One "Last" Question

[janne_melkersson]

I have been reading all these postings with great interest and I appreciate the time taken for making the postings.

The only thing that I want to add is that a good rule when it is about making lasts is to keep it it simple i.e. just follow the tracing and the measurements.

Since most of our clients, I am now talking about bespoke clients, have healthy feet a minor proantion is mostly corrected by the support it gets from the heels stiffener going ball to ball and that the last follows the inner tracing on the medial side. If that seems to be to little Al's trick with adjusting the insole could be helpful.

But if you really have a foot that collapse in pronation you need to make a footbed on the last to give the support. Then the last can be twisted as much as needed and all will be "hided" in the footbed and as a result the welt will be at the same level on both sides. But now we are talking about orthopeadic stuff and that is another thing.

Janne

ps once in London I saw Terry at Foster & Son making a last for a client with a "problem" foot, I don't remeber what it was, but he had to make a footbed and since he was doing it by the "book" he didn't use presscork as I do but natural cork of course!

(Message edited by janne melkersson on November 21, 2010)

[janne_melkersson]

Ohh, I re read my posting and I saw I didn't mention that I make my lasts "neutral" until I got informations that a correction is needed.

Janne

[last_maker]

Al,

Quote:

===============================

whether hanging from a tree limb for a lifetime would bunions even occur? He said yes, which I found troublesome. Some physical force has to open that 1st met joint FIRST, inviting nature too fill the void with calcium deposits, etc.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't argue that tight shoes will cause a bunion and for that I also belive you are correct and your doctor friend is too. Additionally, you are right, Some physical force has to open that 1st met joint FIRST. I have to say at this juncture that I understand the concepts of congenital bunions, but, I belive other podiatrist or pedorthist on this site might be more qualified to answer this question.



===============================================
Qote:

So you're saying, "mathematically" the great toe naturally moves laterally, toward the center-line of the foot, 1/16" for every 1/2" of heel height? So in a 1" heel the great toe has moved 1/8" from its flat barefoot position, so a last could theoretically "clip" 1/8" off the barefoot tracing safely?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well yes and no. In this mathamatical theory one could clip the END of the first toe by that much but not the joint. What I have found is that in actuallity it is not the joint that is moveing, it is the spread of the ball that is widening. Either way, if you clip the last by 1/16th of an inch per half inch and it doesn't work with that foot in the test shoe phase, you can always add leather to the side of the last to add to it what was taken off. However when my instructor utilized that formula, it didn't hurt his customers. 1/6th of an inch is about 1-2mm,

I have also found that some mechanics of some feet, there is less movement than other feet.


quote

=========================
"Granted, no bunion is going to go away because of medial toe room in a shoe, but my point there was simply not to exacerbate it"

=====================

I agree.


quote:
=====================
All of these methods we use to capture data from the foot, it seems to me, are mere snap shots or "frozen frames" of the static foot, and not fully reflecting the "blur" that is the foot-in-the-footwear

========================

Super good point!


-marlietta

Lastmakingschool.com

[last_maker]

I was never taught that there was such thing as a loma line. Is this refering to how the last is swung???

When we bisected a cadaver foot (foot surgery training) All I saw under there is a strong tendon running from the calcaneaus connecting to each metatarsal. It was called the planter facia. Infact, connecting to the calcaneaus was the achelies tendon. then, connecting to the calcaneaus the plantar facia spread into each toe. When we examined the line up with the foot to leg, there was no area that was stronger on the foot than any other area. In fact the achelis , If the calf was strong, and there were no conginital issues, when manually moving the foot (mind you it was a cadaver foot) all the tendons and muscules worked together.

So I understand where the LOMA line is supposed to be,( the are running from calcaneaus to about the second toe) However, I do not see in litteral podiatry terms where it would be.

