The Crispin Colloquy

Georgene,

More than happy to...

I routinely cut sole bends (half butts) into "ranges" as the strips are called. Cut from backbone towards the belly, as you say, and roughly 6" wide. I set the depth gauge on my 5-in-1 cutter to 6", and in a bit from the rounded butt-end, I scribe a straight line across and start cutting ranges. The rounded butt-end piece, called the "aitch piece"--h-aitch, as in British English for the letter "H"--(no idea where this name came from) is pretty good for hard top-pieces. I number the ranges with chalk, 1 through 8 (7 or 8 is all I get from a bend of Bakers)1, 2, 3, or 4 being the best and firmest ones, and they get softer the higher the numbers.

After cutting up several bends, I sort the 1, 2, 3, or 4 ranges into one stack for cutting outer soles from, and the 5 through 8s for heel-lifts. One range will yield a pair of soles of any length. As I always make "piece seats" (a beveled graft at the seat under the heel) by adding a "piece sole" of inferior Baker's scraps to get the full length, the ranges work just fine.

It is perhaps more economical of leather to cut outer soles as needed to exact shapes/sizes, but when one weighs the effort needed to cut one pair as needed of shaped soles to size by hand with a knife, and wrestle with a bend and store it, cutting it up into ranges seems a fine solution unless you are very miserly. The off-cuts from rounding the rectangular ranges to the bottom of a shoe can be used for last-fittings, piece-soles, shanks, heel-lifts, etc., so very little really is lost to waste.

NOTE: for insole shoulders, I slit them down the spine and using a average sized last to trace round with chalk, I pre-cut rough shaped insoles book-matching them, then numbering each pair with chalk; that is pair #1 from opposite positions nearest the edges, and working in towards the backbone. The pairs cut closest to the backbone will be the hardest, firmest. This throws off very little waste, and insures that the insoles mate within a pair in substance and firmness. Bakers insole shoulders fall away quickly in thickness and firmness as you move outward towards the belly-edge, and some end up as split-lift material. But again, for ease of sorting, storing, and handling, I think pre-cutting insoles is the may to go when working with a shoulder too. From a typical Baker's shoulder, I get 9 pairs of insoles. So, the ratio of bends to shoulders is roughly 2:1. We order twice as many sole bends as shoulders IOW.

Okay, now, you say you have side leather. If you plan to use it for insoles, you might be better off cutting and book-matching if you have both right and left sides. If all you have are all rights, or left sides, just try to sort them by substance and firmness the best you can. If you plan to use this side leather for outer soles, go ahead and cut in into ranges, but I'd be leery of how durable side leather would be for outer soles, unless you beat it out before use to harden and compact it.

Sorry you asked now?

Did I understand this correctly? I cobbled some jpeg graphics together (sorry for the pun) to make sure I've got the cuts going the correct way. I think you're saying your soles run heel to toe perpendicular to the back bone.

Reason I'm double checking is that some of the old dead guys and the alive one I learned to make boots from run their soles parallel to the spine in their book illustrations. Before I hack that hide......

thanks
Georgene

Georgene,

Which dead guys' books? I'll double-check, but I've always cut the ranges from spine to belly. I did forget to add yesterday, I cut the soles from the ranges with the toes in the middle, heel-ends out to either end, because the belly-end of the range can be a bit flanky if located at the toe.

Seems to me that for economical cutting, either way achieves similar results. Ranges going the length of the bend might be harder to sort/number/grade to match in substance I would think, unless you were doing "exhaustive" cutting of a bunch of bends, and then trying to match the ranges later? Or, maybe the long-ways technique works better for pre-cut soles (cut to size/shape with a clicker press)? Anybody have any further thoughts?

Al,

I've read this thread with some interest and was struck, if not confounded, by your remark that you cut your ranges "roughly 6" wide."

If you cut your soles parallel to the backbone...do you?...then six inches seems extremely short for a sole even with the understanding that you are using a separate heel piece.

I've been buying ranges of Italian sole leather (mostly for common work) and they are 13" wide (and none too wide at that sometimes). Granted they are intended to make a full outsole but even so, six inches seems awfully short.

