One "Last" Question

[relferink]

I run into trouble using nails along the feather line. I make an orthopedic insert on the last first and need to cut that free from the last. Any nail along that line will force me to take a break and re-sharpen my knife if I'm lucky enouth it didn't take out a bite.

The difference in the shoe or boot is definitely there. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the fit of a shoe is not as critical as a boot. It just holds the foot different so different parameters apply. Can’t wait to get a look at the next volume of Golding. Bless you for doing all that great work! It sounds like he is referring to the fact that a shoe is designed to flex a lot more in the forefoot than a boot. If there is flexing the access leather needs to go somewhere. On a boot on the other hand you have more heel height and toe spring so the foot is more “immobilized” when you walk. The boot is not met to flex nearly as much. That’s also why they are so comfortable for people with many foot problems as long as they are a proper fit.

What does Golding mean by a tabbed facing? I’m not familiar with that term. On the average last I keep my ball measurement 1 cm larger than the foot is. Even if I put a rocker sole in the orthotic. In case I work for a diabetic with neuropathy or circulation issues I give it even more.

I’ve been working with Presure Stat pedographic imprints. Find them very clean and easy to work with. Specially if I have to go see the customer in stead of them coming to me. Agree with the with of the heel tracing being the width you need and the foot print basically matching the insole. That does not answer Ed’s question what makes that say, inch and a half a B or an E. What is the formula that takes the measured width, takes in account the length of the foot since the width is a proportional measure and come up with a number. Anybody??

Rob

[dw]

Rob, Ed,

Well, like you said...it doesn't make any difference what size it is "designated, " it only make a difference whether it fits or not. You can have three lasts,each with a different "model" number, and each designated a 9D...and no similarity at all in width or girth among the three. And, conversely, you can have three differenet model of last, all measuring exactly the same and none designated the same size.

It may make a difference to commercial makers or even to lastmakers but to a bespoke boot or shoemaker, the size designator is simply an a way of indexing the run.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[shoestring]

If memory serves me right in Golding IV it is reccommended for shoes, to pull the linning then the upper. On my first experience it worked out just fine,well not just fine but I learned the concept.Is the same method used to last boots.And now I have a better understanding of heel widths and fit.I will get into habit to study the last, I have several with the same size and different model no. Ok "Back to talking with Igor in the lab".

Thanks
Ed

[das]

Maybe Bill T. can weigh in on this one, which has perplexed me about production lasts since "forever". The lastmakers use a grading chart, which says any "9 1/2 D" last is X inches long, Y inches in ball girth, and Z inches in instep girth. When I've run model lasts through the system to have them duplicated or digitized, etc., I'm asked what size finished lasts I want. If I say "9 1/2 D", I expected all the various model lasts to end up X inches long, Y inches ball girth, and Z instep girth. But they don't. Bill tried to explain it to me once years ago, but it never sank in why this is.

With made-to-measure shoes and boots it doesn't matter, because we fit them up [or down] to change their dimensions as DW's mentioned. But, for ready-made stuff it's kinda critical *if* 9 1/2 D really is X inches long, Y inches ball girth, and Z inches instep girth. Naturally there's toe extension--pointed toe 9 1/2s need to be longer so as not to pinch, etc.--but there seems to be more at play than just that.

What gives?

[dw]

Rob,

One thing I forgot to mention...when we build up a last along the featherline--adding width to the last--and that build-up exceeds, say, one-quarter inch in thickness, it will begin to change the bottom radius of the last if we are true to the lines of the last when trimming the build-up. It is, therefore, important to "correct" the bottom radius with a thin build-up that is fixed tot he plantar surface of the last. I hope I'm making myself clear.

Similarly, when we add a fitting of more than one size to the back of the heel--to increase the length... making a size 7 into a size 9, for example--it is also necessary to "correct" the length-wise curvature of the bottom of the last.

All it takes is a "contour gauge" and a comparison of a last that is "naturally" a 9 and one you have built up to a 9 and you'll quickly see the difference. the same thing holds true when you build a last up to a EEE from a "natural" B. and the contour gauge can also help you get that corrected curvature just right.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Al,

E.J. McDaniel once told me that lasts models are created and "designated" according to the wishes of the individual or company commissioning the model. so that while there may be a "standard" for length and girth for a particular designated size...for reasons known mostly to themselves, a company may decide to designate a "standard" 9 as a 8. This is easy to comprehend if you think about manufacturers of women's shoes. women, at least in the past, have been , shall we say "particular" about which size shoe they wear...think of the Cinderella stories. So a shoe that is sized as a 7 when it is actually made on a last that, while marked a 7 actually measures out to a 10, will sell much better than if it were marked a 10. Follow? that's just one example and I'm sure there may be others, including the ewason Bill gave you.