Now It is true, When drafting a sole shape that normally, we line up the center of the calcaneaus, by passing the navicular ( instep bone) to the area about the second toe Is this what we are calling this a LOMA line??? if so, I am having trouble accepting the existance of an actual Line Of Muscular action. I Do not belive that on the foot to leg relationship that there is litterally a line where there is more muscular action than any other area of the foot. Since the foot and hand are set up similar, is there a particular place on one of your hands that is stronger than any other???

Perhaps I am getting caught up in a term that was presented to me differenly. I was taught the line passing from the calcaneaus past the navicular to the second toe about was called the "swing line"

So can some one help clearify for me, whether we speak of the same line but call it a different term?

Marlietta
lastmakingschool.com

[lancepryor]

DW:

In the foot inside a heeled shoe, we know that the medial heel is higher than the lateral heel. When we take a pedograph, that is not the case, since there is no elevation of the heel; thus, I would expect the heel to print evenly across its width, at least for a normal foot. But, in the finished (heeled) shoe, the foot is never really in exactly the same position as it was when the pedograph was taken, since the shoe-wearing foot has an elevated heel vis a vis the forefoot.

By extension, if somehow we were to take a pedograph of a foot with a neutral 3/4" or 1"inch heel, would the heel print evenly? I have no idea, though given the natural elevation of the medial side, I might guess that the outside of the heel would print heavier, since it is lower and would seem more likely to bear the majority of the weight, or at a minimum must absorb the initial impact. Assuming, arguendo (hah, finally get to use that expensive legal education!), that this is the case, wouldn't we want to do something to make sure the medial part of the heel is actually bearing some weight? If so, it seems to me, the 'twisted' heel seat on the last will, in a finished shoe, put leather under that medial heel and thus increase the weight bearing responsibility of the medial heel, as we would wish.

If a last is neutral, but the foot inside the shoe has a twisted/raised medial heel, isn't it the case that the medial heel is trying to pull away from the insole, since the insole is neutral but the actual foot/heel is not? [Is this also why the outside portion of the heel is where the wear always occurs, because the typical 'neutral' last ends up with the shoe twisting and the lateral heel striking first?]

With regards to 'hiding' the twist, I agree that we want the last and the finished shoe to sit so that the medial heel is higher. By extension, to try to 'level' the heel by tilting the last is exactly what we don't want to do. I think what Al suggested is ways to keep the twist there, but to make it less apparent. If, for example, the heel counter were much thicker medially that laterally, this wouldn't be visible in the finished shoe; however, this thickness would reduce the amount of difference necessary in the heel stack, and thus help achieve the visual balance that you like. Nevertheless, the 'twist' inherent in the last would still be there with respect to the insole and the forefoot/rearfoot relationship. All you are doing is changing where the medial portion of the heel is built up -- here, it's in the counter, inside the upper, rather than in the heel stack outside the upper. Likewise, trimming the outside of the insole a bit thinner wouldn't affect the inherent twist, but it would give a flatter heel seat.

I'll have to give the rest of your post some more thought -- I'm too tired to really think it through right now!

Thanks,
Lance

[last_maker]

Further about twist.

I caveat this for high heel shoes, but I was taught that an instep to 5th met encouragement twist was preferred for ladies high heel shoes 1.5" or higher. If you ever have to walk on a pin in back ( as in a stilletto) and then try to propell forward in a neutral lasted high heel shoe, you will end up walking on your first met head. OOOOOOOOOccccchhhhhh!!!!! [img]http://www.thehcc.org/forum/images/old_smilies/sad.gif"%20ALT="sad[/img]

A good way to encourage bunions!!!!

The desirable position of a ladies high heel shoe at the ball upon walking is down the center of the metatarsal heads. Introducing twist will achieve this. So this is not a situation, to aid sick or problem feet, it is to aid in a comfortable stride and as neutral balanced foot during stide as much as possible. this is a functional control mechanism

Marlietta
Lastmakingschool.com

[dw]

All,

I too need to digest this Thanksgiving feast...

