or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..." - Page 93

post #1381 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


It's really hard to see the damage you're referring to from these thumbnails.

Just click onto the original poster's name, that will take you back to the original posting. Then the photograph will enlarge.

Nevertheless, I've uploaded the picture for you again.


post #1382 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoefan View Post

I raise the two lasts, with toes facing each other, to the proper heel height. Do the toes' heights line up or not?

Doesn't that assume that the heels and the heel pitch are exactly the same? Doesn't it assume that the lasts are of identical length? Doesn't it assume that the longitudinal radius of the forepart on one last is the same as on the other?
.
Quote:
A couple of comments here. First, last makers who have measured thousand of feet and who have subsequently fitted shoes made on lasts for those feet perhaps know what they need to do for the last bottoms, without having an imprint. If one were to take a look at the notes they take, they often make notations as to special characteristics needed on the last bottom. Also, many will do a tracing of the instep, heel, outside waist, and joint with the pencil held at a 30 degree angle which will give good information about the bottom of the foot. So, just because they don't use a pedograph doesn't mean they ignore the unique characteristics of the sole of the foot.

Yes, and I have seen and read from...esp. contemporary makers...that you simply choose a last where the featherline is an arbitrary amount smaller than the outline. Which ignores the fact that the footprint accurately represents where the foot is contacting the ground. It is a near photographic expression of the plantar surface. If the bottom contour and so forth is so important why would you ignore the footprint?

30°may work for most feet...but it is, again, an approximation. Some feet are very firm and outline wide but print narrow. Some are flabby and outline narrow and print wide. And all variations in-between.
Quote:
Likewise, if one does a fitter and subsequently modifies the last (and knows what one is doing), the absence of a LH measurement doesn't mean the last doesn't have the right LH. And, fwiw, the last maker I observed most closely does take a SH and LH measurement.

Again, I'm not so sure...in a fitter's model you can tighten the instep girth and affect the LH. Or so it seems. But not in reality, I think. The foot will be held down but not properly back the way correctly tightening the LH would do. Admittedly, you can take the last and carve the LH back, but to do that, don't you need to know the LH? And if you do, why not incorporate it in the first place? Beyond that, It seems to me that adjusting for too long a LH, after the fact, is a kludge that runs the risk of throwing the the patterns out of whack.
Quote:
And, I'm not saying others, even factory lasts, don't have a curved treadline.

That's what I think too. Which is why I said in my initial explanation that "The tread line is an imaginary line that runs across the plantar surface of the foot corresponding, roughly, to the joint between the ends of each of the metatarsal heads and the proximal phalanges. I suppose it might also be called the joint line. Or the ball-of-the-foot line. It is the line along which the foot bends. I think it was Golding that said that it was usually at a 17° degree angle to the centerline of the foot, IIRC."

If you're saying that the way you create a curved treadline on the last is to make a metatarsal hollow at the front of the waist....I thought that might be the case. It doesn't resolve my dilemma, however, in that I think this is one of the most tricky and most problematic modifications that an uncertified maker can do. Talking to podiatrists and orthopedic doctors (I have a Morton's neuroma from my days in the paratroopers), any such modification needs to be placed carefully, lest it cause discomfort or even, as with horseshoeing, crippling. I admire your ability to do that. I don't think I have the knowledge or skill to do it with confidence. Even on my own feet, a met pad place a millimeter too far forward stops me dead in my tracks.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 5/13/16 at 6:26pm
post #1383 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengal-stripe View Post

Just click onto the original poster's name, that will take you back to the original posting. Then the photograph will enlarge.

Nevertheless, I've uploaded the picture for you again.

Thank you for taking the time.

I'm not so sure that this kind of wear is all that unusual. I look at the photo and two things pop out at me--first the threads in the toe area seem unaffected. Second, the channel cover is wearing away on the lateral side of the shoe only a little less quickly than the toe.

Yes, a toe plate will stop or cover-up the wear at the toe. At what price? Will the threads be cut when the toe plate accommodating rebate is made? Etc..