Like Georgene I thought perhaps you were cutting your soles perpendicular to the backbone. But your latest post almost throws that in to question.

Please clarify...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

No I cut 'em as Georgene illustrated above, but with the toes together, not toe to heel. The range strips are +/- 6" wide--they are as long as from the spine to the belly edge

Al,
Thats how I cut. makes sense, you can form the heel pocket with the softer (towards belly) end, and still a nice bend for the stride and good wearability for the ball area.
JesseLee

Al,

Now i fully understand how you cut your bottoming materials,although i admit i never learnt from school or books,but i saw my master cutting them in ranges after rounding the aitch piece,stright line cut through the backbone to the other side, insoles & soles are cut paralle to the backbone,your method makes sense,might be even more cost saving and i will try it,but i have a question, is there a differance in the fibre structure of the bend/shoulder to determine which method,paralle or perpendicular cut is easier(softer/harder) for sewing/stitching?

Al,

I think i found the answer to my question in a book called: Modern Footwear materials and proccess, by Walter E.Cohn he has a chapter on PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF LEATHER page33 and it says on page 34 "Because the structure of leather is formed from a random arrangement of fibers interwowen in 3 dimensions, the strcture is not oriented in any fixed direction, and there is no easy path for a tear to follow.
regards Nasser

Thanks to Nasser's quote above, it may not matter which way you orient your soles as long as you avoid run-off, stringiness and other flawed areas.
Here are the diagrams from the dead guy's books. They even show how to cut the two piece sole that Al uses.
First is Swaysland:


Next two are Golding showing soles from both bends and bellies.


Regards,

Georgene

Thanks to Nasser's quote above, it may not matter which way you orient your soles as long as you avoid run-off, stringiness and other flawed areas.
Here are the diagrams from the dead guy's books. They even show how to cut the two piece sole that Al uses.
First is Swaysland:

Next two are Golding showing soles from both bends and bellies.
Regards,

Georgene

In case it's not apparent, the orientations above are pretty much parallel to the spine or belly.

Regards,
Georgene

From a historical point of view I can see where Al's method would be efficient in a small shop lit by candlelight and warmed by fire. The narrower ranges would be easier to wrangle where the laying out of the side or bend would take alot of space.

Swaysland and Golding also seem to worry more about mass production and material yield than a historic bespoke maker would.(although economy is always a consideration) My Swaysland is dated 1905; the Golding has no print date since it was published in Britain.

Thanks for sharing your method Al, I do need to cut these sides into smaller pieces. I'm going to do ranges as you suggest, just a little wider so I can cut the soles parallel to the spine.

Thanks,
Georgene

Georgene,

Thanks for that old timey information. It is only practical if you have 'piece cutters'. They are iron forms to the shape you are cutting iz. cookie cutters. The modern clicker system is similar. To lay out and cut with a knife or landis cutter would be next to impossible, thus the older methods that Al and I use because of space.
Whats with that heel splice bit? Is that just a function of getting more leather use or is there another function ie. practical. I have had to use it in the past, and it does not yiels a better or worse sole, to me it was just practical. many boots and shoes from my era use pieced heels, and in fact 'any' leather available ie. left over upper, innersole etc. Thats just a practical use of scrap.
JesseLee

Georgene,

Thank you for those illustrations, that's how i cut my bottoming materials more or less, And i don't think a cookie cutter (piece cutter) is requiered, as Jesse sugguest,the soles can be cut in stright lines.
Regards Nasser

Georgene, Al, Jesse,

I was taught and have always cut as in Golding and Swayland's illustrations (thanks Georgene). I worry that running the soles perpendicular to the backbone you are gonna have one heel seat (or waist) at the backbone--very dense firm leather--and the other heel seat in the belly (or close to it)--very soft, open leather.

Of course you have somewhat similar considerations running outsoles side by side parallel to the backbone but at least for the prime cuts, because they are both in the "heart" of the bend, it will be much minimized.

