The Crispin Colloquy

DW,
If the "Bancock & Ritz" are not all they'er cracked up to be, other than a shoemaker's sizing stick what's the next best tool to measure the length of a foot. At present I'am using a cloth tape to measure with.And is it still possible to purchase the measureing stick.

Ed

Ed,

Don't get me wrong...a Ritz stick will do an adequate to fine job of measuring ghe length of the foot. Of course, my own (homemade) 18" wide version of the Ritz stick will do an even better job. Maybe better than any other device I've run across...and, mind you, I've got a good, "professional," sizing stick.

But neither the Ritz...nor, frankly, my device...are as good as a pedograph to measure the width of the foot and/or especially the width of the footprint and insole. That was my point. And the Brannock can possibly give you a good length measurement but again is near worthless for measuring the width of the foot bed.

...in my opinion.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Ed,

If you Google "Ritz" or "Ritz stick", I think you will find them. Mine is also homemade. A stick with a block on the end, a slider with a piece of Plexiglas with a scribe mark which lines up your cloth tape, which is glued to the stick. Basically, it is just a wooden caliper.

I am still digesting what DW said about last width, which was very good. Will try to answer tomorrow.

Chuck

DW,

Thank you for the clear succinct answers: "The insole should correspond-----", "The heel seat on the last need only----". No weasel words, "Just the facts, Mam".

My basic misconception was understanding of terms. The "footprint" is the weighted pedograph or equilivant or what I incorrectly called the featherline. It is not the outline (draft) of the foot. Just to be sure I understand, the heel seat width is the overall width of the last as you indicated from Bill's diagrams. Think I will start a glossary of terms. BTW, I have found putting the footprint on transparent material, such as Mylar, to be helpful.

Your comments are a great help in understanding Bill's diagrams. My first impression was they were a CAD geometry exercise but now they are beginning to make sense. Even the Tarsal center of gravity makes sense based on differences between weighted and unweighted footprint. The heel width changes siginificantly but there is very little change in the ball width. It is amazing how much smarter Bill is getting since I first started talking to him.

Last making and/or modification is at least as challenging as boot making and at least as much of an art. Not real good at either, but getting better, thanks to all the help.

Chuck

Chuck,

The heel seat...hmmm, well the best I can tell you...to be clear...is that the heel seat is that area of the insole under the heel. It too can be obtained from the footprint/pedograph simply because the heel seat is part of the insole, and the insole is directly derived from the footprint.

The differences in terminology sometimes are simply a result of what we are talking about--the footprint versus the insole or the foot versus the last...that kind of thing. If I were to get real specific and maybe "technical" there is no "heel seat" on the foot...nor on the last either, for that matter. The heel seat must be a part of the insole or the boot/shoe.

Hope that helps


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

It is all now very clear. The heel seat is defined by the shape of the insole, which is defined by the shape of the footprint. The heel seat is also defined by the shape of the counter, which is defined by the shape of the last, which is defined by the shape of -------. No problem! The whole point is to keep the heel from flopping around. I am learning to appreciate the skills of a lastmaker. I am sure the Pros get a kick out of novice questions, trying to figure out what we are doing, but we are having fun.

Seriously, Thank you for the information, which is very helpful, and the privilige of asking the questions. I am going to modify the the last per the earlier discussion and make a fitter boot. If it does not work, I know how to do build-ups and try again.

I am curious about how folks handle comparing the customer’s foot imprint to the insole of the last. For example, do you do a tracing of the imprint and then lay that on the bottom of the last, or do you use an insole pattern from the last and overlay that on the foot imprint, or some other method?

Also, is it relevant to take into account the heel height of the last in doing this comparison?

The reason I ask the latter question is that I am currently modifying a pair of lasts to conform to my feet, and I am finding that my imprint and measurements (heel to ball) seem short, even relative to a size 8 shoe last, despite the fact that whenever I’ve been measured for shoes, I am told my size is between an 8.5 and 9, and I don’t think I have particularly long toes. However, if I lift the last up to incorporate the heel height (4/4, since this is a shoe last), then the last seems a better fit to my foot’s length. I am in an intellectual conundrum about whether this makes sense, and I don’t know what happens to the length of the foot as you raise the heel, so any guidance would be helpful.