Complicating that is the fact that sizes do not grade "arithmetically." We want to take a size 7C, for example, and "project" the measurements up or down...one-third of an inch for each full size in length, "x" inch for each width in girth. But it doesn't work that way...the reasons it doesn't have thus far escaped me but I have known and accepted that fact of life for most of my career and it is the reason I use Sabbage's Sectionizer so religiously.

But as you say, that's something that can be done (maybe should be done) in bespoke work that may not apply to making standard sized shoes.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

A great discussion.

I have a couple of questions.

DW: after you fit the heel imprint to the last, is your next (or concurrent?) step to match the heel to ball length and/or joint girth measurments to a last? It would seem to me that adjusting girth is easier than length, so that length would take precedence, but your experience (and others' as well) would be very helpful.

Along these same lines, if you have a last with, say a 1.5 inch heel in a (nominal) 9D, but the length is a bit short, would the 10D have about the same heel width? In other words, once you find a "width" in a given last model that corresponds to the desired heel width, is there pretty good flexibility in choosing the right length last? [In looking at Adrian's book on lastmaking -p. 50-, he has a table that shows recommended heel seat widths by size (length) and width/girth. The table shows that, for a given length, the recommended heel seat is the same for clusters of girths -- AA, A, B are the same; C,D,E are the same; and EE, EEE are the same. As you go up in length, the heel size increases every size or two. On the next page, however, he recommends increasing heel seat 1/16" per width grade above C, and decreasing it 1/24" below width C. Have you observed general conformity with either of these recommendations?]


Robert:
It sounds like you are buying rough turned last blanks. Where do you source these? I know Springline in England makes them, and I've seen others listed in the O Baltor/Gotz catalog, but a domestic source would be helpful.

Thanks,
Lance

[dw]

Lance,

First off, I think the issue of heel seat width may be model dependant. In my experience, with my lasts, I find that the heel width on a 9A is the same..or very close to being the same...as on a 10AA. 10D would have the same heel width as a 9E. [Now I'm wondering...I'm not in the shop but I'm pretty sure that's correct] and girths follow pretty much the same rule although I would not tell you that the ball girth on a 10D is the same as on a 9E. But the ball girth on the 9E will be closer to the ball girth on the 10D than it will be to the 10E or the 10C...in general...on my models...in my experience.

As for the procedure...even before I match up the heel seat width I'm looking at the proper length. And heel to medial ball joint is the critical measurement. Doesn't do any good to choose a size 5 last to match up the heel seat width for a size 9 foot. We have to choose the proper length of last first or we'll be scrambling around swapping out lasts until we stop and look at length. Once I have the heel seat width (and the proper length) I start looking at short heel on the last and the high instep girth. Both should match the foot and both will have some relationship to heel seat width, ie. if the heel seat width is too wide for the foot the short heel and the high instep will probably be to big as well. So those four factors are critical in helping me decide which last to start with--length, heel seat width, short heel and high instep girth. Once I know that I am right on the money or can build up to the measurements I need, I start looking at how much I need to build up to duplicate the low instep, waist, and ball girths.

Did that answer your question?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

Had a crazy day, just got home and try to catch up with the tread. I want to go into some of this in more detail but that will have to wait a little while. In the mean time may I invite all of you interested to take a in depth look at this web site that has been growing and developed into a very valuable recourse. M.Spenle GmbH This is also my contact for the lasts I spoke of earlier. Sorry, not a domestic source but worth looking into. I have recently only had small orders through friends that would order and hand carry the lasts over so no direct orders from me and I don’t know how that would work with them. But I’m sure they can let you know. Great company to work with, in former East Germany. Visited them just after the wall came down. Nothing but good things to say about them!
I also want to try to find some of my old school books that deal with last making. It would be somewhat different from what we are discussing since it is from a European last makers perspective. It has some very important and basic information. If and when I can find the books I will see what I can translate and post any of it. (copyright may be an isue)Since I still live out of boxes after our last move I can not promise a time frame. It also is not nearly as in depth as a professional last maker could offer. This was solely ment as a basis to individual custom last making.

That’s it for me for tonight. I’ll be back with more ….

Rob

PS: if you are looking for a domestic source it is my understanding that someone on the forum just picked up a last cutting lathe. It would be an awful waste if that thing were to sit still collecting dust but I probably should mind my own #@(&@- business….

[dw]

Lance,

Sometimes the server for the CC doesn't quite get the job done. I posted a response to your question last night but never got email notification of it. Assuming that no one else did either, you may want to check out this thread...there's a fairly detailed answer to your question above.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW and Robert:

Thanks for the information. I check the Colloquy frequently, so I did see your posts.