I think that to some extent, despite the cost of a pair of bespoke or MTM or even RTW shoes, people have to recognize that the appeal of a high end shoe is the leather...with all its strengths and weaknesses. But that's just my personal opinion.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 5/13/16 at 3:21pm
post #1384 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Doesn't that assume that the heels and the heel pitch are exactly the same? Doesn't it assume that the lasts are of identical length? Doesn't it assume that the longitudinal radius of the forepart on one last is the same as on the other?
I didn't say that the two foreparts, including toe spring, are identical. If the toes are at the same height when the last is at the correct heel height, then their toe springs match (at least as I understand the definition of toe spring, i.e. how high the toe is at the front when the heel is raised to the correct height). Now, as for the entire forepart of two lasts being identical, I don't think they will be, although I think they will be similar. If you have 2 factory lasts of different lengths, due to different foot lengths, won't those foreparts vary somewhat? If the feet are two different widths across the joints, won't the two lasts have slightly different foreparts? And, even if they do, what is the harm? Assuming you are not pinching the toes, why do they need to be identical? I think the importance of consistent toe springs is mainly an aesthetic issue, to help the two shoes look like a pair even if they are slightly different in some respects.
.

Quote:
Yes, and I have seen and read from...esp. contemporary makers...that you simply choose a last where the featherline is an arbitrary amount smaller than the outline. Which ignores the fact that the footprint accurately represents where the foot is contacting the ground. It is a near photographic expression of the plantar surface. If the bottom contour and so forth is so important why would you ignore the footprint?
Bespoke last makers, or makers fitting up lasts? I cannot believe bespoke last makers would simply do this.
Quote:
30°may work for most feet...but it is, again, an approximation. Some feet are very firm and outline wide but print narrow. Some are flabby and outline narrow and print wide. And all variations in-between.
Again, I'm not so sure...in a fitter's model you can tighten the instep girth and affect the LH. Or so it seems. But not in reality, I think. The foot will be held down but not properly back the way tightening the LH would do. Admittedly, you can take the last and carve the LH back, but to do that, don't you need to know the LH? And if you do, why not incorporate it in the first place? Beyond that, It seems to met hat adjusting for too long a LH after the fact is a kludge that runs the risk of throwing the the patterns out of whack.
As I said, the last maker I spend time with does measure the LH. So do I. But, many last makers with thousands of lasts under their belts don't. I guess the question, which I cannot answer, is whether the results they deliver are good.

Quote:
That's what I think too. Which is why I said in my initial explanation that "The tread line is an imaginary line that runs across the plantar surface of the foot corresponding, roughly, to the joint between the ends of each of the metatarsal heads and the proximal phalanges. I suppose it might also be called the joint line. Or the ball-of-the-foot line. It is the line along which the foot bends. I think it was Golding that said that it was usually at a 17° degree angle to the centerline of the foot, IIRC."
Well, 17 degrees would only be an average of course. So, any time one is using a factory last, one is starting with the angle that the last's creator thought was best. That doesn't reflect a given customer's feet. If you have a last with the correct HB for the inside joint, but the outside joint of the last is forward of the foot's actual joint, what do you do? Do you cut the last, build up a narrower last laterally, or what.
Quote:
If you're saying that the way you create a curved treadline on the last is to make a metatarsal hollow at the front of the waist....I thought that might be the case. It doesn't resolve my dilemma, however, in that I think this is one of the most tricky and most problematic modifications that an uncertified maker can do. Talking to podiatrists and orthopedic doctors (I have a Morton's neuroma from my days in the paratroopers), any such modification needs to be placed carefully, lest it cause discomfort or even, as with horseshoeing, crippling. I admire your ability to do that. I don't think I have the knowledge or skill to do it with confidence. Even on my own feet, a met pad place a millimeter too far forward stops me dead in my tracks
I included the metatarsal hollow as an added feature. But, by definition, the profile of the last has the joint contacting the ground, so the last must go 'up' from there. That is the basic notion of a treadline. I don't see why that notion would make the shape fore or aft of the treadline particularly troublesome (putting aside the more challenging issue of the met. hollow). In any event, a factory last also has a profile, and that profile has a built in assumption about the angle of the joint line and the shape/profile of the sole of the foot, which, again, may well not correspond to the customer's foot.