(For the record, my measurements are:

Left Foot: overall length: 255mm / 10.05 inches
heel to ball: 184mm/ 7.24 inches
imprint heel to ball: 175mm / 6.89 inches

Right Foot: overall length: 261 mm / 10.28 inches
heel to ball: 187 mm / 7.36 inches
imprint heel to ball: 178 mm / 7.01 inches


On the last I have - size 8E-, the insole heel to ball is more like 185mm / 7.28 inches, and the overall heel to ball would be more like 190mm / 7.48 inches)


Thanks,
Lance

Lance,

Everyone who rsponds to this question will likely have a diffferent answer...but I will make some passing remarks:

First...you can experiment and work your way through this type of problem or you can study with someone you know or admire as a "fitter." Neither way is guaranteed to answer all your questions or the discrepancies you see or think you see, however.

Second..I use the bottom paper that any reputable lastmaker will provide and overlay it on the footprint...when I use the bottom paper at all. In general, I just eyeball the featherline on the last and take care to choose a last with a width/featherline/bottom paper that is congruent with the footprint.

Third...It doesn't make any difference what the size on your last says; what previous measurment sessions have concluded; nor even what size you have been wearing for "lo, these many years." The only thing of import is that the measurements of the last and the measurements of the foot are the same. Measurements.

It is possible...even likely...that you have been misfit your whole life, especially if you have been relying on shoe store clarks to advise you of your size. And esp. since they almost always rely on overall foot length to determine shoe size...and as we have said over and over here, this is the least reliable factor in determining shoe size or the correct size of last. "If you are not fit in the shank, you are not fit."

In my way of fitting I would say that the heel to ball length on the medial side of the bottom paper is the critical measurement that you compare to your foot.

Others may disagree...your mileage may vary.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Hey Lance,
This is a topic near and dear to my heart. Measurement on a Brannock device at a shoe store has NO relevance to the size of last you choose. Every last is going to be different. I like to think I know feet pretty well making orthotics and modifying shoes for a living but when I was in DW's shop I had to suspend my disbelief and pay close attention when we selected an 8b last. I was wearing a pair of hiking boots at the time that are the correct length heel to toe and slightly wide 11D. (My Boulets were 9.5D) The problem is that the heel to ball length is no where close. When I modified my last,the 8b had to be extended to match my rather long toes and widened for my splayed 5th metatarsal. Check out the Gallery for an example. They fit great!!!(DW posted it for me as a favor)

By the way DW, I didn't drop off the face of the earth... I'm trying to work thing OUT (Insert my accent here to open up shop in the fall.

Sean

Sean,

It's great to hear that your boots are fitting you so well. I think I can claim a small feather for my cap and remark that for someone like myself, without the formal education of a foot doctor or a pedorthist, to fit someone of your knowledge and experience (of course, you did all the work) and perhaps to illuminate the process in a way that might not have been obvious is both a joy and a satisfaction.

I'm happy to hear that you are getting ready to begin making boots...someone with your background is going to do very well, I know.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Lance,

I would advice to draw the insole on the imprint, if you can use some tracing paper that you can cut out. Once you lay that cutout on the bottom of the last it gets "shorter" since it follows the contours that make for the heel height. So when you mention that the last seems to fit the tracing better on heel height you are probably right.
Just like DW I do not generally draw out the insole but there is nothing wrong with doing it. In real life you go from drawing it out to marking some landmarks on your imprint to just eyeballing the shape. Some complicated feet that seem to point in all directions but forward I may still draw out to get an acceptable shape but it's not the standard treatment.

For your question how the heel height changes the foot length, it really does not, the foot length stays the same. Take a tape measure along the bottom of a last, as the heel height changes the last length does not very much, but the "footprint of the shoe" get to be shorter. The volume in the forefoot does get less with an increased heel height to keep the foot from slipping forward.

I do not agree with the shoe fitter criticism. It is true that most customers are not fitted optimal but a good fitter does advise the customer to the best fit for a given shoe. If fit were the only factor shoes would be made very different from the way they are. If your feet's proportions are simply not available in a factory made shoe you have to compromise. Part of the compromise would be not to have your toes stick through the toe box if you have proportionately long toes in order to match the arch length. That is in my opinion not so much a "misfit" as doing the best with what you have.
Looking at most current day comfort shoes and sneakers the arch length is often not clearly defined inside the shoe. That's not by accident. By making the shoes bulkier and add padding to the inside as well as giving the last a not very well defined ball area that same shoe will accommodate (note accommodate, not fit) a lot more different feet. This is an economic issue driven by consumers and manufacturers, not the shoe fitters.
Sean is correct in stating that the brannock measurement does not mean all that much. In a shoe store it is a number from where you start the fitting process and that's all. With the lack of firm standards in shoe sizing I can show you two shoes from different manufacturers that are marked 2 sizes apart but would accommodate the same foot.

