vamp leather question

[tjburr]

I happened to get a glimpse of a quite beautiful pair of penny loafers this afternoon.

This made me start thinking about what I knew about penny loafers, and a desire to make a pair in the future. I remembered that they are quite often largely unlined.

This got me wondering what type of leather penny loafers are made of. Can anyone tell me what type of leather would normally be used in a penny loafer? Based on the look of the shoe for some reason it brought to mind a veg tan with an antiquing finish.

Unfortunately the shoes were on a person I did not know and was therefore not easily in a position to request a closer, off the foot, look.

She probably would have thought I was some weirdo and thinking I had some foot fetish or other

Terry

[big_larry]

Friends,

I am about two years "out of sinque'" with the forks that were building the Full Wellington Boots. I am just now getting the last lining pieces strecthed on the "easy and cruel" boards.

I thought I would pass along a bit of data that might help some other folks making the Full Wellington.

It is much easier to crimp the leather pieces if you read D.W.'s instructions. I sewed a reinforcing strip around the leather that was too wide and too thick. His instructions would have saved me some grief. In spite of this, I discovered that the stretching is different for each kind of leather. I personally like buffalo for both the lining and the outer boot leather. The buffalo I use is from G-N and does not immediatly give up the stretch. I found that by re-wetting the leather and adding a little stretch at a time over a period of 5 or 6 days the buffalo gives up more and more stretch.

Another tip is to tack the entire top around the board and the toe very securly.

Another tip or preference, I like to leave the leather on the "cruel board" for a week. The easy board is much more ditticult (for me) than the cruel board. When the easy board is totally formed, the cruel board is much easier. I am using boards made by Dick Anderson, with three pulling irons.

This is just a thought and I am by no means any kind of an authority. When I make an observation I like to share it.

Thank you for tolerating me.

[jon_g]

Can someone out there help me with this question? When cutting a vamp to crimp, how do you arrange the stretch? Cut parallel to the backbone or perpendicular?

Jon

[dw]

Jon,

Whether crimping or not, I always cut vamps perpendicular to the backbone. You want the leather to have a little give in the direction of the toe especially if you hoist when lasting. And you don't want the leather to stretch sideways...which would encourage the shoe/boot to walk out over the welts.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

(Message edited by dw on May 19, 2009)

[lancepryor]

I guess there are different schools of thought on this one. I believe the British cut 'tight to the toe,' which I think means cutting the vamp parallel to the backbone, i.e. stretch will be sideways. Vass in his book says to cut the vamp parallel to the backbone, but quarters perpendicular. Note: these comments pertain to shoes, I can't comment about boots.

[dw]

Lance,

That's interesting. When doing up Golding and...currently...looking through Thornton, I have always gotten the impression that there was actually less concern about stretch direction in shoemaking than in the "school" of bootmaking that I came up in.

I have Thornton here in front of me, and Golding still lurking in the darker corners of my memory, and in almost every pattern placement illustration...where patterns are laid out on a hide or side prior to clicking...the authors tend to have the quarters and the vamps placed more for cutting economies than stretch--although Thornton has a real preference for "vamp tight across." Even in his best, minimal-waste configurations, Thornton has the vamps perpendicular (or nearly so) to the backbone.

To be fair, however, these guys are talking small factory or best economy and when laying out patterns it is not uncommon to see some of these illustrations put quarters...uppers...in areas of a hide I would consider offal. And, almost for that reason alone, I tended to discount a lot of what I read in these books when I was young and first getting started. Nevertheless it's unusual to see the vamp cocked parallel to the backbone.

Of course what a bespoke maker does...and why..is not only a different story but the more interesting story.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Lance, all,

Just a follow-up because this is such an interesting question.

