One "Last" Question

[jenny_fleishman]

Last questions. No, not MY last questions . Questions about shoe lasts and sizes!

General question re men's vs. women's lasts. I have heard/read that a man's size 6 is approximately a woman's size 8, and so on. Are lasts pretty much unisex (aside from style preferences) or are there anatomical differences between men's and women's feet that would cause a men's size 6 last to NOT fit a woman's size 8 foot because of proportions?


Question about European shoe sizes (37, 38, etc.). Do European shoes generally NOT come in different widths? So if you like a shoe, but it's too narrow or wide, you're just out of luck and have to pick a different style?

There seem to be no European half sizes. But is the difference between one size and the next (say a size 38 and a size 39) less than the difference between two American sizes, or perhaps close to the difference between an American whole and half size?

Thanks.

Jenny

[tmattimore]

Lance
The Munson book would not be much help to a last maker. What he was trying to do was explain the findings of the Service Shoe Board to a general audience and explain shoe fitting to them. Now if you could get the notes, findings, patterns and x-rays of the Board that would be a great deal of info but again it is a study of the feet of relativly young healthy male population of the early 1900's. These are supposdely at the Natick facility but getting any thing from them is like trying to make a fence post talk. I do swear by the munson last as the best commercial last desgin made.
Tom

(Message edited by tmattimore on January 25, 2007)

[dw]

Lance,

One quick comment to make sure we are on the same page...

From what I have read (and the the way I understand and apply it) the LOMA is not the center of the foot! Nor is it found between the first and second toes but rather between the first and second metatarsal heads.

That said, in the absence of a bottom foot scanner or some such, the first and second toes may be the closest topography we can readily locate for determining the LOMA. But to make that work with any degree of accuracy, the LOMA should be located at the base of the toes not the ends or some indeterminate point in between. This distinction can be important in the case of inflare and outflare feet.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW:

Thanks for your responses. Yes, based on Carl's comments, I certainly did not interpret the LOMA as the center of the foot. I guess if one wants to be pedantic, is there really even a 'center' of the foot -- how would this be defined? The 'centerline' certainly is not at the center of the foot (at least in the forefoot), as the distance to the medial joint is less than the distance to the lateral joint!

Regarding the LOMA, if it runs to/through the point between the first and second metatarsal heads, where does it start? From the center of the heel? Do you know why this is considered the 'LOMA'?

Regarding the earlier point about Rossi and the foot, I guess I am not sure I understand the definition of an inflare or outflare foot. My (perhaps ignorant) assumption is that the 'flare' relates the to angle of the forefoot to the rearfoot. As you say, in a healthy foot, the medial side is pretty darned straight, but is this 'straight line' not generally at an angle relative to the line/axis of the heel? Certainly, if you look at a last from above (and at the proper angle) you can see that topline of the last is often almost straight from the heel to the medial joint, but the insole shape still has the forefoot at a different angle to the rearfoot, as does the pedograph/foot imprint. I would also think the Munson lasts are MORE inflared, given how much swing they seem to have to the medial side -- again, perhaps my understanding of the terms is just wrong.

One other question I would like to reiterate, to see if you can give some insight. How do you achieve the last lining up with the customer's LOMA, given the variation in feet but with a limited inventory of lasts?

I take your point about lastmaking vs, shoe/bootmaking. It is that distinction that I am struggling with, given what I hope someday to be able to do, which is deliver a high-quality bespoke shoe. I know people who could do the closing and the making if need be, but no one who can/will do the lastmaking. So, I am on the horns of a dilemma as to how to proceed. If I didn't have a wife and 2 small girls, I would get myself to London, Paris, or Italy and spend some time with a bespoke lastmaker. As I wrote earlier, I am still not sure that a modified RTW last will yield a shoe to the standard I hope to achieve, but no doubt it merits further research and investigation.

Thanks,
Lance

[dw]

Lance,

There are good shoemakers who post to this forum who've made a comprehensive study of lasts. There are good shoemakers here who've made a comprehensive study of feet. And there are a few who've done both. I am none of these things...at least to the extent that others might be. I say this to let you know that whatever insights I might offer are probably not as in-depth and as comprehensive as you (from the sound of your posts) might find useful.

That said, my own experiences cover roughly 35 years of fitting customers for boots. I can honestly say that I have had more good to really good fits than I have had poor fits...and I've been fortunate in that I've had an insignificant number of mis-fits. I find Golding and Rossi to be very persuasive and have developed a method of measuring and fitting that is both reliable and rational--ie. empiric. To which I attribute what success I've had.