I will make a few comments however and hope that I will not rue them later:

First, I don't know that the foot inside a heeled shoe is automatically raised on the medial side. I've never heard that, nor seen that in practice. Raising a foot without weight on it allows the foot to assume positions...just from the muscular tensions set up by holding the foot in that position...that will not be there when the weight of the body is transferred down the leg and into the Os Calcis/Tarsus Seven Group.

The other thing is...and I'm just saying...I've probably made and worn more footwear at inch and a half heel heights or higher (two and a quarter inch heel heights are a mainstay in my shop and in my personal closet) than many. And...near-as-nevermind...zero of them on lasts with a medial twist.

I'm not sure how all that translates to shoes at lower heel heights or even if it does but I've never found or had complaints about walking on the first met head. Or bunions. In fact, my wife, Randee, had incipient bunions that disappeared when she started wearing boots.

And if it helps to put that in perspective, I've worn boots at inch and five-eighths or higher almost exclusively for over 35 years. Until recently, my only other footwear were moccasins for lounging around the house on weekends. The verdict: no bunions, medial side of the foot as straight as a ruler.

Finally, the LOMA is an imaginary line--first introduced by Golding if I recall correctly (too tired to remember)--but useful in any case.

[sigh] This seems like another one of those subjects that everyone has a different perspective on and apparently no definitive resolution. That said, I'd be happy to be convinced..I really would--just to find that definitive answer.

PS...there's also the issue of what influence a radiused heel bottom has on the foot. But that's for tomorrow or another day.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[dw]

Postscript...

After taking an nice warm, relaxing bath, as I am wont to do before bed, it came to me that it was Rossi that introduced me to the Line of Muscular Action....although I think Golding does detail something similar.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[das]

DW,

Let's take this back to my first posts to Marlietta, "twist", like "swing", is simply a control factor we ought to understand and manipulate in a last. As in most feet the medial heel raises off the ground "faster" than the lateral side, shouldn't the heel-seat have a certain degree of twist too, especially for higher heels--say over 1"?

Most ex-factory lasts I've fiddled with lack any twist. Some of the better bespoke lasts do have some twist.

I'm not advocating dramatic twist for all, just that we should consider it when a "normal" foot feels/shows forced pronation in certain lasts/footwear because the last lacks any, same as when a foot feels/shows evidence of insufficient "swing", like adjusting the volume, bass, or treble, dial that knob a little

[das]

DW,

I think I follow you on LOMA, but then the LOMA of a "normal" healthy foot can be severely disturbed by the footwear worn, throwing the line way off--LOMA's here when barefoot, but forced over there in certain footwear made on ill-fitting lasts. Seems to me if we respect the idealized LOMA, and center our forepart toe-shape on this imaginary line between the 1st and 2nd met group, we're essentially "swinging" the last. Moreover, let's say LOMA follows the 1st and 2nd met group, but the great toe is deflected or bunionized, what then? Follow LOMA, or follow the bent toe?

Both "swing" and "twist" will affect the LOMA action, and short-circuit natural gait, even for an otherwise upright "normal" healthy foot. Worn continually, such footwear will train the feet, invite the disuse of certain muscles/tendons, or the feet will over compensate, and yes this will reverberate all the way up the kinetic line. IOW, both factors need to be respected and adjusted wisely. That's all I'm advocating here. And again, not to beat a dead horse, but ex-factory lasts cannot be trusted to have sufficient "swing", or "twist" anymore than enough "inside cone", correct seat width relative to forepart width, enough "clip" in the heel, etc., etc., etc. Some ex-factory lasts are known in the trade as "good fitters", others are dogs, or "upside-down aircraft carriers". As we learn what makes a good fitter in a superior generic last for mass-production, we have a better base last to start from for customizing. For those who make custom lasts from scratch this is not such an issue, but as I wager most of us start with some existing last (often ex-factory models), and fit-up from there, the base last is important, and the better it is, the more anatomical it is, the less tweaking we have to do.