Vass seems conflicted on this issue. In HMSFM, on pp. 96, Vass' pattern cuutter, Gyorgy Szkala , says

The direction of stretch of a piece of leather is also important. For example, the pattern for the vamp must be laid onto the leather in such a way that the piece cut out can stretch lengthwise, but not sideways. By contrast, the quarter must not stretch lengthwise because otherwise it may become about a half inch [1-2cm] longer after being worn for a while and destroy the shoe's rigidity and shape.

All of which would suggest that the vamp needs to be cut perpendicular to the backbone simply because most hides are tight parallel to the backbone.

Then on page 98 and 99(?) are photos showing the vamps being cut parallel to the backbone. The accompanying text suggests, however, that this practice might be more common on a heavily grained leathers such as box calf where stretching would tend to flatten the grain.

Beyond that...I wouldn't mind seeing a rationale for cutting the vamps parallel to the backbone...?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Here's a question for the shoemakers on the forum...I have always used around four ounce leather for vamps on boots. Sometimes heavier, sometimes a little lighter. But four ounce is sort of the ideal weight.

And then we add linings.

What about shoes? I am pursuing a promising source of leather for men's weight shoes but it comes in a range from 1mm to 1.6mm. Now, 1mm is about 2.5 ounce and 1.6mm is 3 ounce.

If the temper is medium to firm, is this weight suitable? I'm looking for something that will be a mainstay, go-to source for men's dress shoes. I think most of the GN burnishable buffalo is about in the same weight range although the texture is slighlty rough for dress shoes. In any case, it always seemed slightly light to me, but that could be a bootmaking bias.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[romango]

IMHO, GN buffalo is a touch on the light side but definitely in the zone.

It does depend somewhat on the style and effect you are after.

The GH french calf is a firmer hand that I like for a more formal dress shoe. The GN buffalo is great for a more flexible dance shoe.

[dw]

Rick,

My problem with the GH French calf is that it isn't quite firm enough, IMO. If you brogue or gimp it, the small perfs, in particular, tend to lose crispness. Mind you, it's acceptable...but only just.

Except for the slightly soft temper, it is a fine leather.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[tmattimore]

D.W.
just IMHO the temper is more important then the thickness all other things being equal. I have made it a habit that when I have veg split down I take the skivers as well and use them to back the softer leathers.
Tom

(Message edited by tmattimore on June 04, 2009)

[dw]

Tom,

I have never done that with veg skivers but I can see how it might be effective.

I agree with you about the temper being more important especially when gimping and broguing is to be done. Too soft and the tiny perfs, in particular, lose crispness and the gimping kind of tends to curl.

BTW, my keyboard is messed up or something... I typed 1.2mm for the heaviest weight in the leather I mentioned above but somehow it came out 1.6mm.

Sorry about that.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[athan_chilton]

All,

I just noticed a note (accidentally deleted the email) about leather from Waterhouse. My question is, I have so far only worked with cowhide in about 3.5 ounce weight, or similar weight bison sold by Hide House in California. I would like to try something new for my next shoes, which will hopefully be a 4/8 - 12/8 heel height, no higher, for a smallish female foot. What different leather, Waterhouse's or?? would you more experienced shoemakers recommend? I'd hate to buy something that I wasn't yet skilled enough to work with!

[romango]

I like Garlin Neumann (603) 595-6319 cow calf for women's shoes. It's very nice stuff. Probably more like 2.5 - 3 oz with a soft hand.

[athan_chilton]

Thanks, Rick. I will give them a call. Time to try something new!

[dw]

Rick will correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I looked at the GN cow calf it only came in burgundy.

If it's what I'm thinking, I didn't care for it much. When you get right down to it, I think it's still fundamentally cowhide.

Waterhouse leathers is just introducing this new aniline dyed veg tan calf. It has a fine grain surface which is not painted. It runs about 3-3½ ounce. I got some black and was impressed enough with it to give it a try. I haven't cut into it yet, however, so maybe it's a gamble but I doubt it.

