The Crispin Colloquy

I have some leather working tools I bought used, 40 years ago. They were probably 60 years old then.

They have the name GOMPH on them.

Any information about the company that made them or their value would be appreciated.

Thank you

ccorbeau@attcanada.ca

Carl:
Your best bet would be to contact Ellis Barnes at Gomph-Hackbarth Tools. 10754 Martineau Rd. N., Elfrida, AZ 85610. 520-642-3891

Dan

Carl,

Gomph tools are generally saddlemaking or harness tools. I've never seen a shoemaking tool that was manufactured by Gomph, although it wouldn't be unknown for a shoe or bootmaker to use a saddlemaking tool--I have several that have crossed over.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Here is a list of thoes tools
------------

Overstitich wheels
Gomph #'s 7,8,9,10,11,12
_________

French edge skivers
Gomph #0 & #5
Old Osborne #2
J.Dixon #3
______________

Round edge
Gomph #2 & #3
_______________

Common edger
#1
_______________

Bissonette edger
Old Osborne #3 & #4
________________

2 fids
________________

Creasers
Gomph #5

(no mark) #1 #2 #4
_________________

Half round punches (shaped like a U)
Gomph 1/2", 3/4", 7/8", 1", 1-1/8"
_________________

Old Osborne
1" Bag Punch
#6 oval
#9 & #11 round
__________________

Freehand Groover
Gomph #3
__________________

A straight handled tool with a brass fitting on the end that holds a small
blade at 60 degs.
__________________

A cast iron Strap Cutter
__________________

Pincers by J.Dixon that look like they might be for pulling teeth
__________________

W&C. Wynn
#3 Lasting Pincers
___________________


Grooving Compass
#1 Old Osborne
__________________

Yours,
Carl Corbeau

Greetings,
I have a question. I just bought a shoemakers shop. In it is a singer 16k 33. Flat bed w/ roller foot. Is this machine comparable to the 31-15 machine? It is a treadle machine and looks to be maybe a little bigger than a 31-15.
Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, AL

All,
Here is a photo showing the result when using a fudge wheel. There have been some talk about using a fudge wheel but not so many photos of the result using one. All credit to my friend who is working as a maker in London, he is the one who made this shoe.

All,
I forget to mention that the shoe above is hand stitched by 10". Here is another photo, this one is stitched by 8" The credit goes to the same maker.

Janne,

Tell your friend it's nice work indeed!

Would love to see his bottom work.

Thanks for sharing this with us!

Well, here we go again

Jake,
Here is a close up on the nailed heel.

Janne,

It truly is beautiful work. What leather is being used for the outsole?

However, I have a question, because this is something I don't understand...

Do you or your friend prefer the look of a fudge wheel over the look of hand pricking?

I mean, you say the outsole has been hand stitched, and the sole has been neatly channeled in from the side. That's a lot of work, and the result is beautiful. So why use a fudge wheel on it? Unless a maker is nearly perfect in the spacing of his stitches, I can't see how the fudge wheel can ever be completely accurate. But hand pricking will always be. Don't get me wrong the fudging looks great and as far as I can see it looks like it matches up with the stitches fairly well. But why go to all the trouble of hand stitching and then not go to the very minimal trouble of hand pricking?

Again, is it that you prefer the look of the fudging?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Janne,

I truly appreciate the prompt follow-up.

Magnificent craftmanship! Once again, Thanks for sharing his work.

D.W.

I guess that all bottom leather is from Bakers.

I can only answer for my self, and I prefer the look of the fudge wheel. However, I do use the hand pricking method but only when the outsole is stitched by machine.

"I mean, you say the outsole has been hand stitched, and the sole has been neatly channeled in from the side. That's a lot of work, and the result is beautiful. So why use a fudge wheel on it?"

The answer will be the same, I prefer the look of a f.w. over the look of hand pricking. The thing is, in my opinion, that it is the f.w. which create the hand made look of the shoe. I don't know how to hand stitch without using the f.w. and I will never try it. It is hard enough as it is.

Well, that's kind of what I thought. It's all about personal preference. But, for myself, the fudging looks too mechanical and not "bespoke' enough.

