shoe construction...behind the veil

[ntempleman]

Twisting the lasts and twisting the seats are different things.

 

[chogall]



Twisting the lasts and twisting the seats are different things.

What's the difference?

And for the heel seat to be slanted, that is twisting the heel or twisting the last?

Thanks!

 

[ntempleman]

Wedging up the heel on one side is matter of either shaping the seat with a twist, or building up the inside of the shoe with cork or whatever. Either way is pretty meaningless unless you build support from the heel through to the arch if you're trying to minimise pronation for example - and you shouldn't really do this willy-nilly because you can do more harm than good, and people who actually require and benefit from this approach are in the minority.

Twisting the last keeps the heel and seat square, with a lifting on the outside of the forepart on a finished shoe. That was a Tuczec thing, and I can't recall seeing any examples of it being done on any modern shoes, personally.

 

[ntempleman]

Photographing lasts isn't the easiest thing, but this is a Tuczec last. You can see the lifting on the outside toes. I've seen some more extreme examples in my time, but this is the only one I've got on me.

 

[bengal-stripe]



Twisting the last keeps the heel and seat square, with a lifting on the outside of the forepart on a finished shoe. That was a Tuczec thing, and I can't recall seeing any examples of it being done on any modern shoes, personally.

But doesn't a "twisted" last have the heel sloping in the opposite direction? That is my understanding and that is the thing my bespoke last has. At the centre of the ball, the last slopes down towards the inside and the centre of the heel slopes down towards the outside. It is not a great deal of difference, maybe 1/16" (1.5 mm), but it is definitely there.

There is another state of twist to be considered. Suppose a person views a last longitudinally along the bottom with the toe away from the observer. Consider an imaginary tangential plane to the centre of the seat, and one to the tread or contact point. Then if the planes are parallel there is no twist. If they are inclined at an angle there is some twist.It is generally accepted that there should be some twist, with the forepart plane raised towards the inside of the last.....but never should the forepart plane be inclined above the seat plane on the outside of the last.

FY Golding (editor) Boots and Shoes vol 1 (London 1934)

But when it comes to the last sentence, I'm totally lost. In the Tuczek last featured (as well as in my last) the outside of the forepart plane is higher than the outside seat plane.

Whether or not to twist and how to twist might be primarily a quasi-religious question of traditions and beliefs.

 

[DWFII]



Wedging up the heel on one side is matter of either shaping the seat with a twist, or building up the inside of the shoe with cork or whatever. Either way is pretty meaningless unless you build support from the heel through to the arch if you're trying to minimize pronation for example - and you shouldn't really do this willy-nilly because you can do more harm than good, and people who actually require and benefit from this approach are in the minority.

This is one reason I prefer to work with stock lasts rather than carve them from a raw block of hornbeam. I certainly don't have the expertise in this area that you do. But I do agree with the notion that you can do more harm than good. There is a balance...a delicate balance...on a last and on a foot and if it is not respected bad things happen even if only over a long period of time.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the twisting thing, either. I have several models that incorporate a twist...whether of seat or forepart, I am not sure. I have made shoes for my wife and myself (and a few customers) on those lasts and after the initial oddness disappears they are comfortable underfoot.

But while I have not examined anything like a truly representative sample of twisted lasts, I'm not sure I see a difference.

For instance, if, as you say, the forepart of the last be twisted, and the heel stack is built level then the forepart of the shoe will be twisted--higher off the ground on one side. But if the forepart of the shoe is built so that it sits dead center on the treadline (actually slightly to the medial side--on the "line of muscular action") this will force a heel stack that is higher on one side than the other.

On the other hand, if the seat is wedged or twisted...as I think my models are...then building the shoe such that the shoe rests "dead center" on the treadline results in a heelstack that is higher on the medial side (my models). And building the heel level makes the forepart of the shoe twist.

So what's the difference? I don't know...I don't have your education or experience in this arena.