I couldn't find the Rossi article but I've not looked everywhere.

As for LOMA I don't know where it came from but I'm neither witty enough nor quick enough to have invented the concept.

Golding and shoemakers even earlier used a system where they would "frame" the foot in what was called "quadrilles" if my memory serves (although that sounds suspiciously like a Anti-Bellum dance figure). Part and parcel was the angled lines intersecting behind the heel that I described previously. Rossi used something similar. The angled lines--the frame--can be used to find the centerline of the foot and can, by extension, be used to locate the center at the back of the heel. It is from this point that a line is drawn through a point between (or as near as possible) the first and second met head. I think I picked up that specific detail from Rossi although Golding illustrates something very close in Vol VII, I believe.

As far as inflare and outflare, I am not sure that these are even correct terms technically. Some makers refer to "swing" to indicate what I have always called a outflare foot--where the forefoot seems set to the medial side relative to the instep and rear of the foot. Golding has a whole different lexicon...referring to Meyer feet and Camper feet shapes and probably at least one or two others that don't come to my mind.

I was reviewing an old book on foot abnormalities and orthopedic work this afternoon and ran across the word "inflare" to describe a foot where the first and second toes are deformed to wards the centerline of the foot. That said, I think my understanding of the words inflare and outflare is close if not correct...at least in some circles....but as you can see that's certainly not the end of it.

Lining up the last and the LOMA--if the frame is drawn so that it contains the footprint rather than the tracing, and the foot is normal...within reason...the frame will, to some extent define the width of the insole, simply because the insole should be identical to the footprint and the footprint is framed. Thus the featherline at the medial ball, on the last, should reasonably sit right on or at the frame line at the medial ball of the footprint. And the lateral ball either by congruence with a standard size last or by virtue of a build up should meet the lateral side frame. Unless the foot says different (bunions, inflare, outflare, etc.) all build ups are done on the lateral side if needed--the assumption being that the medial side of the foot should be regarded as stable and the medial side of the last immutable. This only makes sense as...and in cases where...the foot seldom if ever spread or "moves" in a medial direction. But again, if the foot does move medially, you will know it...you'll see and measure it in the collection of data from the foot. And the last will be positioned and modified accordingly.

So...if the last is sitting correctly vis-a-vis the "frame" (and the footprint), and the foot is "normal", my lasts will align with the LOMA as I indicated above. My last models. Your mileage will vary with other models and I cannot vouch for them.

If the things are not lining up, it is a good indication that the last will need modifications--runners and bubbles and even removal of substance...to arrive at a fit. But the point is that even with a crappy last a good bootmaker should be able to arrive at a good fit--the last is just a substrate for the "sculpting" that accompanies all but the most commonplace foot.

In your quest, you want to start from a blank piece of wood and arrive at a unique last. An admirable goal. I start with a block of wood that has the heel curve and the bottom radius and a rough approximation of the final girths already done and assumed. I'm removing a lot less stock from the source...but theoretically (and hopefully in practice as well) the result is ultimately the same. With one (important to me) difference--I reach the point where I can begin patterning and cutting of the boots perhaps a bit before you do.

I hope some of this makes sense...


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[dw]

Lance,

I got to thinking more about this late last night--after the computer had already gone to bed--and thought I would add a few more observations:

In my view, the last is just a tool...a very critical tool, but just a tool. I have run across many tools in my career that were flawed in some regard. Some I have modified...like a pair of Berg pincers on which, very early on, I ground the jaws narrower. In that instance, despite ruining the intrinsic value of the tool, I made them better for me. But with many of these "flawed" tools I have just learned to live with them.

In point of fact, I don't have either the time or the interest in redesigning all the tools which come up short in my estimation. Not and still make boots.

But that's my approach. Thank God for those who are focused on tools...or lasts.

And that brings me to my second point...I am admittedly something of a "one trick pony." I am a pretty good bootmaker with a concommitantly elevated skill in fitting. But I don't have anywhere near the depth of knowlege regarding shoes or lasts that a more complete maker such as Golding did--the "elder boot Gods," in other words. That's what makes them worth paying attention to.

So take my observations with a grain of salt.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[btippit]

I've been going nuts trying to find time to jump in on this. I still haven't found time but since I'm nuts anyway I'm going to stop packing for the WSA show long enough to add my thoughts.

