Bottoming techniques

[jlboykin]

I'm not sure this is the right section for this issue but here it goes.

when shaping the sole I am having issues with the welt coming out cleanly. The welt seems too fluffy:

This is after glassing, and the welt contunues to protrude past the sole.


This was surprising to me because these are Baker welts I got from Lisa Sorrell. I usually use cheaper premade welt from O'Baltor and I assumed this issue was because of the quality of the leather, I definitly wasn't expecting this from the Baker.

Also, while inseaming I notice how wrinkly the grain side of the welts were getting. I soaked the welts in water for about 10 minutes, I don't know if that is too long for welts. And, just so you know I glassed the welts before dying them.


WHAT AM I DOING WRONG?

[jlboykin]

The picture makes it look worse than it is, but still not good.

[dw]

I have never seen that except with third party pre-made welting, I have a small quantity of Baker that I really like and I have a lifetime supply of horse strips from Horween. The horse is really, really good--dense and firm.

On the other hand, with all due respect, I don't think the stuff coming into the US from overseas is always prime. I've heard this from other people too.

That said, I, personally have never had a problems with Baker--always top grade stuff. But then I've always ordered direct.

[jlboykin]

Thanks dw. Before I posted this I did read your other posts mentioning ordering horse strips from Horween, which sounds pretty cool. I think I may do this because Baker requires a minimum order of 450 Euro for people outside of Europe. And the welts that Lisa Sorrell sells are cut for 1/2 welt cowboy boots, the welts I used on the shoes above were just barely long enough.

[dw]

Couple of pics of cutting the channel prior to outseaming, including a somewhat experimental technique for handling a beveled waist:

channeling_outsole.jpg

horizontal_channel.jpg

channeled_waist.jpg

[licere]

So, in your experimental beveled waist technique, you are forming the bevel with a waist iron applied to the substance underneath the corium/flap, then covering later with the flap. This, as opposed to forming the bevel by folding over a skived "wing" at the waist of the outsole. Is the main advatage to your technique that it makes for cleaner sole edges, because you dont have to blend the transitions at the heel point and fore end of the waist?

[dw]

Well, I'm not sure this is ready for prime time but...

Here's what's happening (with a little commentary): I am never sanguine about trying to split or thin the outsole in the waist area prior to actually mounting the outsole. First, it is somewhat hit or miss--all that thinning has to be done by hand and you not only have the problem of consistent thickness but how wide that thinned area will be. This last part implies that you can accurately gauge how wide to trim the width of the outsole in the waist area. And even if you can do all that you still have to cut a horizontal channel in that thinned leather. Which scared the dickens out of me.

Don't get me wrong there are lots of good makers who are quite proficient at this...it is, IMO, a measure of a very high level of skill and I wish I could take lessons from someone like Yohei Fukuda.

Anyway to make up for my handicap, I trim the welt up pretty close to where I want it when done and I then, sometimes, thin the welt from the fleshside...skiving it almost.

Then I mount the outsole. I determine where I want the breast of my heel base to be (this part is still a bit problematic). I trim my outsole such that is about an eighth inch wider than the welt through the waist (more is better). Then I cut the channel...quite deep in the waist area...1/2"-3/4, it's just something you do by eye.

Then in the waist area, I trim the outsole to the edge of the welt leaving the channel cover extra wide. Then I cut a bevel in the outsole (under the channel cover) tapering it down so that it is actually short of the edge of the welt a tiny bit.

I glass that trying to get a consistent bevel that disappears into the welt but is thick enough to hold a stitch at a distance from the edge of the welt where my outsole stitching will be.

Everything then proceeds as usual except that when I am done outseaming I can roll that channel cover over the edge of the waist in such a way that it essentially curls over the edge of the welt. And the edge of the welt itself ...thinned as it is, and under the edge of the channel cover...is not exposed or visible. Ironing the edge of the waist is a joy and there is no visual sign of a joining of two pieces of leather.

Still some bugs to work out but I end up with a process I can control and a waist that is outseamed in near-as-nevermind full thickness of the outsole with neat, thin edge.

Hope that helps. Like I said, it is one on my cock-eyed experiments and may eventually come to nought or be abandoned. But, hey! It all teaches.