This is some esoteric stuff, though...and it's cautionary, or ought to be.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[shoefan]



This is one reason I prefer to work with stock lasts rather than carve them from a raw block of hornbeam. I certainly don't have the expertise in this area that you do. But I do agree with the notion that you can do more harm than good. There is a balance...a delicate balance...on a last and on a foot and if it is not respected bad things happen even if only over a long period of time.

That said, I'm not sure I understand the twisting thing, either. I have several models that incorporate a twist...whether of seat or forepart, I am not sure. I have made shoes for my wife and myself (and a few customers) on those lasts and after the initial oddness disappears they are comfortable underfoot.

But while I have not examined anything like a truly representative sample of twisted lasts, I'm not sure I see a difference.

For instance, if, as you say, the forepart of the last be twisted, and the heel stack is built level then the forepart of the shoe will be twisted--higher off the ground on one side. But if the forepart of the shoe is built so that it sits dead center on the treadline (actually slightly to the medial side--on the "line of muscular action") this will force a heel stack that is higher on one side than the other.

On the other hand, if the seat is wedged or twisted...as I think my models are...then building the shoe such that the shoe rests "dead center" on the treadline results in a heelstack that is higher on the medial side (my models). And building the heel level makes the forepart of the shoe twist.

So what's the difference? I don't know...I don't have your education or experience in this arena.

This is some esoteric stuff, though...and it's cautionary, or ought to be.

edited for punctuation and clarity

I look forward to Nicholas' thoughts on this matter. As we've discussed elsewhere, the foot when raised to accommodate a heeled shoe will have the medial part of the heel a bit higher than the later part, because of the angle of the flexion across the joints. So, it seems to me, shouldn't the last reflect this reality? Yes, the shoe will have a more built up heel on the inside, which is both a bit of a pain to do and may not look quite as nice as a symmetrical heel, but doesn't that reflect the actual anatomy of the foot? In other words, doesn't the slight twist of the last's heel seat actually keep the foot in a neutral position?

 

[DWFII]



I look forward to Nicholas' thoughts on this matter. As we've discussed elsewhere, the foot when raised to accommodate a heeled shoe will have the medial part of the heel a bit higher than the later part, because of the angle of the flexion across the joints. So, it seems to me, shouldn't the last reflect this reality? Yes, the shoe will have a more built up heel on the inside, which is both a bit of a pain to do and may not look quite as nice as a symmetrical heel, but doesn't that reflect the actual anatomy of the foot? In other words, doesn't the slight twist of the last's heel seat actually keep the foot in a neutral position?

I look forward to Nicholas' response as well.

But I am not so sure about a 'natural' twist to the average foot. When the foot is dangling in the air it certainly appears that way but looking at a footprint or even an impression in the sand, I don't immediately notice any difference. The rolling and twisting that a foot articulates during gait is one thing but, in my view, the footprint clearly shows that barring some foot problems the entire plantar surface of the heel of the foot and the the entire plantar surface of the joint bears weight evenly. If the healthy foot wasn't meant to bear weight evenly, it wouldn't roll--like a parachutist rolling upon landing.

"Weight bearing" is the critical and only issue here--it doesn't make any difference what the foot does or looks like when there is no weight on it.

 

[ntempleman]

When you're wedging up the seat, you usually want to keep the centre line of the heel straight. If you're twisting the last, the whole heel gets twisted and the centre line is offset. I drew a crude sketch which I hope explains a bit better

You'll have to take my word for it that the fore parts of all these are level with the floor, and that they're all right feet. The top left one has been wedged a bit, I asked the maker to build the heel a bit higher on the inside to compensate. This customer falls inward you see, so I'm straightening him out a bit. That's why the centre of the heel is at 90 degrees, because he's gone back in line when he puts these on. If I didn't specify the different in-out heights, I'd have probably got a heel like on the right, which wouldn't have been good at all - it would stick out at a strange angle and I'd get an ersatz twist with a badly shaped counter.

The bottom one's been twisted so you stand up with your weight on the heel properly, nice and steady on the square heel with the twist affecting the forepart.