[andre]

Hello,
after following this thread, I like to ad my pic here:



it shows my "LOMA" while walking. This is the red line and I'm not sure if we can call it LOMA, but this is the pressure line my foot is following while walking (not standing). The obvious happens, that my pressure is falling to lateral. The nos just showing the how much pressure are on certain points (I don't think they are fixed points, just been taken by the operator).
So what does it mean for twist? May be nothing, but according to me the last should follow to some degree this line, so to me it looks like, that the classic LOMA Line needs to be reconsidered and that means "twist". But how much I'm not able to judge, I'm also reading this thread and I'm not sure where I stand on this.
May be somebody on this?
Andre

[dw]

Al,

Well what do we use LOMA for? As much as I admire Rossi and his theories for me LOMA is data that is entirely critical and of limited use...if I have a last that is worthy of my time.

You reference a bunionized foot...OK, but as I understand it a bunion is the opening up of the medial side of the joint and as a result the body tries to compensate by filling the void with calcium. Basic stuff.

But my observations tell me that while a huge unsightly knob appears and the big piggy moves smartly off to market, the basic relationship between the first and second met heads is not disturbed unless other unhealthy factors are introduced...as they often are...often because of secondary effects relating to the bunioning--such as hammer toes, etc..

So...the point is that using the "bent toe" doesn't make much sense to me. To do so would undermine the logic of the LOMA in the first place.

All that said, I am with you on "swing." That's why I adopted Rossi's ideas in the first place.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[andre]

Hello,
after following this thread, I like to ad my pic here:

12419.jpg

it shows my "LOMA" while walking. This is the red line and I'm not sure if we can call it LOMA, but this is the pressure line my foot is following while walking (not standing). The obvious happens, that my pressure is falling to lateral. The nos just showing the how much pressure are on certain points (I don't think they are fixed points, just been taken by the operator).
So what does it mean for twist? May be nothing, but according to me the last should follow to some degree this line, so to me it looks like, that the classic LOMA Line needs to be reconsidered and that means "twist". But how much I'm not able to judge, I'm also reading this thread and I'm not sure where I stand on this.
May be somebody on this?
Andre

[das]

Lance,

Thanks. If a heel that is c.1/8" lower on the lateral side is way more comfortable and balanced-feeling to stand in or walk in than one that is perfectly plumb, seems like a no-brainer to me

All my life I've known shoe repair guys to often wedge-up stacked heels medially for customers upon request, others who ground-off heel bases lower by a tad on their lateral side whenever replacing top-pieces to improve "twist". Most over-the-counter inserts do the same. All this is telling me that generic stock factory lasts/shoes lack sufficient "twist".

As custom makers, "we control the horizontal...we control the vertical..." (like the intro to the old '60s sci-fi TV show 'The Outer Limits' said). We should dial that knob with confidence when needed I think, instead of trusting any old last to have it right.

[das]

DW,

Try this simple test: barefoot, sitting at your computer, straighten your calves to vertical and lift your heel off the floor maybe 2"-3" naturally, hinging the foot across your met joints evenly. Dollars to doughnuts your medial heel is now higher than your lateral heel. Now, still up in the air, rotate your foot so that your heel feels dead level. You have now overloaded your 1st met head, and taken weight off your 5th, IOW unbalanced the foot.

I've never studied your feet, or measured you for boots, so I cannot judge your feet. Without impugning your ability to fit yourself--we are all our own worst Guinea pigs in that regard--but there is a difference between footwear that "fits" correctly, and footwear a foot can tolerate asymptomatically. If you've worn 1 5/8" plus heels for years, that are dead level medially/laterally, let me ask you this: when you wear a hole in the outsole, is it a nice perfect "O" right under your 1st met joint? Do you get any wear under the 5th, or thinning at that edge of your outsole?

