight facings.

But as you can see from the illustration the original cone (in green) was much more sever. Would my proposed facing line (in red) still be OK for this shape?

7187.png

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

DW,

Thanks for that info on Patric. Just going over it in my head and without setting it out on a last that seems to bring point F up quite high in both his and Sharpe's way. My facings are roughly 2/9 last length, here's how I get to that:
First I find my instep point, measure the last length along the lateral side of the cone and over the toes. Divide by 3 and set out from the tip of the toe. (this is for standard 15mm toe elongation and no extra deep toe box. If I have a deeper toe box I adjust for that and I usually do not got beyond 15 mm elongation) Next I take 2/3rd's of the measurement I just found, set it out from point V to get to F.
Just another way to end up in the same ballpark.

Rob

[relferink]

DW,

Can't tell from the image, it's to small. What I would do is find point F so you know how high your facings will come, any part of the cone that comes above it is of no consequence anyway.

Rob

[dw]

Rob,

I seem to recall you saying that you locate your instep point (vamp point?) high. I have been using 7/10ths of SLL as per Sharp and Patrick. This is measured from CP on the mean forme to the top edge of the mean forme over the joint. Somewhere I picked up the notion to move the vamp point one cm up the cone from there. How does that compare with your method?

If I were to measure the mean forme from CP to toe I get 28.8cm. One third of that is 9.6...which puts it about 2 mm lower than the 7/10 SLL method. Do you move your vamp point up from there? Ever? Like when making oxfords? Both figures leave me with a vamp point that seems a little low to me....but maybe that's one of my problems.

Using Patrick, the top of the facing ends up at 7.4cm from V which is all but three inches. Using your method, the top of the facing is at 6.4--a full half inch lower, unless you are raising your vamp point.

Half an inch is a huge difference esthetically. And it leaves me more puzzled than ever. I wish I could nail this down if only because I keep hearing that my initial attempts look "choked."

BTW, I enlarged the illustration...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

DW,

Hmm, 10mm seems to be a significant difference. Base on my experience I know that if I bring the top of my facings up by 10mm I will make the shoe uncomfortable for my customers, it would come up too high against the area where the foot starts flexing when moving the ankle.
I'll try setting it out myself today on a stock last I've pulled aside for myself. So far it's unmodified so it'll be a good one to try it on.

Based on the larger illustration I would still say set out how high the facings will go. If your facings stay below the spot where red crosses green you'll be fine, if it goes higher you want to bring your red line in more.

One more point based on Frank's illustration. I do find it helpful to bring point F inward from I. It's something I don't always remember to do but it helps the closing line more securely against the last and helps the lock of the topline.

I'll keep you posted on my findings.

Rob

[dw]

Rob, anyone--open invitation...

I'm looking to make a pair of saddle shoes for myself. But since the saddle lays over the vamp, I am unsure where to start the vamp...should it be at the vamp point or in front of it?

If it is at the vamp point and has gimping and broguing (as most saddle shoes do) that will move the lowest point of the facings up the cone a bit...certainly at , or more than, 1 cm. (BTW, Rob, you never did say whether you ever moved the vamp point up the cone on say, oxfords.)

If the saddle is mounted in front of the vamp point, the leading edge of the saddle will be at an angle to the vamp line. Since this is just a short distance, I don't suppose it matters but any advice would be appreciated.

FWIW, I have decided to compromise and go with Tim Skyrme's formula for finding F...1/4SLL from VP --a mm or so higher than your method, and more than a couple of mm lower than Sharp or Patrick.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

DW,

First of all a correction, I do own Sharp. When I think of “The Pattern Cutters Handbook” I think of Mr. Jones, not Mr. Sharp. Honest mistake....

So today I made a last copy and mean forme of my stock last to see how Patric / Sharp differ from my method. This is tougher than I had anticipated as I try to pay close attention to what I do so I can be consistent and put it in writing. As soon as I start concentrating things start going wrong.