Waterhouse also has a very nice veg tanned calf/cow lining leather. It is undyed and unfinished and clean. Toggled or stretched you would have a hard time telling it from fine English lining kip. I use it for all shoes. If you like something a little "glove-ier," they also have a 3 ounce. pearl cow which is chrome tanned for a really decent price.

Waterhouse is worth talking to, at any rate. Their phone # is 1.800.322.1177. Ask for peter Bentley and tell him I sent you.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[romango]

The one that only comes in burgundy is the "burnishable". The regular cow-calf comes in a variety of colors.

Actually, I like both products.

[dw]

Rick,

You're right. I called GN today for swatches. I really like this Waterhouse calf but you never know what the customer will like.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[dw]

All,

I've never worked with shell cordovan before. Now I have an order for a pair of shoes in black shell.

I have two questions:

First, how is the vamp aligned on the shell? These shells have a straight edge at one end...being longer as you go away from the straight edge. I am thinking that the straight edge might be the backbone, or near-as-nevermind. But I really don't know. Can anyone offer some insight? Especially on how to lay out the vamps and quarter patterns?

Second question, I would like to fold the edges along the topline and facing and quarter. I can see this might be difficult. Any one done folded edges on shell cordovan shoes? Any suggestions or advice would help.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[erickgeer]

DW,

I've never used it, but since I've visited Horween's many times I have a (very) small insight. It is slicked on the flesh- it has a direction so the sheen is different- cutting needs to maintain direction of "nap" among parts. It's so expensive I'm scared to test for directions of stretch.

You are correct- before they are trimmed the two shells are joined at that flat. On my last tour, we found out that they have some pieces of Mule shell that are bigger (?).

All of the shell examples I've seen (that I recall) have a bound or piped edge.

Maybe part of this helps?

Erick

[dw]

Erick,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate it. Seems like I always ask my questions on the weekend when everyone is on holiday at the seashore.

I thank you for confirming that the flat edges are at the backbone but now I'm worried about the "nap."

I will eventually call Horween but I wanted feedback from shoemakers who actually use the stuff.

I can fold the edges but shell doesn't like to fold even using a skiving machine the skived edge seems to be a bit stiffer or thinner in places than others and what starts out to be a straight folded edge ends up just the slightest bit waver-y.

I hate a raw edge and although I will use a bead on the top line edge, the backstay and the quarters look like they may have to be left raw. Cordovan is so thick the raw edge problem is compounded.

Anyone else...thoughts?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[erickgeer]

DW,

I've always used the axiom that the materials dictate whether or not to use a folded edge. I know it's a matter of personal aesthetics, but there are areas where I just don't see the point in using folded edges.

-This is coming from someone who prefers the "country" look of round toes and long outsole stitches over the refined almond toes and minuscule outsole stitching

Erick

[paul]

DW,

At the risk of suggesting the obvious, you could just slick and paint the edges.

Yes, it would be working with something very thin, but you should be able to get a smooth edge with gum trag and then edge coat, especially since the horse butt is such a tight fiber. With wax polish over time, it would be a nice edge.

A slight undercut could possibly help the look also.

Paul

[dw]

Paul,

Thank you for taking the time. Yes, I figured that's what I was going to have to do. Somehow it just doesn't seem as elegant as folding the edge.

At some point, I guess I'm using shoemaking to take my skill levels up a notch. Hand stitching the outsoles, doing the fiddleback beveled waist, etc.. Seems sort of incongruous to go to all that trouble and then not fold the edges.

I am surprised that with all the talent we have on this forum, there hasn't been more response to this question...I could use all the help I can get working with shell.

[sigh]

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[paul]

Yeah! I'm intertested to know more about how to work it too!

I never had any contact with Shell Cordovan doing shoe repair, outside of shining it. I don't even know if I ever saw more than one or two breakouts.
I've always been kind of curious about it.

And when it comes to skills, as I always say...

...Lead on!
I'll catch up.

Paul