When making custom lasts do not look at the "shoe size" In fact when making custom lasts do not even use a stock last. Sure it's a little more work getting to the right shape but you won't be hindered by pre-defined shapes and proportions of the last that are not those of your foot.

Based on the numbers you posted above your foot does not to seem that far of from the "standard" last proportions. As discussed on the forum on prior occasions those "standard proportions" are truly not standard but let's not get into that. So the last you end up with and the subsequent shoes should look well proportioned. If all else fails put together a quick fitting shoe from scraps. It's quick and easy and will give you lofts of feedback before you get to make nice shoes.

Are you heading back from Florida soon? Bring some of that nice weather with you to get rid of the last bit of snow around here.

Rob

If you guys don't mind I would like to jump in here because it is very time appropriate for me. I am trying to fit a last to my foot and determine where I should build up.

I used a cutout of the bottom of the last to compare to the drawings. The red dotted line represents the bottom of the last. The purple line represents the imprint and the dark pencil line represents the tracing of the foot.


Some added notes:

The Short Heel and High Instep seem to be OK comparing the foot to the last.

Foot Measurements:

Short Heel...13 3/8
High Instep...10 1/4
Low Instep...9 7/8
Waist...9 5/8
Ball...9 7/8

I know this is asking a great deal from a very limited amount of information but I would like some feedback and opinions as to where I might want to consider doing some build ups. And even if, based off the drawings, this last is a passible fit.

Thanks in advance.

Mark

Mark,

Some quick comments...on imprints and bottom papers only...

First, matching the back of the bottom paper to the imprint or foot print seldom works. If for no other reason than that the last has a "wedge" of plastic incorporated onto the bottom of the heel just to create the corner and the featherline. The foot itself never has that corner.

Shifting the bottom paper back a quarter inch (or more) will align the joint area on the last with the medial ball joint much better. As it is now the two joint areas are not congruent...you can see that yourself.

How do we know where to position the bottom paper, lengthwise? You can't know accurately until you have a ball to heel measurement. Then that measurement is plugged in from the center of the medial ball joint rearward. And the back edge of the bottom paper is aligned with that ball to heel length. There's a wee bit more to it than that but understanding that concept alone gives us the "keys to the kingdom," so to speak.

As for build-ups, once the bottom paper is properly positioned, you will know better where you need to build up. But from the looks of it, it seems to me that you may need runners on the lateral side of the last in the "cuboid"/root of the fifth area...perhaps all the way through the waist.

After that it may just be adjusting for girths and you'd be good to go.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

OK DW,

I'm an idiot. I should have considered that the bottom of the heel on the last is not the footprint. That makes a great deal of sense.

As for the positioning of the bottom paper correctly let me see if I can rationalize this.

I do have a heel to medial ball measurement:
Left foot...8 1/8"
Right Foot...8"

When you speak of plugging in that measurement say 8 1/8". Do you mean measuring 8 1/8" rearward from the center of the medial ball on the imprint to the center of the back of the heel of the imprint. Then positioning the back of the heel of the bottom paper on that resultant measurement.

If I do that it looks like the whole Bottom paper moves rearward about 3/8" to 7/16". You're right the Medial and Lateral Balls do line up much better.

As far as build ups I was thinking the lateral sides but when I move the whole bottom paper rearwards that somewhat clips the toes but I am considering a square/box toe.

One other area would be the medial side of the shank area. I don't think I am going to address it for this pair but is it common to make some adjustments in this area when the bottom of the last is that much wider.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark,

What I do is run a straight edge along the medial side of the foot, touching at medial ball and at medial side of the heel (more or less, depending on the foot). I then run a perpendicular off that line at the measured distance from the medial ball. This will manifest as a line straight across the back of the heel somewhere between the footprint and the tracing (depending on how good you are at tracing). That's where I put the back edge of the bottom paper.