I believe you have Koleff's last making book. Is there something in there that you find troubling, because it would seem you must if you have the concerns noted above?
post #1385 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoefan View Post


Bespoke last makers, or makers fitting up lasts? I cannot believe bespoke last makers would simply do this

Well, how do you determine whether your treadline width is identical with the foot? Or the heel seat width. Or forepart volume in relation to toe spread? If you don't take a footprint? Even if you use the 30° pencil technique?

Doesn't the footprint being a near photographic representation of the plantar surface of the foot make any sense?

Doesn't my observation about firm feet and flabby feet make any sense?

What good does it do to make the insole wider or narrower than the foot will use?

In the absence of a pedograph, the 30° technique is adequate, I suppose. I used it for years. But, ultimately, IMO, it's a guess. Perhaps that's good enough, I don't know but I have never been comfortable with "good enough."
Quote:
Well, 17 degrees would only be an average of course. So, any time one is using a factory last, one is starting with the angle that the last's creator thought was best. That doesn't reflect a given customer's feet. If you have a last with the correct HB for the inside joint, but the outside joint of the last is forward of the foot's actual joint, what do you do? Do you cut the last, build up a narrower last laterally, or what.

Yes, either / or...depending on the foot, of course. Sometimes I even shape / cut the dorsal surface of the last when the foot print spreads but the girth measurement is too great.

Quote:
I included the metatarsal hollow as an added feature. But, by definition, the profile of the last has the joint contacting the ground, so the last must go 'up' from there. That is the basic notion of a treadline. I don't see why that notion would make the shape fore or aft of the treadline particularly troublesome (putting aside the more challenging issue of the met. hollow). In any event, a factory last also has a profile, and that profile has a built in assumption about the angle of the joint line and the shape/profile of the sole of the foot, which, again, may well not correspond to the customer's foot.

I believe you have Koleff's last making book. Is there something in there that you find troubling, because it would seem you must if you have the concerns noted above?

Much as I'd like to understand what you're saying, I am having trouble. I don't know whether I'm addressing anything you might consider relevant or not but in addition to the idea of a treadline, I have this notion of a tread area. Roughly analogous to the roll of tissue that surrounds the ball of the foot. The actual metatarsalphalangeal joint is in the middle of that roll of tissue. I see something very similar on the the lasts I use and every last I have ever inspected. Given that anatomical reality, however, I don't see how or why the last should be shaped such that it goes "up" from the treadline. I guess I'd have to see it in person...I'm from Missouri.

Never put much stock in Koleff's book. tried to make a pair of lasts for myself from his instructions and they were so at odds with lasts that I knew fit me, I gave it up as a bad idea.

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/13/16 at 3:17pm
post #1386 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Well, how do you determine whether your treadline width is identical with the foot? Or the heel seat width. Or forepart volume in relation to toe spread? If you don't take a footprint? Even if you use the 30° pencil technique?

Doesn't the footprint being a near photographic representation of the plantar surface of the foot make any sense?

Doesn't my observation about firm feet and flabby feet make any sense?

What good does it do to make the insole wider or narrower than the foot will use?

In the absence of a pedograph, the 30° technique is adequate, I suppose. I used it for years. But, ultimately, IMO, it's a guess. Perhaps that's good enough, I don't know but I have never been comfortable with "good enough."
Well, first of all, I never wrote that I don't use a pedograph....

However, if one makes a fitter, then one can compare the width of the insole, on the actual foot, at the joints, and then use that as guidance for modifying the last. In my personal case, I've made a last with the insole width (feather line to feather line, across the joints) corresponding to my pedograph; that has, in fact, turned out to be wider than I actually need, when my foot is in the shoe. Is that because the pedograph was flawed? It it because a pedograph is taken on a flat surface, but the bottom of the last is ovoid, and hence will be greater due to the radius of the curve being longer than the cord connecting those two points? I don't know exactly why, but I do know that the pedograph did not yield a perfect insole width for me. Moreover, we both know, the foot changes shape and dimension through the gait cycle; so, should one do a pedograph in a stationary manner, or having the client impact the pedograph while striding? In other words, I think a pedograph is helpful, but I don't find it to be absolutely conclusive or flawless.