With my feet/footwear it varies. I usually get a neat little pea-sized "O" under the first met joint, but sometimes little or no thinning under the 5th at the outside edge--I would say that last, or the B/S, was out of balance and I was pronating in them. When I stand still, I prefer to feel weight bearing on the lateral mid-to-rear foot, not all loaded onto the 1st head. With wear and footwear breaking-in (breaking down?), all this changes of course, but when brand new I do not like, nor like my customers, to feel any upward thrust under the lateral side, or enforced pronation while standing still. "Twist" fixes that. Don't want to feel like I'm standing on a "log" under my arch either for that matter.

Radiussed feather-line round the heel? Or deeply "crowned" plantar surface of a last under the heel? This may not be the day to start that discussion, but here're my two cents: the tissue around the os, especially under it is the cushion. If the last's heel-seat is too wide, all that tissue spreads out to either side. If the heel seat has "corners" (as in a sharp feather-line) the tissue is squeezed into that void. In both cases needed cushioning under the os is lost. By narrowing the heel-seat of the last, or radiussing the feather-line, the tissue is squeezed back under the os where it belongs. "Crowning" (convexity) just makes a last more anatomical, like radiussing, though it makes B/S making more difficult. Narrowing the heel-seat, radiussing the feather-line, or increasing the "crown" on the bottom, are all again just control-factors. With age and excess body weight especially, I feel the more anatomically the heel-seat feels in your hand, the better, but the more anatomical it is shaped, the more hassles in building on it.

[dw]

Al,

Again, I am suspicious of raising the foot off the ground in an attempt to determine what the foot structure/configuration will look like in a higher heel.

Just raising the heel off the ground like that uses muscles that are not used when the foot is lifted to heel height by structures placed under the heel--leg and foot muscles pull the foot off the ground from above, when you do this free-form; heels (on shoes) lift the foot independently of those muscles and ligaments and relieve them of their burden. Muscles and ligaments and tendons fore-shorten differently and at different rates than they do when relaxed or stretched.

How to make this more clear? IOW, muscle "A" may draw up 20% of its relaxed length when pulled and tendon "A" may follow suit, But when stretched, tendon "A" may only extend 10% beyond its relaxed length While tendon "B" stretches 30%.

I once watched as a pedorthist gave a demonstration of how to cast a foot. He was casting a pronating foot for an orthotic. One of the most enlightening things he did was hold the knee and twist the calf. When he did that, the whole shape of the foot changed--and the medial heel did indeed lift. Unfortunately, most of my customers do not have someone to hold their calf all day long...nor, I suspect, do they need it.

When I lift my foot up off the ground as you suggest I don't see a noticeable difference between the medial height of the heel relative to the lateral height. Of course I am controlling the leg and its verticality all the way up to the knee and trying to control the "twist" of the leg as well (without actively manipulating the muscle groups).

Perhaps that that difference between the way your foot responds and mine responds is a clue to why you favour the medial twist and I am suspicious of it. Remember the experiment we did here years ago where we each made tubes of leather (vampless boot tops) and tried to stick our foot through them. IIRC,I could point my foot more than you could and I could get my foot through a narrower tube than you could.

We all tend to "tailor" our shoemaking theories to fit our own feet. Which might seem rational on the face of it but, ultimately, is not unlike tailoring the foot to fit the theory.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[dw]

Addendum to my last post...

Re: lifting the foot up to determine if medial twist occurs...I suspect that if we were to build a footbed at any heel height and place a pedograph under it, the weight bearing healthy foot will print equally across the heel. A unhealthy pronating foot will print darker on the medial side and the supinating foot darker on the lateral side.

I also suspect that if we introduce a medial twist to the heel platform the healthy foot will print darker on the medial side as the wedge/twist "intercepts" the weight prematurely.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[dw]

When I walk...and what I want to see in a boot for a customer...is the wear spot on an outsole developing just to the medial side of the center of the outsole. I don't want to see it develop under the first met head, I don't even really want to see it develop under the first and second met heads, I want to see the wear pattern begin and end closer to under the second met head.