Maybe there's a way around all that? Or maybe it doesn't matter with Baker outsoles but it worries me.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

It also occurs to me that a six inch strip will fit into a splitter. I imagine the two piece sole/heel combo falls into the category of being thrifty in the vein of "Use It Up, Wear It Out, Make It Do, or Do Without!" Wonder how old that ditty is--Olde World, Colonial, Pioneer or WWII?
Georgene

Georgene, Jesse,

Thanks for posting the diagrams from the books. If you choose to cut your ranges lengthwise (parallel to the spine) I might suggest that you cut the strips still 6" wide, but as long as the side of leather, then cut them into shorter sole lengths and sort them by firmness/substance. The only difference with these various approaches, IMO, has to do with "exhaustive" cutting (squeezing everything you can out of a hide/skin with as little waste as poss.), versus perhaps more extravagant Luxe cutting, aimed at precise matching of pairs of soles for firmness/substance--much the same way that Lobb only clicks one pair of uppers from a calfskin (allegedly), and not tries to get as many pairs, parts, pieces, as humanly possible out of one skin.

Outer soles, with "piece-soles" grafted under the heel, were the norm in former days.... (17th, 18th, and much of the 19thc., even the 20thc. in the UK). The reasoning was best summed up by Garsault (Paris,1767) in regards to pre-cut soles shoemakers bought from finders a pair or a dozen or more at a time, even in his day: "It may seem odd that when cutting-up a hide into (pre-cut) soles, they (leather cutters) cut each sole shorter than needed and square at they seat; but as what is wanting in the heel is made up with an added piece-sole, and as the durability of leather hidden beneath the heel is of no consequence, by doing this they obtain a greater number of soles out of one hide." (paraphrase--the ms. is buried in my other office).

In fact, I'm not recalling many (any?) men's antique shoes with stacked leather heels made with one-piece, whole-soles, before the early 1800s in the USA, when the use of cheaper (relatively) Hemlock-tanned domestic hides became a factor. I've presumed that it was just cheaper to cut them whole, than pay the labor costs and lose the time of the added step of having to fit and graft on the piece-soles at the seat. Since most US contributions to shoemaking at that period were steps to simplify the process "down", to were un-skilled and less-skilled operatives could be dragooned into the rapidly expanding workforce, this reasoning is right in keeping with the history as well. After the War for Independence (1776-1781), and the War of 1812-14, the flood of skilled workers, formerly from the UK (our adversaries in both wars), declined just when the US population was naturally increasing, and with it the demand for footwear, especially rough work for the growing agrarian population. The Jeffersonian-era's somewhat utopian dream of autocracy (100% national self-sufficiency) was also the order of the day. The French were the next, it seems, to abandon the pieced seat on cheaper grade goods about the same time. But, the British have always used it, even for factory/mass produced footwear until very recently--but then they have had all that nice, expensive, English oak-leather to get the most yield out of.

Take notes here... all this "history crap" will be on your exams at the end of this semester, or when where're thrown back on our own resources to shoe the population once more

DW,

You worry too much laddie

The Baler's sole bends are very consistent. Yes, some soles cut my way will be denser at the seat-end, but better any such variation are at the seat, than at the toe. To my way of thinking, you want the forepart of the soles, up to the toes, to match as exactly as possible in firmness density, with any (hard or soft) variations at the back. You could, I suppose cut a row of soles all with their toes at the backbone, then a second row below them with their seats in the belly if you wanted. You can sort the ranges or soles any ol' way you please in fact. The main object here is to reduce large unwieldy sole bends into sortable, manageable, stackable cut soles. Going one bend at a time is less of a problem, but when, like me, you're trenching-out 3 or 4 bend's worth of soles in one sitting to keep 4 workmen from sitting idle (and to prevent them cutting it themselves), it gets pretty daunting, no matter how large/small a shop you have I'd guess.

Gerogene,

You hit the nail on the head--6" ranges will fit through a 6" splitter. And if you(?) ever want to make women's shoes with Louis heels, you'll need the splitter to reduce the end of the sole that goes down your heel breast

Never heard that ditty before, but it's a good 'un.

Here's a question that has nagged me for years and years and although I have discussed it with other makers, I have never gotten what I thought was a satisfactory answer.