Also, I recall you writing that you don't necessarily make the heel seat the same width as the heel print. So, if that is the case, aren't you too relying, in that context, on 'good enough'?




Quote:
Much as I'd like to understand what you're saying, I am having trouble. I don't know whether I'm addressing anything you might consider relevant or not but in addition to the idea of a treadline, I have this notion of a tread area. Roughly analogous to the roll of tissue that surrounds the ball of the foot. The actual metatarsalphalangeal joint is in the middle of that roll of tissue. I see something very similar on the the lasts I use and every last I have ever inspected. Given that anatomical reality, however, I don't see how or why the last should be shaped such that it goes "up" from the treadline. I guess I'd have to see it in person...I'm from Missouri.
I would agree that the treadline is really a tread area, in that the foot isn't resting on the ground at only one exact location (when looked at from the side), but rather an area with width, since the flesh compresses under the body's weight. If you look at the earlier drawing, Pic 3, the treadline is perhaps 1/2" wide (front to back), and the treadline is reasonably flat or slightly convex when viewed from the side.


In terms of the last going 'up': for a shoe with a heel, the insole is higher at the heel than it is at the joint. So, the last bottom has to go 'up,' relative to the ground and the joint, in order to reach the heel height. Furthermore, the shape of the joint (and hence the tread line, per above), in profile from the side, is more or less oval in shape (perhaps a squashed oval right at the joint/across the treadline). So, if it is ovoid, and the ground describes the line of tangency (as is does, by definition, for the joint/treadline of a last), then the rest of the oval has to move away from that line of tangency, and hence, in my vernacular, 'up.' The rest of the last bottom is off the ground, hence is 'up' relative to the location of the joint.

Of course, the last bottom could do so in a constant manner (i.e. a straight line, angled from the joint up to the heel), but that is not how the foot is. If you look at the last profile (Pic 1) in my earlier post, the last goes 'up' relative to the ground on either side of the joint. Also, at some point, the profile of the last between the joint and the heel has to go from convex to concave in order to accommodate both the profile of the joint and the fact that the heel seat is more or less parallel to the ground. So, the bottom of the last has to have, at some point, a change in shape from convex to concave, thus a point of inflection (i.e. the second derivative of the curve crosses zero). That is how the foot is, and it is unavoidable in a last that more or less mirrors the foot. So, you have to have a location where that inflection occurs, it is unavoidable. This is true for factory lasts as well as hand made lasts.
post #1387 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Well, you asked if I was referring to bespoke makers and / or fitters. And what I was getting at is that I suspect there aren't too many of us here on this side of the pond and perhaps even less on the other, that do use a pedograph.Often photos are posted here on SF of the measuring process being done at some famous bespoke maker around the world and I don't think I've ever seen such a photo with a pedograph. Doesn't mean that they don't use them but IMO, it is near on to useless to lay a last carved or factory on an outline of the foot. But that's what is invariably seen in such photos if that particular shot is taken at all.

No, I don't think recording a footprint with the pedograph is flawless but it is infinitely better...again IMO...than relying exclusively on the outline. I take an outline too..who doesn't? Myself, I respect the footprint almost as much as I respect the stick for empirical data and I adhere to it pretty closely. But you're right, I do sometimes let the heel of a shoe last (not boot lasts) stray beyond the boundaries of the footprint in the heel.Why? Well, I can't give you a good explanation but I am very circumspect in that regard. Even so, I admit that I'm not comfortable with it, no. Even though it seems to make no difference. Maybe that has to do with the LH. Get that right and a good many problems of fit are immediately resolved.

Beyond that, I am pretty strict about the last more or less matching the footprint in the forepart.

As for the "up" business, I think we are on the same track. I just don't see how it represents or functions as a "curved treadline." I think most of my shoe and boot lasts conform to your description...straight from J&V. Looking at your diagrams..which BTW, I thank you for--I know it takes time...if you eliminate the metatarsal hollow, nothing looks out of the ordinary or different from my stock lasts. Maybe I'm missing something, who knows?

That said, I harken back to one of my earlier posts in this discussion to reiterate for clarity's sake--I think that the last must sit on the treadline. and that, despite a tread area of perhaps as much as one inch on either side, that is a very very narrow...well, again...line. I don't want to give the impression that heel height can be fudged a little. I don't think it can without jeopardizing the balance of the last and shoe.