I also believe that something very similar and probably satisfactory could be done with the podometric lines that we were talking about not so very long ago. Specifically, a line drawn along the side of the footprint that touches the medial ball and the side of medial heel. (I draft in this line, as well.) And a perpendicular drawn at the specified distance behind the heel again. But this second approach differs from the above in that it is after the fact, so to speak. Here we're working with the footprint only and, above, I'm working with the foot. So my straight line incorporates some of the substance and meat of the foot along the side that the footprint does not.

Sometimes these two lines will be almost parallel with each other; other times they will diverge significantly. But the results in either case should be "close enough for government work."

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW, Sean, Rob, and Mark:

Thanks for your comments and input. This discussion is very interesting and helpful, but (of course) I have a few follow-on questions and observations.

I am certainly aware that a stated last 'size' is of limited use on its own, notwithstanding the standards established many years ago.

Nevertheless, I would think that the Brannock device would have some value, given that it is designed to measure the arch length/heel to ball length, as it has a sliding component to be placed at the inside ball. Of course, one would have to understand how the Brannock 'size' comports with the lasts one typically uses.

So, to restate a question asked earlier, how do people measure the heel to ball length on the last, or do you work from the bottom paper and the footprint and tracing as DW describes?

Further, DW, I am still trying (intellectually) to understand why your method works (although I trust you that it does!). While I acknowledge that the foot doesn't have a 'corner' to it when it is hanging in free space, certainly it seems to when it is on the ground -- or a pedograph, or a shoe with a flat insole -- since those are flat, and thus the heel goes from curved to flat on the ground, hence what I would term a 'corner'. So (as I think about the problem), the imprint of the foot would seem to be analogous to the heel of the last. Also, the last and the foot both have a heel curve, so in that regard they are also analogous.

Also, where do you get the foot's "heel to ball measurement" from? If it is from the imprint, then I would think your approach would lead the bottom pattern to line up with the back of the imprint; if from your tracing, then wouldn't this lead your bottom pattern to start at the back of your tracing? Your approach leads to the heel to ball measurement putting the bottom paper between these two points, so I am confused where exactly you get it from!

All of that being said, one thing I see on my feet is that the imprint is about 9mm ahead of the back of my heel, whereas most lasts would seem to have more like a 5mm curve. So, perhaps, DW's method is an accurate approach if most people's feet have a similar heel curve to mine -- i.e. a 5 mm heel curve on the last would place the back of the last 4mm behind the heel imprint, which is about 1/6 of an inch. Thus, another question -- in doing imprints and tracings, is the heel imprint typically in the 9 to 10mm (1/3 to 4/10 of an inch) ahead of the back of the heel? For my own last, I was trying to modify them to have a 9 mm curve (to mirror my foot), but perhaps that is either overkill or in fact not optimal.

I know that the real way to figure this out is to actually modify some lasts and then see how the shoe fits! Alas, I am away from my shoemaking equipment and can only do a limited amount of work on things, so I am doing what I can until I get back home.

Which, FYI Rob, will be in the middle of May - I hope we can get together sometime this summer. (I know my feet are pretty standard, except my heel width is very narrow -- approx. 50 - 55 mm on the imprint.)

Thanks again to all.

Lance

(Message edited by lancepryor on March 29, 2007)

Lance,

It's hard to describe in print what I do...but I'm going to ramble a bit here and maybe you can find something tasty in it.

First, a Brannok device by itself is, conceptually, not all that different from what any one of us uses to measure feet. There is an upright at the back against which the heel is placed; there is a length slider that moves toward the longest toe.

I have not seen a Brannock in many years but I remember the joint slider being there to measure width rather than ball to heel length. Then too, most (maybe not the Brannock) of these devices try to give you reading in terms of shoes sizes rather than actual measurements. And to compound the problem...even if the joint slider does yield a heel to ball measurement, it can be very inaccurate in locating and recording the actual center of the medial joint itself, not just the general "bump" that surrounds the joint. So, right there is a built-in inaccuracy...or a misapprehension of what is accurate.

When I measure a foot I use a wide board with a upright at the heel and a slider for the toe. I can place a piece of paper under the upright and under the foot foot and I can accurately determine, and mark, the center of the medial ball joint. If the heel is firm against the upright, I then obtain a precise distance from the medial ball joint to the back of the heel. If I trace the foot...and /or if I take a footprint of the foot...I can locate on that visual representation, the exact center of the medial ball joint. If I plug in the measurement I have taken from the joint to the heel, starting at that spot where the medial joint is indicated on the footprint, it will almost always (in fact, I've never seen it fail) be longer than the footprint.

