The Crispin Colloquy

Terry,

George died about 5 or 6 years ago, and it was working with George that solidified my belief that more information was needed for teaching and keeping the craft alive. I always thought that George would write the book I finally did, but he filled in some gaps in knowledge that would have been missed if it had been left to me.

Tim
]

DW,

The main differences between the two methods apart from some idiosyncrasies is that with the last covered method you build your last first so that all your measurements of the foot are built in. With the geometric method you build your last last (sorry).

There are some aspects of the geometric method that will cause problems if not understood, but that holds true with the covered method too.

The major factor here is foot measurement and how and where to take the measurements. If you get that right then the rest is comparatively simple.

What is a shank length?

Tim,

Shank length = distance from back of heel to medial ball joint. Or 2/3 LOF. Or 5/7 LOF +1/9 HH. Or 8/11 LOF.



Bill Tippit calls it "insole heel to ball."

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

In a way I figured you did not sew in the counter in your oxford but when you mentioned the extra room for a 10 Iron stiffener in the geometric setup it threw me off. Glad you didn't. I would hate having to yell at you for using a 10 I stiffener in an oxford!
As for the wet lasting, you do as you were taught. I generally don't unless I screwed up somewhere in my patterns and have no other option to get the upper on the last.
Both have pro's and con's so as long as you know both ways the choice is to the maker. I'm just sharing what I know and how I would have done it.

If the thought of not being able to find an elegant way to line the oxford keeps you awake at night, consider making a one piece lining. It will be very sharp looking, even if barely anyone sees it. Putting it together shouldn't be all that much harder. Never done it myself but I can see it in my head and how hard can it be? Specially if you wet last and set the lining. Having a post machine will make it easier.

Rob

All,

I'm in no way an expert in the geometric system. I use elements of it in combination with the last copy. The way I look at the use of the geometric system may be over simplified and possible plain wrong. It does however work for me.
The basics: the shoe is made on the last, for the foot. The pattern should be made on the last, for the foot.

Here's the problem I see with the geometric system;
Most of the lasts currently in circulation are no longer made to a compatible geometric system. As Bill Tippit has repeatedly noted, lasts have become a patchwork of fronts and backs, heel heights and toe springs. In my experience consulting for shoe companies the way a shoe is developed is by starting with “a look” and tweaks as the designer and developers see fit. Once a fitting model is made more tweaks are made to fix a potential fit problem without going all the way back to the root, the geometric proportions.

So without a last designed to the geometric proportions you will end up with an upper that has a less than perfect fit to the last. Sure you'll get it on the last and in most cases you won't be able to tell from the finished shoe that the fit of the upper was not perfect.
Unless you make the last to the geometric system it is my not so humble opinion that you are better off with a last copy, make a mean forme based on that and than use your geometric setup.
You have to trust your lasts and work of your lasts!

I find the strength of the geometric system in the way you can “overlay” proportions over a custom last, thus creating a visual appealing result. If you have a last conforming to the geometric system you can eliminate the potential of errors in one last copy, in that case there is no drawback to this system.

Again I'm no expert. My experience comes mostly from working on non-conforming orthopedic lasts where the objective is to get an as “normal” as possible looking shoe over a foot that does not fit the "industry standard".

So my question to Terry would be how hard it will be to scan in the mean forme and set up the pattern from there in the software you are developing. Maybe in the next version?

Just my

Rob

Rob,

I see your point and it is alluring. But I also have a reservation/caveat...

I don't believe that the "last shall be first." I believe that the foot must be first.

So...if we start there, the next step obviously is to modify the last so that it is as close to the dimensions and topography of the foot as is possible without compromising those esthetic elements that the last brings to the finished shoe. But the main point is that we are changing the last to reflect the foot. And the closer we get to the girths and physical dimensions of the foot the better the final fit will be.

So...theoretically at least, if we do our job well, the measurements, angles and proportions we plug into the standard will be identical in either case. And if the geometric patterning system is well thought out, I would bet that vamp points, quarter curves and other design elements will lay within a reasonable margin of error or maker's preference of each other no matter which system we choose.

So, if all that is true...and I'm not ruling out that there may be a flaw in my reasoning...I don't see what a mean forme system brings to the table that is not already present in the geometric system. Again, I want to reiterate that almost every mean forme system I've seen--your own included, if I have interpreted your illustrations correctly--incorporate a geometric system which is essentially overlayed on top of the mean forme.

Take out the mean forme from that very system and what have you lost? That's my question.

