The Crispin Colloquy

Rick,

I was just curious is all--I thought you had some really brilliant way to grade or locate points on the foot.

BTW, if by "stakeholders" you mean me (among others), I don't have any objections to you abstracting my system for your own use and for those who have my books. Although I have never been slow to point out that my system is derivative of several others...and I would say, in all honesty, that if Koleff's system could be made to work with a sewn in counter (and I don't see why it couldn't), it might very well be the better system...it is my own unique approach. And I do earn a certain portion of my livelihood from the work/research I put into it.

My point was simply that I think Koleff or anyone else would at least like to be consulted, and attributed, if nothing else.

And the last thing you want, after putting all your time into working up this system in Java is to have someone, like Koleff, or his descendants, come back at you.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW

I am trying to clarify the position of the publishers of George's books on this.

Personally I don't see either of these systems taking away from the written word, they just seem to be taking the difficulty out of the system, but I may be wrong.

In regard to the sewn in counter, that is not a problem with his patterns, you would just apply pattern cutting techniques to his mean forme, just as you would to a mean forme made any other way. That should work.

Tim

Tim,

I suppose that's true...although my system does differ from Koleff's a bit, the main thing is that I design for a 10 iron sole leather heel stiffener that is sewn in. I hope I didn't mislead you when I said "counter" in my last post. I meant heel stiffener.

BTW, I put a sole on my test oxford this afternoon and pulled the last. I was blown away at how good they fit...even on that boot last.

There was absolutely no gaping at the topline.

The topline at the back of the heel, contrary to all my worries, was maybe even a tidge lower than I thought it should be. At least that's the way it felt on my foot.

All my design problems and detours aside--the little, visible "awkwardnesses" didn't really have that great of an affect on the final shoe. The only thing that I really feel bad about is that the facings came apart right at the vamp line. No, they didn't rip out or anything like that, they just didn't stay tightly together right at the bottom when I had the shoe on and laced up--that despite a little hand stitch that was probably too far from the vamp line...which also stretched open a bit.

That's bugging me, cuz I can fix everything else but I don't know what I did wrong or how to fix it.

All and all, however, I was surprised how snugly they fit--without being tight. That boot last might be usable even in stock sizes.

Anyway, I'm already lining out a pair...on these lasts if Bill T can't get the men's shoe last to me right away. If nothing else, they have an inch and a quarter heel and I can dance in them.

When I get this test shoe bottomed and a heel on, I'll take a photo.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

Did the stay stitch go at, or just above the vamp fitting line? If it was too high up then it may very well gape. By running the other row of stitching across the quarters, the tongue is bound in too and that may solve the problem.

Another thing that comes to mind is that when you stitched through the tongue, there may have been a bit more stretch available. If you don't include the tongue then you may be able to pull the facings together more solidly. What do you reckon Rob. I am just throwing possibilities here.

When you look at the handstitch on the bottom of the tongue, it looks as though the holes were relatively far apart. How about a photo from the top. It is possible that there is more tension when you pull the upper onto the last when you use a boot last, and the same may not happen on a shoe last.

Re patterns,
The thickness of the stiffener would probably not have much bearing on the patterns if I were doing them, but if you made allowances after you followed the geometric method that should do it.

Tim

Tim,

Handstitch was too high up the facings. I saw that almost the moment I put it in. It was not too wide...and it was made as a cross...but it was done in dacron (which stretches) so that was another miss.

What I was thinking of doing (although it might be harder to do this on a brogue where you would have an edge bead rather than a turned edge) is sew the facings together where they underlay the vamp...no, that wouldn't work. Hmmm....

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

One thing I notice about the difference between the shoe and boot last: we used the same measurements of short heel, high instep, instep etc. It seem to me that having a more filled out cone on the boot last but with the same volume as a shoe last, would shape to the foot and fit the same. It's not like this is a stiffened area.

Chiming in on the computer plotting of shoe patterns. Both Bordoli and a handy book I have called "Pattern Cutting Made Easy" reference the geometric method of plotting shoe patterns that Terry shows in his shoe pattern drafting program. Bordoli even has a system of plotting angles and triangles that reference measurements from the last that looks a lot like Rick's swirl of lines. The red large dot on Rick's plot would be equivalent to the Vamp Point V in Bardoli.
Since all of these systems from the books use the proportional relationship of nature's measurement of the foot and have been in use for hundreds of years the relative measurement parts should at least be in my thinking in the public domain. The ball to heel measurement is still about 2/3 of the length of the foot regardless of who is telling you to take the measurement.

My Bardoli and "Pattern Cutting" books were both published in England, carry no copyright dates but by the style of the book, type, etc. look to be at the turn of the century.

I for one would love to have a computer based, simple way to draft a geometric pattern. I already use a computerized apparel pattern program that you plug in the typical body measurements and then print out a custom pattern for thousands of different garments for men, women and kids.

Just my 2 cents, sorry no little icon

Georgene

Copywrite and Patent

The process that is used in the geometric method, which if what the java applications are based on, would be protected by a Patent. The written word and diagrams that are used in the Koleff book would be protected by a Copywrite.

DW is correct "that copyright exists when pen is first put to paper--you don't even need to file for copyright" but without filing, you won't be able to get damages for the infringement of your work before you were to stop the infringement.

Craig,

You sound like you know what you are talking about. Do you know what the "sunset" term for copyright is? Is there a similar "pen put to paper" clause for patents? Is there also an expiration date?

Georgene,

I know and sympathize with your reasoning. But if the copyright (or date of publication) is not beyond the term of expiration, you're on iffy grounds. The Guild went through this (and I talked to a friend who is a lawyer) when I got the idea to put sewing machine manuals in pdf format on the homepage. None of the sewing machine manuals are explicitly copyrighted, yet theoretically the Guild would have risked legal action (and potential loss of tax exempt status) if someone...some company...had objected. So I put those sewing machine manuals on my own webpage and I take the risk...but it is a risk. One I hope I am not undersestimating.

That said, it's always wiser to be safe than sorry...especially on personally proprietary material.

And having said that, there is, realistically, probably little or no risk in abstracting Bordoli...or even someone like Koleff, provided you check with the author...but it is not zero, in my estimation.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Rick,

I though that if the measurements...especially back part measurements--high instep, instep, short heel and long heel--were the same then the higher cone would tend to keep the shoe from settling down too far on the last. I don't have a clue as to whether that is sound reasoning or not. My test shoe is snug around the foot on the topline. Snugger than those military derbys you graciously left here...and those fit me pretty good.

In fact, if the test shoe didn't fit me so well, I would be a little nervous about my whole theory of fitting. Simply because the derby is nowhere near the right size in terms of heel seat width and I have no idea what the insteps girths and the short and long heel are. But as good as they fit, I doubt that I would consider the last a good fit for my foot if I had it in hand.

Which, all by itself, raises some interesting questions about fit and fitting...doesn't it?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Patents must be applied for and their term is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed. It's a one time term and cannot be renewed.

Not sure when the Koleff book was written. So if it was before 1987 and if he was able to obtained a Patent for the geometric method process, then the Java applications would not be infringing. As long as you're not using diagrams from his book within your programs and not quoting from the book, then Copywrite shouldn't be an issue either.

From the sound of it, the process existed long before he wrote the book so there probably aren't any Patent infringement issues.

DW, regarding you question about what the "sunset" term for a copyright is, I consulted my in-house legal counsel (my girlfriend's an IP lawyer) and she thinks that term refers to before 1978, when a Copywrite duration was 28 year. There was an option for a second renewal of 28 years, and that was the "sunset" term (possibly when renewed by the heirs of the original Copywrite holder?). She asks what context it was use in?

Hope that helps,
Craig

(Message edited by corvin on August 31, 2007)

(Message edited by corvin on August 31, 2007)

DW,

I see nothing wrong with a tab from one facing being glued onto the other facing under the vamp line it that is what you mean.

The stitching across the quarters above the vamp line would help to hold the tongue and quarters solidly together and make that area one solid unit.

Tim

Tim,

The tab--I gave that kind of a half hearted try with the test boot...using a lining tab. Since I was lining as I closed I thought it would be Ok. but it didn't seem to help much and I cut it off.