A few follow-up questions:

DW: Starting with the heel to ball length would have been the approach I would have expected; I guess I misinterpreted your post about heel width. However, I am surprised that the high instep and short heel are the next measurements to try to match up, rather than the joint girth (not that I know a better way, mind you, I just would have imagined the joint would come next). Is there any particular rationale for using these measurements next? Is it based on your experience only, some sort of specific logic in how lasts are shaped relative to the foot, or is it because of the importance of these two measures for bootmaking? Do you find it easier to adjust the last for the remaining measures than it would be to match the joint girth, then modify the short heel, etc? Or is it a function of the typical last vs the actual foot, i.e. if the deviation from the 'norm' is a narrower heel relative to the forefoot, matching the joint girth would provide a last with too wide a heel, too big a short heel, etc, which would require subtraction from the last, which you want to avoid?

Also, in matching the imprint to the last bottom, do you lay the last onto the imprint, or how do you compare them. Further, do you use this approach for checking the heel to ball length, or do you use something else, like a Brannock device, to actually measure this feature?

And, since we're on this topic, do you find that, in your lasts, if you match the medial joint accurately, that the lateral/outside joint is also well matched, or do you find the lateral/utside joint of the last does not correspond to that of your customer's foot? (just wondering how accurate the industry standard assumtions for the angle between the joints is).

Robert:
Did you get a copy of the catalog, or how do you choose the specific last(s) to purchase? How much in the way of measurements are available for the lasts (eg. heel width, short heel, waist and instep girth, heel to joint length, etc.)? Are they pretty responsive to inquiries in English? You mention that your lasts are rough turns. How rough are they, i.e. how much extra material is left on that you have to remove?

Guys, thanks again for the interesting discussion of a complex but vitally important topic.

Lance

[dw]

Lance,

I move on to the short heel because it is probably the most important and the most overlooked measurement we use. It's probably not as important with shoes or lace up boots but with pull-ons it is critical, in my opinion. The high instep is just so intimately associated with the short heel, that it is not only logical to check it, but it provides a "cross check," so to speak, as to how and where to adjust the short heel if it comes up shy. If the short heel from the last is less than the short heel from the foot, obviously we need to build the last up. But where? If the high instep is correct we can't put a build up on the last anywhere that will make the high instep too large.

My approach is to cut lasts as seldom as possible. I've spent many years using lasts over and over again...not spending my hard earned profits accumulating lasts that I may never use again in a month of Sundays. If I cut a last I can't use it again except in very special circumstances...if only because it is no longer the size marked on the last. For one last that doesn't make much difference but get 30 pair that have all been cut...and how?...and how do you determine that this last that may have been cut from a 9D to a 8 1/2 C or some indeterminate variation on a 8D, is going to have any chance of fitting the customer? All indexing is destroyed the minute you cut the last.

More importantly, relationships that the lastmaker/modelmaker/designer intended to bear some semblance to a standard foot shape, have also been altered.

Much easier and more logical (in my humble opinion) is to start with a last that is slightly under size--at least in the girths--and build it up. I have yet to run across a foot in which the proper last was a D backpart and an A forepart...if you see what I mean. Undoubtedly there are feet like that out there but most feet are within the range of a standard last or the backpart is narrower than the forepart relative to a standard last. So, if I fit the backpart--heelseat width, short heel, high instep and long heel--correctly or just shy...it is a cinch to build up the forepart, if it needs it.

As for the length determination...well...hum...er...ahem...this is a question I have dreaded since the forum began. I do use a device that serves the same function as a size stick and/or a Brannock device. I want to determine an accurate ( as accurate as I can possibly make it) length for the foot and an accurate length from the back of the heel to the medial ball joint. But I glommed on to the fact long ago that lasts are not built like feet...in the back of the heel especially. There is no featherline on a foot and one foot may "turn under" (print less) less than another foot, So using the footprint was not an option. I use a dead on accurate measurement from the medial joint to the back of the heel. I transfer that measurement onto the footprint beginning at the medial ball joint and ending in the vicinity of the heel. I then position the featherline of the last on the rear mark and determine where the treadline of the last falls vis-a-vis the medial ball joint on the last.

Now, if I stopped there ( and once upon a time I did) I'd be worried. But I also use Sabbage's Sectionizer to determine section 8 on the last and section 8 on the foot. By comparing the two I can tell right away if I have the proper last.

If you think through the superficial description I just offered (or should I say "overthink") you may come away scratching your head. Sometimes I'm not sure why it works, myself...but is does and it falls in line with so many cross checks that I have given up worrying about it. It is well to bear in mind Luchesse's prime maxim: "If you're gonna fit 'em wrong, fit 'em long."

Finally, the outside ball joint is never guaranteed to conform to a standard last nor even Sabbage. And when it doesn't you will most likely see and note a discrepancy in the footprint and girth measurements that you will have to deal with...usually by adding something of a buildup on the lateral side of the last.


