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 94

post #1396 of 1709
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.

 

DW, for a pair of handwelted shoes, wouldn't the insole need to of a certain (substantial) thickness for the holdfast to be carved and still have sufficient "meat" left over?

Why then, would a fibre board reinforcement be needed?

post #1397 of 1709

DW, I am still getting to know my feet and after experimenting with different HW/GYW RTW lasts over the years I discovered that I have a medium-high foot arch.  My recent purchase showed me that; the fit was better than any other before due in part to a med-high arch support.  I have no bespoke shoes so it has taken me so much time to reach that conclusion. I would like to know more about this issue on a shoe.  

 

How do you achive that?.  I understand that a really shaped last, a good lasting process (+ leaving the upper on the last for a long period of time) and a narrow waist are necessary to reach that goal.  But, what about an extended leather heel stiffener to reinforce that area?.  What about a leather patch sewed on top of the linning in that area? (pic 1). Could the Delos insole showed (pic 2) contribute to that goal.  

 

From a shoemakers´ point of view, what do you call a "good arch support".  I would really appreciate to have your inputs here or you to refer me to some other post in SF. Thanks.

 

 or t

 

PS.-This make me think that many of us should go the other way around:  for the first pair get a bespoke one, then, see if its apropiate to buy some RTW shoes.:) 

post #1398 of 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post
 

 

DW, for a pair of handwelted shoes, wouldn't the insole need to of a certain (substantial) thickness for the holdfast to be carved and still have sufficient "meat" left over?

Why then, would a fibre board reinforcement be needed?

Are those insoles carved to create a holdfast?.  

post #1399 of 1709
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post

DW, for a pair of handwelted shoes, wouldn't the insole need to of a certain (substantial) thickness for the holdfast to be carved and still have sufficient "meat" left over?
Why then, would a fibre board reinforcement be needed?

What thickness? I use insoling that is 9-10 iron (3/16"/5mm) and don't have any objection if it's a little thicker. My friend at Colonial Williamsburg...handwelting...uses something more nearly 6 iron.

That said, a lot depends on the temper and quality of the leather. And the way the the heel will be attached, etc..

And having said that, it's anyone's guess why the maker thinks they need a fiberboard reinforcement...I'm sure that they have a better idea of what they need to stabilize the shoe than I would just from looking at a photo. If they need to use what is fundamentally a glorified cardboard to reinforce the shoe...well, you can call into question the quality and thickness of the insole, as well as the technique, I suspect, but in the end it is what it is.
post #1400 of 1709
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

DW, I am still getting to know my feet and after experimenting with different HW/GYW RTW lasts over the years I discovered that I have a medium-high foot arch.  My recent purchase showed me that; the fit was better than any other before due in part to a med-high arch support.  I have no bespoke shoes so it has taken me so much time to reach that conclusion. I would like to know more about this issue on a shoe.  

How do you achive that?.  I understand that a really shaped last, a good lasting process (+ leaving the upper on the last for a long period of time) and a narrow waist are necessary to reach that goal.  But, what about an extended leather heel stiffener to reinforce that area?.  What about a leather patch sewed on top of the linning in that area? (pic 1). Could the Delos insole showed (pic 2) contribute to that goal.  

From a shoemakers´ point of view, what do you call a "good arch support".  I would really appreciate to have your inputs here or you to refer me to some other post in SF. Thanks.


PS.-This make me think that many of us should go the other way around:  for the first pair get a bespoke one, then, see if its apropiate to buy some RTW shoes.smile.gif  

Well, the bespoke maker always starts with the foot...as opposed to the manufacturer who always starts with the last (missing step)...but no two feet are the same. For instance, I have a naturally low arch, almost flat feet. and I do tend to pronate a bit. But an arch cookie, esp. an insert, bothers my feet.

The moral of the story is that additional arch support is not always appropriate even when the foot seems to pronate. Introducing pain to the foot in the name of foot health...or even fit....is counter-productive.

Generally speaking, a well constructed shoe made on a good last will provide the support most people need in a shoe. But a lot is dependent on the heel stiffener (and yes, the stiffener can be and often is, extended)--how thick it is, how stiff it is, etc.. And I believe that a good shank support helps more than a little, as well. Fit is a lot of it too. Or the way the customer laces up his shoe. Wearing a loose shoe will almost certainly obviate any support or structure in the shoe, esp. over time.

IMO, the narrowness of the insole in the waist is not as important as an appropriate width of the insole. The photo of insole you posted, does not show a particularly narrow insole. In fact, I would almost call it a wide insole through the waist. But the maker is insetting the holdfast so that he can position the inseam further under the shoe and thus hide it...for a beveled and fiddleback waist, for instance.
post #1401 of 1709
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

Are those insoles carved to create a holdfast?.  

