The Crispin Colloquy

Well, boys...after all this and the previous go-round on this subject, I figure I'm about ruined for shoemaking. Not that I'm going to give up mind you...in fact, I'm just getting started...but I sure do see things different.

That's my bootmaking experience and I'm not saying it is better, or even valid on its face....just that it's what I know.

When I make a boot I want the foot to be snug inside the boot. I don't want to reach down and chase surplus leather over the instep or joint. I want the foot held securely into the back of the boot. I want to ensure that toes will not be cramped, and for that reason I want/need to take the footprint/pedograph weight on. And I pay pretty close attention to heelseat and forepart width.

And I have to do all that because (and with the secure knowledge that) I will not have any adjustment in the final fit--ie. no laces.

To meet these objectives I have to take measurements that most shoemakers I talk to seem not to recognize...or if they do, they don't use. This stumps me...not that it's wrong (who can argue with success?), just that I don't seem to be able to come to grips with it.

If I make a boot using a high instep, low instep, waist, joint, short heel and long heel...all taken weight off, I get a boot that fits with little or no slop. And if I've done my job correctly, no discomfort either.

If I make a shoe using those same measurements I get a shoe that laces up with no room for further adjustments but right on the money otherwise. If I reduce critical girths such as the insteps and the LH, as Nick suggested, I get a shoe that is comfortable and has some room to cinch down over the instep...but otherwise fits beautifully.

I think that's what were all after...or am I wrong? But wouldn't more measurements help us achieve that? Or, at the very least, wouldn't more measurements help us model the foot more accurately in the last?

I worry that if I make a shoe using some smaller subset of the measurements I take, I will end up relying on the last model or the lastmaker to provide me with proportions which, while beautiful and to an "industry standard," may or may not fit any given foot. This seems especially true considering the great variety of feet I have seen over the years making bespoke. And I know from a brief and recently disappointing experience with a reputedly well regarded model that this is not a particularly good idea with shoe lasts anymore than it is with boot lasts.

Don't take this seriously...I'm just thinking out loud. In the absence of apprenticing myself to a master shoemaker, I am groping in the dark...and in every instance I end up falling back on what I know.

Maybe that's all any of us can do.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

What I'm about to write will probably irk some readers, cause others to pause and think, and make the rest of you realize that Sunday afternoons after the Super Bowl (I mean, the "Big Game&#34) and before the start of baseball are so boring that you actually long for some yard work to do. However, at the risk of losing what little reputation I have, here goes...

While measurements are, of course, important, I'm often amused at the amount of time we spend trying to split hairs on a plastic tape marked in increments of 1/16". Even those of you who use the string method measure it with something most likely marked in the same way. Or we discuss the merits of this method versus that method...standing versus sitting...which points to measure and which to ignore...all of which, at the end of the day seems at least a little bit moot to me.

Some of you measure sitting, some standing, some both. Some take these measurements, some take those measurements and yet, for the most part everyone must be satisfying their customers or they wouldn't keep coming back. Again, I'm not trying to decry the need for measurements. That much is obvious. However, when we're dealing with a foot that may swell up as much as one or two sizes during the course of a day or lengthen up to a half size or more during the walking process, it would seem to me that the more important aspect of fitting (in conjunction with measurements of course) is SHAPE.

What is the angle of the foot as determined by tangent lines hitting both ball joints and heel sides? What type of arch does the customer have? Does the customer have a high instep? Low? Average? What is "average" by the way? At what angle does the forefoot swing to the medial side? Or is it more or less straight? Does it even swing slightly to the lateral side? Does the customer have "hobbit feet" as my wife says I do? If so, what exactly is a "hobbit foot"? I don't know whether to brag or to never take my shoes and socks off in public again?

To a certain degree I'm just trying to stir the pot before I leave for a little excursion to the local Geek Squad to find out why my CD ROM drive sounds like the old '67 Chevelle I had as a teenager and won't play or burn anything except my time. However, it does seem to me that measurements get more than their share of attention compared to shapes. I tend to think that all things being equal, I'd rather have a last shaped correctly with the measurements off slightly than a last that was dead on in measurements (though I don't even think that's possible) but shaped for someone else's foot.

Of course, I've never made a boot or shoe in my life and if the footwear wearing public is lucky I never will but that's just the conclusion I've come to after nearly 34 years of last making and discussing the merits of last measurements and foot conditions with many of you and many others.

The ball (medial or lateral?) has been served. I'll look forward to seeing if anyone lobs it back when I return.

Bill “The Last Man Standingâ€

Bill,

Look!! My hands are in the air...and empty as well. No lobbing.

I can't say you're wrong about a thing you said, because, in my opinion you're not. In fact, I agree most whole-heartedly with your central thesis that it is better to:

have a last shaped correctly with the measurements off slightly than a last that was dead on in measurements (though I don't even think that's possible) but shaped for someone else's foot.

But I would say this just to give you some insight into my thinking (if no one else's)...the human foot is one of the most architecturally complex structures in nature. It supports, upon strike, more weight per square inch than the Empire State Building. It has (some experts say) five arches to distribute that weight. It depends upon a relatively small contact area to maintain balance and an upright attitude to within a very small margin, And there must be many many other remarkable aspects that I am not listing...on top of all of which we can add the even more remarkable facility of gait--walking.

Making boots or shoes that fit feet...and often very idiosyncratic feet...is what we do as our stock and trade. Measurements...and the other data we collect from the foot (and it really isn't all that much even for the most obsessed of us)...are the only "handles" we have to understand and model this complex mechanism. If we just wanted to make RTW footwear, we would be far less concerned. At which point, both "measurements off slightly" and a shape that was also slightly off would be of no concern.

But because I deal with individuals and individual feet...many of which differ from each other even on the same owner...these things do take on an importance that might not otherwise seem significant. Maybe bordering on obsession in some ways.

For me at least, I would prefer to continue to obsess about measurements than...from my perspective...willfully blind myself. I can, at least, learn from the first but would surely remain eternally ignorant and missing something by taking the second approach.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

I'm sure that you and the other successful makers pay attention to shape as well as measurements. I guess the point I was making is that we try to get the lasts to a finite measurement in as many areas as possible but, at least regarding girth, the target we're shooting at changes...usually quite a bit. Whereas the basic shape of the foot stays the same but matching that shape doesn't seem to get near the discussion time as measurements on these pages. Maybe it's just second nature to alter the shapes and no one feels it's necessary to discuss this.

I'm a believer in the old saying that 80% of fit is in the head and 20% is in the foot. OK, those percentages may be subject to debate but suffice it to say fit is never going to be a perfect science for the many of the reasons you mentioned in pointing out how complicated the foot is. Therefore the only barometer of how successful a maker is at achieving that goal is the smiling face of the customer after delivery and seeing those same faces again and again.

Well, after going under the radar for a couple of weeks because of the new shoe scanner and the show, I need to start sending some long overdue OLGA registrations to people and answering emails. Thanks for entertaining my little thought provoker.

Bill “The Last Man Standingâ€

I have really enjoyed this discussion on fitting and lasts. I must admitt that I am putting a whole lot of attention and effert to get that perfect fit. Bill, that was very interesting about how the foot can change so much throughout the day. I hope this discussion continues and brings out more technical data. I don't think I will quit fretting about the "fit" but at least I will be able to alibi if the boot is too loose or a bit tight.

I like the idea of getting the new owner to "break in" the boot for a while and form fit any minor glitches.

Thank you again for this most pleasing discusion, Larry Peterson

Aw geez Bill, now you gone an done it....

Only on my first cupa this morning, but reading your post, and DW's on this, puts me to mind of the great setting-the-world-to-rights discussion that we all had on here maybe 7 or 8 years ago on lasts as "container shapes" vs. dimensions, etc. Hopefully these are still lurking in archives someplace for new members' amusement. They were a great series.

If I remember rightly, after all was said and done, I got dubbed "The King of Swing" for my adamant insistence that inflare/swing in a last's shape was a control-feature at least equal in importance with length and girths. And, lasts that are not made or fitted-up to accommodate this shape (inflare, neutral, outflare, or "Meyer", "Hannibal"(?), "Camper" shapes respectively), are just expensive firewood. Feet, it has been said, are never the same length and girth twice in the same day. And as one former member tried to point-out (and got chewed for it) for certain customers, in the space of a month they vary. But, their shape remains more or less constant.

So, I leave you all to go digging in archives; however, I will say I'm very close to Bill's opinion on this myself. One old hand taught me that when measuring any customer, it simply makes them feel better--fitting "their head"--if you measure methodically, intently, carefully as if each wrapping of the tape and jotting down of a fractional inch was as serious as open-heart surgery--besides "one can never have too much data". After they're gone, and you're making/choosing/fitting-up a last, as Mack said, you're knocking 1/4" off of this girth measure, and 8th inch off another girth, and basically disregarding those exact measurements you so carefully took to achieve a certain result and a better fit.

Better fit by disregarding the carefully taken measurements? Yes. It is my experience, and one not lost on the 19th and 20thc. textbook writers either, that if you fit a last up full to the girth measurements, the foot will swim inside such a shoe. A loose and generous fit made full up to girth measure may be desirable in a hiking boot, work boot, or other footwear where the uppers and bottoms are thick and stout, but for the majority of everyday and dress shoes and boots, making full up to measure will result is a sloppy, loose, fit.

As to weight-on (standing), semi-weight-on (sitting), or weight-off (foot suspended), the more fleshy and un-athletic a customer's foot is, the more inclined I am to observe, if not take both weight-on or weight-off (tracings and girths). Also, to pull the tape in, compressing the foot and letting it slowly relax back, perhaps several times, before deciding on one girth measure at that spot. For youthful, muscular, or bony feet, I've found there's no need to agonize, as the foot stays pretty constant no matter which posture it's measured in.

Shape, on the other hand, is sacrosanct IMO. Another old hand recommended that you can clip (pinch) the great toe, or the small toe somewhat. I'm not so sure, as I've observed a host of minor (to extreme) problems that were caused by clipping the great toe--from pronation, to walking-over on the lateral side, not to mention calluses and bunions, etc. Of course as the heel is elevated in gait, the more lateral a position the great toe assumes, as the foot does not hinge up off the ground straight across, but at the angle of the joints. Which leads us to "twist"--as opposed to "swing"--or that the back-part and heel of the foot does not rise up off the ground level as it were, but that the medial heel is tilted in a plane higher than the lateral heel at heel-height. How many lasts do you see that have this medial "twist"? How many, even the best bespoke shoes, have the medial side of the heel higher than the lateral?

Arches: Firstly, I deal mostly with "healthy" (asymptomatic) "normal" (no complaints or extreme pathology) feet for people looking for a better fit, and a certain style (historical/classic)--I'm not dealing routinely with orthopedic cases as many of you are. Arches of the foot are systems of bones, tendons, and muscles--not unlike a bow and a bow-string--that must be free to depress (to absorb shock), and spring back up into shape. There are a host of factors that cause these systems to weaken and fail over time (e.g., heredity, obesity, inactivity, age, etc.). But under most circumstances I've found that you never want any architecture in the footwear to enforce any arch as high (especially no higher) than the foot's. This only invites the further disuse of muscles, and accelerates the weakening of the customer's own natural arch system. A properly-made shoe should always include a non-hydro-static insole and filling, so that the foot forms it's own natural, if blurred, foot-bed after some wearing-in. And, the architecture of the last bottom needs to suggest or allow nature to take her course in forming this foot-bed, but IMO ought never be drastically pre-shaped to some anatomical ideal for most healthy active feet. Sure, there are pathological situations where arch-support is essential, but my rule of thumb is always: "less is more" here, unless you want to further cripple a foot turning it into an arch-support-dependant foot.

Besides the usual tracings, pedograph imprints, and girth measurements, I have each customer stand feet together barefooted, and note or categorize their shape based on whether their great toes and heels touch, with a gap between the 1st met heads (inflare); touch at the 1st met heads and heel with a minimal gap between the great toes (neutral), or touch at the 1st met heads, and heels, with a considerable open "V" between their great toes (outflare). I then look closely at their tracings and pedographic imprints, do the geometry and angles, etc. At the end of the day I'd say, though, that I probably respect their degree of "swing" moreso than their girth measurements.

So, getting back to Bill's point, I feel that this shape factor is as critical in a last for a good fit, as any length, tracing, or girth can possibly be. Or, a slightly too loose/too snug a fit in girths is less of a problem than a last shape that argues with the foot as regards inflare/neutral/outflare shaping. As it's been noted, lengths change, girths change, feet swell, etc., but in my mind what changes the least is the unique character of the foot's shape. The best compliment we can get when a customer slips on a brand new pair is: "these don't feel like new shoes...they feel like my feet!".

Martha (aka Big Al),

if you fit a last up full to the girth measurements, the foot will swim inside such a shoe

Can you explain this phenomenon? How does this happen?

Thanks...Lucy

Lucy,

I dunno, jez do is all....

Martha

But seriously, no, in most cases it seems if you subtract maybe 1/4" off your girths, with medium-weight leathers, you'll get a much better fit. I know some like to take girths completely weight-off, foot dangling in the air, and pull the tape t-i-g-h-t, and then fit-up last to the girths exactly. I suppose they are achieving the same reduction in effect. Of course it all depends on the particular foot, and what you're asked to make. Hard bony or muscley feet don't need as much reduction if any. Soft ones.....?

Dern, I hate to get into this if only because I am pretty sure that if push came to shove it would be clear that there really isn't much (if any) disagreement among us.

But while in no way discounting the experience and skill and intuition that elevates a shoemaker/lastmaker from average to master, to the rest of us reading these posts--Al's and Bill's--one can't help but feel a great sense of despair. If the central thesis is that shape trumps measurement then I not only think it misleading but actually counterproductive. If measurements are to be discounted in any wise then all data collection is suspect and that leaves us wholly in the realm of "smoke and mirrors."

I don't disagree with anything either Al or Bill has said. I do think there is room to look at things from a different angle, however. As Rossi said, or implied, shape is a function of measurement. Plotting any shape, whether it be two dimensional or three dimensional, can only be done by establishing base lines...implied or actual...and measured distances from those baselines--latitude and longitude.

But there is another element to all this that bring us back down to earth, somewhat...as bespoke makers we do take shape into consideration. We must. In fact, shape is just another form of data that we collect with outlines, pedographs and measurements. But even though we scour the earth, it is highly unlikely that we will ever find a last, short of making it ourselves, which is perfect, in terms of shape, for the foot we are dealing with. We are usually, in other words, at the mercy of some "standardized" version of what the lastmaker (himself, in all likelihood, not a shoemaker) considered a "good" shape. Even with the "best" of shapes, however, the chances are that we will modify that shape somewhat...as a matter of necessity...to fit a particular customer. And the method by which we modify the last will necessarily come down to either trial and error or measurements.

Personally, I think shape does not trump measurements anymore than measurements trump shape. Both are equally important because they are fundamentally different sides of the same coin. Does anyone really believe that if the girth measurements are significantly at odds with the dimensions of the foot, regardless how perfect the shape, the result will be a happy fit? Conversely, if the girth measurements are all pluperfect, the shoe will not really fit if the insole is half an inch too wide or too narrow in the heelseat or forepart. And again...the simple reason is that shape and measurements are actually just different ways of expressing at the same thing.

Finally, there's is, to my mind, another equally important aspect to all of this. The lastmaker deals in a rigid form. The shoe/bootmaker does not. It may be understandable that the lastmaker is concerned with shape over measurement. He deals in a static form and to one degree or another there are even limitation as to the measurable dimensions of the shape he proposes before the shape itself becomes distorted beyond recognition.

As shoemakers we accept, almost without thinking, that there is a resiliency and a flexibility in every part of the process we engage in: The leather is resilient and flexible, and in a shoe more nearly resembles, functionally at least, a sack than a block of wood or plastic. Think about that...a high cone on a last may be depressed all out of shape by a flat foot and yet the fit may be perfect. Isn't that something? Whither shape? Then too, the foot, itself, is resilient and flexible. Straight lasts, as much as we may scorn them today, succeeded expressly because of the resilience and flexibility of both the foot and the shoe.

Indeed to the degree that a last differs from a strict anatomical model of the foot, it is those very characteristics that allow us to make shoes that are "stylish," and more importantly, that fit.

In that regard, I must say that I have learned a lot, here in my later years, by beginning to learn to make shoes. But if I can assume a mantle of at least temporary credibility...not "authority," mind you....I would observe that it might be fairly difficult to come to grips with how important measurements really are without having tried (and succeeded) making a "closed fit" shoe or boot--no laces--that actually does fit the foot with no slack and no discomfort.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Al, Jake,

OK, Al...now you've done it!

Some years back I made a pair of boots for a highly respected and authoritative member of this forum. A member who is particularly sensitive about not crowding the big toe.

I did it by taking the measurements off an unweighted foot...and relying on my own senses and skills alone (not subtracting an arbitrary fraction from the results)...and then modifying the last to meet the shape and measurements I had collected. I used (and use to this day) the "tighten/relax, tighten/relax" method of adjusting the tape measure. I do not believe that the customer ever remarked about the tape being cinched too tight nor do I feel that it was.

That same member has often reassured me that the fit was perfect.

It can be done.



Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

DW,

I sure didn't mean to imply that shape "trumps" measurements totally, just that shape is right up there--an equal partner so to say. And, as has been discussed "to death"(?) girths are tricky beasts to get, and the foot's girth changes hour to hour, throughout the day, whereas shape doesn't change so much.

The boots in question fit fine in girths, though you thought they were a tad "big" because of wrinkling you saw when you re-soled 'em, so you did good there.

Al,

Well, thank you. I didn't want to reveal the identity of my "mysterious" customer, myownself. I've always considered it a little graceless to brag on one's "famous" customers...as if some of their "shine" could rub off on one by association alone.

I completely agree that shape and measurements are of equal importance. They are, in my mind, different sides of the same coin.

I once had a customer who was a orthopedic physician. I asked him in the course of the fitting conversation if he thought there was anyway to measure or fit for such things as gait and so forth. The gist being that the foot does change during the day and during locomotion. His answer, however, was a pretty firm "no."

I don't know that such an answer, even from such an "authority" (certainly more of an authority than I am) is definitive in any way. But I do think that what the foot does during walking, or sitting around or whatever, is what the foot is going to do. Nothing can change that. I don't think we can fit for all circumstances. If we try to fit for walking only we may end up being too tight, especially early in the morning. If we try to fit for sitting down and relaxing, the shoes may be too loose during walking. If we try to fit for the aftermath of a night of "too much fun" followed by six hours in a hot car, the feet will bounce around inside the shoe or boot like a wet cat in a gunny sack.

Of course incorporating an adjustment...such as laces...on shoes, as opposed to no laces on boots, is simply brilliant!

But my approach...making boots...is to "fit what's there" and let the "evils" of the rest of the day be sufficient unto that day.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

As so often happens in these discussions, an idea was taken out of context and placed in one of the black/white...all/nothing...with me/agin me pigeon holes. No one ever said that measurements were not important or even that they were not as important as shape. My only point in starting this off was to point out that shape was AT LEAST as important as measurements and something that we can come close to matching. While the foot obviously moves and distorts itself during the gait process, so do shoes, at least properly made ones. Perhaps not as much as the foot, but some. If they didn't, every step would be painful.

However, if we match the type of arch, heel, instep, swing, etc., etc. of the foot with the last and the shoe/boot is made properly, the fluid movement of the foot will at least come close to being escorted by a similarly shaped piece of footwear that is controlled by the foot as opposed to the foot being controlled by the footwear. I'm obviously not speaking of people with orthopedic issues here, where the shoe does need to control the foot more.

Whereas with measurements you can't control what the foot is going to do under any of the circumstances DW describes above (my favorite is the "too much fun" syndrome). I also believe that the reason reducing the measurement of the last compared to the foot works for some while maintaining the foot's dimensions works for others is because each maker, over time, finds what works for him/her. It could have to do with the way they last the shoe, the way they cut their patterns (especially for shoes), or the way they fit the person's head during the measurement and fitting stages. Never underestimate the power of positive speech laced with subliminal messages such as pointing out that most off the shelf footwear in this country is produced in (GASP!!) China, or that the typical "shoe fitter" in a retail store thinks the Brannock Device is a left over ash tray that didn't get tossed out with the no smoking laws were enacted, or that the Brannock takes 2D measurements for a 3D foot/shoe marriage. Add to that the feeling the customer gets when they are either having their feet measured by hand (almost like a foot massage to some) or scanned by a digital device. For first timers, they've never been given this type of attention before and they already believe that footwear is going to be wonderful before any last or patterns have been made.

And Al, I thought you were called the "King of Swing" because you won ABC's "So You Think You Can Dance" in the first season.

Bill “The Last Man Standingâ€

I've been following this thread with rapt attention. It's great to see all this discussion from very experienced shoe/boot makers and last makers!

Seems to me that the shape of the shoe is somewhat malleable. The toe box area is certainly rigid but, in theory, this has been adjusted to accommodate the foot in question. The heel counter area is rigid but has little variation between styles (mens, at least). And again has been theoretically sized to the heel of the customer.

Assuming the top line is correct and the girth measurements are all taken in to account, this leaves only the insole shape and swing to restrict or bias the shape of the middle area of the shoe. I suppose side stiffeners have an effect but aren't those areas designed to flex and reshape, over time? Otherwise we would use stiffer materials there.

I'm not trying to minimize the effect of insole shape on the overall shape but is still leaves me with the question: why does the shape of the last matter if all the central girth measurements are in the zone? Can someone give me a example scenario where 'if the shoe fits' it does not fit... because of the shape?

Bill,

Ahem--that wasn't me on ABC

Rick,

An easy example: a shoe/boot where the wearer's great toe has forced a buldge medially in the vamp, or has developed calluses on said toe; or a shoe/boot where the little toe has forced a bulge in the vamp, or a shoe/boot where the vamp looks fine, but the wearer has run the heel-stiffener over medially.

Al - Just kidding. I only watch such shows as I'm passing through a room where my wife might be tuned in. Never was too light on my feet myself.

Rick - Here's a feeble attempt at showing what I'm talking about with an image. I've got hundreds of feet scanned so I looked at a couple of dozen hoping to find one with some real nasty in-flare. As luck would have it, all I could find were fairly normal ones and I need top get back to work so I just used this one. However if you look at the picture below you'll see that this guy has (in addition to considerable width) a decent in-flare on his left foot. I only have one shoe style scanned at this point but you can see that if the last that made that shoe had been modified to the measurements needed to accommodate this wide foot but maintained the original shape of the last it would still not have covered his medial side sufficiently or it would have given too much room on the lateral side and/or the arch area.


I think this also points out that sometimes measurements and shape are very tightly intertwined. I believe often when we are changing measurements we are also changing shape. In fact, other than grading, which proportionally distributes the measurement additions/subtractions, any time we change measurements by building up one area without blending totally around the girth or along the entire length, we are changing the shape.

I also believe that it is critical for the insole of the shoe to match the shape of the foot however you determine that (pedograph, scan, tracing...whatever). If someone has a distinct shape to the foundation of their foot and we try to do all of the accommodation for this above the sole of the shoe there will be a distinct loss of stability. A pair of gloves could wrap around a foot but that wouldn't make it right to walk in them. Which begs the question, how on earth did "fit's like a glove" work its way into the footwear lexicon?

Bill “The Last Man Standingâ€

Bill,

I'd like to say this as kindly as I can and hope that it falls on sympathetic, if not friendly ears....

Unless we are all gonna sit around nodding like a bunch of bobbleheads, every discussion that pretends to exchange real information will see differences of opinion. That's how we learn.

I made the point repeatedly in my remarks that I did not disagree with anyone's previous comments, just that I thought it came down to the way a person frames the question or the premises one starts with. I have not seen the "all or nothing" aspect you refer to.

If I can expand upon your remark that "shape is at least as important as measurements," again, the two concepts are, to a very real degree, synonymous. But no one has been more dependent on shape nor more willing to accept that prima facie premise than myself. I have railed against lasts that have heel seats much too wide relative to forepart widths. And I have been taken to task over, and been struggling with, boot last shapes versus shoe last shapes.

The complaint that we talk about measurements more than we talk about shape is probably correct and again the reason comes down to one simple fact: Unless we carve our own lasts we are pretty much at the mercy of the the last model and the lastmaker...whether he be a contemporary or someone who created a model 80 years ago. In those circumstances, the only way we can possibly hope to understand how that last relates to a foot is through comparing the data we collect from the foot to the last. And most of that hard, empirical data, is measurements, like it or not. Even when we talk about swing, it ultimately comes down to how much (a measurement) to add to the medial forepart to accommodate the big toe?

I think it is very hard for a shoe or bootmaker to get a handle on shape the way you perceive it. (And your perception is certainly as valid, maybe more so, than any other.) It seems self-evident to me, for instance, that if the last does not respect the "shape" of the footprint, fit becomes more difficult.

But also self-evident, is the fact that lasts incorporate many shapes that do not have any direct correlation to a real foot. Where is the high cone on a real life foot that we see on boot lasts? Why do virtually all contemporary lasts have a featherline around the heel? Why do virtually all contemporary lasts have a bottom radius that bears no resemblance at all to real feet? I know the given reasons for these seeming paradoxes but in my mind, if shape is important (and I reiterate, I think it is) then these are also shapes/issues that we need to discuss.

The question I put to you...and anyone else who cares to jump in...is simply: as makers of footwear how do we deal with those issues--those paradoxes--without carving our own lasts? The last comes to us in a fixed shape, we can modify it to some degree but the majority (90%) of modifications we make are going to be based on girths. I don't think that's "all or nothing" but if it is, I don't see an alternative.

PS...just now seeing your last post gives me confidence that, as I said in my earlier post, "it would be clear that there really isn't much (if any) disagreement among us." (he said, bobbing his head rapidly)



Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

I agree wholeheartedly with the recent observations and comments concerning shape and measurements.

I've got an Ol'buddy of dern near 32 years that I keep in contact with quite often. A long term relationship of this sort tends to bring out the mischief in both of us. Whenever the bull gets so deep it's hard to breathe, someone is bound to yell, "I call bullsh%t." Meaning, someone has gotten carried away in their story-telling or detailed "how to" sermons.

This notion that you arbitrarily substract a given dimension from a girth measurement to correctly build a shoe sounds so ridiculous....I'm gonna call "Bullsh%t".

Now I know I'm amist wiser men than I, but sometimes common sense just naturally takes over. I was gonna sit on the sideline and keep my thoughts to myself, but I know we're all grown-ups here and most know I mean no harm.

Can some smart person tell me why they would substract anything from a girth dimension to obtain a correct fit?

Respectfully,
Nurse Ratched

All,
Why dont we all just stick to the methods that we have success with and just get on with making boots ,shoes ,sandals whatever
Regards Mack.

Al and Bill,

Thanks for the feedback. I've seen recent advances in motion capture where an array of sonic sensors are placed on the body and can accurately record the movement to the digital world. Maybe someday soon we can plaster these suckers on feet and obtain good info on how the foot dimensions change in motion, allowing us to better fit lasts to feet.

Sorry, I can't find the link, but it was cheap technology geared toward better animation.

Jake,

Let me tell you a little imaginary story that I sometimes play out in my head....

Once upon a time in Merrie Olde England there was a shoe maker named Tom. He had two sons who he taught to make shoes. He was a poor man and his shop was a tiny room wedged into a space that might have, in better times, been called an alley. When customers came to him, there literally was not room enough to sit down. So Tom measured their feet standing up.

Now, if you measure a foot standing up--weight on, in other words--the foot will always measure larger at any give location than if you measure it weight off. Why that is, has always puzzled me, but there it is. I cannot explain it.

But Tom found that if he measured weight on, shoes were often too big unless he subtracted some amount from the measurements he took. Once he began doing that, his successes soon outnumbered his misfits. And so he prospered.

I mentioned that Tom had two sons--Alfred and Jack. Both eventually left their father's shop and made their own way in the world.

Alfred didn't stray too far from home and although he was much more prosperous than his father had been, he continued to make shoes much as Tom had before him. Alfred had sons...and apprentices...and passed those skills and techniques down to them.

Jack, the second son, went to London and set up shop in a fairly prosperous part of the city where his clientele was mostly from the merchant class and the lower ranks of the nobility. He not only had more room in his shop but his clients wished to think of themselves as socially superior to a common shoemaker. So they sat (as a King would sit) and when they allowed Jack to measure their feet, they did so with an air of great indifference. Jack was forced to measure his customers with their feet dangling in mid air. He quickly found that if he used his father's method of subtracting something from the measurements, the shoes would be too tight. So he had to adjust his measuring techniques to give reliable figures as taken, with no doubt as to their final accuracy.

Jack prospered and had sons and apprentices and passed on his knowledge to them.

Today we have several different approaches to measuring the foot--Alfred's method and Jack's method. Both require a certain skill to achieve success but both can work.

Now you know how I take measurements, Jake...and you know my explanation for why I do it that way. What you may not know is that somewhere in the mists of time, Jack--good old Jack Tomsson--taught the man who taught the man who taught the man...who taught Mike Ives who taught me. And, I, in turn passed it on to you.

Now Jake, I leave you with a word of caution--no part of this story is based on any known historical fact...and the names have been changed to protect the innocent. But it is all part of what makes this business so fascinating and it is the very reason why this forum exists--to share, discuss, and record these differences.



Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

(Message edited by dw on February 27, 2008)

Bill,

Re-reading your last post--the one with the foot/shoe scan--I think you make some really good points and I think the scan is extremely effective in illustrating those points.

I have for years and years advocated making the last fit the footprint/pedograph. I was not taught that way. Rather like many other "cowboy" boot makers my teacher thought that most any buildup should be placed on top of the last. Which results in a fairly stylish boot but a lot of welt overhang and potentially serious problems both for the boot and the foot over the long term.

It was only when I started to suffer from the accumulated effects of an old injury in my foot--I developed a Morton's Neuroma--that I started questioning the rationale behind where to place a buildup. But that's another story...

I would make one comment in passing...going back a little to an earlier comment of yours...anyone who wants to talk about "shape" is free to do so. You want more discussions about that? All you have to do is jump in--the water's fine. I am confident you will get more response than you perhaps bargained for.

Conversely, anyone who does not want to discuss lasts, or methods of measuring, or shape versus measurements...or any of that...can find plenty of other discussions about plenty of other subjects, right here on The Crispin Colloquy.


Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

I was also only taught to take measurements and only started using a pedograph about five years ago. I've become very dependent on the pedograph information though. I don't think I could build boots without it anymore, or at least I wouldn't want to.

I use the measurements to tell me what to add to the last, but I use the pedograph more and more to tell me where to put it. Sometimes I'll have a foot that is very wide, but in order to meet that width with the last bottom all of my buildups have to be on the sides of the last. For others, the pedograph width is very close to the last bottom but the girth is too small. So I end up adding to the heighth of the last to achieve the girth measurement I want.

I really liked what Bill said about how important shape is. Without the pedograph I'd be putting all of my buildups in the same places and never knowing if I were meeting the profile of the foot. But measurements are important also. If I only had the pedograph I couldn't see if someone had a tall fat foot, since it is possible to have a last that matches the width and doesn't come up to the girth of a foot.

Lisa

I just could not help but wanting to jump in at this point!

I totally agree with Bill and Lisa. I have let "form" take a back seat to "fit", especially adding a toe bulge for over sized great toes. In addition to the striding pedograph print, I also use a treadeasy foam casting. I pour plain old plaster Paris into the foot impression and thus create a plaster model that I can play with to select the last that best matches the ball of the foot and the heel. I tried using a contour gage but the little wires were a bit uncomfortable to the victum.

Just a word on using the foam casting method. The client is sitting and I place the foot squarely onto the foam with the knee at a 90 degree angle. I assist the client pushing only slightly down and make sure the toes and lateral side of the foot are pressed down. I say "this might hurt just a little bit." The reply is always, "that didn't hurt a bit." The toes tend to float up unless they asr gently assisted into position. I am very careful to preserve the arch profile and try to match this with the natural profile of the boot last and with the help of a product like "Eva." It is very easy to build the arch support, if any is needed, by using a heat gun and melting/forming the eva right on the plaster casting. This can be inserted, I glue them on, right onto the foot side of the insole. I usually glue a smooth 2 once smooth inner liner over the insole prior to lasting and when the arch support is sandwitched in it makes a nice package.

Like Lisa, I am very dependant on the podograph sheets and now on the castings. I use the back of the pedograph sheet to make the outline tracings and measurements.

I am hoping to move more toward "form" as I master the skills of fitting. In the mean time I will focus on "fit" and hope to mature in the trade. A word of caution, Just because I do something a certain way does not mean it is better than any other way. I consider myself as a student level bootmaker and not by any stretch of the imagination, a full blown boot maker. So, please take with "MAGNUS GRAINUS SALTUS."

Thank you, Larry Peterson

Dee-Dubb,

That was very good indeed!

I think you know I was just trying to stimulate some thinking and conversation. I think it's very educational to stop and study "why" we "do" "WHAT" we do. Just because "so and so" said this is the way it's done, don't make it practical, or reasonable, or even right. But then, there's very few "right" ways in this business. I've said many times, you can skin this cat in all directions.

Which leads me to that poor old feller taking measurements in the alley. He needs to turn lengthwise in line with the alley, and have the customer take a load off their feet. Which has really been my premise all along.

Once again, the parable was very appropriate!