Hope this helps...short of an in-shop seminar, I'm not sure I can make it clear.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

Going over the posts I think we have not been addressing one thing that happens in the real world but is the exact thing that causes this discussion to be so confusing. Before was mentioned that when a last run was commissioned the customers wish was what was produced. My understanding is that it was not unusual to order the front of last xx en the heel of last yy with a 10/8th heel and a rounder toe. If you would have started with a last that conformed to a grid, those proportions are now gone. The “holy eye” determines if it will work or not. Than that last gets copied a number of times and the process takes place again where only the instep portion of this last is used in a whole new last run.

The way I was educated in last making is to start with the insole. Draw out the insole to size and style, straight or curved etc. I haven’t found the boxes with the books that have the formulas in them but will post them in time. Next you draw out the center line of the last, setting the heel height, toe height, instep etc. From memory there is also a set of formula’s to draw the center line of the ball but not as commonly used. With this done you go out back, get a chunk of fire wood and start carving. I do not recall having any formulas to calculate the circumference but it could be that my memory is just failing me. Haven’t used any of it for a really, really, really long time. Somewhere I have most of my school books that will hopefully refresh my memory. Important is to also realize this is based on the European way of shoe and last making where widths are different and not as commonly used as in the US.

We also should not forget that last making is an ancient craft that was around well before anybody ever dreamed of coming up with formulas to explain what was done. Not until mass production came into play was the size and width designation important, shoes were made to order and made in YOUR size, not a standardized number.

Old time shoe fitters have stated to me that to achieve the same volume in a shoe you could to up half a size and down a width (7C and 7.5 B have the same volume) I don’t know if this actually pans out once you start looking at the charts. This is similar to what DW has mentioned before, I just seem to remember that the rule of thumb is one half size to one width.

Lance to answer you question The electronic catalog is new to me so I can’t tell you how that works. I’m in a unique position that I have some friends in Europe that work for companies that are major clients for Spenle. When I need a pair of last I give one of them a call, discuss what I need and have them choose the specific style or send them a podograph with measurements. They just sent it to my dad who sends it to me in the US. If someone I know is traveling this way I make sure to place my order before they leave…
They offer three grades of finish, roughly turned, fine turned and waxed. They are very proud that they use no chemicals it process, not even to seal the lasts when finished. I like the rough turned, it does not have much access material, just a rough finish with ridges aprox. 1 cm wide going around the last from the bit that chewed the access wood when it was turned. Since I end up doing all kinds of work to the last anyway I don’t mind smoothing it. I do not know them to carry western boot lasts but to be honest I never inquired about that. It seems that they are not very responsive to catalogue requests from the US. I will try to get in tough with them direct, if that does not work I will have my buddy in Europe go after it. Before they get overwhelmed by requests, I will let the forum know how I make out and will be happy to share anything I may get my hands on. I have a feeling that they are not doing any business outside of Europe but times are changing and they better keep up!

Just a few short words how I make my lasts, keep in mind I’m not talking boots but orthopedic shoes! To clearify: I start with a foot that generally does not fit or function in a standard shoe. By making a last that fits the foot and making certain construction choices I will be able to provide this customer with functional footwear.
I place a last on the podograph at the desired heel height. Have a last that has the appropriate length if possible meaning the back of the heel lines up with the back of the podograph and the ball section falls at the ball of the podograph. Kind of like this.

3350.jpg

Next I start working in my circumference measurements from the front to the back. Not that there is a specific reason other than that’s how I was thought and if I don’t do it that way things just don’t seem right.

There is no one way that is the only way. A bit of advice as if you could not have figured this out by yourself. Do it, do it again and again. Eventually you find a system your comfortable with and that makes sense to you. Until than many hours of blood, sweat and tears with the occasional curse word will pass. Last making / adjusting is one of the most challenging parts of the job with a very high grade of complexity since the foot is such a delicate instrument when it works properly, imagine what happens when something is out of alignment. I remember many days and nights in the shop trying to get a pair of lasts to the needed measurements. Hours and hours adjusting, taking off and building back up again to take it off later. Know that if you hang in there at the end of the tunnel there is a bright light where everything starts falling in place. Not that I do not get stomped but that happens less en less.

[dw]

There is one thing that I meant to remark upon in my description of finding the length of a last:

In my opinion...only...and this goes against what you might other wise intuit...the footprint derived from the pedograph is the least accurate piece of data that we collect. I believe it can tell you pretty accurately how wide the foot spreads. I don't believe it can tell you, accurately, how long the foot is. At least not as accurately as a careful measurement with a size stick.

In my experience, the pedograph can also tell you a great deal about shape and plantar surface anomolies. And that's critical. But if I superimpose the heel to joint measurement (note: this is a measurement...in inches or millimeters) and the length measurement over the pedograph, it really doesn't matter if my positioning of those measurements are 100% accurate. The measurements themselves are accurate and if the last is positioned within those measurements, and true to those measurements, and everything "lines up," so to speak, the results will be right.