To bed to bed said sleepyhead.
post #1388 of 1710
I don't want to jump in on too much of what you two are discussing in such a respectful manner but as you both know me, I have a few details for the medical and biomechanical sides.

The ball of the foot can be quite variable in the "parabola" that is formed from the 1st to 5th met heads. For most people it won't make a hive difference because the foot is quite good at accommodating slight variations as long as there isn't a very constricting feeling or no support at all. The advantage to hand made lasts is that it is easier to reshape the "parabola" in people who have extreme variations because the entire lateral aspect of,the last needs to be reshaped to accommodate these changes.



In terms of the bottom of the last, the shapes going with the he arch of the foot is one factor that I look forward to in a bespoke last and a pedograph is a great way to properly achieve the knowledge required to get the shape and height of the arch, which can then be added to the last In a reverse manner so the insole will mirror the foot for the support. In terms of when to take this pedograph, it depends on how the foot compensates from sitting to stand to gait. If the foot is fairly rigid I would do when sitting or standing but if the foot moves a lot it is best to do when sitting because that is considered semi weight bearing. That will allow just a mild amount of collapse of the arch. If done in full stance, the arch support in the insole won't be very supportive because the impression on the pedograph (or measurement taken if not using a pedograph) will be too low.


Another way to achieve this is by casting. I use this for orthotics, which can give the best support for an insole in a shoe if done properly and factor in the accommodation of the foot through stance and gait. When making a "slipper cast" you will have the entire plantar surface of the foot but you also will get the lateral dimensions that can be used for the last. Then you will only need the tape measurements of the foot for the circumference at the locations that you choose to take as well as the SH and/or LH.

I prefer the casting non weight bearing so I can capture the full arch and before the foot compensates but I can adjust as needed based on the degree of change they go through. Of course this is based in experience because there is no standard to allow for the degree of change. That is why a trial shoe is beneficial to adjust slightly based on the preference of the client or patient in my case.

There also are other techniques but they are much more in the orthopedic side that probably is beyond the scope of this conversation, like for custom molded shoes. This can be used as long as the last maker will give a more elegant shape to the last if possible.



One other part to factor in for the width that was mentioned is in terms of the foot compensation too. If there is a rigid Boney foot the last should be close to the actual foot size and may be a bit more narrow to make the shape more elegant because the soft tissue between the bones can compression as long as they don't have a neuroma.

In a fat or fleshy foot, it depends on how the spread is. If the foot is wide, you can make a slightly tighter shoe in lateral width as long as you give the space in overall volume because the tissue will move up instead. If the person has a lot of soft tissue under the foot but is Boney on top it is best to make the shoe wider than the foot to allow for the expansion laterally but to keep the fit tighter on the top of the foot to hold it in place better.


These will work for either modifying lasts or making them from scratch and I have shoes that were made both ways. The only major advantage to hand made lasts is for unusual bone forms where the shape of the foot is very different from the parabola or relationships between different parts of the foot (especially in the middle of the foot) are very peculiar because these are very difficult to solve cases. If the toes are short or the heel dimensions are off, it can still all be fixed on a modified last like @DWF does.
post #1389 of 1710
There are two reasons why I probably shouldn't be posting this:

1. It is hearsay.
2. It is inviting more controversy.

The reason why I am posting it here is that it lend support to those makers who state that the traditional ways are best, so here it goes.

Although the only thing I should be doing is saving my money up for some bespoke footwear, I lack some self control, so I called up a company today that makes and sells some ready-to-wear boots, but mainly sells boots that are "made-to-order."

This company makes some of the most highly-regarded non-dress boots in North America. They makes boots that are actually going to see some rough conditions on a regular basis. They have been selling boots for decades, as well as resoling and rebuilding them for their customers.

I asked them if all of their boots are Goodyear-welted, and the gentleman said that yes they are. I asked him if the gemming ever fails on them. He said, without hesitation, that yes it did. He said I shouldn't worry too much about it, because he only sees it on older boots. He said he felt it was just something that happens to boots that have been around for many years. He said something about it "drying out and pulling apart," but I'm not sure I heard it exactly. Without my asking, he said I should get hand-welted boots if I were overly concerned, but they don't make any that way because it is too time-consuming.

