Originally Posted by j ingevaldsson
Nah I didn't think you were criticizing me, no worries. I would say that the heel is a different thing, the external heel height (when you measure from bottom to top at the back of the built up heel) isn't the actual, practical heel height, it would be from the back of the insole to the ground.
But the actual, practical toe spring would be the tip of the bottom of the sole.
Actually, heel height is always
measured under where the malleoli would be on the foot--roughly 1/4 SLL from the back of the last; or, quick and dirty, at the breast of the heel. Never
at the back of the shoe or last.
This is lastmaker's canon...as is "toe spring"...and it has informed shoemakers for as long as the two Trades have been allied.
IMO, I do think you can say that the last will never be anything without the shoe, as well as you can say that the shoe wouldn't be anything without the last. But it's all in how you interpret it.
No biggie, but IMO, the last will always be a last--full of potential; the shoe is just a leather foot bag without the last...without form or even function.
The only thing in all of this that really takes it to the level of interesting is the simple fact that when language is used incorrectly...and, more importantly, indiscriminately...confusion results and nothing is understood. Truth, such as it is, is obscured or lost.
The example of the shoe above is a good example. People see this kind of thing and, perhaps like yourself, think it is not only acceptable but desirable. How many people looking at the photo of the shoe above think to themselves "Wow! How sleek! How streamlined! How tasty and expeditious! I want a pair just like that." And before you know it, questionable shoemaking practices such as zero toe spring, weight forward of the treadline, sprung heels, and heel raised above what the last was designed for, become the gold standard.
Or at least a meme of the fashion obsessed.edited for punctuation and clarityEdited by DWFII - 11/5/15 at 7:42am