The Crispin Colloquy

Jenny,

I don't generally put a sock liner in. Even on shoes I make. A heel pad is sufficient for my taste.

I'm of the opinion that if the shoes fits properly, then that bit of cushion isn't necessary.

However, I do believe that the princess could feel that pea, so one has to deal with what's there, as we say.

Regarding toes, it isn't really necessary for the cushion to go all the way to the end of the shoe. It could taper and feather down to nothing, reducing the thickness at the end of the shoe, possibly even improving the look you object to.

And, btw, I think a "Munson" style toe is very hip, nowadays. It might be something to consider.

Keep up the good work.

PK

Jenny,

I generally use a piece of lining leather for the sock liner, gives it a nice uniform look when you look into the shoe. Conventional wisdom tells us to add 1/8" material if you are going to replace it with a 1/8th insole. The fact that you use Spenco, a spongy material makes it a little different. Once you stand up on it the material will compress to less than half that thickness therefore I would add a little less than 1/8th. You can make it stop between the ball of your foot and the toes, this way you don't cramp the toes more than you have to.
In stead of adding a full layer of Spenco or something similar I place padding in very specific areas where it is needed such as under the ball of the foot. I incorporate this in an insert attached to the last and over the whole I make the shoe. Just another way of doing it but it works for me. If you are not making dancing shoes you can add padding by using a softer rubber sole without any padding inside the shoe. This way you do not need to add more volume to the shoe and make them look a little slimmer.

Hope this helps

Rob

DW alluded to a problem that has jumped up and bit me. To quote DW:

"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."

I am a novice bootmaker (friends and family) and get to see the boots after they have been worn for a period of time. One pair, very wide (guess EE), narrow heel, the most in-flare I have seen, with a 13/8 heel and a narrow round toe. Original toe spring was about 3/4 inch. After a year or so of light to medium wear, the toe spring is at least an inch and a half or more with associated wrinkles in the vamp.

Is there a rule of thumb about how far the toe of the boot can extend beyond the end of the longest toe to minimize this problem? I know about the width of your thumb (about one inch) for round or box toe boots but that doesn't work for narrow toe boots to keep an attractive shape and give adaquate side toe clearance. This would help define how narrow a boot toe can be for a given foot shape. (Never thought about it before, but looks like this is where the saying "Rule of thumb" comes from.)

Toe box length and feathering seem to play a part in this. Most boots, after they are worn a while, seem to develop a slight wrinkle in the vamp and turn up at some stiffness point in the toe box. Longer, stiffer toe boxes tend to move this point back and increase the toe spring.

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks, Chuck

Chuck,

Some turning up of a narrow toe is to be expected. Even a wide round toe will turn up some. I guess the test has to be if you put the boot on and the toe stays turned up. That would indicate that the toe/forepart was too long.

Thee full sizes (rougly an inch) is a standard for medium round toes. Two sizes or roughly five-eighths of an inch for wide round toes. I also use a Section as defined by Sabbage in lieu of three full sizes...believing that it is much better proportioned than a universal inch.

For narrower toes the last has to be even longer. But of course there's a limit. What is that limit? for me it's usually a Section and a third of an inch. But as you say a longer toe box might very well make a difference.

But just as important is the shape of the foot. A customer with a very blunt foot--with the first three toes all abou tthe same length--and short toes as well, probably needs to be steered well clear of the narrow toe. It's never going to look right...

And it will break both your hearts.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

I was thinking about this break at the toe yesterday, also. And it's relationship to the toe box.

On first thought it seemed that the toe-off motion influenced where the break would be, and maybe it does in the end.
However I had the thought that the end point of the toe box, at the feather along the insole, affects this also. It's stiffer along that edge because;
1)it's another layer, of stiffer leather, and
2)it's been coated with celluloid cement, to boot!

Therefore the longer the tox box, the longer the turn-up at the toe, eh?

PK

Paul,

Well, maybe not...depends on the length of the last. All things being equal, a longer toe box has more of a chance of biting the tops of the toes. But when you extend the toe...as for a "cockroach killer"...it seems to me a longer toe box may be instrumental in helping the foot to control the end of the boot.