You can even set the pedograph aside while determing foot and last length and simply draw a rectangular box on an extra sheet of paper--the length of which is the measured length of the foot. Draw a line, measuring from one end of the box, at the measured distance from the heel to the joint. The last should fit inside the box with the medial endpoint of the treadline (the joint--Sabbage's section 8) falling on the joint line and the toe of the last overhanging the toe-end of the box by...one section (Sabbage) for a medium round toe.

In other words, the measurements are the final and most reliable indicator of last length, in my opinion. I think, that relying too heavily on the tracing/pedograph, except in general terms, is a mistake. The pedograph presents us with extremely useful information--information I would not want to be without--but it is limited and should be understood as as such.

Having said that, "there are many roads to the top of the mountain." Each maker works out a "system" that suits his style and, after a few years, every component of his technique becomes so intricately entwined with every other component of his system that changing one may well throw off everything else.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW and Robert:

Thanks for the ongoing dialogue; it is extrememly interesting and enlightening. Sorry to be so exhaustive with my questions, but I've been noodling around with last making (using a soft wood to learn), so the information is helpful -- I've been using the Koleff book to guide my efforts. Plus, as the John Lobb book says, the Last comes First.

I have exchanged e-mails with someone in Europe who uses Spenle lasts; he says that Spenle will cut a (shoe?) last to fit specific measures and a foot tracing for any desired toe shape. It certainly sounds promising. I will be e-mailing Spenle for information, and if I get a response I will post information here.

DW: your description is extremely clear and helpful. It creates a few more questions: how do you determine desired heel width? Is it based on the imprint and or tracing (as I assume), or is it derived somehow from the short heel/long heel/other(?) measurements? [In the Koleff book, there are some rules of thumb for heel width derived from the short heel measurement and heel height, but I would think that an accurate measurment would be better.] Also, to see if I understand your description of length and last positioning: is the measurement of ball to heel length measured to the furthest extreme of the heel (i.e. up from the floor, which would therefore incorporate the heel curve) or to the extreme point of the heel at the floor. Given your description of how you match the last to the foot, I would expect the latter. However, it certainly is easier to measure the former, using either a size stick or a Brannock device. Finally, my impression of the Sabbage's sectionizer approach would imply that the length is a reflection of the overall length of the foot from the extreme point of the heel (up from the floor); therefore, placing the last on the drawn box would require placing the heel feather line approx 5mm forward from the box's rear line, since the heel has about 5mm of curvature (at least per Koleff). Is that correct?

Robert: At least according to Koleff's approach, your memory serves you well. The basic approach is to trace the foot, and then create an insole pattern based on the measurements and shape of the foot; there are rules of thumb for the insole width at various places based on the measured length and girths of the foot, plus assumed joint angles. In Pivecka, there are assumed/prescribed joint angles and widths all derived from the overall length and joint girth, but that book seems geared toward factory production.

Thanks again.

Lance

[dw]

Lance,

I use the footprint/pedograph to determine the width of the heel seat...mostly. Some feet are very fleshy. Some feet are very lean. Some feet are "squishy." Some feet are very firm. Let that be your "mantra."

But, see, it's all connected...that's why I say "mostly," above. I can envision a foot that prints very narrow on the pedograph. A firm foot. And yet this same foot might be quite thick in the ankle. So when you measure the foot and compare it to the last, the featherline of the last compares favourably to the footprint but the short heel on the last comes up shy. And, as is usually the case in such circumstances, the high instep is close or right on. So where do you make up the extra needed to accommodate the short heel? It has to come in the forme of what Golding calls a "seat piece" except Golding intends that the seat piece actually widen the seat. What I've found is that it is sometimes necessary to add such a fitting but not allow it to encroach on the actual width of the seat--measured from the medial featherline across the bottom of the seat to the lateral featherline. This fitting will thicken the the heel itself, accommodate a heavy ankle, & increase the short heel measurement, all while not affecting the high instep nor allowing so much extra width under the heel pad that enough lint to knit a sweater accumulates.

As for the length...again I measure the length of the last from the featherline at the toe to the featherline at the heel. I compare that to the measurements taken from the foot--toe to back of heel (somewhat firmly) and medial ball joint to back of heel...both taken with a size stick. I compare the length of the foot to the length of the last by applying Sabbage's Sectionizer. If the last is one-eleventh of the foot length longer than the foot I figure I'm on the right track. If eight-twelvefths of the last is equal to eight-elevenths of the foot (heel to joint) I figure I'm spot on.

Some may say..."oh, you're fitting a bit long." I may be. In my experience, the major fitting mistake made by almost all shoe and bootmaker (bootmakers especially)...those who make mistakes, that is )...is fitting short. If I'm fitting a bit long, well, all I can say is that if I pay close attention to the short heel and the heel seat width...and the joint width, and the high instep girth and the low instep girth and the waist girth and the joint girth, and not forgetting to factor in the long heel....it doesn't make any difference if I'm theoretically fitting a bit long--it all works.