[licere]

Thank you for that walk-through, DW. Your description of the challenges to accurately and precisely shaping the outsole prior to mounting resonate, as that it what I have been attempting recently. I appreciate the detail you devote to glassing the waist prior to ironing to ensure a consistent shape. There is something appealing about doing that shaping "in situ", at the waist itself, as opposed to skiving the unmounted outsole as smoothly as possible and then hoping it all comes out cleanly in the ironing.

I sometimes struggle with balancing the desire to improve my skills at one approach versus attempting alternative, possibly superior approaches. Because I am a novice, I usually impose on myself the expectation to make significant gains on the original, to understand its core principles, before giving myself permission to move on. I respect the manner in which, as a master, you've tightly coupled each aspect of your "experiment" to specific challenges you've encountered from the earlier approach.

I, in the meantime, need to focus on keeping my knives sharp and my stitches straight!

Peter

[dw]

By eye...

20181214_093252_cropped.jpg

[homeboy]

WOW! Looking good! What awl did you do that with? Can you snap a pic?
Keep'em coming Ol'Buddy!

P.S. By eye? Very nice!!

[dw]

16spi is where I'd like to be but training the eye to see the necessary spacing...on the fly, as who should say...is the issue.

And really, according to the literature, even 16spi is 'middling' work. I have a much better appreciation for the 50+spi of the 19th century.

As for the 'by eye' bit...I have yet to run across a stitch marker or fudge wheel finer than 18 and, worse, every one of them lies. Whatever the marking on the shaft of the tool, it refers to the marks the tool will make on leather. So for instance, a fudge wheel stamped '18' will make 18 marks, sure enough. But what counts is the spaces in-between the marks because that's where the stitches will be, and there are only 17 of those.

Compounding that is the fact that any awl that is sturdy enough to penetrate the welt and the outsole in a straight and controllable fashion is going to be thick enough to push leather aside when the hole is made. And particularly at finer frequencies, the hole itself will take up some room, as well. It's kind of hard to describe but if a fudge wheel is set at 18, by the time three stitches are made the spacing will undoubtedly be distorted and lost--where four marks have been made, it is almost a certainty that only three stitches will be fit, and the maker will be scratching his head to figure out where the next mark is/was.

I suspect that there is a further technique that I am missing in this example, and I think I know what it is but it doesn't make anything easier or quicker. When did it ever?

Given all that, 'by eye' is the only possible way and the only hope to get an accurate count much less spacing. If someone claims 18spi I want to see the count (as in the photo).

IMO...

As for the awl...I severely modded a stitching awl--the point is thinner and sharper than anything I've ever seen, commercially or historically. I'll try to remember to post a pic later this weekend.

[homeboy]

Thanks Dee-Dubb! Looking forward to seeing the awl. Keep at it!
Have a good weekend!

[paul]

After finally taking my hand at stitching soles on about 6 or 7 pairs, I can truly respect 14!
Well done!

[licere]

Is it the case, as I have read somewhere, that pitches above about 15 spi can weaken the leather? I think that notion has contributed to the practice of stitching at 12-16, then fudging over the stitches at a higher pitch when super-fine stitch appearance is desired. What else would one do to mitigate the weakening of the leather?

[dw]

The notion that you can fudge over stitches and fool anyone but the most delirious novice seems patently ridiculous to me.

First, the stitches themselves are not so soft that they will take and hold the impression for any length of time. And second, in order to keep the fudge wheel from slipping off the top of a stitch and the whole wheel being thrown out of sync, the fudge wheel would have to be near-as-nevermind exactly twice the frequency as the stitching. So, if the stitching itself is 12spi the wheel would have to be 24....or actually, marked 25...so that the high point of each serration on the fudge wheel is hitting dead center on the high point of each stitch. Again,I've never seen a fudge wheel above 18mpi.

Some time ago a similar suggestion was made on this forum that the famous '64 to the inch' was physically impossible...nevermind that such work has been documented by reputable and knowledgeable scholars; and that a much lower spi was the actual frequency which was then 'pricked' up to look like 64 spi. Personally I was dumbfounded that anyone could entertain such a notion. If it is "impossible" to stitch 64spi, how much harder would it be to prick up 64spi? And what kind of tool would be used that would not cut the thread in the process?

And it seems almost inconceivable that such a flim-flam could be sufficient to fool anyone with a jeweler's loupe in one eye much less the likes of June Swann.