If the tab is on the facing itself then it seems to me we have a problem of how long to make it such that we still have a facing under the vamp. This is what I was thinking in my previous post--to stop turning the edge at the vampline and sew the tabs together and then spread them away from the seam. But I am afraid that if the tab is as wide as the lap allowance, the turned edge of the facing will come uo a tiny bit short. After all the vampline stitch is actually back from the edge of the vamp a millimeter or so. And if the tab is shorter than the lap allowance then it won't do what it is supposed to do--hold the facings together.

But I just had a thought...I'll have to give it more thought but what if I just didn't turn the facing edge all the way and then sewed the turn allowance on the facing together before finishing my edge turning? Hmmm...there must be something wrong with that idea.

I'm sorry and no offence (you know that) but I just don't like the idea of that line of stitching run along the edge of the vamp. I am having to come to terms with doing a hung lining--where both the uppers and the linings are each fully asembled before they are put together--and I am troubled by the idea that the stitching along the edge of the facing will not run all the way under the vamp. That's bad enough. I guess I'm not ready for that extra line along the vamp edge. I have been looking at the websites of premier shoemakers like Myhre and Gaziano and Cleaverly and Lobb and I don't see that extra line....not that it's not there, mind you, but I don't see it.

Anyway...that's my story and I'm stickin' to it...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Craig,

Jeez...sometimes I think either my memory is going or time has warped and history has changed and I'm the only one alive who remembers how it used to be--I am just near certain I was told (maybe right here in these forums) that copyright lasts for 77 years...??

Does anyone else remember President Stevenson? 1952-1960?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

I am not a lawyer, I'm not even in the USA, but for better or for worse US copyright law is something that is having more and more impact across the world so it's something I've been paying a bit of attention to for a while.

There is a useful table summarising copyright terms here:
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm

There's quite a lengthy FAQ from the US copyright office at:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

Interestingly there is no mention of "fair use" in the above faq.

Obviously this won't apply to things you publish commercially, but if you want to try and make sure that things you publish are freely available in the future have a look at the Creative Commons organisation: http://creativecommons.org/

DW,

Page 110 shows how I solved that one. And no, you don't need to fold all the way under the vamp line. In fact I would never do that as it creates bulk, just taper off the folding allowance so it finishes at the vamp line and leave it raw for the underlay allowance. If you do that, you can leave one side a bit proud (10mm or so) and that bit can overlay the other quarter. It would not need to be very thick as it is only really reinforcing at that stage. If you angle the top edge slightly too, the top edge will not be seen under the vamp line.

The little tab that you put to cover the handstitch covers the ends of the stitching that you are talking about at the front of the facings. Maybe that is why it is there. If you use the bag lining that you are talking about then you can't avoid the stitching starting and stopping short of the vamp edge because the wheel will sit on top of the vamp when you get to it and there is nothing to hold the quarters down and the last/first stitch will not form properly.

Tim

DW,

Copywrite law changed on January 1, 1978... And twice again since then...

Here's a link with the low down if you're curious:

Duration of Copyright

And the official word for length of current protection:

"Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter."

Craig

DW, Tim, All

Bear with me as I'm trying to catch up. It's been about a week so I will start by answering the question on what I mean by “switching the orientation of your lining underlay”.
You bring the vamp lining over the quarter lining in the area of the tongue, putting a slid in the quarter lining. I still think that may cause a weak spot.
With tension going diagonally across the shoe this slid may pull open some in spite of it being sewn down to the vamp lining.

Tim you corrected my perfectly, thanks mate. I did indeed not mean that there was no mean forme but that it was derived in a different way that the last overlay method that I'm totally familiar with. So as Tim mentioned it does have an impact on the fit of the upper on the last.

If you consider an other practice model try a mean forme base on a last copy and see if that takes some of the pressure off the vamp point. You had also mentioned in an earlier post that you were considering moving the vamp point up the last. I don't think you did but I'm not sure now. I can see how that, in combination with the geometric method would put extra pressure on your vamp point and could be one of the many reasons your facings are not staying as tight as you want them to.