DW, I think I was supposed to send you the Rossi article. I quoted him and used a couple of his diagrams in the article I wrote last year for World Footwear Magazine on foot and last shapes. I apologize because I have not yet scanned the article. I will try to do that before I leave or right after I get back. It's called Podometrics. I first heard of it 10 years ago when Al Saguto came to visit me and last year Larry Waller re-introduced me to it in depth. Rossi's theories are very interesting. Sometimes I think he was grasping "facts" out of possibilities but it's a scientific, precise, and repeatable way to map out the foot or last, so I like it.

Here is a picture of the foot mapped out. I afraid the lines will have disappeared due to having to shrink the image and convert it to JPEG for posting so following that I'll post a link to a ZIP file with the original .BMPs, which have a higher resolution. The ZIP file will also contain my article...for what it's worth.

4697.jpg

Here is the ZIP file.

Rossi_diagrams-4698.zip*mime_zip.gif*application/x-zip-compressed*1183.2*Rossi+images+and+Tippit+article*Rossi+diagrams%2eZIP

When I make a fully customized last for someone I superimpose the last over the foot scan data or the tracing or pedograph and try, as much as possible, to line up the foot angle, ball angle, and heel angle so that the foot is placed inside the last as precisely as possible.

I really have been so flat out preparing for the show that I haven't had time to go back and read everyone's comments in detail but my feeling is that this alignment is very crucial to good fit. Most of the orders I get are for standard sizes or semi-customized lasts and the makers tweak these things themselves. DW is right. A last is a just a tool but it's like I always tell people. You can still make a bad shoe off of a good last because of all the other variables but you've got to be really lucky to make a good shoe off of a bad last.

OK, back to work....EVERYONE. To all those I owe emails and phone calls to, please be patient. If I owe anyone money or favors, please be forgetful.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[lancepryor]

DW:

I wish some of those shoemakers would post here more often! I certainly miss the broader participation of years past, but c'est la vie.

In any event, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and your success in fitting customers is the ultimate measure of how well your system works, so obviously you know what you're doing, notwithstanding your modesty.

I will say that one of the things I appreciate about you and your postings is that you have obviously given alot of thought to WHY things are done any given way, and whether there is a better way to do it. I am trying to approach my shoemaking in the same way, although I recognize of course there is no teacher like experience. [I once had some employee (in another line of work), whom I asked why they were doing something a particular way; their response "because we've always done it that way." I almost blew a gasket -- I told them that if they ever gave me that answer again without having thought about whether there were other, better ways to do things, I might just fire them.]

I think one challenge in this field is that so much of what it done is handed down from one generation to the next, without an explanation (or rationale) for WHY. I was chatting recently with a lastmaker in London who has been in the trade for more the 50 years! I asked about designing the insole, and he said something like "you get the shape of the last close to the tracing, and then you just use your eyes and start working to get it to where you want it." Now, I know that approach works well for him, because he is a wonderful lastmaker with masses of experience who has handled thousands of feet, but how does that help someone else learn? To the extent that the ONLY way to learn is through experience, then I can understand why the lastmaking apprenticeship has historically been 7 years. Still, there ought to be a way to shorten that time through the application of logic and some systematic approaches. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Koleff's approach, at least he gives a sensible methodology for designing a custom last.

Now then, on to your recent posts.... I think my interpretation of an 'outflare' foot is perhaps bassackwards, based on your description -- you are saying that a foot with alot of medial swing of the forefoot is an outflare foot, is that correct? Any idea why that is called an outflare? (Perhaps because looking head on, the forefoot angles OUT as it moves backwards from the toes?)

Also, your statements about the stability of the medial side of the foot are interesting and instructive. How would a 'less stable' medial portion of the foot show up in the measurements of the foot?

And finally, back to the LOMA and the lasts. So, is it your experience that, for the majority of feet you've fitted, the angle and distance of the LOMA is pretty consistent relative to the medial joint, so that your standard lasts have their fronts/'toes' centered in front of the LOMA for most feet? And, again, to the degree the customer's LOMA is different from your lasts, how do you handle this?

As always, thanks for your thoughts.

Lance

[dw]

Bill,

Thanks for jumping in. I was feeling like I was going "where angels fear to "given my limited lastmaking experience.

Yes!! "Podemetrics." That's the one. I hope you will send me a scan of the original. I can't seem to find it. I got onto Rossi courtesy of Al Saguto, as well.

Looking at the diagram you posted, however, I guess the concept of the LOMA must have come from Golding. Because it's not in the Rossi diagram...or not in that one at any rate.

As for "grasping facts out of theories" that's what Einstein did, too.