So what do you believe? The empirical measurement? Or the tracing/footprint? Isn't it a question of, first, which is the least subject to the variables of foot architecture and/or human error? And second, which makes more sense when we view the foot as a dynamic structure with many possible variations?

If we hold our pencil perfectly upright when we trace the foot, we actually add an eighth inch or more to the actual circumference of the foot. If we slant the pencil out or in, even a little, that error is not even a consistent eighth inch. So, clearly a tracing of the foot is, without an aid of some sort, subject to, what I would call massive error.

The footprint is a function of many different aspects of the foot--bone structure, connective tissue flexibility, muscle mass, muscle rigidity, fluid build up, and even the yarn weight and type of sock being worn. All these things will affect how wide and how long the foot prints. Some feet, even if both girths and visual size seem similar, will print wider or narrower than another foot.

Where the foot prints in the heel is no more indicative of the length of the heel than it is of the width of the foot in the joint area (or any other area for that matter).

In the end, we are left with only one datum that can be relied upon to any degree--and that is the length of the distance from the center of the ball joint back to the upright against which the heel has been snugged. This is a hard number...it is infinitely reproducible...and cannot be objectively argued with, in my opinion.


How you use that information (like all the data collected) is of less importance to understanding the foot than the simple fact of...well, understanding the foot. And collecting as much hard, empirical data as can be reasonably collected with the tools we typically use.

If you can collect a body of such information with a Brannock device, well, more power to you, is what I say. But "accurate" and "empirical" are the watchwords here, especially if you expect to achieve consistent results over a span of years...for the simple reason that the foot is so complex and so variable that to proceed with anomalous data or on the basis of intuition is to build in the possibility of error. That the possibility for error is there, and always will be there, no matter how we approach this procedure is a given...but there's no need to compound the error. Start with as much hard data as you can collect and you end up with something approaching accuracy; start with guesses and "by gollys" and you'll end up with...a lot of headaches.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

A few random thoughts that got left out last night...

Re: the Brannock device...since it is a device created to aid the shoe fitter and not the shoe maker, think about the context in which it is normally found--the shoe store. No commercial shoe (or boot) comes with the recommended foot length specified on the box, much less the heel to ball measurement. So even if the Brannock does yield specific measurements, they are useless in the context that the device is meant to be used.

Another unrelated thought...the ball joint is quite interesting--it is not perpendicular to the floor. The degree of angle may differ one foot to another but it is, in my experience, always there. The center of the joint on the dorsal surface (top) of the foot is invariably somewhat ahead of the center of the joint on the plantar surface. So where is the center of the joint? Top? Bottom? Side? Depending upon where you locate it, this could make as much as one-eighth inch difference in the ball to heel length.

Food for thought, eh?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Hey Guys,

I am not posting another visual rendition but I did reposition the bottom paper as prescribed above. The back of the heel of the bottom paper does end up about 1/8” shy of the back of the heel tracing which makes perfect sense because the pencil I used is about 1/4" wide.


I do still have a couple of follow up questions about buildups:

If I place the bottom paper with its lines on the medial side tangential to the imprint lines of the medial ball and the medial side of the heel, the big toe seems to be clipping somewhat. Should I address this and how?

Secondly, there is a good 1/2” of space between the Bottom paper and the imprint on the medial side between the Waist and the High Instep. Should this be taken into consideration or will this not have an overall impact on the fit.


Thanks,

Mark

Lance,

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I might add that the "corner" (on the last), is wholly artificial. Old time lasts did not have this corner...did not have a featherline around the heel. If it were possible to find and compare two similar lasts...one of which was contemporary and the other of this older style...I suspect that we would see roughly one-quarter to three eighths inch surplus plastic on the newer last. And I suspect that if we could compare a profile of the foot with a profile of a contemporary last we would see something similar.

Yes, the foot flattens out and a "corner" of sorts is created when weight is added. There is, without doubt, an "edge" to the footprint. But it will seldom, if ever, make up the difference in the last where that extra substance has been added.

And more importantly, each foot (even on a single body) will bear that weight and imprint differently....depending on flexibility of the foot, fluid retention, socks, etc., as detailed above.