And yes, above a certain frequency, too high a pitch can be fragile and 'weaken' the leather...if the intention is to put it through any stress. But most of that kind of work was 'prize-work' and never intended to be worn. I don't recall what Rees (?) said about high frequency work but I am sure that @das does. It's enlightening.

Beyond all that, one of the reasons this is so unimaginable to us today is that the leather we use is nowhere near the quality of the leather that was used in the prize-work of the 19th century.

[dw]

BTW and FWIW, IIRC, Duncan McHarg-- @dmcharg --is doing something like 30spi by eye on the uppers regularly.

Maybe he will weigh in here.

[licere]

Mine was more a question than an assertion, thankfully. Interesting point about the difference in leather quality between time periods being a factor. Thanks!

[dw]

Mine was more a question than an assertion, thankfully. Interesting point about the difference in leather quality between time periods being a factor. Thanks!

No worries. Apologies if I came across a bit strong. Please know I wasn't taking you to task. No offense intended.

That said, I have heard that bit about fudging over longer stitches before and have been sitting on it for a while. It sticks in my craw and, IMO, shows a great deal of disrespect for our Trade and Traditions.

Just as a general observation, I suspect it is an excuse for our own inadequacies. I know I can't do the 18spi outsole stitching that took second place in last year's World Championship of Shoemaking and I've been making shoes and boots for near-as-nevermind 50 years. Much less the 30spi that @dmcharg does, nevermind the 50-64 that has been documented by museums around the world.

As for the leather quality, a lot of it is down to feed regimens, growth hormones and genetics. June Swann was for many years the Keeper of the Shoe Collection at the Northampton Shoe Museum in Northampton England. She's an expert if anyone is. She told us that of all contemporary leathers, only vegetable tanned kangaroo comes anywhere close to the quality necessary to hold the finer stitching (that's what Duncan uses) and that the makers who did such work, began when they were boys--10 years old or so.

Here's a pair of 19thc. prizework boots that were done at 53spi on both the tops and outsoles.

FWIW...

Hefford53spi (1280 x 1024).jpg

handsewing.png

[das]

1) Prize work (display only) done at insane spi in upper closing was an artifact (blowback) of sewing machines post 1857--to defiantly do by hand what no machine could duplicate, to try and re-assert the primacy of hand-sewn men.
2) Re welt stitching/fudging: true "fudged" welts (faked to look high spi) were accomplished by cutting a channel in the top surface of the welt with the square awl as a knife, stitching say 6 spi, hiding the thread in the channel, closing the channel, and running a fudge wheel over it all to make it resemble higher spi dents. IOW, the lower spi stitching thread was not dented afterwards with the fudge wheel to look higher spi, it was hidden and the welt surface only "fudged".
3) Rees (1813) pre-dates "insane" prize work. That said, he does state 12 spi is sufficient welt stitching "for middling work" (for wear), or nothing fancy. Off the top of my head, 20-odd spi was not uncommon on 18thc women's heel covers, and that was about as high spi as they went back then. But those were for actual wear, not just display like the later prize work.

[dw]

@das Thanks for weighing in on this.

2) Re welt stitching/fudging: true "fudged" welts (faked to look high spi) were accomplished by cutting a channel in the top surface of the welt with the square awl as a knife, stitching say 6 spi, hiding the thread in the channel, closing the channel, and running a fudge wheel over it all to make it resemble higher spi dents. IOW, the lower spi stitching thread was not dented afterwards with the fudge wheel to look higher spi, it was hidden and the welt surface only "fudged".

I have seen/done such work but never made the connection with regard to 'faking' it, simply because the stitching itself is entirely hidden. So how would you even pretend to count the number of stitches per inch. I'm near-as-nevermind certain June Swann would not count a 'dent'...with no thread on either side of it...as an actual stitch.

That's another thing,..no one is fudging or pricking up the sewing on the upper. There's no chance (or technique) to fake the count. So, as in the boot above, one is forced to conclude that 53spi is accurate.

I never have liked fudge wheels nevermind the fact that you can burn/damage the uppers using one. But it makes me wonder if the common usage of the word 'fudge' to suggest something not quite the way it should be (present or deal with (something) in a vague, noncommittal, or inadequate way, especially so as to conceal the truth or mislead) came from a somewhat contemporary shoemaking lexicon...or vice versa.