Yes, feather and inside channel---in-between is the holdfast.
post #1402 of 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderMarch View Post
 

 

DW, for a pair of handwelted shoes, wouldn't the insole need to of a certain (substantial) thickness for the holdfast to be carved and still have sufficient "meat" left over?

Why then, would a fibre board reinforcement be needed?

ThunderMarch  if you check the video, you will see that the insole is not that thick (I am sure it is a good quality leather anyway).  Because of that I guess they do not carve the insole and rather use other technique as DW implies. 

 

What is weird is that they peg the leather rand on top of that reinforcement and that the construcction of the shank is still thick;   It seems to me they use a thin piece of wood on top of a leather shank and then a leather cover...+ the reinforcement. Never seen that before.

post #1403 of 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Yes, feather and inside channel---in-between is the holdfast.

Then my apologies.  I can never see well the holdfast once the inseaming is done.  It is clear I am not a shoemaker...:)

post #1404 of 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


IMO, the narrowness of the insole in the waist is not as important as an appropriate width of the insole. The photo of insole you posted, does not show a particularly narrow insole. In fact, I would almost call it a wide insole through the waist. But the maker is insetting the holdfast so that he can position the inseam further under the shoe and thus hide it...for a beveled and fiddleback waist, for instance.

Ok, so the insetting of the holdfast is just to allow the maker to execute a beautiful beveled waist and the fiddleback (ornamental).  Has nothing to do with the integrity of the shoe/arch support.

 

Thanks again.

post #1405 of 1709
Thread Starter 
I didn't see a wood shank but I didn't look at it that close. Looked to me like it was just the way the leather shank had been shaped.

Yes, insetting the holdfast is primarily for an aesthetic effect, and doesn't contribute much, if anything, to arch support.

That said, it is, generally speaking, a more compact construction and may contribute to a firmer shank support. A fiddleback waist can sometimes be what is known as a "box-beam construction."
post #1406 of 1709
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapasman View Post

Because of that I guess they do not carve the insole and rather use other technique as DW implies. 

Well, again, I didn't give the video my full attention but from what I saw they do channel the insole. And it looked like a bit of a feather was created, if only by beveling and hammering the feather-edge. This is similar to what my friend at Colonial Williamsburg does--historically accurate for the 18th century. Of course, he's using nothing but Baker shoulder (not what is depicted in the video)--again for historical accuracy but considered the best in the world.
post #1407 of 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

I didn't see a wood shank but I didn't look at it that close. Looked to me like it was just the way the leather shank had been shaped.

Yes, insetting the holdfast is primarily for an aesthetic effect, and doesn't contribute much, if anything, to arch support.

That said, it is, generally speaking, a more compact construction and may contribute to a firmer shank support. A fiddleback waist can sometimes be what is known as a "box-beam construction."

Its hard to tell weather is another piece of thin wood, leather or plastic, at least for me (no leather shaped at all).  Thanks again for further contribution.:fonz:

post #1408 of 1709
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

What thickness? I use insoling that is 9-10 iron (3/16"/5mm) and don't have any objection if it's a little thicker. My friend at Colonial Williamsburg...handwelting...uses something more nearly 6 iron.

That said, a lot depends on the temper and quality of the leather. And the way the the heel will be attached, etc..

And having said that, it's anyone's guess why the maker thinks they need a fiberboard reinforcement...I'm sure that they have a better idea of what they need to stabilize the shoe than I would just from looking at a photo. If they need to use what is fundamentally a glorified cardboard to reinforce the shoe...well, you can call into question the quality and thickness of the insole, as well as the technique, I suspect, but in the end it is what it is.

Thanks for your input DW.
Admittedly, I don't know the exact numbers for thickness. But it was just something I'd assumed, that given the requirements of proper hand welting and need to carve a holdfast, that the insole would need to be of a certain minimum thickness (and thus, strength) for this to be done.
So yes, something new for me to ponder on.
post #1409 of 1709

Follow up question from the various hand welting techniques (stitch aloft etc):

  1. Is it technically possible to do a blind welt waist without carving a holdfast?
  2. For Goiser, Norvegese welt, do the same considerations apply for holdfast vs stitch aloft?

 

Thanks in advance.

post #1410 of 1709
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecwy View Post

Follow up question from the various hand welting techniques (stitch aloft etc):
  1. Is it technically possible to do a blind welt waist without carving a holdfast?
  2. For Goiser, Norvegese welt, do the same considerations apply for holdfast vs stitch aloft?

Thanks in advance.

1) I don't see how... But if so, I suspect it would be more difficult and less sound.

2) I don't know. I don't do Goiser or Norvegese.

Remember...even when inseaming aloft there is a holdfast. It doesn't have to be carved to exist...although, IMO, that's the best way of securing the inseam.
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..."