And if the mean forme is the critical element, then why use the overlaying geometric system, at all? Why not just design off the mean forme and throw away the protractor?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Rob, Tim,

I could last either way--wet or dry.

The question that pops into my mind about dry lasting however, is what happens with a light coloured upper if you're lasting dry but have a wet heel stiffener.

Isn't there a pretty severe risk that there will be some bleed off, from the wet shoulder leather that we are using for a heel stiffener, which will stain the upper?


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

The stiffener is seldom really soggy so that is not a problem most of the time. I never said you can't use water to fix things and in this case you would wet the upper and let it dry slowly, but it happens so rarely that you don't have to worry.

Soaking wet leather must behave differently from dry leather and the amount of stretch must increase when working with wet leather, that I for one would never do that. Just my thoughts on it. I only ever applied water like Rob when something went wrong and I required extra stretch.

The bleeding was a problem with celastic and the thinners lifting the surface layer off some kid leathers. In that case I have heard of shoemakers putting a layer of cling wrap on the outside of the stiffener and not worrying about the upper sticking to the stiffener.

Tim

DW,

The foot shall be first, no question! Next the last made of the foot. Once you have the last you should trust it. If it has flaws you have to fix it, using a last with flaws in combination with a correct upper designed to the foot measurements won't do you any good. Once lasted the upper still takes the shape of the faulty last.
That's why I want you to trust your last. Lasts are tricky, they can be the ultimate representation of fit and comfort, the artistic expression of a foot or nothing more than a piece of fire wood if the fit isn't there. It's up to us to decide what last is suitable and where needed adjust the last or get a better fitting last.

Theoretically your right, you don't need to make a last copy as long as the last represents the foot perfectly.
Going back to the oxford, if the facings gap some, the first things that come to mind is your pattern. I believe you have a last that fits you well, I assume the measurements you take of your foot are accurate so where is the disconnect? One way to find out would be to take a last copy and use that as a base for your patterns.

Not using the geometric system at all is also a very viable option, sketch out your design on the last, “lift” it off the last with your last copy and set up your patterns from there. A technique frequently used in the footwear industry.
The downside to this technique is that you need a very well trained eye to see what is correct and what is not. By projecting a geometric method on the mean forme you give yourself an extra “safety net”, if the points don't line up and you proceed anyway, you may find yourself with a poorly fitted shoe.

In my specific situation of making custom orthopedic shoes I make the last based on the foot, where appropriate I build correction into the last and the shoe is made around a footbed attached to the last. By making a last copy I incorporate the last corrections and the footbed, something I can not get from just measuring the foot. As this is the system I normally use it is the one that makes the most sense to me and seems to have some “build in” safeguards so that's what I would advide anyone to use. Just my . Take it or leave it as you see fit.
Additionally it gives me a record of the footbed attached to the last for future reference.

Many way to skin a cat here as well and your individual mileage may vary depending on the shoes you plan to make and the method your most comfortable with. As with all the methods available, knowing how to apply them and being aware of their strengths and weaknesses will make you a better maker, even if you choose to never use it.

In recap; your reasoning is not flawed. Reality however is that none of us are perfect. Fitting is one of the most difficult and critical elements of shoe and bootmaking. Having a system that gives you a way to catch possible mistakes along the way is desirable to me.

Rob

Rob,

I am not certain which way I will come down on this issue. I think I mentioned that I'm intent on using a mean forme in my next attempt.

But many good shoemakers...Koleff among them...have used a geometric patterning system to make very credible shoes. BATA used a strictly geometric system in the early years...eventually overlaying all the same angles, principles, and "geometries" over a mean forme.

Which cuts both ways...implying that geometric patterning is sound, as well as that incorporating a mean forme is a worthwile approach (still not entirely sure why).

But I'm looking at everything I can to try to gain some depth of understanding as I move towards making handmade shopes for men. So I thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and experience in this fashion. It's "all grist for the mill," you know.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

I agree with Rob's summing up on this. It is well thought out and makes sense.

On another note. Even working with the geometric method you are creating a mean forme, before you take off your pattern pieces.

Tim

Tim,

One thing I wanted to ask you about...I think you mentioned in one of these posts that you used a glue/paste made of flour and wood glue. Would you give me the recipe again (amounts) and describe the wood glue...because I think you mentioned PVA and I have no idea what that is.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW

I used to use a pre made wallpaper paste that already had PVA in it. PVA is a water based woodworking glue and here it is mostly sold as Aquadhere, a brand name. A hardware store should be able to find it. It looks like latex.