When the idea of the stay stitch through the tongue was first brought up I liked it, it is another way to control the tongue but I guess the extra give would be the downside on doing that. It had not even crossed my mind. (yet)

DW, what was the reason to use the sewn in counter method, other than doing what you know best? Doing that you are pretty much obligated to wet last, correct? With the wet lasting, no matter how “gentle” you try to be it's easy to pull the upper to far down. I know you have a lot of experience wet lasting and if anyone can pull it of, you may be the one but my call would have been dry lasting with a sandwiched counter. Since I have never done it “your way” I really couldn't say if it changes the pressure around the vamp point, any ideas on that Tim?
I don't think the gapping has just one reason, it more likely is the accumulative effect of the above. Like the drops in the bucket.

I know you mentioned something about cutting off the little tabs on the lining at the facing that overlay under the vamp but I don't seem to be able to find it. Is the tread getting to complicated with 2 different discussions or is my mind playing tricks on me?

Rob

DW,

I'm happy to hear the shoe fits as well as you say it does. Told you it was not to high in the back.
It's not by accident that the measurements are taken in the the places that they are. By having a number of measurements in key areas the space in between can be shaped in a lot of different ways while maintaining a good fit. We are “trained” to know what the lines are suppose to look like for a boot last and for a shoe last but in reality there is room for personal expression and varying interpretations.
It does make you think about fit and fitting. Isn't that the best part?

Rob

Rob,

I did the sewn in stiffener partly because it is what I know but primarily because one of the first custom boots I ever saw or handled was a pair of lace-up ankle shoe/boots that Frank Finch had made for him in 1934, I believe--the same year he and another fellow won the wild horse racing event at the National Rodeo Finals in Madison Square Garden. He taught me to make saddles and was one of my "life mentors." And he gave me those shoes before he died...I donated them, in his name, to the National Cowboy Hall of Fame some years ago.

But the important thing is that they were cowboy boots. And they had the counter/heel stiffener sewn in just like a cowboy boot.

But I didn't do a sewn in stiffener in this test oxford, you know. I did a hung lining and an insole shoulder heel stiffener put in between the lining and the upper...but I suppose I lasted wet because that's what I knew (and Al Saguto lasts wet even though he is a shoemaker).

I almost feel that here is no elegant way to line an Oxford. I can get the shoe together using what I can glean from the generous advice that you guys give me. And I can get a shoe together just relying on my own intuition and experience. But it feels clumsy no matter which way I look at it. I need a video!! Heck, I might even need someone to hold my hand. As much because I know that there are several ways to skin this cat but I'm not totally happy with all of any of them.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Everyone,

Thanks for all the great comments. I am sorry I have not responded to you until now. When I posted the program I didn't take into consideration that there are often days during the week that I have trouble making time to get onto the internet.

I wanted to respond to a number of comments, so unfortunately this might be a long post and I appologize. Before I get into that I wanted to tell everyone interested in the program that I will be working on a rought users manual this weekend. To be honest I was not sure how much interest there would be and I didn't want to develop a users manual if there was no interest. For that reason the first users manual will be real rough, but I hope to have enough information to help. I hope to get it to a useable state and get some emails out by Monday Evening. I get Monday off so I was going to take advantage of it

First I wanted to mention the Copyright since that is important to me. I agree with DW; It's better to be safe than sorry. The PDF Alasdair sent was great. I had been to the copyright office web site, but that is really hard to understand. In the case of the pattern I used in the picture, some of this is from golding (I mixed a few sources), and I had went out to the copyright office to determine if it was "safe" to use this.

I have been around software long enough to know that copyright and patents fall into a group called "intellectual property". Basically someones hard earned thoughts, testing, creations, have value. I have no desire to steal someones hard earned work.

As several people have mentioned, the geometric design method has been around for years. Koleff even mentions this in the front of his book. But I also know the actual measurements used change from person to person. For instance Georgene mentions that the ball to heel measurement is about 2/3 of the lenght of the foot. I know of several people that use this in the geometric design, but in the case of Golding he used 5/7 of the foot length + 1/9th the heel height. For the angle to the heel line (the angle between the P/J line and the P/H line in the pattern I posted), Golding indicates this can be 34 to 46 degrees depending on the foot. Koleff uses a fixed number for this. What I am getting at is that I get the impression that shoemakers have "adjusted" this as they feel best. I personally really like the look of where Koleff puts his toe cap. It falls very nicely on my foot. Golding describes where to put this line, but not in the same place. I have not built a pair of shoes off goldings numbers. I personally have developed my own system for some of these numbers that works better for my uses.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I thought I would use it to set up my main comment on copyright related to this. I do not have enough time or books to KNOW that some of the numbers were not "invented" by George Koleff. If so, I did not see it as my right to "give" away this information with out his ok.