I don't really know, however, we don't get much call for that toe up here...that's more of a TexMex thing.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,---Thank you for the clear, straight forward answer on toe length, also the information on various foot shapes. I have probably been going a little overboard.

Paul, DW,----My first thought was a shorter toe box would move the wear break further out toward the toe (shorter stiff section) and result in less toe spring as Paul stated; then DW brought up a longer toe box where the toes could sort of control the stiff section and result in less of an angle. We all know there are serious limits on how you far you could go in either direction. The answer is: I don't know the answer. Need to do some more thinking about this one. Probably won't change anything except toe length but there has to be some relationship of the stiff section of a boot toe and toe joints or tread line or something to minimize the problem. Maybe I am just picking fly specks out of the pepper.

Chuck

I have a shoe last that's a two piece the instep section comes off and it is held with a peg to the main part,any one can tell of it's age.My main question is this I am building it up with leather.I read that someone here posted that before they got a pedograph they measured there foot close to the thread line.Well I did this with fair results,the build-ups are in step with the outline.I noticed that on the heel which also fit the outline the achilles area is thinner than mine.Does this make a big difference or should I build this section also.This is my first at building a last to measure.Oh one other thing this last is well used is there anything I can use to preserve the foot.

Ed

Ed,

It's impossible to give you a date on a last without seeing it, but: the first ref. to 2-piece "block" [AKA more recently "scoop-block"] lasts I know if is in Rees (1813) specifically for boots. I can't recall seeing many with the large wooden pin (drilled and inserted from the bottom) before maybe c.1880-1900. Donald MacKay (NYC) was still making them this way into the 1980s. The toe-shape and other details are better for dating a style. Hope this helps.

D.A.
Thanks I know more than I did at first judging from the many tack holes there were many shoes lasted on it.The toe is square.

Ed

Ed,

You're going to have to post a photo. I can't tell exactly what kind of "square" toe ya mean

D.A.

This is the Last I was referring to.

Ed

Ed,

With that inside-cone it's post 1880s-90s, and with that high ridge down the lateral forepart it looks British early-mid 20thc.

Ain't no way it's pre-1880s/90s anyhoo.

D.A.
Thanks for the tid bit.......

Ed

Concerning lasts. These I found last summer:
My personal think is that this was used repairing/pegging halfsole. To have some kind of a support underneath. Any ideas? This was in the hay in one barns attic and the roof was almost gone- thus the bad and fragile shape of the last. It is VERY light. Due that it was in a moist place and after drying.....
image{1}
image{2}

And a pair that resembles the lasts from 19`th c. ( am I correct?) and earlier ages- when lasts had no left or right foot shape. But these looks very fresh and like newly ( well, some decades) made? These were in a dry attic.
image{3}
image{4}
Cheers
K.

Those interested in a more precise and in-depth look at Rossi's "Podometrics" email me.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

Kaspar,

Those are what I call "half-lasts"--at least that's the spare old term that seems to fit the artifact. They were used for shoe-repair, much like a darning-egg for mending socks, just to fill-out the shoe and back-up the sole for re-stitching, etc. The Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto has a very nice one dated 1780(?) carved right into it with some initials, so they could go back at least that far if not earlier. Nice find!

Thanks for the info D.A. Saguto.

K.

I ware out my bottoms to the outside of each shoe both heel & sole(behind the last toe)Which will callous if I fail to keep my feet in shape.Could I or should I place build ups on a last in those positions to solve the problem.I was taught to place (Dutchmans)leather skivings on those areas between the sole&insole & the heel & sole which worked to solve the problem.I was just wondering would building up the last prevent my problem.They say it's caused due to the ankle tilting outward during my gaite in the foot socket,I don't know this for sure.The shoes I am refering to is off the shelf could that be part of the problem to.I am working on my first pair of oxfords the more knowledge I can get from you all the better I will feel.
Ed

Ed,

Of course nothing that any of us can say here is definitive--in other words, the best advice would be to see a foot doctor and follow his advice.