Any wallpaper paste is just basically a starch and water paste and so is the paste that kids use in primary school or home to stick paper things together. I just squeezed as much as I thought I needed to into the mixture. There is no secret recipe or amount. The paste just makes it go further and have the slipping quality that you need. Marcell mentioned making a flour paste and I think that the old books talk about it too. Try Golding. George always used Dextrin which is just another sort of flour as far as I know. Golding et al used Rye Flour.

Tim

Tim, or anyone.

I been using the geometric design method in George Koleff's book. I took the measurements off the last and added an extra 5mm to the lasting allowance. I haven't tried lasting the uppers yet, but it looks like I don't have much room to play with. Is this Normal?

I don't have much experience with this method. Normally I just take the pattern off the last with tape, add an inch all around and I'm set to go.

I'm trying to design a hiking boot and the tape method doesn't give me any consistency above the last. I thought this would give me better results once I start production on my boots.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, Joel

Joel,

I would think that you haven't given yourself enough lasting allowance. That is just a guess though. If you use the geometric method to make patterns then adding 5mm to the lasting allowance and at point B2 will give you a lasting allowance of 20mm. If using the covered last method to make patterns you add 20mm lasting allowance as standard. You may need to wet last in this case to give you enough material to wrap underneath.

Why not take your own measurements of your feet and see what the difference is?

Are you doing a mockup to see or have you gone ahead and done the whole upper and lining?

Tim

Tim,

Is it white? Is it Elmer's glue?


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

I don't know Elmer's glue. PVA stands for Poly Vinyl Acetate I think. If it is water based and white it could be the same thing. It must be water based though.

Tim

DW, Tim, all

I'm not sure what way to come down on this either. It sure is eye opening to actually think and rethink all this.
I'd be very interesting to hear about your findings on the fit of the upper once you use the mean forme base on the last copy.
You're correct that many good shoemakers use the geometric patterning system but you can not use that as an “excuse” unless you find an answer to the question: what lasts did they use? Koleff has the lastmaking book out. If he made his own lasts to the geometric system the upper should theoretically be a near perfect fit.

BATA is large enough to have full control over their lasts. Much more so than any individual maker will ever have. If they decide geometric is the way they go forward than they can implement that all the way to the last design. With geometric lasts the geometric patterns work excellent.

In no way am I trying to discredit the geometric system, in fact I use elements of it all the time. Consider this: during my training in the Mass General Hospital one of the attending orthopedic surgeons explained bunionectomy procedures. There are about a hundred different ways to approach and perform this procedure. On the question why there were so many different ways and why he did not teach just the one way that he thinks is best, his answer was: “the fact that there are so many approaches means that non of these are perfect and will work in all circumstances, you will have to learn when to apply what procedure to be most beneficial to your patient”. Very sound advice that carries over to many fields outside of medicine, even shoemaking.
How to recognize the correct method for the situation at hand; sorry can't help you there as I have not figured that one out for myself. All I have to offer is the “hybrid” method that I use, last copy with geometrics overlay.

I'm not sure I should bring this up as it will most certainly complicate the discussion and probably come back to shoot me in the foot...(no pun intended)
Give 10 different makers the same last to make a copy and mean forme. Than compare them. I am willing to bet that you do not end up with 10 the same pieces of paper. If the makers choose different methods of copying the last I bet not one of them will be exactly the same. Still they will all come up with a fitting upper. So when incorporating the mean forme you still have to make choices as the geometric system does not line up perfectly and you "tweak" as you go.
You will have to know what the "tweaks" do in order to justify your choices.

With this last paragraph I have probably lost Tim's blessing:

It is well thought out and makes sense.

That's out the window for sure
and I probably confused everyone else but hey, If it were easy, someone else would have figured it out.

Rob

Rob,

I agree with what you say about 10 different makers. I have tried to use other's patterns at times and what they did did not make sense to me. Your patterns do, I always used a colour coding for the sections like you do so I can read your patterns easily.

George used standard lasts, as I did too. He knew how to make lasts well before he did the book, but he used store bought ones all the time I knew him.

Normally with geometric patterns on a last the uppers were quite tight. I suppose that is why I wrote that addendum. But after using his method for around 10 years solely, I managed to make the patterns fit most of the time.

I was doing light orthopaedic work a lot of the time, with bunions etc that distorted normal patterns considerably, but in 99% of cases it was ok.

I wouldn't get too hung up on which is the better method though, that must be purely subjective. Both methods work to a greater or lesser degree, and if you are happy with one method use it. You and I seem to have much in common when it comes to pattern cutting, at least to the mean forme stage, and both of us are comfortable using either so obviously either can be used.