And a long fit is healthy, a short fit is not.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

Lance,

Glad to hear that someone thinks my memory is not to bad, I have been accused of getting those “senior moments”. Maybe it’s just my sort term memory….
But seriously, I have not worked with those formula’s in many, many years. If anything it seems to prove that having a basic understanding of standard production methods and techniques is a good basis for a custom shoe maker. At any point your understanding of foot and shoe interaction will start to “click” and intuitive you know the principles without remembering the formula. I will try to find my books and post a good part of it on the Crispin Colloquy. Unfortunately I have no idea where my teachers got their material from. I’m not familiar with koleff or Pivecka’s work. Once I have some free time on my hand I want to read up on that.

Don’t you apologize for asking questions, I promise to give you sufficient warning if I get fed up with them but don’t expect me to any time soon. Spenle will indeed cut a shoe last based on a podograph with measurements. I believe they are about the go into CAD-CAM with that and I could even imagine that some day you can send your CAD file over for them to cut.

DW, how do you take your podograph, do you have the person walk over it? I know some people do, I don’t find it particular useful. I just take a weight bearing imprint with a tracing, holding the pencil perpendicular to the paper following the foot. The measurements I take with the customer sitting down, semi weight bearing. The outline is the exact foot length and that is what I base my last length on. On the podograph I mark where I laid my tape to take the foot measurement so I can transfer that to the last very closely.

Lance, did I read somewhere that your shoe making background has some European roots? Are you making shoes for a living now or more of an addiction on the side? You make any lasts yourself?

Hope my answers shed some light on your questions.

Rob

[btippit]

To all:

I've been reading this thread with great interest but just haven't had time to jump in until now. Since I'm way behind, I'm going to just summarize some thoughts and hope I can add something constructive. If I miss anything that anyone thinks I should comment on, please advise.

1) HEEL SEAT WIDTH: For production lasts, at least in the good old days, there were standard heel seat templates that every model was SUPPOSED to conform to. Their were several "standards" and they could range in width on a women's 6B anywhere from 1 13/16" to 2" (some standard, huh?). These templates were developed more for standardizing the actual heels of the shoes and simplfying the size changes on the machinery, and therefore increasing production efficiency than anything that had to do with fit and comfort. As time when on, model making methods in the last business got sloppier and more and more shoes were made with molded soles thus nullifying the ability or even need to conform to heel templates. Now, when most companies develop a new last they have the model maker start with a backpart that has a proven good fitting history for them in that particular type of footwear and build the new style from there. Few people probably know or care what, if any, heel seat template that style or its ancestors ever were supposed to fit. So, from the production standpoint there is no definitive width for the heel of a "true" 6B or 9D but I can tell you that the grade is generally around 1/24" per whole size. Of course this will depend on what you start with. For USA grading, the ball joint of the bottom of the last (in 2D) is almost always graded 1/12" per whole size. That general area is the center of your width grading rules. So if you start with a 6B and grade to a 10B on a last with a 6B heel seat width of 1 13/16" you will end up with a 10B that has a narrower heel grade than if you started with a 6B that had a 2" heel seat width. It's all proportional unless the model maker physcially restricts it by making accomodation models to specific heel seat grades.

2) NARROW BACKPARTS/WIDE FOREPARTS: For those who've heard this sermon before, I apologize. For you first timers....it's just a theory but one I believe in strongly. I'll admit that some people surely must have heels that are unusually narrow. However, I would be willing to guess that of all the orders for custom lasts that I've taken over the years, probably 70% or more of the boot and shoe makers either requested or at least discussed a "narrow heel". My question is this. If 70% of the general public has a "narrow" heel, doesn't that really make them the majority and therefore "average" heels? I believe that what has happened is that last model making, as I said earlier, has gotten sloppier over the years. Templates and so called "standards" are simply not used as guidelines as much. Even copying a backpart for a base to make a new model can lead to distortion if the model maker doesn't check the copy after it's turned to be sure the lathe didn't blow it out of proportion. For any of you that have some of those beautiful, old Krentler Brothers lasts or even some that E.J. McDaniels made or Western Last.....take a look at those backparts and compare them to something you've gotten in more recent years. You'll see much narrower and much more defined curves in the older models than the newer ones. I don't think the heels of our feet have gotten narrower, I think the heels our lasts have gotten wider. OK, I guess that means we really do need a narrow heel but the more correct term would be a "corrected heel".