I was amazed at this man's honesty. He certainly wasn't downplaying the drawbacks of GYW at all, despite only selling GYW footwear.

Every last word of this is 100% true to the best of memory.

So, for all those readers out there, @Dwfii is not alone in saying the difference in quality between GYW and hand-welting isn't merely theoretical. This man who makes his living off of GYW confirmed it. He also didn't talk about gemming failure as some rare and exceptional circumstance, but something that he saw commonly on older footwear his company had made...I was, frankly, shocked.
post #1390 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirling View Post

There are two reasons why I probably shouldn't be posting this:

1. It is hearsay.
2. It is inviting more controversy.

The reason why I am posting it here is that it lend support to those makers who state that the traditional ways are best, so here it goes.

Although the only thing I should be doing is saving my money up for some bespoke footwear, I lack some self control, so I called up a company today that makes and sells some ready-to-wear boots, but mainly sells boots that are "made-to-order."

This company makes some of the most highly-regarded non-dress boots in North America. They makes boots that are actually going to see some rough conditions on a regular basis. They have been selling boots for decades, as well as resoling and rebuilding them for their customers.

I asked them if all of their boots are Goodyear-welted, and the gentleman said that yes they are. I asked him if the gemming ever fails on them. He said, without hesitation, that yes it did. He said I shouldn't worry too much about it, because he only sees it on older boots. He said he felt it was just something that happens to boots that have been around for many years. He said something about it "drying out and pulling apart," but I'm not sure I heard it exactly. Without my asking, he said I should get hand-welted boots if I were overly concerned, but they don't make any that way because it is too time-consuming.

I was amazed at this man's honesty. He certainly wasn't downplaying the drawbacks of GYW at all, despite only selling GYW footwear.

Every last word of this is 100% true to the best of memory.

So, for all those readers out there, @Dwfii is not alone in saying the difference in quality between GYW and hand-welting isn't merely theoretical. This man who makes his living off of GYW confirmed it. He also didn't talk about gemming failure as some rare and exceptional circumstance, but something that he saw commonly on older footwear his company had made...I was, frankly, shocked.

Thank you for posting that to show that others who are involved in GYW shoes even admit to the problems on some long term use. For many it won't make a difference but for the academic sake of this thread it is an important detail to hear.
post #1391 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whirling View Post

There are two reasons why I probably shouldn't be posting this:

1. It is hearsay.
2. It is inviting more controversy.

The reason why I am posting it here is that it lend support to those makers who state that the traditional ways are best, so here it goes.

Although the only thing I should be doing is saving my money up for some bespoke footwear, I lack some self control, so I called up a company today that makes and sells some ready-to-wear boots, but mainly sells boots that are "made-to-order."

This company makes some of the most highly-regarded non-dress boots in North America. They makes boots that are actually going to see some rough conditions on a regular basis. They have been selling boots for decades, as well as resoling and rebuilding them for their customers.

I asked them if all of their boots are Goodyear-welted, and the gentleman said that yes they are. I asked him if the gemming ever fails on them. He said, without hesitation, that yes it did. He said I shouldn't worry too much about it, because he only sees it on older boots. He said he felt it was just something that happens to boots that have been around for many years. He said something about it "drying out and pulling apart," but I'm not sure I heard it exactly. Without my asking, he said I should get hand-welted boots if I were overly concerned, but they don't make any that way because it is too time-consuming.

I was amazed at this man's honesty. He certainly wasn't downplaying the drawbacks of GYW at all, despite only selling GYW footwear.

Every last word of this is 100% true to the best of memory.

So, for all those readers out there, @Dwfii is not alone in saying the difference in quality between GYW and hand-welting isn't merely theoretical. This man who makes his living off of GYW confirmed it. He also didn't talk about gemming failure as some rare and exceptional circumstance, but something that he saw commonly on older footwear his company had made...I was, frankly, shocked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mw313 View Post

Thank you for posting that to show that others who are involved in GYW shoes even admit to the problems on some long term use. For many it won't make a difference but for the academic sake of this thread it is an important detail to hear.