Thanks for posting that diagram...it's very instructive.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

Bill:

I think that Rossi article would be very interesting. I have a few questions that perhaps you can answer.

First, either in your experience or from Rossi's data, how much does the 'ball tread angle' vary between feet? If there is substantial variation, this variation would seem to cause a challenge in using an existing last to fit precisely, because I should think that modifying the location of the outside joint would be reasonably complex. Assuming we start with the correct heel to inside joint length to select our last, then a varying 'ball tread angle' will make the outside joint of the selected last incorrect for most feet. So, is changing the angle very difficult using your CAD system? Is it something you typically have to do? Obviously, factory last designers (either implicitly or explicitly) have to assume a ball tread angle when they design a last. Is this something they actively think about, or is there a standard/assumed angle, or what?

Second, in Rossi's system the 'tarsal focal point' and the 'heel width angle' would be used for what, exactly? Likewise the various lines 2, 3, 4 and b,c, and d? And finally, the 'angle of the foot'? Is this calculated by keeping all the lines 1 - 5 the same length and looking at the angle of the line connecting 4 and 5, or is it the angle described by the intersection of each of the lines 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5 (all of which will be the same angle).


A couple of other questions are stimulated by your pic of the imprint superimposed on the last. It appears the heel print is narrower than the last's heel feather line, as well as sitting forward of it. Is the first difference simply the consequence of the last selected, or the result of an intentional difference, and if intentional, what is the rationale? The fact that the heel print is forward of the heel feather line, I assume that is b/c you've matched up the rear of the tracing with the rear of the last and then gone for the correct heel to ball length. In the best of all worlds (as a lastmaker) would you ideally have the last's heel curve match the foot's heel curve as indicated by the tracing and the imprint -- in this case a greater heel curve.

And further, the Rossi approach (as well as that of Koleff) uses tangency points of the heel-to-ball lines to the imprint to define the joint locations. Carl uses the tangency of lines that are parallel to the LOMA, which lines will typically have a bit different angle than the heel-to-ball lines and thus will locate the joint points slightly differently. Thoughts?

Finally, do you know of any available sources of data (Rossi, Munson, or others) that give more documentation of the variation in feet for any of these sorts of measures or dimensions?


DW:

The pics Bill posted helps me clarify a couple of questions I've asked here before, so perhaps you would be so kind as to give your views as to: the frequency with which you have to vary the outside joint location, given the selection of a last that matches the heel-to-inside-joint measure? If you do have to adjust this on the last, how difficult do you find it to be through the use of runners/build-ups, etc? [Another way of looking at this is to ask how often you find the outside joint not conforming to Sabbage's rules, since his placement of the joints at consistent relationship/location implies more-or-less a fixed ball tread angle?]

And also, would you typically try to get the heel curve to match that of the foot (though I understand that boots may not call for that, so perhaps that's not something you strive for)?





A very interesting discussion.....

[dw]

Lance,

A quick note...I'm on the run...I found the Rossi article and while looking I ran across some other material by Rossi. You are completely correct and I have it "bass-ackwards":

The adducted foot (one with lots of swing) is an "inflare" foot, and the abducted foot is an "outflare" foot.

I can only plead incipient senility and no one to talk to about these things for a prolonged period of time. Then again, I deal with what I see in front of me and not what the terminology might be.

Anyway, thought I would set the record straight...sorry for adding to the confusion.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[djulan]

Lance et al,

This is an interesting discussion, indeed. And my questions are also numerous on this subject, far more questions than answers for me, many of my questions resonate with yours.

Though I am not an accomplished shoe/boot/lastmaker by any standards (esp. my own), I think I can clear up an aspect of this thread. And I have not seen this Rossi llustration before, so I do invite correction if I'm wrong. But, what you see in Bill Tippit's post of the Rossi diagram as "the imprint superimposed on the last" looks to me more like the outline of the foot (black lines) traced around the pedograph (yellow lines) of that foot. In other words the yellow lines are similar to the imprint of that foot while the black curved lines are the pencil traced outline of the foot. There is no last outline in that illustration that I see. As Bill stated it "is a picture of the foot mapped out".

Hope I am not out of line in that observation.

David Ulan

[dw]

Lance,

See...we're looking at this from two different angles. When I measure the foot, I mark where the lateral joint is located on the footprint. By default, then, I have an exact location for it, lengthwise relative to the back of the foot. In the next step I measure girths...once that's done, I have a girth taken around the medial joint and the lateral joint. I build the last to that girth measure at precisely that location. If the tread angle is more (or less) than 15° (?), building the last to the specific girth automatically takes care of that. At some point, it might be reasonable to alter the plantar surface of the last in the shank area to increase or reduce the curvature as it approaches the new (?) treadline but I've never seen a foot that severe.