To make this a fair comparison I want to make sure I do everything correctly. First obstacle finding the counter point and vamp point. Counter point 1/5 standard last length.
How do you find your SLL? Sharp states “overall length of the last does not always equal SLL”. Do you use Sharp's chart on page 2, if so do you account for the different size grading in the UK vs US system? Do you measure the last? If so where?

To your earlier question, No I do not move my vamp point up, I leave it where it is. What I said, or meant to say was that if you want to go for the extended toe look one of the “tricks” is to move the vamp point up some and shorten the facings.
Remember, no single point is set in stone and adjustments to accommodate the foot are acceptable as long as you know what you are doing.

Instinctively I would say that with the saddle shoe you don't move the vamp point, the fact that the quarters lay over the vamp does not make a difference, the vamp point is consistent on your model lines, the underlay is just oriented to the other direction.
As this is a style I have absolutely no experience with someone else may have a more definitive answer for you.

Rob

[dw]

Rob,

Well let me refine my question and then clarify what I'm doing...for better or for worse.

I intend to brogue the leading edge of my saddle. If I visualize where the vamp stitch would be on a regular oxford...over the vamp point, right?...I start thinking I want to extend the saddle so that the broguing will be forward of the vamp stitching. Does that make sense? That way the behind-the-broguing stitching will be at the same palce that the stitching on a regular oxford would be. The hang up is that in designing the pattern the vamp line (a line drawn on the standard that goes from the top of the mean forme at the toe to the vamp point would then be above the leading edge of the saddle because the saddle is drawn on the cone line.

If I end the saddle at the vamp point, that problem is moot but then the bottom of the facings must move up the cone to accommodate the broguing. I'm not sure I like the thought of that.

As for how I find SLL..I guess rely on Sabbage--12/11's of foot length. If my last is correct then it will measure...from featherline at heel to featherline at toe the same. But on this saddle shoe I think the last is a little shorter than my boot lasts (it has a wider toe) it also has no featherline around the heel. So I guessitmated and 1/5 SLL from the last left me with a CP 1 mm lower than what I would have gotten with Sabbage (54mm vs. 55mm)

I am interested in your further reflections on Sharpe and your experiments.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

DW,

Generally I don't think it's a good idea to mix systems but I can live with the SSL as 12/11th of the foot length as per Sabbage. In most cases I tend to use less toe elongation but for the sake of finding a SSL that we can agree on, and compare notes on I'll go with it.

So on the last I'm using to compare my ways to yours (aka Patrick & Sharp) I set out the back height, vamp point and the top of the facing on my last as described earlier in this thread, copied the last, created a mean forme and set out the CP, back height, vamp point and height of the facings.

7220.gif

Your back height is 2mm higher than mine, your VP is 1mm lower than mine and your point I (as per image above) is almost 1mm higher than mine.
So all and all very much in the ballpark. My scanner isn't long enough to fit the full meane on and I can't figure out how to rotate it so the toe is cut off but these are my findings.

7221.jpg

Not enough difference for me to consider changing the way I work but the weak point of my system is that the toe elongation needs to be consistent, extra elongation will bring the VP down.

Let me first of all remind you that I'm no saddle shoe expert. Hopefully someone else will jump in to help you out with it. One of the main questions I have; are you planning on cutting the saddle out of one piece of leather or have a seam through the center? If you cut the saddle out off one piece, folding the edges is going to be hard, the facings will always gap some. Do you have any thoughts on how to address that or just accept it as is?
I agree with extending the saddle with the width needed for the broguing. The alternative is to shorten the facings, making it harder for the foot to get into the shoe.

I wouldn't worry about the leading edge of the saddle falling below the folding line of your vamp. If you need to you can always work the leather a little to “pre-stretch” it just enough to get it to line up correctly. I would do this before your broguing in order not to throw off the visual pattern.
Even if you choose not to pre-stretch and just sew it on as is you should still be fine once you last the uppers.

Hope that helps.