3) STANDARD LENGTHS AND GIRTHS: EJ was right when he told DW that the shoe companies dictate the dimensions to the last company more than standards do. Some companies like to have a "full" fit or a "long" fit or whatever. Others just have someone who has his/her idea of what the last should be or maybe wants to be sure his/her mark is on the company's fit profile (see job justification). Another reason all 9Ds don't measure the same in girth is different types of shoes (lace up or otherwise adjustable versus net fit such as boots and pumps), different constructions, materials, etc. And as someone said earlier (Al, I think), a narrow toe last will be longer (or SHOULD be) than a wider toe for the same type shoe. Heel height also plays a part in the length of the flattened bottom of course. The higher the heel, the longer the bottom, simply because of the length of the center line curve after flattening.

4) SIZE COMPARISONS: The normal girth grade between half sizes is 1/8". The normal girth grade between widths is 3/16" to 1/4" depending on how close you are to the middle of the width range and which "standard" grade chart you're using. So, a 9.5C will be close to a 9D but you can't say that it's a dead on match. Also when dealing with European sizes, the grade between a 36 and a 37 is 3/16" versus the 1/4" you would have between whole sizes in the US. I'm not sure why I added that but I remember someone discussing European sizes somewhere in this thread and I guess I just wanted to use a couple of numbers that weren't fractions. The heel width grade between widths in the US is about 1/24" so to say a 10D heel would be about the same as a 9E is fairly safe.

And FINALLY, I apologize for jumping the gun earlier this year with the announcement that my "wife" would be starting a custom last business with me helping on the side. It has taken "her" longer than expected to put together the sourcing partners needed to make this happen. However, I was informed in September by my good friends in management at the company that I worked for that despite having a record year in sales last year for footwear products in the US, my services would no longer be needed. Now I know how a baseball manager feels when he wins the World Series one year and is in the broadcast booth doing color commentary on the series the next year. Stand by. I have been diligently putting together what is needed and, if anyone's interested, I will have a MAJOR announcement on this subject before Christmas.

Well, if anyone is still reading this, you really need to think about time management. I hope I've added clarity to the chaos on some points and not done to much of the opposite on others. I'll jump back in as time permits.

Bill

[dw]

Bill,

I will have a MAJOR announcement on this subject before Christmas.

I'll save my "hoo-rays" until you make that...ahem..."mysterious" announcement.

But....how about a little "yippee"?...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Rob,

Following up on a question you asked earlier...a "tabbed facing" refers to the way a Derby style shoe is made. The "facing" is the edge along which the eyelets are mounted (you knew that, but for those who might not)...and the "tab" is the toe end of the facing--which in the Derby cut lies on top of the vamp as opposed to the Balmoral or Oxford type in which the vamp is mounted on top of the facing.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[das]

Bill,

Thank you! Very helpful stuff you mentioned.

On my earlier question about girth variations is lasts all of one "size", it had more to do with lasts I've had made over the past 5-10 years. I make/send a model off to be digitized, and ask for a "9 D" in return. I would think that the lathes, grading, etc. would "correct" everything so that all the "9 D" lasts would have the same ball and instep girths.

==============
"Another reason all 9Ds don't measure the same in girth is different types of shoes (lace up or otherwise adjustable versus net fit such as boots and pumps),
different constructions, materials, etc."
==============

But I've never specified "different" types, etc.

When you and I visited with Wilson Scheadler in '98[?], he kindly gave me his Dayton Last Co. grading book, and said "it's as good a grading chart as any" to use. So, it got me to wondering, if a "9 D" is supposed to be X and Y girths, how come all 9 Ds I've had turned in recent years come out different girths? I'm not complaining, I just want to know what I might not be communicating effectively to modern lastmakers, to tell them how I want these puppies graded [consistently].

I have a bunch of lasts turned off different models, but when I pull any 9 D off the rack, in any style, I expect it to be X and Y girths. It's corn-fusin' when they're off. A graded run of lasts, true, is just a basis, a starting point to fit-up for a custom fit, but it seems goofy to me that all 9 Ds I've had made recently aren't the same girths. And, if it's my fault for being too dumb to ask for a certain grading standard, please tell me

I'm all ears, waiting for your "Christmas News".

When I was in Europe in October, I visited a couple of small, "artisanal" lastmakers in the Czech Republic, and saw lasts from the German firm under discussion as well. I got pretty excited, especially to see they turned wood lasts, but my excitement faded when I learned that none of them apparently can offer all "bark bottomed" lasts. For those of you who don't know, the orientation of the wood's grain in a last is very important for its dimensional stability over time. For custom work, one-offs, and orthopedic shoes it's probably not critical, because the last sees only light use, and sits on a shelf until needed again for that customer. But, if one wants a run of base lasts to use over and over, hopefully "forever", you want the wood to be rock-stable dimensionally. The annular growth rings of the log ought to go from side to side in the last, not up and down. Look at a wood last at the back of the heel. You should see fine "layers" in the wood, with the lines going from side to side. That's "bark-bottomed, i.e. the last block was cut out of the log with the bark surface down. "Bark-sided", cut sideways out of the log, lasts tend to warp, crack, and split, especially at the toe, from being repeatedly nailed into.