As for heel curve, I don't worry about it. I don't worry about it when I build lace-ups, either. Very possibly that's an enormous oversight on my part, but it doesn't seem to make a difference in my arena. To tell the truth, I've never seen nor heard (nor read) of anyone else taking a serious interest in it either. Call it myopic, if you will, but I have a sneaking suspicion that for shoe/bootmakers (maybe not so much for lastmakers), it may be "straining at gnats," to one degree or another.

David,

I think you have it right...that's what I'm seeing, too. Glad you chimed in.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW and David (and Bill):

Thank you for your replies. Sorry I was not clear -- some of my questions to Bill relate to a picture (last-pedograph-hor.bmp) in Bill's zip-file link, not the picture shown in this thread -- in the linked .bmp picture on my computer, there are 4 things that I can see: solid/dark black areas, which I interpret as the pedograph/imprint, a dark black line that I assume is the foot tracing, the white area which shows the extreme points of the last's surface, and a faint gray line, which I have assumed is the bottom pattern/insole/feather line.

DW: good points, I now understand why the ball-tread angle doesn't cause you much problem or concern. Just to clarify your measurement approach (as I recall you've written before) -- you measure girths straight around the foot at each of the Sabbage sections, correct? Given that approach, your outside joint is located at the proper point relative to the heel, and the girth is obviously correct as well. Out of curiosity, do you also take the traditional joint girth measurement (i.e. an angled measurement of girth over both the inside and outside joints)?

Bill:

I looked at the 'angle of the foot' in one of the .bmp files and see that it is the angle described by lines 1 and 5, rather than any of the bisected angles. However, I'd still love to know how Rossi suggests it should be used.

Lance

[dw]

Lance,

you measure girths straight around the foot at each of the Sabbage sections, correct?

Actually, I don't. I measure at, or over, easily recognized topographical features such as medial joint to lateral joint, the middle cuniform (low instep), and the root of the fifth (high instep). All these girths are found at "bones" where insufficiency would be felt more readily. I also measure the waist, the long heel, and the short heel. Some of these girths are taken more or less straight around the foot some are taken at what I would call "natural angles," such as the joint girth. The waist girth is another.

Now, by some stroke of fortune or divine intervention, these points generally fall somewhere close to Sabbage's Sections but I merely observe that phenomenon I do not actively strive to achieve it.

There is a point in all this that I keep coming back to but don't feel I have successfully articulated yet...I am building (modifying) lasts to what I see--the footprint, the girths, the whole body of data...the actual foot in front of me, in other words. It seems to me the natural approach for a shoe or bootmaker. Others, build lasts to a "spec," looking for a heel curve, for example, that may or may not have any relationship to real feet or the customer at hand. I use Rossi and Sabbage but I am not slavishly devoted to their theories. Again, this only makes sense because both were trying to model a "universal" foot or last. Rossi, for example, asserts that structurally, there are only three kinds of feet. Maybe so, maybe no. But whether there are three or three hundred doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the foot at hand...and for that moment, that one shining moment, it is the only kind of foot that is relevant.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[lancepryor]

DW:

Thanks. At the end of the day, that's the glory of a fine custom-made shoe or boot -- the last is based on the actual foot of the customer, rather than some 'model' of a generic foot. The challenge is how best to arrive at the optimal last for a given customer's foot, and that's what I'm trying to learn more about. I recognize that actually handling, measuring, and fitting feet is the only way to get really good at this, but I'm trying to jump-start the process a bit.


Lance

[relferink]

Having never read Koleff, Lichte nor Rossi my comments here may be misplaced but I just wanted to put in my .

In my formal footwear education a large emphasis was put on designing insole models and later lasts based on the geometric method. This was well before custom lasts were on the horizon. In retrospect I believe it was the correct approach to take and I'll try to explain why.