Nevertheless, we can talk about the mechanics of the shoe with some authority.

If you are walking over to the lateral side, a slight build up on the plantar surface (bottom) of the medial (inside) heel will almost certainly cause the weight and wear patterns to shift to the inside. Placing a buildup under the last on the lateral side (outside--where your callus's are) of the last will only aggravate your problem.

On the other hand, placing a buildup under the heel and/or outsole...of the finished shoe...on the lateral side will cause the foot to shift to the inside.

In other words, building up on the last creates a shift towards the build up. Building up on the finished shoe shifts the weight away from the buildup.

If it were me, I'd probably start with a thin (one-eighth inch) wedge under the medial heel only. This will envcourage the foot to strike and settle more to the medial side. And striking to the medial side might very well shift your weight away from the problem areas...all down the length of the foot. Be conservative...you can always correct more on the outside of the shoe if it is needed.

Of course if the build up is gonna be done on the last, the shoe will have to be "balanced" differently, side to side, than if the build up were not there.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--HCC Member

(Message edited by dw on February 26, 2007)

Ed,

As usual DW is right on. No way to give and definite appropriate advice without really seeing your foot.

The fist question is what is the cause of the foot going over lateral? Could be a few things. If it is caused by the ankle the only really "solution" would be some form of bracing over the ankle to stabilize it and keep if from going over. Something to look at is a number of different shoes, if they wear and develop the problem in different degrees with similar wear the shape of the last could have something to do with the tilt. You may need more of a straight last shape. Additionally a liner contoured to the bottom of your foot may take enough stress of the bone structures to limit the wear on the areas you described.

If the wedge is the way to go, the most straight forward way of doing it is just put the skive in between insole/midsole and outsole/heel. If you have enough volume in the shoe you could put a skive like that on top of the insole on the inside of the shoe. Same effect it just will not show from the outside.

The only reason to make changes to the last, if the above correction does the job is to make the "wedged" shoe look straight, this is probably a little hard to explain without pictures but I'll try. A normal last has a horizontal bottom (not flat but even in the horizontal plain) and perpendicular to that the cone. Once you wedge the bottom laterally you change the angle of the cone and the shoe will have a slightly crooked appearance. After you determine the angle of the bottom you can change the last to have a perpendicular cone again. This is much more involved than putting a skive on the bottom of the last so I would start with the skive, if you want to hide it put it inside the shoe.

I'm not to sure on the buildup of the last on the medial side unless you re-balance the last by building up the insole laterally because what you need to do is wedge your foot. Remember that by building up the last you add volume that you would have to take off in another spot not to change the fit of the last.
Building the shoe around the last with a medial buildup without adding some sort of skive on the outside will still give you a flat bottom, not the wedging you need.

Keep us posted on what you decide to try and how it works out for you

Rob

Thanks,DW & Robert
I will try both the skive between insole and out sole and out sole and heel.Hidding them in the shoe is new to me I will try them in my work boots.I will forget about the last for now my knowledge has not expanded that far,it was just a thought.I did some building on a last for the first time last couple of weeks and now I have placed a fitter model on them,testing my skills.Again thanks.

Ed

Things are a little slow, so I will ask a question about last fitting. I have two pair of
homemade lasts, both made for me and have made boots on both; normal feet, about size 12B. I will refer to them as old last and new last. The old last gives an acceptable fit (not perfect, the heel could be a little narrower). The new last fit is not acceptable (too wide) and I thought I was getting smarter. I am going to rework the new last. The issue is ball width and heel width. Both lasts have very similar girth measurements (ball, waist, instep and short heel) and match the foot.

The new last was made to carefully match Ritz stick measurements of the foot at the heel and ball and is too wide. The old last is a full 1/4" narrower at both locations. The Ritz stick ball measurement of the old last is very close to the foot ball featherline measurement taken while seated. It is acceptable, but possibly could be a little narrower. I refer to the featherline as the mark taken with a sharp wooden pencil stuck as far under the foot or last as possible. This should be somewhat similar to a pedograph, which I don't have.