Since I was not set up with an auto install utility, I was going to have to send an email to each user and see if they accept MY copyright. Along with this I was going to ask for some of these unique numbers on the patterns I have input into the program. This way I could make sure I was not giving away his work, and it was my hope that someone did not steal his work by not buying the book but photocopying the book.

Yes, I will be putting a copyright on the program. My main concern is that I did not want someone taking it and selling it themselves or using it for their gain without my permission. Giving it to people on this web site was for our mutual gain, since I have gained from your posts. This might be a good time to share some thoughts I had on where I will take the program. As relates to this I wanted to make it very clear that this copyright would not give me any rights to any patterns or templates you develop with the program, or the products you create from those patterns. It would mearly limit you from selling, posting on the web, or giving away to other people. This was to leave my options open for now as to future use.

I can tell you that anyone who actively shares in testing this program, by providing feedback, will recieve all future updates for free (this will not give them the right to void the copyright though). That is only fair. Since like I said, I gain by your posts, I had felt I might make it available for free to the active posters on this site. In my mind this is a swapping of knowledge.

Like anyone that makes something, I would not mind getting paid for my work in some way. Orignially I was working on the program only for the purpose to build patterns for my custom shoes, I got the idea from older books like Golding (I had not found the Koleff book yet). Then I starting thining I could develop it to be used for clothing patterns using geometric design, and had hoped to sell the program to generate these patterns. I hate to put it this way, but that is an industry that might have a wider user base.

I also know that this program is a long ways away from that, and I do not know that it will ever get to that stage. If I did get it working, my choices would be to put a high price on it and hope enought people bought it, or a low price and hope for quantity. Since I have a full time job, and a side bussiness making shoes, it would be hard for me to turn out the complexity of a product that a high price would demand and provide that level of support. I also have a good job I am happy with.

Georgene, if you could supply the name of the garment pattern program you use, I would appreciate it. If that program was already filling this gap, it might help me make some decisions.

So I really do not know what I will do with it. Some of the other options involve keeping it free. That could mean keeping the source to myself and just making it free, or going the full open source route. I however would be very depressed to find that someone had figured a way to make money off the program, and me not getting a cent (I do like all the emoticons! It looks like someone found more than just the ones listed in the formatting section)

Whew (I need to go find an emoticon for that)... I know there is probably something I did not cover, but I will have to re-read the posts. Thanks for your patience for my discussions, but these are topics that were churning in my brain for a very long time and any comments are of course welcome.

Terry

Tim,

I thought for some time about posting this question and I hate to bring you any grief.

One of George Koleff's books mentions some heart problems occuring in the 1980's. Since that was awhile ago and based on the book I would understand that he would be 83 at this time, I was not sure he was still alive. I would be sad to hear that someone who contributed so greatly to my shoe knowledge, and my opinion to the shoe community, had passed away. However at the same time I wanted to find out. My guess was you could help here.

Once again, sorry to bring up any grief. I have a fairly extensive shoe book library (including your book by-the-way), and he has contributed greatly to preserving knowledge that might otherwise become lost.

Thanks
Terry

Rob, Terry, Tim, all

Here's a fine little segue that ties these disparate threads together....

For me there's a fundamental principle at work when I draft a standard geometrically--it forces me to be cognizant of the foot.

The geometric system I use (and I think most are like this) uses the dimensions from the foot to establish the standard rather than those of the last. I get nervous when a system calles for 2/3's the LOF to establish the shank length. Or 5/7 LOF+1/9 HH. Or why not Sabbages 8/11 LOF? And yes they probably all work to one degree or another. In fact, I teach shortcuts of this sort myownself.

But why not just measure and use the "shank length?"