Lance, the type of shoes you are interested in designing and making are the optimum combination of comfort and style. The style element is dictated by the general publics conception of beauty, a stylized adaptation of a foot shape. Comfort has everything to do with the foot shape not being constricted in it's function.
That said it is roughly true that by adding a toe box to the foot shape would make for a comfortable fitting last but it will not be very pretty. Some makers use this method with great success purely based on comfort.
To beautify the last you take the foot shape and rough measurements, this can be in a rough ready make last or a piece of firewood, it really does not matter. It is sometimes harder to make a relative small adjustment to an existing last and maintain it's lines than it is to start from scratch. Now you start stylizing the last and make it trimmer, symmetric, and conform to the general perception of “beauty”. The tough part is knowing how far to go, what to change and what to leave alone.
By having studied last shapes and designs you can “teach you eye” what you would like the last to be. By drawing insole shapes over the footprint you give yourself more of a guideline when you are making or modifying the last. Where to place the center line is not dictated by which author you prefer but by the foot at hand.
The theory of the line of muscle action sounds interesting but potentially hard to pin down. I'd be interested in finding out more on that.

So your London source was correct by saying

“... and then you just use your eyes and start working to get it to where you want it."

Short of training your eye you can draw out your design and trim and measure and trim and measure, in reality there are more dimensions than you can draw based on the measurement and compromises are made to come to the right dimensions and keep all the lines of the last flowing, not just the insole model.

So my 2 cents worth is to start drawing and developing an eye for the way lines on a last flow, what lines are important in the overall stying and where you can make adjustments to get to the desired volume measurements without compromising the look.
All this is easier said than done but I believe it's the only way to get to the desirable custom last. No short cuts but if you are looking to “jump start” the process drawing out lasts would be a good move and Jan Pivecka's book “The Shoe Last” has some good information on that. I was taught the AKA64 system but it really does not matter what system you use. One day you'll forget all the system specific measurements and formulas but your eye will tell you what to do.

Rob

[btippit]

A few quick comments before I disappear until after the show is over:

* Lance is exactly right in saying the the information handed down from generation to generation would have served everyone better if a few more "whys" would have been included with the what's and where's. That's why, when training someone to make patterns, develop lasts, or design shoes on a CAD system, it's always best to find someone who knows how to do it in a traditional way and teach them the technology as opposed to finding a CAD junkie and try to teach him the science/art of shoe or last making.

* My diagrams are derived from Rossi's Podemetrics paper (published in 1947) with some additional slants that I've added. However, the basic bisections and location of the Tarsal Focal Point are strictly Rossi. The TFP is merely the center of gravity of the foot and not necessarily on the LOMA though I believe there would be a distinct relationship between the two.

* The reason I like the Rossi "mapping" system is that it is based on logic, something Lance pointed out would help simplify this mysterious process. I feel that if I can line up the foot and last so that the medial and lateral ball joints, the wide points of the heel and the center of gravity are pretty much aligned, it's a real good basis for building a good fitting last. Obviously when someone orders a standard size with no adjustments or a "semi-customized" last where length and heel height are established and the girth measurements are graded/modified so that there is no grinding but only build ups required, I don't go through this process. I only use it on fully customized lasts.

* I am in the process of creating a large database with all of my styles in it. Each record (style) in the database will have information fields on 9 fit points (those who have seen my current spreadsheets know what these fit points are). In addition, the database will categorize the styles into the same types of categories I advocated in the World Footwear article...arch heights, forepart "swings", etc. I feel these categories are much more important than the random sizing numbers the production industry has used for some many years with VERY limited success. The forepart "swing" category will be determined by the Rossi method. The arch heights simply by establishing groups such as flat, low, average, high, etc. This should make ordering and customizing (whether I do it or the maker does) much easier.

* Lance, in answer to your questions: as for about how much the ball tread angle varies between feet, it can be quite dramatic. Of course there is a reasonably large group that falls into "average" status. For me, "average" doesn't necessarily mean straight. Just as with my theory about everyone thinking they have a narrow heel, the "average" ball tread angle would be the range that has the most people falling into it. That's the very definition of average or perhaps "mean". In the CAD system I use it is possible to change any angle so once the heel to ball and ball tread angle of the foot are established, if you need to move the lateral ball joint forward or backward it's a fairly simply process. Rossi says the TFP is basically the center of gravity. It falls under a specific bone and you'll have to excuse me in that I am TERRIBLE at remembering all of the names of the bones and muscles. It just stands to reason that if the center of gravity of the last is the same as the center of gravity of the foot, we're off to a good start in building lasts/shoes. The heel width angle is just an angle that was measurable and it seemed logical to add it to the diagram. However, I've never had any reason to modify this on a last so it's probably overkill. David Ulan is correct in saying that the outer line of the diagram is the perimeter of the foot and the inner line is the so called "pedograph" (thanks David). In reality, this diagram was made from a demo file in my CAD system and not a real pedograph because the resolution was much better and World Footwear needed that to make the pictures sharper for the magazine. As David said, there is no last featherline in this picture. I have to admit I'm not familiar with Carl's method and believe it or not, have not read Koleff (though I need to get a copy I suppose) so I'm not sure how much difference there would be in the angles and ball joint placements. I think it's one of those situations where there are lots of recipes to make that "pudding" and it's up to the eater to decide which one he likes best. That doesn't make the others wrong, it just makes for a bigger menu to choose from. Podemetrics and the Munson book are the two most in depth publications I've read on each man's work in this area. The Munson book can be a real snoozer and in my humble opinion it's importance is this. First, it resulted in the development of the Munson last which will be 93 years old this year and is still in use today. Second it was a tremendous study of feet that got a lot of people thinking. We could use another one today!! As for where to get more from either author, I couldn't tell you.