LOMA is a vector--an averaging--but it does not end under the first and second met head. Nor is it an indicator of wear patterns. But if I had a customer who wore a pin hole (heaven forefend that the hole should be allowed to get as big as a pea)in the outsole under the first met head, I'd say the heel balance was off or he was pronating. Which in turn might indicate the need for a medial heel twist.

And I get no noticeable wear under either edge of the outsole.

Crowning in the heel seat area. I'm with you 100%. Nevertheless I was taught that fitting the heelseat correctly will cushion the heel...will "force" flesh under the heel. The reason I introduced the subject is that I suspect that when the flesh is forced under the heel, it will play a part in this whole LOMA/medial twist issue. I am not sure what part but even if you accept that lifting the foot up to an imaginary heel height is an accurate representation of what the foot will look like in a shoe, that "cushioning' effect is not there...not factored in...and probably should be.

Another factor that we forget is the "degree" in the heel. Marlietta's pumps that destroy the forefoot of so many women's feet are almost invariably a near-as-nevermind straight incline from the back of the heel to the treadline. The longitudinal arch is never allowed to play any part in distributing the weight of the body. And to some extent even the Os Calcis is taken out of the picture. No wonder the metatarsal arch collapses and the foot becomes bunionized and hammer-toed.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

(Message edited by admin on November 22, 2010)

[dw]

Well, my head is swimming but "one last question", Al...

Do your boots force you to tread to the medial joint or allow you to pronate more than you feel comfortable with? (All things being equal, I mean, and allowing for the fact that in the opinion of the maker, they are a little too loose on your feet)

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[dw]

PS...it just occurred to me that a good way to illustrate the difference between raising the heel off the ground with muscles and raising it up from underneath with a heel stack, is to point to what happens to an automobile, and the frame, when a car is lifted with a crane (from above) or lifted with a jack (from below).

What happens to the wheels? What happens to the body?

I think we can all agree that the effects are not the same...nor should we expect them to be.

OK.. that's it for me this morning.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[das]

W,

-------------------------------
"Well what do we use LOMA for?"
---------------------

I've always thought if it as merely a handy design line/guide for centering a toe-shape on a last to avoid toe-clipping. That's all I've ever gotten from it anyway.

-----------------------------------
"So...the point is that using the "bent toe" doesn't make much sense to me. To do so would undermine the logic of the LOMA in the first place."
-----------------------

Okie dokie. But if we follow LOMA to center our last's toe shape, but the great toe is bent, we'll end up with too much swing, no?

I know I toss "bunionized" around too freely, so I better explain myself better. In the mythical world of the "perfect" foot, the great toe ought to be in alignment with the entire 1st met group of bones, zero deflection laterally at the 1st met joint. MOST people with happy healthy feet have some degree of deflection of the great toe, so a "perfect" wedge-shaped "baby's foot" is seldom seen in adults. Even rarer still is the "inflare" shape, where a straight edge laid along the tracing touches only the medial great toe and medial heel, leaving an air-space at the 1st met joint (I own a pair of these feet myself)--"Reverse bunionized"? "Prehensile great toe"? "Monkey foot" perhaps?.

The question is, where are we going to center our last's toe shape relative to any given foot, and how much can we clip the great toe, assuming we do not want a "bar paw", "nature-form" toe shape on our footwear? LOMA is an aid here, natural lateral movement of the great toe for every "X" of heel-height is another.
Let's class last shapes in the descending order their respective foot shapes occur in the population: 1) Neutral, 2) Outflare, 3) Inflare. I do this with the bottom papers (yes they are good for more than book-marks Bill). Strike a center-line toe to heel. Strike a joint-line across widest points. Measure the angle created and sort according to that. Maximum "swing" for any production last for reference is a "U.S. NAVY" c.1930s-40s--I can't recall the angle, but it's the most swing ("Inflare" ) in any man's production last I've collected. Compare the bottom paper of a "U.S. NAVY" with other lasts' bottom papers and you can start sorting or grouping your lasts into these three categories. "Outflare" isn't hard to find--the toe shape is basically centered with the last's center-line (OUCH!), with very small joint-line angle. "Neutral" is in between.