Rob

[dw]

Rob,

That helps a lot. I wonder how much above the CP you are locating the back height? One cm seems an awful lot to me---that's essentially 1cm above the counter/heel stiffener and an area that could possibly collapse even if it is not aesthetically too high. So I made mine 8mmm. Is your back height even less above the CP?

As for the saddle, I am planning on cutting it as one piece. I don't think that there would be a significant difference between how I would handle that and a full cut vamp--I'll either bind it or place a bead along the edge of the facings and topline. I don't believe that a full cut...or in this case a one-piece saddle lends itself to turning the edges very well. You get that gap which I personally don't like...although I have seen at least one pair of full cuts that had the gap all the way to the end of the facings/vamp point and it was handled with an admirable panache that made me look twice. Your remarks about extending the saddle edge are well taken and give me confidence that I am on the right track.

Thank you for taking the time...even if I end up doing things a bit different, I appreciate your input and the confidence and inspiration it brings.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

DW,

I don't set up my CP first. Go straight to the back height, 65mm based on size 42, + or - 1 mm per size up or down.
To clarify, on the mean above, the black marks are "mine", the red ones by Patric/Sharp.
Just as Sharp puts in the Pattern Cutters Handbook I find that this is sometimes a little high and adjust down based on the "foot at hand". Don't go higher as it will cause discomfort pressing on the Achilles tendon when you use a shoe last (remember how a shoe last comes in more at the top of the cone).
For the counter itself, I will bring it up as high as it will go, usually it ends up just a few mm below the seam that secures my lining once lasted, most industry shoes do not go that high but I don't see anything wrong with it.

I agree on your take on the turned edges on both the saddle and full cut. As nice as a turned edge is, this may not be the place to use it.

Rob

[j_johansen]

DW,
I am having an issue with the patterns from your book creating an upper that tilts back when lasted onto the half inch heel last I've got (obviously!). I originally changed the angle on the stencil for cutting the vamp, thinking this was going to solve this problem, but it has not. I'm assuming I need to change the angles on my counter, counter cover,and vamp placement templates, correct?
J.

[dw]

Jay,

Tracking this kind of thing down is difficult. But, all other things being equal, cutting the quarters on the crimped vamp is the key. You need to think of the boot, in profile, like an "L" or like a hockey stick. With higher heeled boots the angle of the vamp can be like the hockey stick. with low heeled boots it must be more like an "L". The salient point here is that if the last are made correctly, the backpart of the boot doesn't have to change much, if any, for different heel heights.

The angle of the vamp is controlled either by the shape of the board the vamps are crimped on (I think board angles are limited in what can be done with them); or by the way the quarters of the vamp are cut...which can accomplish the same thing as using diverse crimping boards.

Ultimately, cutting the quarters slightly different affects...not so much the way in which the vamps are mounted on the tops...but the angle of the vamps relative to the tops when they are mounted. And that, in turn. controls how much leather is available over the cone of the last and all the way to the bottom of the sideseam.

I have never tried to make a half inch heeled boot. But the patterns and the theory work reliably down to seven-eighth's inch. That I do know and have done. It may be that you will need to change some other variable to achieve satisfactory results at 4/8".

But a word of caution...from someone who has, over the years, regularly thrown caution to the winds and gotten blown away for his efforts. So many times what we immediately identify as a problem with the patterns, ends up being unrelated to the patterns altogether. And the end result is not only a lot of wasted time and energy but sometimes a very difficult road back to some place...mental or otherwise...of known quantities from which we can start over. Change a pattern here, change a pattern there and pretty soon you don't know what works and what doesn't. Many times, after changing a pattern, I ended up realizing that the "original sin" was in a certain insouciance in the way I regarded other procedures. As Sam Luchesse once said (in so many words) every part of the process is entirely and critically dependent upon the previous part. A casual approach to any technique or any part of the procedure will almost certainly lead to esthetic awkwardness at the very least, if not technical difficulties, in subsequent steps and in the end product.