* Lance - NOW, I read further posts and realize you weren't talking about the picture posted on this forum but still, I'll leave the comments above as I have no time for editing. The last-pedograph-hor.bmp picture shows the same demo "pedograph" superimposed on a last. The comment says "before angle are corrected..." but in reality I had just superimposed the shots and had not even aligned them so you are correct in that the pedograph is slightly in front of the featherline but again, this shot was for informational purpose only and made to give WF a clear image for their printing needs.

* Finally, I believe the bottom line is sort of summed in in what DW and Robert have said (or at least the way I interpret what they said) both here and in other postings and conversations we've had. My take on all of this is that there is no right or wrong way to establish your fit points and last lines as long as the results are what you were looking for. The last is a free form, complex, collection of curves held together by art, science, and mystery. Hopefully it conforms to the foot that will wear shoes made on it. However, since that foot changes in shape and size during the course of the day, getting as close as possible is the best we can hope for and whatever method works....well, it works. And if that method can be logically repeated from project to project, then you've found your system and need to stick with it. I'm sure DW would agree that the longer he used his current methods the better he got and getting the desired results earlier in the process. I myself, have allowed my methods to evolve as I learned more and the technology that I feel is so useful become better. Even in the past two years, the way I develop lasts is only basically similar to the way I did it early in my career. And as I learn more (and hopefully that process never stops) and technology continues to evolve, I'm sure I will continue to evolve as well.

That's all I have time for. Hope I didn't put anyone to sleep and I'll try to jump in after the show.

Bill “The Last Man Standing” Tippit
www.globalfootwearsolutions.com

[jenny_fleishman]

Rob, Bill and anyone else...I am determined to make shoes that do not compress the toes (encouraging bunions), or press down on the toes because the toe box is too shallow, etc. The results I am getting (NO surprise, surprise) are very clunky looking toe boxes.

When you talk about beautifying the last for style, any suggestions on how to do this without being bad for the feet (I fear the answer is "it's impossible" but thought I'd ask anyway).

In the Koleff lastmaking book there is a drawing of an insole shape for a woman's shoe with the foot drawn in it. The toes are all squished inward in this attractive pointed toe, and I have to say I found it shocking that this drawing would be in a book as an acceptable insole pattern!

From my own first pair of shoes, however, it is discouraging to almost need to disregard style and appearance in order not to crunch the toes. I went with the squarish toe box to add some style, but would like to make some shoes that are a little more "dressy" looking, too. (Not to mention those square toes were *ell to last.)

Are there adjustments to the toe box shape that I may be overlooking that could improve the look of the shoe without being bad for the foot inside it?

For the shape of my own feet, I feel the medial side of the last needs to come almost straight forward from the joint. I can taper in the outside of the toe box quite a bit, but this results in rather "pigeon-toed" looking shoes....

Jenny

[dw]

Jenny,

Several thoughts come to mind...

First, it sounds as if you would really appreciate a Munson last.

Second, it is possible to measure the depth of the foot over the toes and adjust the depth of your lasts accordingly. It doesn't do your foot any particular good to have too much clearance...in fact, with a very hard toe box/puff, it could very literally come back to "bite" you.

Third, look at Sean's boots in the gallery. This is a fairly wide square toe with a slant down to the welt. It is much more attractive (to some eyes) than a boxy toe. If you further consider that Sean allowed about an inch (one Sabbage Section) beyond the length of his toes for the overall length of the last, it is clear that there is plenty of margin to stylize the toe even further.

A narrow toe will always pinch the foot if the last is too short. But, conversely, it is always wise to lengthen the last as the toe is narrowed. Sometimes, with very narrow, stilletto toes, even longer than a section. The main criteria being that the toes of the foot can still control the end of the shoe or boot to prevent it from curling up excessively.