As stated, the new last heel measurement matches the foot Ritz measurement. My Ritz stick is pretty wide, so I take this measurement with the leading edge about where the side seam of the boot would be. The feather line of the new last matches very closely with with the seated foot heel featherline . The old last heel Ritz measurement is a full 1/4" narrower than the seated foot and the last heel feather line 1/8" narrower and still somewhat wide. Using the standing foot heel featherline width would decrease the Ritz width about 1/8" which I think would be about right, if I keep the seated foot featherline. Know the width change will change all the girth measurements.

I bought a set of semi-custom lasts from Bill Tippet to make boots for a family member. The last featherline pretty well matched the foot featherline I sent him, but I thought the last was way too narrow based on the outside foot outline and Ritz measurements. After runners and buildups, am waiting for a check on a fitter boot. Have a feeling I will be grinding off most of my runners. It just could not be possible that Bill might know a little more about last fitting than I do.

Based on this exercise, I am questioning the merit of Ritz stick or even Bannock devices for fitting a last except for length and more importance to the featherline. This is part of my process of writing things down, so I can gather what I am thinking. Any comments would be appreciated, in particular, about overall last width. Know it is somewhat narrower than the foot outline( maybe the featherline, seated or standing?), and if the girths are right, it should fit, but don't want the vamps bulging out over the outsole stitching or the heel too narrow.

Thanks, Chuck

Chuck,

Hoo boy! This is a can of worms...

First, in my opinion, a Ritz stick or Bannock device is near on to worthless to a bespoke maker. The Ritz stick is an offshoot of a shoemakers sizing stick but has been so degraded as to be moot. And the Brannock device is just a gadget, as far as I'm concerned. Both can be used to take credible length measurements, but for the custom maker, a pedograph will reveal more...and more accurately...than either of these devices can even approach.

But your post raises further questions--gathering data weight-on or weight-off, for instance. In my opinion, it doesn't make any sense to take either the footprint or the draft (outline) weight-off. The foot is intended to bear the weight of the body and it is in that configuration that it does its work and must function. Only the weight bearing print will give you an accurate representation of what the foot must endure, if you will, when functioning as it is intended to function.

When a footprint is obtained...hopefully, one approaching the accuracy of a pedograph....lines may be drawn that are tangent to the footprint at the medial ball and the medial side of the heel; and another drawn so that it touches the lateral joint and the lateral side of the heel. This can be seen in Bill Tippitt's article (and his illustration above--lines 1 and 5) and in Rossi and Golding. The heel seat on the last need only be as wide (or narrow) as the distance between the points where these line touch the sides of the heel (again, in Bill's illustration, this would be along the "E" line between lines 1 and 5). Where the sideseam of a boot might be located is probably some distance forward of these points...and too far forward to accurately gauge the width of the heel, in my opinion.

In fact, the insole should correspond on a one-to-one basis with a weight-on footprint and and be inside those two lines at all points...if at all possible (occasionally I may deviate just slightly but never more than a sixteenth plus or minus of an inch).

Taking girth measurements, is another matter. I have always taken them weight-off. This is partially experience and partially logic. My experience tells me that taking girth measurements weight-off will always result in a too large boot...unless one subtracts an arbitrary figure from the results obtained--which is precisely what is done (in every case that I have ever heard about) by those who use this method. But arbitrary is just another word for guessing...even if it is a very experienced guess. The logic part of my thesis is that if we measure the foot girths weight-on, and do not subtract an arbitrary figure we are measuring a static object...in its largest and most expanded configuration. The boot will almost have to be too large because the foot will expand to its fullest degree before it even touches the inner walls of the boot. There can be no cradling of the foot, no snugness, no allowance for the shifting mass of muscle and bone as the foot articulates through the gait pattern.

If you respect the footprint, you will create an insole that will forestall the vamp bulging out over the welts. If you respect the girth measurements and strive to measure so that the data you collect is as empirical as you can make it (within the bounds of human frailty) and not needing to have arbitrary figures subtracted from the girths to approach a satisfactory fit, you will have done all that is possible or reasonable to ensure a fit.

That's my take...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

(Message edited by dw on February 28, 2007)