Just for instance, if a boot is patterned and cut for a foot with a short heel measurement of say, 13¼", and the last is 13½"...along whatever dimension that corresponds to the short heel of the foot...the throat of the boot will never be open enough to allow the boot to settle correctly on the cone of the last. And the boot will lean back every time. If the patterns are cut correctly and in accordance with the measurements of the foot and last, but the quarters of the vamp are cut for a 2¼" heel when they should be cut for half an inch, the instep and the throat of the boot will be, again, "choked" and the boot will lean back. The way you spread the tongue of the vamp; the position of the tongue relative to the "break" on crimped vamp; the shape and suitability of the last itself (I don't have and never offered a half inch last)....all these things, by themselves or in combination, can affect the end result.

I cannot say for sure, I'm not in your situation and as I said I have never been called upon to make a half inch heeled boot but I think you have to assume the theories are fundamentally sound (what else can you do?) and proceed from there--looking closely and deliberately at every aspect, from lasts to measuring to assembly---and eliminate or change everything short of patterns... first. I don't believe that changing the the "angles on (your) counter, counter cover,and vamp placement templates" will do anything other than muddy the waters so badly you won't know whether to swim or walk out.

I have always said that "bootmaking is easy--it's just muscle memory--it's fitting that is hard." In the same context, it has always seemed to me that although it is all too easy (and ever so tempting) to "overthink" a problem, the whole process is one of those things that lends itself to logic--every thing, every technique, every theoretical understanding has a logical underpinning. In other words, it all makes sense if you think it through. And if you think it through, most if not all problems can be solve with logic.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[j_johansen]

DW,
Thank you for the input. As I am reading your advice I'm remembering that this boot, a 9EEE, was difficult to last and I was unable because of the significant bulk of the cone of the last ( or my incorrect short heel, as you suggested) to fully pull the vamp onto the last at the shank just ahead of the side seam. Your encouragement to look elsewhere and and at the patterns last is quite helpful............J.

[relferink]

Fred,
As the vamp point pertains more to pattern making that last making I thought I'd continue this discussion here.
The vamp point can be located from the mean forme as described in the pattern cutters handbook. Contact Frank Jones for a copy.
In that book Mr. Sharp explains the the vamp point is 7/10th SLL set out from the Counter point on the mean. I did a comparison between this method and the one I was taught as you can see above there was not much difference on an industry last. I have not yet tried Sharp on an orthopedic last but I expect it would work well as the vamp point is set out from the heel, not the toes that are often problematic.

Your correct that the vamp point is located where the cone starts to rise up behind the forefoot. If you look at your mean forme and take that point my experience is that you end up a little too low on your vamp point.
The main reason I still measure is simply that by knowing the "industry standard" I think I can make better looking shoes. If I guess or estimate the vamp point the proportions of the shoe may not be as pleasing in the end. Not that I will not move the vamp point if I think it's appropriate.

On orthopedic lasts I sometimes like to find my vamp point before I make any copies and mean forme. This way I can sketch out a design on the last, see how it looks and adjust. Than copy the complete design, apply my geometric system and make an informed decision what model line to use. I like how you describe magic created between positive an negative space. Putting it that way seems to add to the art and mystery of the gentle craft.

Rob

(Message edited by relferink on March 24, 2008)

[fred_coencped]

Rob,"7/10ths SLL"this does sound close to your 1/3rd system,but I can`t seem to figure out the abbreviation SLL,could you provide a little clue?

I usually mark my perception of this vamp point in question on the last ,draw my intended design on the last and create all of the design on a design draft from the medial and lateral copies of the shell patterns keeping all of the landmarks like counter point ,back height and my instinctive perception of the vamp point.

Thanks again for your insights and references,I will contact Frank Jones as suggested.

Fred

[artzend]

Fred

SLL is Standard Last Length and is the measurement along the bottom of a last with a normal or broad toe. A pointed toe last will not give a correct measurement.

Tim

[fred_coencped]

Tim,
Thank you Tim for answering such an easy question and taking the load of of Rob on the question of vamp point.

Fred