Finally, some feet can't wear anything but a wide boxy toe. But even then, there are probably any number of things you can do to "prettify" the shape. What we call a "box toe" in western bootmaking actually, accoding to Dr. Obuv, originated in Germany many years before it came to America. It wasn't then associated with boots and doesn't have to be exclusive to boots even now. That's just one example.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[relferink]

Jenny,

Impossible is a big word that is often proven wrong so no need to get to badly discouraged. As DW rightfully points out to much room is as bad as to little and by adding some length you can use that to model the last. Find a style that will allow you to “hide” the extra room you need. Easier said than done but you have to push the envelope to see how far you can go to get a stylish last that is still comfortable.

The pattern an also help to “trick the eye” by emphasizing length in stead of width and height.
You would be surprised how much the shoe can be stylized in to the area of the big toe without putting uncomfortable pressure on that toe. If the rest of the foot is properly balanced this should not encourage bunions from forming.
Last but not least, in your quest for a more “dressy” looking shoe it is important to realize that beauty is really in the eye of the beholder. I'm not suggesting you change your taste of what you like and dislike, what I would suggest is to search for a compromise in wearing more comfortable but possibly less dressy shoes when you demand a lot of your feet, walking, shopping etc. and when you dress up wear something prettier since all you would do is walk from the car to a restaurant table. Your feet can more than likely deal with those short intervals of “abuse”.

You do hit on the quest that keeps a multi billion footwear industry in business, what is the ideal compromise between comfort and fashion? Maybe Bill will bring the answer back from the WSA. (Bill good luck at the show, Break a leg last)

Food for thought.

Rob

[jenny_fleishman]

Thanks, DW. Here I go again, responding to an answer with another question! How much clearance do you think is optimal for the toes vs the top of the toe box. I'm also wondering if ideal toe clearance might be different for shoes vs. western boots.

Jenny

[dw]

Jenny,

Personally, I think it depends on four factors: the weight and temper of the toe box material; the position of the back edge of the toe box vis-a-vis the length of the last and the position of the toes "inside" the last; the way (in terms of refinement) in which the back edge of the toe box is blended into the liner and the lines of the last;and the sensitivity of the toes.

If you use a lightweight flexible toe box, I would think that very little clearance is needed. I use a stiff, soling leather toe box blended very well into the liner, I don't allow much clearance over the toes at all as a general rule. But the end of the toes are usually an inch or so from the end of the boot, and because my toe boxes are positioned roughly an inch and a half from the end of the last, that leaves only half an inch of very well skived toe box over the toes themselves. Now, I do get customers that need or want extra depth over the toes but if you make yourself a fitter's model (as I do for all my customers) and your toes don't feel cramped inside the fitter, you should be able to add a toe box and not notice a difference. After all, the fitters model, regardless of its thickness or temper is analogous to the liner of your finished shoe--it is the shell and it is right next to the foot no matter how many extra layers you add on top of it. It all comes down to the proper blending of materials--just a Robert described skiving a seam such that you cannot fell any difference between the substances of two joined pieces of leather, so too you should not feel or see any deviation from liner to toe box.

Almost any toe box material can be made to blend flawlessly into the lines of the last and the substance of the liner but typically, man-made materials are either harder to make that blend or easier to neglect. That's one of the many small benefits of using leather.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

[walrus]

Hi Jenny
You know I have been thinking after seeing your shoes and how they fit your toes ,in person . The only way you could have the height you have on the toe is your toe box material is too thick .I think you said that you used leather . I think you need to use a lighter weight . BTW your craftsman ship is great.Thanks again for coming up.
Larry
Walrus Shoe & Leather Co.LLC

[jenny_fleishman]

Thanks, Larry. I really enjoyed my visit! re the toe box height...I used 2/3 oz. veg tan, I believe. What leather could be used that would be thinner?

Sock liner question. I put a piece of 6/7 oz veg tan on the bottom of the lasts before the insole leather so I could remove it later and have space/depth for an orthotic. For normal shoes where an orthotic is not planned, I assume a little bit of space is built into the last depth to allow for a sock liner. What do most folks use for a sock liner? I've been using Spenco insoles plus heel pads in my commercially made shoes for so long that I can't imagine being comfortable without an insole at least 1/8" thick. But I am guessing most lasts don't allow enough depth for that. What do most folks (who don't have Princess and the Pea feet) find adequately comfortable material for a sock liner?

Jenny