If anyone here goes for these European lasts, try to specify the whitest colored [*red* beech lasts tend to be grainy and more apt to split with repeated use], the hardest clear-grained beech they have, and ask for "bark-bottomed" if possible. I ordered a sample pair from CZ, which looked just great, but one of the pair was "bark-bottomed", and the mate was "bark-sided"! As they age they'll no longer match dimensionally, if the "bark-sided" one doesn't crack first. Woods coming from one climate to another act weird too. Just "Be careful out there..."

[btippit]

Al,

I think the last makers you sent lasts to for digitation and grading (and I know this was the case with me) checked the various measurements of the last you sent to be digitized and came up with the closest size to call if for the sake of reference. Then, that last became the 9D or 8C or whatever for that style. It would have been possible to grade that master model up or down in ball girth to whatever was deemed to be the holy grail of 9D ball girth measurements. However, the waist, instep, long heel, short heel and everything else would have graded proportionally along with the ball. The odds of a last coming in that matched the 9D "standard" in all those measurements or even being proportioned so that when the ball hit the standard everthing else did too are....well, in Missouri we call those odds Powerball.

To physically correct the individual measurements to get in line for the trip to standard9Dville would have been model making work and the sound you would have heard in the background would have been the cash register.

With the RomansCAD software being as advanced and interactive as it is now, those measurement tweakings are now much easier for me and other last makers who use it to make and should be much less costly. If only I were still in business.....

Bill

[sorrell]

D.W.,
I've been following this discussion and I wanted to let you know that you threw out a piece of information that may help me tremendously. The paragraph about the "seat piece" was very interesting.

I've had an older man with a thick ankle and large heel measurement order a pair of boots. I (like you, I believe) tend to choose the last width by the pedograph's heel width. This usually works really well and the heel measurement falls right into line. In this case though, the heel width indicates a much narrower last that the heel measurement calls for. I measured him several months ago and his boots aren't due for a few more months. I've been puzzling over this and thinking about what I'm going to do since I took his measurements.

You've given me something to think about. Would you like to tell me more about this "seat piece" and where it's positioned on the last?

Lisa

[dw]

Lisa,

The seat piece is essentially just a slab of leather glued to either the outside or both sides of the heel. Think of what you would do if all you had was a last two sizes too narrow...aside from building up the forepart, you'd need to widen the heel. Or think about the difference between a 9A and a 9D in the heel.

We readily build up around the forepart...widening the forepart, thickening the waist, etc.. There's nothing to say we can't, or shouldn't or won't ever need to widen the heel in the same way.

The only difference is that, in the description in my previous post, I am feathering the seat piece so that as it approaches the featherline, it thins to nothing. That way it thickens the heel and increases the short heel but does not widen the seat itself. If you are familiar with Sabbages Sectionizer, the fitting goes from just a bit ahead of Section 0 to roughly the heel breast or Section 3, although you can alter that--lengthening it or shortening it--to your taste and as you see fit. Of course the fitting must also be skived to taper into the lines of the last at Section 3 and at Section 0. The fitting does not add length to the last. Leave that for a "heel pin."

You won't see this buildup all that often but there are some folks out there that it suits just right. As you may know, I build a fitter's model for every customer so I know what works and what doesn't...ahead of time. Sometimes this is not only the best solution, it is the only one.

BTW, for those following this conversation, who may be a bit bemused by my description determining the length of the last and my observation that I may be fitting a bit long...I offer the following from Golding Vol. IV. Here GEorge Sabbage is speaking about the ball joint:

The ball-and-socket formation of this joint (see Section XIII) is a splendid arrangement, which allows perfect freedom and support in progression or turning round. This long-suffering member of the bone family is very liable to be misplaced by "foot-clothiers." In some cases the side at Division 10 is pressed towards the centre of the foot, because the last is cut away too much at the mid-joint section. This also occurs if the shoe is fitted too short, so as not to allow of the elongation that should take place in walking. As a result the toe turns inwards because it cannot lengthen out, and thus forms a prominence on the side.

My method of using featherline to featherline as a length measurement results in a length difference of less than one-half size versus using a size stick.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[frank_jones]

Just a brief reference to the “tab” and “tab point” etc. as mentioned by DW and Rob in several posts on 6th and 12th December.

The term tab is widely used in the trade in several ways. Probably the best explanation of this is the one in the “Concise Shoemaking Dictionary”. This is a relatively new publication (2001) which covers most shoemaking terminology but with numerous diagrams and where it differs there is US terminology as well as “international English”. It anybody would like more details etc., please email me.

So with the author’s permission, below is an Appendix from the dictionary reproduced in full.

3359.jpg

Frank Jones
frank.jones@shoemaking.com