I think what I'm hearing though is that you are also using the f.w. to mark the welt prior to stitching. You use that to guide and place your square awl. Am I right? If so, how hard do you press the f.w into the welt and is the welt wet when you do it?

Then I suppose that when you finish stitching, you go back over the stitches with the fudge wheel?

PS..don't you love digital cameras?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

D.W.

Yes, you are right, the f.w. is used to mark the welt prior stitching. I just press hard enough so there will be marks to follow when stitching. The welt should be damp not wet and the f.w. not to hot before puted on the welt. The "mechanical look" appears when going back over the stitches after stitching. Also, the f.w will be used a third time, after the ink is on the welt.
Well, you have seen my photos before we bought the digital camera so of course, I love it.

D.W.
Could you please post a close up of your hand pricked welt. It would be great to see the way you do it. Then I will have something to imitate when I'm hand pricking my machine stitched welts.
Thank's...................Janne

Janne,

Well, I don't have a photo on hand...so I'll have to take one in the next several weeks. I will say this, however, as flattering as your remarks may seem, I seriously doubt that you will want to emulate my hand pricking. It is an entirely different look--if you're really looking. Just as I don't wish to emulate the f.w. look--personal preference again.

But I admire the way in which you use the f.w. and have made mental notes in case I decide to hand stitch a pair somewhere down the line. I was especially struck by the use of heat and the use of the f.w. a third time over the burnishing ink. I did not know any of this and I sincerely appreciate you sharing it with us.

What makes it look mechanical to me is the three dimensionality of the result. The regular little prism shapes which the f.w. has imposed upon the stitches and the welt. That is an effect that cannot be achieved hand pricking, and although, even to me, it has its allure, it looks more mechanical for that very reason. This is all "window dressing" at this point...so I hope you understand that I am not even beginning to suggest that there might be a "better" way. For those who like the f.w. look, there is no better way.

Hand pricking is much less three dimensional. And to compound that, I do not dress the grain surface of my welts. I do not dye them, either. That is a look that, like the taste of good single malt, you have to "grow" into a bit. Even if I manage to pull off a great close up in a really perfect section, don't expect to be impressed.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

D.W.

Well, since I these days mostly use the machine when stitching the outsole it would be interesting to see the result of your hand pricking. I saw Tex using the pliers for the same job when I visited his shop two years ago. I liked the result and I use it today.

Janne,

OK. Well, digging through some old **non-digital** photos, I came across this one. You have to imagine the black ink on the edge and the jigger crease...if you can call it that given that my edge irons don't really incorporate a jigger step. I guess it's actually just a shoulder...Al?

Anyway here it is...


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

There's "guard" and the "wire" on the jigger face, if that's what you were hinting at? No "step" that I'm aware of. I think the nomenclature is in Salaman, and other dead guys.

Al,

No, I picked that right out of Salaman...I think it's a quote from Leno.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

D.W.

Thank's for your quick follow up. As you said, "It is an entirely different look" but I like it. Your way of doing it looks pretty much the same as when using the pliers.

BTW, if you will try the f.w. sometime, heat it up all three times. The 1st just a bit more then luke warm. The 2nd and 3rd close to frizzle when you spit on it.

Al,

Just a quick follow-up on the "jigger step" business. I know you are probably deep in the bowels of CW this week but...

Salaman refers to "jigger step" repeatedly. Sometime equating it to the "shoulder" (see page 112 and page 111). But in modern shoemaking, the edge irons, even the hand collices, are not shaped as they were in England and during the last century. Instead of a "jigger" or "jigger step" (Salaman's words), the edge irons we use today produce a top "wire" or "bead" and above that, a bevel. It's the bevel that I am wondering about. You can see it on Janne's recent pics real well and a mite on the photo I posted. Since it is not a true "shoulder" or a "step" (again, Salaman's terminology), what is it? I mean, I know what I think it is--a beveled shoulder--but what do we properly call it?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

You got me??? [from deep in the belly of the beast].

Janne,

JUst a follow-up on our conversation regarding welt pricking...

Here's a more up-to-date shot and from a boot that was just about ready to go out the door.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC