The Crispin Colloquy

Marcell,

That's a nice looking last...I like the toe. I wish I could find a last/model like that.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

Lisa,

Me too...I've been using a pedograph for what? maybe 20 years?...and I don't think I would be comfortable making a shoe or boot without it.

That said I was just reading somewhere...either an earlier Golding or in HMSFM or maybe even in Swaysland...that the method I was originally taught of running the pencil at an angle under the weight on foot is/was a common way of getting a pretty accurate footprint. Of course, it won't be as accurate as a pedograph but with care it can be pretty good and certainly better than nothing.

Now if we had some way ...and I'm sure there is...if getting a "profile print." Or, on second thought, maybe that wouldn't really be relevant. As mentioned, lasts incorporate so many shapes that are not there in the foot. A quick look at Marcell's new last reveals a sharp corner on the medial and lateral forepart. It's very stylish. But where did that come from?!

I don't know the answer to that one but I may try to duplicate it on the next pair of shoes I make.

Tight Stitches
DWFII--Member HCC

All,

In this discussion of shape and measurements, would someone want to discuss the very inexact science of transfering the foot measurements to the last? I feel this is the largest single source of error. We can do a pretty good job of locating the ball measurement. The short heel is off the last and driven by the width of the top of the last. Where is the bony ridge for the low instep on the last? Where is the high instep on the last? Yes, we all make educated guesses at the approximate location but the last slopes severely in this area and a quarter inch difference in location will give very different girth measurements.

Just rambling, maybe our guesses are good enough and that is the art, but it seems there should be a more scientific way. You need two measurements to locate a point.

Chuck

edited to enable smaller pics -- see next post

Lance

(Message edited by lancepryor on February 28, 2008)

Here are some pics of my bespoke last for comparison purposes.





Lance

Paul,
I was visiting your web page and I viewed the slide show. You showed a pic of your leather hanging up. That looks like a great way to store leather. I have never seen leather stored like that. Does it cause any problems for you?
Geri

What beautiful lasts, Lance!

Chuck,

What I know is from Tippit. And studying his web page, and talkin' to 'im too, of course. And all that follows here from me on this, relates to his lasts and the models I use.
Here's his web link:
http://www.globalfootwearsolutions.com/index.html

Basically the low instep, in Bill's way of reckoning, is 50% of Standard Last Length (SLL) as measured on a straight line, from feather at toe to feather at back of heel, when a line is drawn (straight) thru the last lengthwise on a last with a medium round toe.

Here's some photos of how I achieve this using Bills description of a tracing block.


This is made of a couple layers of crepe. I drilled a hole at just the right angle to come out at the edge, that became my front center. And then I twisted in a pen. It took me two trys to get it right, but you can sand it close too. The block should be tall enough to reach the toe of the last when laid on it's side like this.


Laying the last on it's medial side I traced from heel to toe, dragging the block in contact with the last bottom. It gives me a line that starts at the heel, (I eyeball it straight down the feather line and mark it, but a small right angle square should be at hand anyway) then continues to the toe, mark it there too.


This next picture show's what a bad listener I can be. I wrote 40%, but Bill says 42% when measured from the heel. So get that right. For me the easiest way is to turn my ruler around and use the meteric side to measure the SLL in centimeters, then do my divisions with that.


Here you can see that the division marks were extended up 90degrees to the tangent (is that the right use of that?) at the 50% point, the low instep at the center of these three marks, and then the high intep up from there, and the waist below it. Then you can see the marks where I've transfered that to my last. I'll do my measureing on the last here. This is also illustrated on his Olga page, if I'm not mistaken.

I hope this helps some.

Bill,
Straighten me out if I got any of it wrong.

Paul

Those pictures are HUGE!

I treid to fix it but stalled, sorry.

Paul

Oops, it's getting late and I posted in the wrong topic. Moved here Sorry

Rob,

Having tossed a bit of kindling, early on, into this cozy campfire of a discussion, I'm really enjoying reading what follows--your posts especially, from and orthopedic specialist's perspective.

Being dubbed "The King of Swing" I have dealt with the "bent banana" look on numerous occasions. A few observations: 1) if a foot is "baby perfect" as regards the alignment of the great toe, presenting almost a perfect wedge outline when traced, it is very difficult to fit such a foot in any sharp, tapered, or pointed toe last/shoe satisfactorily--the two shapes just conflict on the most basic level; 2) if the great toe is getting pinched and developing a callus, the "fit" is "bad"--no way to rationalize it away; 3) the "trick" (if one can call it that) I've seen in certain venerable old lasts and older footwear is this: the bottom of the last--the insole shape--has a high degree of anatomical "swing" or inflare; however, viewing the last from above and how the wood's distributed, mitigates the bent banana look. IOW, the last is visibly inflared on the bottom, but this shape is sculpted to more of a neutral shape above the feather-line. As regards the shoe, the insole may be cut more inflared, but when the outsole and welt are trimmed and edge-finished, they are somewhat less "swung" so as not to emphasize the bent banana shape.

We would all agree (I hope) that the container shape--the inside of the footwear--can be one shape, whilst through our artifice and subtle tweaking, the outside of the footwear can be somewhat differently shaped with no ill effects on the interior or fit. Thoughts?

Let me ask you this then, too, regarding pronation: you said "pronation starts in the heel...", and that a mild wedge back there improves matters. Does this not relate to what I wrote above about "twist" in a last? Or, that the medial heel when rising up as the foot flexing across the joints (at an angle) does not stay in a level plane, but the medial heel rises high "faster" than the lateral side? Basically, a last with a "twisted" heel-seat (higher medially than laterally) has this "wedge" built-in.

In your profession dealing with foot pathology as you do, do you see any correlation between clipping the great toe (interfering with its location and function as the power-point of the "tripod" foot structure/action) as impinging on, or even inducing more pronation? If the great toe is prevented from functioning naturally in near to its natural position, then that leg of the "tripod" is compromised, allowing the foot to roll-in or pronate more. No? If the great toe is constantly doing battle with a clipping shoe/boot, and begins to retreat into a misaligned position, or if it's strong enough it can force the foot across the insole laterally, jamming the little toe up hard against the upper as well, is this not part of the pronation-equation? I guess what I'm getting at here is, clipping the great toe in a "wrong" container shape not only affects the great toe adversely, it can lead to pronating, as well as problems on the lateral side if the little toe is getting crushed over there. Correcting the pronation at the heel (alone) by wedging, with no adjustment in medial inflare at the forepart, could theoretically exacerbate the problem? Tell me more.

Another dimension to this issue, which we plowed well and deep years ago was, if these architectural features in lasts: swing and twist (as well as anatomical bottom surfaces with some pre-footbed hints hollowed-in; fully radiussed feather-lines from mid-foot all around the heel-seat; "inside cone" instep crests, etc., etc. that many prefer in bespoke or high-end lasts) were such great ideas, how come they are so rare in surviving lasts? Perhaps I digress, but I think it might be fun to dibble in this corner of the garden for a moment.

Most of us are overwhelming accustomed to using old second-hand factory production-lasts, and adapting/adjusting these to meet customers' requirements. Few of us have the luxury of an in-house lastmaker to scratch-make lasts. In a nut shell, production-lasts, like production-footwear, are limited on two accounts on how far they can go in any extreme: 1) because of economics (the fewer lasts the better in a factory), and the "straighter" the last shape, the easier all phases of production are, e.g., pattern-making is, etc.; 2) machine limitations--trying to nurse a highly anatomical last and shoe, even in skilled hands, through a well equipped Goodyear welted plant (for example: machine lasting; side-stapling; toe-lasting; heel-wiping/nailing, etc. etc.) is harder than getting a camel through the eye of a needle! So, for the past 120 years or so, the "industry" even for high-end Goodyear welted footwear has been a downward force on any extreme anatomical shaping in footwear. The customers' eyes and subsequently tastes are driven by this, and to some extent so are ours. Of course other factory bottoming-methods are these days perhaps more "flexible" and forgiving of extreme shoes and shapes (witness current fashion trends), but none of these constructions has earned the "Luxe" cachet of welted footwear.

I hope Mack and our West Enders will speak to this as well, but from what I have observed in the trade there, bespoke lasts tend--not in every case--to be "improved" standard lasts. And, for many firms there, not so long ago, they bought in runs of a basic lasts, and then merrily rasped and fitted those up to a customer's needs. This basic last was a good shape to begin with--not overly inflared/outflared, radiussed round the back-part, and inside-cone shaped on top. But, shoes pulled over on one of these lasts still cannot be walked through a Goodyear welted plant, so in these regards they were not "factory-lasts", but neither were they individual one-off creations. The point here is, one can make excellent bespoke footwear on a run of "basic lasts" if the architecture is there to begin with, but factory production-lasts are further from the ideal we need even for a base to start fitting-up on.

Paul,

Thank you. Your reply was a lot of work. Not sure I totally understand but it is a different approach. Let me do some more studying, scratching my head and a few other places to come up with a reply. Will restudy Bill's website. Thanks to all who so generously make information available.

Chuck

Paul,

Your method for locating the insteps on the last makes some sense, in particular, if you add it to the discussion in another thread of Standard Last Length (SLL, 12/11th of the foot length). Had seen Bill’s discussion before but had not studied it. Now it makes sense.

Thought I had invented your marking device until I saw something very similar in one of the Golding books DW has posted. It is a handy tool. Mine is wood with a rubber band to keep tension on the pen.

Your method of laying out the points on paper solves several problems. One, it locates the points. Two, you can always go back to the same points after you cover them up or rasp them off when shaping the last.

Again, Thank you very much. We learn slowly and sometimes need a different perspective for it to make sense.

Chuck

To all:

Sorry to stir things up and then go silent but I just got swamped. As for the previous shape/measurement discussion, I certainly never intended my remarks to be construed as meaning I did not think measurements were important. Of course, they are. I was stating my belief that most feet could fall into "X" number of shape categories and that if we built our lasts to fit the shape category of that particular foot we'd be doing the customer a lot more good than just using the last shaped the way it is and trying to split ant hairs on the measurements that fluctuate so much during the day. Didn't mean to offend anyone or criticize anyone but it did get a lively discussion going didn't it?

Now I have a favor to ask. I have a customer I'm developing a production last for. This will not be for custom shoes but for ready made. However, the customer would like to have the last as generically anatomically correct as possible. We seem to be pretty much in line with each other's thinking except from one area. The customer was the bottom forepart of the last to be absolutely flat. The theory is that this will allow as much of the foot to touch the floor as possible. I disagree.

The last is for 20/8 heel height pump and before we get started on lambasting that type of footwear...that's not the question being asked. Those shoes are out there. Women are going to buy them and therefore the more we can do to make things "right" the better off we'll be.

I've just never made a last totally flat in the forepart. I believe you can have too much curvature but I also believe you want at least some degree of radius on the bottom. My theory (and what I was taught) is that this allows the foot to be cradled properly in a non weight bearing stage and if the shoe is made right the proper amount of "flattening" will occur during the walking process.

The closest I've ever seen to a flat bottom are lasts made for Slip Lasted or "California" construction and they were just "flatter". They were not totally flat. This "flatter" bottom was for manufacturing considerations, not the foot.

Has anyone made a last with a bottom totally flat in the forepart? If so, why? If not, why not? Thanks for any responses I can get.

Bill “The Last Man Standingâ€

Lance,

That is a nice looking last you've got. I've always been partial to the chisel toe myself. I like the inside cone too. Here an attempt to show the closest thing I have to that in my library. Actually it's very close I believe. Sorry if the pictures come out too big. I reduced them but if I go too far it loses too much definition.





Bill “The Last Man Standingâ€

Bill
I Have had this discussion before. The molding to the foot theory works for me. But here it believe 99 % of lasts have some raduis so that some tension can be induced during the closure. It is easier to apply a stretching force around a cylinder than a square. A last may not be round but it generally, bottom radius included, so a 2/3 drs round and a flat spot maybe hard to pull an upper around and attach to the insole.

What amount on a light construction shoe, does this radius spring back? Like steam bending wood you must allow for spring back as the mold is removed.

Can anyone tell me if I have my head over the glue pot to often?
Regards
Brendan

I'm not as seasoned a shoemaker as some here but when I was starting out about 12 or 13 years ago, I also wondered about the curvature on the bottom of the forepart of the last. I thought that it might be more "anatomilcally correct" to have a flat bottom so I modified a pair of lasts and made shoes on them. They only had a half inch heel height. In the end, I found that the radiused bottom was more comfortable than the flat bottom.

My theory is that the metatarsal heads are laid out in an arch shape, usually with the 2nd metatarsal being the longest. When you give the last some heel height, you are driving the longest metatarsal into the gound the most. As a demonstration, put your hand flat on a flat surface. Imagine that the fingertips are the metatarsal heads. Keep the fingers and hand parallel and raise the "heel" of your hand. You'll see that the higher you make the heel height, the more pressure there is on the longest finger - the second. In fact, the pinky finger comes right off the ground. I theorize that the radiused bottom helps to bring the "ground" up to the shorter met heads, or allows the longer metatarsals to sink more.

I hope that makes sense. Alternately, you could step ball first into some biofoam and observe the impression of the foot. I wouldn't expect it to be flat.

Brendan and Greg,

Thank you very much for you comments. Brendan, your explanation of the tension makes perfect sense, at least as far as I understand shoe construction. That would seem to flow with the slip-lasted shoes having a flatter bottom as I would imagine there is less tension in the construction.

And Greg, your theory not only makes sense but the little hand exercise perfectly duplicates what you're saying. Of course now my wife wonders what I'm doing with my hands...but she often wonders about that.

I also called my Podiatrist and his opinion was that the only time the forepart of the shoe should even come close to remotely being flat would be if the person had extremely flat feet. His explained that the majority of the patients he sees have forefoot varus, while the second place group has forefoot valus (or maybe it was the other way around) and very few have the first, third, and fifth met heads all evenly supporting the foot.

At this point I'm satisfied that a totally flat bottom last would detract from rather than add to the wearer's comfort. However, I'd still be interested in other points of view if there are any. All I knew was that I'd never seen such a last but I'm certainly not a CPed or health expert.

Bill “The Last Man Standingâ€

Bill,

Excellent question.

It's been done before, quite successful by SAS, their fitness walking shoes have a virtually flat bottom. I never had the chance to actually see their lasts but working with the shoes on a regular basis I have to say they are the flattest out there. Those don't have much heel and part of their success is the combination with a footbed that dynamically molds to the foot.

I also know that there are plenty of heels higher than 2.5” being sold but in my not so humble opinion you have to shift somewhere around the 12/8 from anatomically correct to thinking damage control. Just had to get that off my chest .

The first follow up question would be; what type of footbed / sock liner are you planning on adding? Something with metatarsal support and forefoot padding? With enough metatarsal support and a little padding it would offset Greg's concern, which I think is valid though quite minimal, we are talking about only a few millimeters that are rendered inconsequent when we head into this heel height. Your podiatrists observation also goes out the window at that heel height (IMO) and I don't see how a forefoot varus or valgus is helped / hindered by a flat v/s convex last bottom. I can see how wedging and such would help but that's not in question.

Construction of the shoe, flexibility and material choices should also not be ignored. Don't forget manufacturing either, what tolerances are you going to work with, Chinese standards or rest of the world standards? Many a good idea has been butchered in the execution.

Walking in higher heels is a very different gait cycle. The foot is much more static. I see no problem flattening the bottom if you account for the arch shape of the metatarsal heads, not benefit either other than some fancy marketing spin someone may dream up.
An old discussion on the Colloquy comes to mind about the rounding of the last bottom. If memory serves I recall that one of the benefits of rounding was adding more volume without adding width or height, a form of “hidden volume” if you will.

Another approach to make high heels (more) comfortable was stiffening up the bottom, taking the flex out of the sole, add a little roll over the toe and have the foot function totally static as in a clog. Worked well for Aravon. Don't recall that they went all the way up to 20/8 and I can't remember if their last bottoms were flat but they sure were flattened. They use JV, pretty old school so I would guess rounded.

Now mind you, I don't have this from personal experience nor do I choose to make shoes over 1.5” heel height but it has come up with manufacturing clients before.
Talk you customer into a couple of prototypes and have them figure it out in wear tests.

Just my

Rob

Bill,

I was thinking about this, on an average women's last 20/8 heel, sample size 7 medium, how much would you say the curvature adds to the last compared to a flat bottom. would it be more than 2.5 mm at the deepest point?

Just wondering if I'm thinking within the correct proportions.

Rob

Bill,
Thanks for your question ,My response overlaps into the area of correcting commom foot problems but my answer belongs here,I think.

Looking at the last medial to lateral and theoretically as our feet are perfectly designed in nature to walk and run on flat or irregular surfaces on tip toes or heel stike to toe off because of the feet being "mobile adaptors".In regard to the last our foot may not require the last to have this transverse curve in any shoe construction.

Your question arrouses my curiosity.I like the idea of the last forefoot flat but with a slight curve at the toe and medial and lateral perimeter to the ball area.I agree with Rob as he pointed out ,TRY!

In fitting orthotics into ready made shoes we have to follow the floor of the shoe having this transverse curve and the shank curve to follow the form,hence form follows function.The forefoot of the orthotic follows the curvature of the last perimeter and we grind the full contact foot orthotic in its entire perimeter in order to maintain full contact of the foot and orthotic device so the orthotic does not exert additional pressures around the foots perimeter.

With orthoic fittings the forefoot perimeter is ground thinner on its perimeter to follow the floor of the shoe and decrease these medial and lateral pressures created by the transverse last design curvature.We often are required to fabricate dress orthotics for the 20/8ths" higher heeled shoes often with a 1/8th"EVA forefoot platform on the orthotic trimmed to sulcus to a feather edge and the forefoot perimeter is trimmed about the medial /lateral edges.I am aware that the transverse curve is across the entire forefoot of the last and with this fitting of the dress-thotic the orthotic is not fully flat but most of the flattening around the medial/lateral forefoot columns is flattend and the forefoot met heads and all 5 toes easily molded into the orthotic adequately into the "footbed"in gait.In essence the forefoot is fairly flat.


In my experience, in taken a foot mold for custom shoes up to 12/8" heel height and forming the last bottom with the "Innersole" that is in essence a full contact orthotic from heel to ball the forefoot is basically flat, as that is your question.I make the last bottom flat,eccept on the medial,lateral and toe perimeters about 3/8ths"inwards and only about 3/32nds" in depth on the edges for the upper.The Met head area is then flat.

Rob has pointed out to incorporate forefoot cushioning in the shoe for comfort and Al Saguto in a former post somwhere coined a phrase having to do with the insole being moldable,like vegetable leather where the ball and toes create a custom molded print and a ridge in the sulcus[where the arches between the toes and metatarsals are joined.


You can give to your client exactly what they request and suggest keeping a curve on the margins of the perimeter of the forefoot as discussed.

I wonder who, when or even if the extra depth removable insole comfy high heel dress shoe supporting the lateral ,medial and metatarsal arches has arrived and still meets the criteria required for the sexy look.

Fred

Fred,

Check out Aravon and Theresia M (site seems to be down right now. Their German site is up in case that helps you.)
Not that these shoes would make either of us look sexy but it may be something your customers are looking for. For the most part these shoes work well in combination with orthotics.

Rob

Bill,

No real answer on my part, just a comment. I always assumed that the rounded forepart of the last was for cosmetics, making the shoe appear narrow at the time of purchase. In flexible shoes it would theoretically flatten out in weight bearing and become more anatomically "correct".

Greg,

You have me doing funny motions with my hands... just like Bill Eureka!!! Wow!!! What a great explanation for the curved bottom of the last! This is goes against my pedorthic training but explains why I have so many female patients who claim that their heeled shoes are more comfortable than a flatter shoe. Brilliant explanation and it makes anatomical sense!

Thanks to all. Great discussion.

Sean

Rob,

I've had a lot of success with the Aravon shoes as well. They use a lot of cushioning and a small met pad as you mentioned in an earlier post. (I'll have ask the rep about how flat the last is...) Thanks for the Theresia M shoes link. I'll check out the site once it comes back up.

Sean

Another interesting note, the version of the Munson last that I have, which I've read described as being a very successful last, has the apex of the bottom curve offset towards the 2nd metatarsal head.

As for the Aravon shoes, I've only worked with a couple but I do recall fitting an orthotic into a higher heeled sandal last year. I had to fill in a channel along the shank because it was so curved that the orthotic wasn't sitting properly. My wife has a pair of lower heeled Aravon boots and when I remove the thick cushioned sock liner it shows the the bottom forepart having the typical curve.