You are probably lucky DW, not too many shoemakers would be familiar using both methods and here you have two of us. If you can use what we tell you then you are definitely speeding up the learning process. Don't go off on your own too much yet is my advice. Whack out something using what we tell you and leave the experimenting until you are comfortable with one or other method and can see the relative strong points of both systems.

It is interesting to be involved in helping someone who has all the skills necessary to start with. I never had that much. Most of my students had to be taught from scratch, even those from a teaching establishment.

Tim

I'll jump in here on the PVA or Dextrine paste subject. In a former life as a bookbinder, it was common to use a 50/50 mixture of homemade paste and PVA--polyvinyl acetate glue. PVA is Elmers although there are other brands. The homemade paste part was made from either cornstarch or flour and was cooked on the stove and cooled before adding the PVA. The mixture does not last long and eventually smells bad and spoils. The mixture was concocted to slow down the setting of the PVA.

Pre-made Dextrin paste is commercially available under the brand Yes! paste. Often Yes! is used for affixing photos in scrapbooks because it remains flexible and will join a variety of materials including leather and paper. A jar lasts along time, does not spoil, can be rejuvenated with a little hot water if you left the top off. Should be able to find with a Google search.

I'll search up my old paste recipes and post.

Regards,

Georgene

Georgen,

Thanks for clearing that up about PVA...I thought it was Elmers, just wasn't sure. I have wallpaper paste in a powdered form. and I have several tubs of Hirschkleber--which I like but it is expensive as all get out.

I did find the Yes at Michaels (we have one in Bend), so I may pick up a jar of that tomorrow.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Tim,

It's strange...not in a bad way, mind you...to have someone cautioning me with all the same words of wisdom that I use to rein in my own students--"different systems," "don't rush ahead," "Whack out something using what we tell you and leave the experimenting until you are comfortable with one or other method and can see the relative strong points of both systems."

I know on a gut level that such admonitions are wise and right, but as you say, I'm not starting from scratch and I can't help bring certain insights and...can I call them "skills?"...to the table.

For instance, I am going to use a "bagged" lining on this next attempt. But I am still a bit puzzled as to how to deal with fitting the fully asembled lining into the fully assembled upper and how to handle the lining where the facings meet the vamp point. You guys have been most generous in trying to talk me through it...and I sincerely appreciate that...but maybe, at this point, only doing it will answer.

I used to say...never be afraid of your materials--meaning that if you weren't willing to risk blowing it and wasting a piece of leather, you would never learn. These days, it's not the leather I worry about...it's time. Like George Burns sang when he was 100--"I wish I were 18 again...." I kind of wish I had started this when I was 30.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

It is because you have the skills that I said to use the different methods. We still haven't mentioned the Lunati method yet, that is what is taught at Ars Sutoria.

What methods are used in Asia? Do you know Rob?

When I was at college we were not even taught that any other method existed while we were taught the covered last method using a variety of ways to do that too.

Apart from turning the sewing machine sideways and walking it along the edge of the facings to get the stitching right to the edge of the vamp line, then you will be left with a short distance where the stitching stops. That little tab would cover that.

The bag lining is fitted as you would expect but you need to trim the quarter linings at the front edge and remove the extra trimming allowance so there is no overlap. If you are going to use the eyelet reinforcement stitch line on the quarters like you did with the shoe you made, do that before you put the lining in or you will have the same problem with the stitching ending before the vamp line.

These are some of the reasons I use the system I outlined in the book. I found it easier and neater.

On another note, I wonder if the fact that you used a boot last is the reason you have the gaping between the facings, I would still like to see a photo of the top surface. Firstly the back of the last is probably a bit thicker than a shoe last and also the shape of the cone of the boot last is sometimes a bit more upright and thicker than a shoe last. When you last wet it is possible that the extra stretch available has allowed the gaping to happen. I don't see that the little slit in the lining is a weak spot, it really doesn't make a difference I don't think.

Tim

Tim,
The Lunati method does not mean anything to me, what's their angle? I may know about it, just not know (or remember) the name. No idea what is used in Asia at all. Especially china has shoe making history. Interesting question, sorry but I come up empty on this one.

Rob

Rob,

I just chucked that one in to see if you were awake. Apparently developed by Professor Lunati and taught by him for 45 years, it seems to be a complex method of springing, I haven't studied it but it does not look as simple as either of the two methods we use but it may be better for fitting to a last because of the springing. It has different amounts of spring for men and women and kids so I would suspect that if you didn't think all the time it may be open to faults.

I could be totally wrong so if someone uses it, please join in.

Tim