Some makers do not cut an outside channel, preferring, at the most, to hammer a slight indentation on the edge of the insole and then inseaming from the inside channel to what is, essentially the edge of the insole. Others cut a fairly narrow outside channel/feather...with the "notch" being an eighth of an inch wide or thereabouts.

I cut my outside channels a bit wider than an eighth of an inch although for all intents and purposes we can call it an eighth inch.

Tearing apart a boot the other day I saw that the outsole stitching had cut the inseam.

Now, my reason for cutting a outside feather at least an eighth of an inch wide is that theoretically the inseam is then tucked under the edge of the insole and somewhat protected. But apparently unless I am willing to cut my outside channel substantially wider than an eighth of an inch or stitch my outsole stitching more than a quarter of an inch from the face of the vamp, the inseam will always be in jeopardy from the outseam

Is there a way to avoid that danger?

And how in the world can an inseam stitched right at the edge of the insole not get cut by the outsole stitching?!!

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

DW:

Funny, I have been thinking about the exact same question, because I am finishing up a shoe that I wanted to stitch close to the upper, and after trimming the welt I realized that I might have trimmed it too close to the stitching, and thus ran the risk of cutting through the welt seam when stitching the outsole. Based on some of your previous posts and those of Al, I had decided to cut the channel on this shoe something like 1/8th inch, or perhaps even a bit less than that, which in hindsight I think was insufficient for a closely sewn outsole. As Al has written before, I guess you would want the channel to be about (or at least?) as wide as the total thickness what is being sewn (the welt, lining, side lining or toe puff, and upper). Seems to me that would be more than 1/8th inch, perhaps 3/16ths or even 1/4,.... The maker I watched cut his channel more like 3/16ths or even 1/4 inch wide, and that was for shoes made with calfskin uppers and kip linings (both pretty thin), albeit with leather toe puffs.

I guess you can avoid cutting the inseam by putting the outseam a fair distance into the width of the welt; regardless of whether there is a channel, if you go far enough out on the welt, it would seem that you would give the inseam sufficient room. Perhaps the 'no channel' approach is best combined with an undercut insole, so that the inseam still rests inside of the extreme edge of the upper. Or, perhaps it works with boots and the like which look fine with a wide welt. I will say that, in the future, I plan to resume cutting the channel more like 3/16ths or perhaps even a bit more.

Also, one should be able to determine where the seam needs to be sewn after inseaming but before adding the outsole -- after all, you can see where the inseam is. Of course, perhaps it is easier to control the location of the outseam when hand stitching vs. machine stitching.

I look forward to what others have to say on the matter.

Lance

I also saw maker Pietro, in San Francisco, inseam without an outside channel.

I would like to add a question to the discussion... Is there any reason NOT to have an outside channel, other than added labor?

The main reason I like an outside channel is that it helps me keep a straight feather line. I suppose, with experience, I could do without it. I had not considered the issue of proximity to the outsole stitching.

If I may enter the discussion,

I have been consirned with the stitches on the insole, inseam, being visable and have cut the channel 3/16 to insure against mixing the inseam and outsole stitching. I have wondered whether one migtht go to 1/4 inch channel?

I tried another variation on about 6 pair this last three months. I hand stitch the out sole. I use an awl to make the holes for the stitching and then cut a small trench like channel between the holes on the bottom of the sole. After stitching, I have used a piece of thin tooling kip and glued this as a cover over the entire out sole including the heel. This covers the thread, channel and all, and leaves a very nice looking surface. I do counsel the new boot owner that a wear spot will appear but that they still have plenty of sole before it needs repair.

I tried this on a fair of shoes I made for myself and it has worked out fine, so far.

I am "flying blind" with some of the things I try, however, I don't think it will be life threatening!

D.W., Lance, I would appreciate any critique. I would like to also know if anyone has tried a wider channel and if so what are the dangers.

I really like being a boot maker!

Thank you, Larry Peterson

I'm confused fellers...