3) Rees (1813) pre-dates "insane" prize work. That said, he does state 12 spi is sufficient welt stitching "for middling work" (for wear), or nothing fancy. Off the top of my head, 20-odd spi was not uncommon on 18thc women's heel covers, and that was about as high spi as they went back then. But those were for actual wear, not just display like the later prize work.

Didn't Rees say something about the fineness of the awl and using a hair from his daughter's head as a bristle, too? Or is that someone later?

[paul]

True that Jake.

[dw]

@homeboy

Here you go:

20181220_164128 (1024 x 768).jpg

20181220_164112 (1024 x 768).jpg

[homeboy]

Dee-Dubb,

Looks like it would do the job! It's something for me to shoot for!
Thanks Ol'Buddy!

[dw]

Dee-Dubb,

Looks like it would do the job! It's something for me to shoot for!
Thanks Ol'Buddy!

Yr. Hmb. Svt.

[dmcharg]

G'day @DW, @Licere, @Al, @Paul and all the other members,
Hope you are having a great Christmas Here in Oz we had ours yesterday.
Sorry I haven't responded sooner to DW's tagging. Life's been very full on.
I sew uppers at 14 to 24spi, depending on circumstances/requirements, and I am certainly wanting to lean towards finer as time goes on. The current order's tongues ended up at 24spi; I was aiming for 20 so was pleasantly surprised at the, consistent, higher count. What had happened was that the slight bulge made in the leather by the thread being pulled through was catching the light from my window and I was unconsciously putting my awl in at the edge of that shine. Then I realised I had to repeat that for the other tongue
Interestingly, later, when doing the much longer seam of galosh to vamp, on this order, I found it hard to keep a lower spi (was aiming for 14 - 18spi) after the much finer count for the tongues.
Licere, I haven't found it a problem, strength wise, going for finer stitch counts in uppers (the veg. kangaroo is superb leather), as when you hand sew with hand rolled threads the holes you make are smaller than the threads you're pulling through them on account of the long fine tapers you create on the ends, and the fine pig's bristles you braid on as your needles. I use all manner of bristle size from 8" ones for inseaming, all the way down to 2" ones for fine upper sewing.
As an example of the strength of hand sewing, during the 'discussion' DW alluded to from some years ago about the 'impossibility' of 64spi, and high stitch counts causing the leather to be rendered useless, I split down some 'roo to 1/4mm thick (didn't think I'd be able to put parallel holes through a total of 2mm of 'roo) , placed two pieces together and stitched them at 48spi for the distance of a single inch. I had pre-holed 64spi, but when it came to sewing I only managed to find 48 of them This took 3/4hr to sew. I later found that it was quicker, and was able to get a slightly higher stitch count (up to 52spi so far), by not pre-holing. The holes from the awl, which had a 0.5mm cutting edge, were put through like this: IIIIIIIII The distance between the holes was less than the height of the holes. @das points out that for very fine work the awls tended to be just a fine point.
Anyway, back to the 48 test. After the sewing was complete I attached a small vice under a bench and put one half of the test in it, and put the other half in a hand vice and hung a board off it. I then started adding weights to see what it could hold. Here's a close up. I apologise for the quality of the photos as it's back in 2010 and we only had a web cam at that time.

the setup close.jpg

This photo shows 12kg/26.46lb on the board; which you can see is bending a bit.

12kg.jpg

I then added 2 more kg, 4.4lb, and the hand vice lost it's grip on the lower piece and twisted off pulling from one end momentarily, tearing about 1/3 of the stitches through the leather before the vice completely came off the 'roo. The thread I used was a single ply of 40yr old Australian spun linen thread with about a 1.36kg/3lb breaking strain. The stitches that were pulled through the leather were still intact. In hind sight I should have got some sandpaper and lined the jaws with it, reset it up and continued to total destruction, but as it was such a lot of work doing the sewing (and like nothing I'd ever tried before) I didn't want to
Here's a pic of the damaged piece, and one (using a proper Nikon some years later) of another inch I sewed at 50ish spi. The ruler underneath is showing 64th".

damage closeup.jpg

50-something-a.jpg

I'm putting these up, not to big note myself but, to show that, with decent leather (this was only a 1/4 of it's original thickness), high hand stitch counts don't kill the leather's strength (I am quite sure a 'roo shoe sewn like this could be lasted fine), and that it is possible, and I encourage any who are interested in hand sewing to reach for the stars.
Cheers
Duncan