But hey...accepting the possibility that a foot could print so that the edge of the print was virtually underneath the back of the heel (making that "corner" on the last identical to the edge of the print), to base any measuring sytem on such an assumption is fraught with misunderstanding and disappointment. Because if such a possiblity exists at all, it is only a very small percentage of the population that will come anywhere close to printing like that.

Again, that leaves us with only the empirical data to fall back upon--a hard and fast measurement of the distance from the center of the medial joint to the back of the heel.

I guess I've said it about as many ways as I know how...I hope it makes sense somewhere along the line and helps...

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Mark,

Quick response...I'm on my way out to the shop.

The big toe need not be fully covered by the bottom paper but it should not be disregarded either. Generally it will move over a little bit with no harm and it does this by default as we raise the heel height, as well. But too much is too much and only experience can tell you when that applies.

As for the discrepancy between the bottom paper and the medial arch print, my take is that if the girths are correct and the footprint not way larger than the bottom paper you can more or less ignore it. Even with wide arch prints (excepting folks with fallen arches) I use the bottom paper/insole as is as long as the girths are correct.

Your situation occurs a lot with folks with a high instep. And the tendancy is to think we need to narrow the insole to accommodate the narrower footprint in the arch area. But this is unnecessary with boots because the boot is a cylinder. Then too,narrowing the insole/bottom paper inevitably decreases overall stability and longevity of the footwear. You don't see it done much anymore for good reason I think.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

Thanks for the response. That is the answer that I was looking for, Do Nothing, because I do that better than most.

Have a prosperous day in the shop. And if you learn anything new out there please come back and share it with us

Thanks,

Mark

DW:

So, if I am understanding it correctly, you use the heel-to-ball length taken from the back of the heel to the ball [as imprinted and/or traced and marked]. As such, this measurement includes the heel's curve. Wouldn't this, in theory, lead to the last being a bit long, since with your methodology the back of your insole/bottom reaches the back of the foot, yet the last itself also has a back curve, so you are fitting 'long' by the amount of the last's heel curve?

It is this basic issue that stimulated my initial line of inquiry -- is there something about the presence of the heel height or something else that makes this 'long' fitting/measurement actually work better?

I hear you about the difference between the last's heel seat and the foot, and I recall Al Saguto's comments that the best fitting lasts he has seen are some that don't have the feather edge at the heel. Still, it seems to me that, all things being equal, it would be desirable to have the last's heel curve and the heel seat match the customer's actual heel curve and print -- but that is just a theory until I can actually test it!

FWIW, when I do my tracing, I use an upright at the heel, so my tracing reflects the actual back of the foot, rather than the thickness of the pencil. Further, one can make a tracing device/pencil holder that traces at the actual edge of the foot, rather than adding the thickness of the pencil to the tracing -- Carl Lichte uses such a device, which is actually quite simple.

Thanks,
Lance

Lance,

I have cut a "kerf" under the edge of my upright. I can slip a paper or manila folder under that edge and make a line along the edge of the upright. Then when I snug the heel up against the upright and mark the medial ball I have a accurate distance from the joint to the back of the heel. The tracing and and the footprint are done separately and are not regarded as accurate or as critical in determining anything about the foot.

If I understand you correctly the way in which you do your tracing with the foot still snugged up against the upright is accomplishing much the same thing.

Yes, the little tracing device can be made...I have one, it works great...but since I do both tracing and foot print on the pedograph it doesn't work to use it on the latex or in the limited space around the foot that my pedograph provides. So I don't use it. Like I said, I regard the measurements as the critical data and the tracing is almost superfluous.

BTW, in my experience, even with a really accurate tracing the foot print will still generally be well shy of the tracing...all around the perimeter.

Again, it all comes down to what you want to rely on--"who ya gonna call?"--the best thing to do is to actually try some of this stuff and see how it works for you. Maybe you'll work out a technique that will combine elements of all that is said here and it will give you good results 100% of the time. You couldn't ask for more.

PS...Luchesse once said "if you're gonna fir them wrong, fit 'em long." Words to live by....maybe?

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

I need to modify a set of last. The ball, waist and short heel on the foot are about 1/2" bigger then the measurements on the last. The Short Heel is dead on. As will is the ball to heel measurement.

I was thinking about taking a 1/4" off both sides of the last. But, after thinking it over for awhile, I think I should remeasure the foot for height and see if the extra material should come off the top of the last instead of just the sides.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated, Joel