Are you talking about adjusting the width of the feather, so the inseam and welt-sewing thread moves further under the last? The old rule of thumb I've used is: trim the insole plumb to the edge of the last; the width of the feather will vary around the forepart, but it is guided by: the aggregate thickness of the upper (inc. linings, and stiffenings), plus the thickness of the welt, then added to that, more distance depending on whether you want your welt-stitching (holding the outer sole on) to be "close" to the upper (for light/dress shoes) or wider (for stout work). The feather width therefore is wider is the waist, narrows down at the joints to the sides of the toe, then it widens out to its maximum around the very end of the toe to accommodate the bulkiness of the lasted upper and the toe stiffeners (toe-boxes, "-puffs", "-cases", whatever you like).

After the feather width is established (I gave up on the modern stair-step feathers cut with those special knives, and returned to the ancient sloping feather, reduced bybeveling-off by cutting, then by hammering it thin with the pane of the hammer). With the feather made, I then mark out the "holdfast" width, equal to the aggregate thickness of the upper plus welt, so the seam will be balanced--same thickness of material for the "hold" on both sides (being the insole's "holdfast" ridge and the upper/welt). For the channel in the insole (I only know of one, not two???), incise a shallow vertical cut with a pointed knife, then wiggle the channel open with a "channel opener" (looks like a dull oyster knife), followed by burnishing the channel open wider/deeper with the tip of a long-stick. Then I hole the insole and proceed as normal.

As to outer soles and stitching-stitches: there are 4 methods-- 1) vertical channel (cut straight down, wiggled open, then hammered and rubbed closed to hide the thread). These are the more "ancient" and IMO the most durable, but you will always see a faint line where the cut is; 2) sloping channels, cut in at an angle with a flap of leather lifted up, then stuck back down to hide the stitching-stitches underneath. These began on women's shoes in the 17th-18thc., but are the most "invisible" channel, as the edge of the channel's flap can be made to end right at the finished edge of the sole. These are IMO the prettiest, but also the weakest, as the edge of the flap inevitably picks loose, comes up, and wears off leaving a raggedy-looking sole after some wear; 3) stitched-aloft, i.e. no channel at all. This was formerly the most popular and strongest method, because there was no channel, the size of the thread was not limited to a smaller size so the flap or channel could hide it, it was stronger even after some stitching got walked-through because of the quantity of thread and wax in the work, and 4) grooves--an actual small sliver of leather was cut out, recessing the stitches into in. This is good for heavy work, but probably the unsightliest of all four.

Each present their own challenges/problems. As I said, the vertical and sloping channels limit the size (strength) of your stitching-thread--the latter less than the former--because the thread must be able to be hidden. Stitched-aloft work demands that your stitching be extra perfect--the exit-side stitches must be as neat, hopefully, and the welt-side stitching. Grooved is marginally easier than aloft-stitching because you have the groove to guide you.

In any case, the awl you use for welt/sole stitching is critical. A square-pointed "stitching" awl makes the nicest stitches to be sure, but it is the most prone to cutting through the welt-sewing/inseam thread underneath. A "sewing" awl for welt-stitching is more forgiving here, and nice fine welts can be stitched with this awl, but the stitches cannot be placed as close together as with the "stitching" awl.

Whether it was Rees or Devlin I do not recall, but the old admonition was: "be careful that your stitching-stitch does not cut through your sewing-stitches...", so this was a problem even back then. I usually make sure my guys are very, very, facile with welt-stitching with a "sewing" awl first, before I turn them loose with the square-pointed "stitching" awls, or snapped blades and ruined (cut) inseams are the result.

Al,

I am having the hardest time envisioning what you are describing. I hope we can talk about it at Lisa's. Maybe even a demonstration.

DW,

I too have seen welt stitches cut by outsole stitches for years. (I'm afraid to say it, because it could happen tomorrow, but I have yet to do it to my own.) In my own case I think it's a matter of how I hold my mouth.

I use a curved needle stitcher, as you do. And I think it matters how I hold my work against the guides. If I hold my work with the sole angling upward, toward my chin, I'm more likely to get closer to my welt stitches. However if my sole is angled downward, toward my belly, then the awl, as it comes up thru the work is angling away from the welt stitches. On my 317 Rapid E, it also sets the stitches in the groove with more predictability.

Your question brings out some good stuff from our hand stitching shoemakers, though. And I'm glad of it.

Paul