I have nightmares of future shoemakers having no idea of how to find the shank length on the foot. Or the long heel measurement. Or even a correct joint girth. It has always been my contention that it is in these things (fitting) that the shoemaker/shoemaking is to be found...the rest is just mechanics.

I'm not looking to stir up a hornet's nest but it seems to me that when comparing geometric standards to mean forme standards, we need to be very aware of "first principles." Unless we know the the salient measurements off the foot and can translate those to a last, we have no way to insure a proper fit. It doesn't make any difference what kind of standard we use. But once we have the measurements...and know how to use them...doesn't it seem that making a mean forme off the last...even a last deliberately and studiously modified to the customers measurements...doesn't that seem a step removed from our most important principle--the foot? If we are going to...if we need to take measurements from the foot and build the last to those specs, why not build the standard to the same specs?

If there were no other alternative--if there is no foot...ie. building a shoe on a stock size last; or if there were no geometric patterning system that could adequately address the problems of designing a standard--then I think the mean forme approach is very good.

But in both instances and presumably because we are "bespoke" makers, we do have a foot and we do have an adequate system for designing the standard. So much so, in fact, that many of the worlds leading designers use a modified patterning system that relies on the fundamentals of the geometric systems almost as much or more than on the mean forme.

So I wonder what...in the starkest, most critical aspects...the mean forme system brings to the table that is not already there with the geometric system?

I am very aware of the mean forme system and have used it off and on down through the years. It has great merit. I will probably use a mean forme to create my next pair of oxfords...but I've got even money that the mean forme will do less to define the dimensions of the pattern than the angles and measurements (from the foot itself) that I plug in.

Just some early morning musings...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

I was trying to keep the previous post brief but when I mentioned "I personally have developed my own system for some of these numbers that works better for my uses.", it was hinting at what I could have easily gotten into. What I personally do is take a number of additional measurements of the foot tracing and the foot to develop a pattern using these standard lines in the geometric method, plus a few. I decided on this since I came to the same conclusion you had, if I have the foot in front of me, why not use the foot. I feel this matches the foot much more accurately. Part of this though is knowing what measurements to take and realizing that the shoe I desire to make is not intended to be an exact replica of the foot.

Correct me if I am wrong, that is what you are eluding to. To be honest I have never quite followed the different terminology of mean forme vs the geometric system. At one point I thought the mean forme was using pieces of paper on the real last, but I have found references that used it more like the geometric standard.

This is more like afternoon musings for me...

Terry

If I may make a suggestion. I know that when I re-read this section and see my suggestion I will feel like I totally missed the mark. So, in advance please excuse my ignorance and please accept my thanx for tolerating me in a kindly manner

When I first faced the horrer of fitting folks, I made a horrible mistake by asking what size shoe or boot they wore. My mistake #2 was to look for a last that was the same size, as stamped on the last, and to proceed to make the last fit the measurements. Totally bad move.

I learned very quickly that a quality measuring and recording are essential. I also started using Treadeasy casting foam to make a plaster casting of both feet. D.W. and several other folks gave me a referral to get a pedograph to make an inked impression of both feet. I have the customer walk across the pad.

After the data gathering, I match the heel and ball of the foot to the matching last. I add leather and sculpting epoxy to make the exact outline. I have never been happy with the heel socket on western boots. I have been adding a leather heel extender on the heel and skiving the top and bottom to meet the last. It is a bit difficult to pull the last but with the help of talkem powder and patience, I get it done.

I have been making fitter boots with upholstry leather. The upholstry leather is easier for me to discern where the tightness and more loose (sloppy) fitting needs to be tweeked. Then the final application of this and that to the last and then, and only then, I do the real deal. You are probably thinking that I have told you more than you wanted to know and what does this have to do with the scientific and geometrical systems you are truing to develope and use?

Well, all feet are not evenly matched, all feet are not created equeal, some feet spread up front and all places differently. I do have an eye for style and I hope this geometrical and mathamatical system proves of great worth. However, for my beginner level, I think I will just keep on making patterns and copying the old styles and use the old ways, at least for now.

Now that I have opened my mouth and releived all doubt, I will go back down to my dumpy shop and get the next pair of boots lasted. Remember, "all the Indians in South America walk in a straight line, At least the one I saw did.

Your friend, Larry Peterson