Neat thing about the "U. S. NAVY" last (as well as Munsons, MkIVs, etc.) these were all developed at tax-payer expense by Uncle Sam for the military, and are therefore non-proprietary=free to copy/not copyrighted, as well as damn good fitters to start with. Carl Lichte swears by the "U.S. NAVY" as a base last, especially for roper boots and men with lots of "swing" to their feet, i.e. not "bunionized".

[das]

DW,

Noted, with little to argue about; however, a heel hinging upward, with a foot flexing across its joint-line, is not going to rise evenly at the heel, whether pulled up my muscles or propped-up on a heel, because the joint-line is at an angle. Maybe your met heads are at a right angle to the center-line of your foot? I dunno.

And sure, I've admitted, we are our own "worst case" Guinea pigs. When I point my foot, I might could lay a ruler straight down my shin bone to the top of my toes. My problem there is, I have a very prominent instep "bump" that gets in the way getting on tight boots

[paul]

When this conversation started about twists, I recalled seeing many times over the years, on quality RTW shoes (I think Allen Edmonds for example), a small medial heel wedge like off of a 5-in-1, just at the medial breast corner.

I'm just sayin'.

But I look at the last models I use and see no twist.

Where's Tippit when you need him?

But I'm curious for more comments on clipping the big toe for inward swing.
DW, would you say you have an inward swing?
I think I see this often.
And sometimes it's a vexation.

Paul

[dw]

a heel hinging upward, with a foot flexing across its joint-line, is not going to rise evenly at the heel, whether pulled up my muscles or propped-up on a heel, because the joint-line is at an angle.

Agreed. The reservation I have there is that we are not talking about the foot as it is flexing because no matter how much twist you add or don't add, when the foot flexes all pressure is taken off the insole--the foot pulls away from the "correction".

I think the only way we can look at this to see what effect--beneficial or deleterious--a medial twist/wedge has on the foot is to look at it under weight bearing conditions.

A medial twist can shift weight and influence the beginning of our directional vector we call the LOMA but once the foot begins to rise/flex the twist is no longer actively affecting the foot.

Or, at any rate...I can't see how it could be.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

[das]

DW,

Ah, here we part company. If I see any "o" developing near the center of the outsole, it says "depressed transverse met. arch", suggesting the last bottom was not anatomical enough, or just too domed or "crowned" (convex) across the joint-line. I like a little last excavation (hollow), creating a nice uplift behind the 2nd and 3rd in those cases. If the 2nd and 3rd are allowed to drop down to where they bear (wear a hole) heavier that the 1st, IMO we've got problems. Sure, some folks have depressed transverse met. arches (the pedograph should tell with a darker print under the 2nd & 3rd head), but I'd rather get them back to bearing more on their 1st (and 5th), by raising the 2nd and 3rd.

Yes, if there's an "O" (or a little "o" ), under the 1st, but zero wear under the 5th, something's out of balance. I like to see a neat "o" or thin spot develop under the 1st, and some comparable balanced thinning, or the sole edge wear, under the 5th, and no holes in the middle myself. Of course, ideally, customers should simply float through the air 6" off the ground, never crease our burnished vamps, and never wear out our soles or scuff up the nice fancy bottom finishes--but they love to grind them up, step in poop, and all sorts of nasty stuff *sigh*.

"Degree" or "wedge-angle" is baaaaad too, in my book. It just creates a ramp for the foot to slide down, jamming the toes way up into the toe of the B/S, resulting in a very bad container-shape. Even if you make a last with zero wedge-angle/degree, and prop it up on too high a heel, you then end up feeling like you have a log under foot right across the heel breast. Let me go on record, too, that any heel higher than maybe 1 1/4"-1 3/8" is verging on cruel and inhuman punishment, and trying to make such a thing "work" is just putting lipstick on a pig IMO. I'm going to go hide in my bomb-proof bunker now until the shelling stops after that comment