I too want to thank Whirling for posting that. I have a close friend...as I've mentioned before...who owns a small GY RTW boot business. He has told me a little about the details and one of the things he said was that the gemming comes on pre-cemented rolls. He told me it has a "pull date," so to speak (something anyone who has worked with these solvent based cements usually knows)...after which the cement gets old and somewhat brittle and won't adhere very well.

The thing is that many people...even in the Industry and allied trades (such as shoe repair)...don't realize, is that the cement gets old whether it is on the roll or in a shoe. And then the cement fails.

And yes, you're right--it's a little like holocaust denial, for those who don't want to believe, no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient.

edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 5/20/16 at 7:26am
post #1392 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mw313 View Post

One other part to factor in for the width that was mentioned is in terms of the foot compensation too. If there is a rigid Boney foot the last should be close to the actual foot size and may be a bit more narrow to make the shape more elegant because the soft tissue between the bones can compression as long as they don't have a neuroma.

In a fat or fleshy foot, it depends on how the spread is. If the foot is wide, you can make a slightly tighter shoe in lateral width as long as you give the space in overall volume because the tissue will move up instead. If the person has a lot of soft tissue under the foot but is Boney on top it is best to make the shoe wider than the foot to allow for the expansion laterally but to keep the fit tighter on the top of the foot to hold it in place better.


These will work for either modifying lasts or making them from scratch and I have shoes that were made both ways. The only major advantage to hand made lasts is for unusual bone forms where the shape of the foot is very different from the parabola or relationships between different parts of the foot (especially in the middle of the foot) are very peculiar because these are very difficult to solve cases. If the toes are short or the heel dimensions are off, it can still all be fixed on a modified last like @DWF does.

One thing I wanted to comment on...and you touched upon it...I do not hold with forcing the flesh upward by not allowing it its natural lateral weight-bearing spread. And yes, this is a bias that I have because I do have a neuroma.

But it just makes sense both physiologically and biomechanically. If you force the flesh upward...because the foot doesn't have enough room to spread as it wants to... it forces the bones upward, as well. It effectively flattens the metatarsal arch. I suspect that's one of the reasons a neuroma is aggravated...in addition to forcing the met heads closer together such that they grind against one another.

That said, I don't hold with allowing the foot to spread any further than it would naturally want to. Excess insole around the plantar surface of the foot does nobody, nor the shoe, any good. This is where the "footprint" becomes invaluable, simply because, by default, the foot itself tends to bulge outward and "overhang" the plantar surface. By making the last such that it conforms to both the girth measurement and the footprint we most closely model the foot in its natural weight-bearing state.

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/20/16 at 6:08am
post #1393 of 1710

Does anyone know what is that black piece at the heel for?. Its seems to me like a piece of rubber for cushion?



 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bFt_kKwT04



 



(m 4.09)



 



On top of it, they mount the leather shank.



 



 



 





 



 








 



 
















40x40px-ZC-3ba1b773_vassaereo2.jpeg


 




40x40px-ZC-571a00bc_chadwickaereo.jpeg


 


 





 







 





 


Edited by Zapasman - 5/22/16 at 5:55am
post #1394 of 1710
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

Does anyone know what is that black piece at the heel for?. Its seems to me like a piece of rubber for cushion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bFt_kKwT04

(m 4.09)

On top of it, they mount the leather shank.

If I'm not mistaken, it's a fiberboard reinforcement for thin insoles and nails in the heel.

I'm not sure what it's called...in shoe repair it was called a "tuck." Almost without exception every pair of modern women's shoes use them for the same reason--to reinforce the heel seat area where nails are the primary means of attaching the heel.
post #1395 of 1710
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


If I'm not mistaken, it's a fiberboard reinforcement for thin insoles and nails in the heel.

I'm not sure what it's called...in shoe repair it was called a "tuck." Almost without exception every pair of modern women's shoes use them for the same reason--to reinforce the heel seat area where nails are the primary means of attaching the heel.

That makes sense.  Thanks DW.  Would not be enought with a leather rand at the heel instead of that piece?.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoemaking Techniques and Traditions--"...these foolish things..."