I was raised on the example on the right, keep things level. Level level level. Too level, in my opinion. I put a sort of "twist" into mine but it's hidden, by way of sinking the big toe joint but the edges of the lasts are all square. This was the most elegant way I could think of to let the makers build heels that look right, and shoes that don't stand proud on the outsides when at rest in this age of zero spring where people might think it was a mistake, and get the fit I want at the same time.

All my own views etc and painted in broad strokes, and I could be well off the mark in any case so don't quote me!

 

[shoefan]



I look forward to Nicholas' response as well.

But I am not so sure about a 'natural' twist to the average foot. When the foot is dangling in the air it certainly appears that way but looking at a footprint or even an impression in the sand, I don't immediately notice any difference. The rolling and twisting that a foot articulates during gait is one thing but, in my view, the footprint clearly shows that barring some foot problems the entire plantar surface of the heel of the foot and the the entire plantar surface of the joint bears weight evenly. If the healthy foot wasn't meant to bear weight evenly, it wouldn't roll--like a parachutist rolling upon landing.

"Weight bearing" is the critical and only issue here--it doesn't make any difference what the foot does or looks like when there is no weight on it.

I agree that the important thing is the weight-bearing circumstance. That being said, when you do a footprint, or look at an impression in the sand, that it with the heel at the same height as the forefoot (notwithstanding Anne Kalso). However, in a shoe, the heel is raised up above the forefoot, so unless one were to take an impression with a heel block under the heel, I don't know that the foot impression is actually a totally correct representation of the foot when it is inside a heeled shoe. Of course, the heel is not a solid block and hence can compress, so the lower lateral side may simply compress more, but I just wonder.... Certainly the 'West End' lasts you and I have both seen, with a raised medial area at the front of the heel area, must have been made this way for a reason.

 

[DWFII]

Nicholas,

I was always taught "level" as well. When I look down the length of a last...viewing the plantar surface...I want to see the radius of the treadline match the radius of the heelseat. So a twisted last would look odd to me.

On the West Enders that I have, the centerline of the heel (from the featherline to the top of the comb) remains perpendicular to the ground (not tilted)...so I'm assuming that the heel has been wedged. And when the lasts make up (with the forepart balanced just medially from the LOMA) , the back of the shoe looks like very like your left hand illustration.

As I say, the shoes are comfortable, but I hate that canted heel stack. Unless the customer complains of supination or better, has a prescription, I would always tend to favour level, I think.

Shoefan,

I don't know...but I can't see how the weight of the body would settle that much differently in a heeled shoe than barefoot. Esp. at heel heights of one inch or less. I've worn heels of up to two and a quarter inch in height for many years and haven't noticed a difference in the way they felt underfoot...except that the heel was higher of course. But my foot doesn't contact or press on the insole any differently than in a lower heel. And if I were to cut the insole out of a boot, I am quite sure that the footbed is near-as-nevermind identical to that of a shoe. As you suggest, it may be problematic to get a weight bearing "footprint" at heel height, but the footbed created in a boot or shoe over time is a pretty good facsimile.

About the only difference I would take to the bank is that the big toe tends to shift laterally a bit.

Why lasts such as my West Ender were created, I don't know. I don't recall seeing a rationale in the liturature and as most of those "dead guys" are, well, deid...it's hard to ask them. but it would be a fascinating discussion.

 

[T4phage]



Photographing lasts isn't the easiest thing, but this is a Tuczec last. You can see the lifting on the outside toes. I've seen some more extreme examples in my time, but this is the only one I've got on me.

i have a few shoes
from a shoemaker
that i used to work
with...

strange thing is
that the forefoot of
some shoes are
canted inwards
some canted
outwards
some are 'normal'
ie on the centre
belly of teh sole

and some are
a combination
in one pair of
shoes....

and the last
has not been modified
between shoes..

why
?

 

[DWFII]

Could be a number of things but if it's not the way you walk, it might very well be the result of the shoe not being properly or consistently balanced side to side. I've seen (and SF has seen) shoes that were not balanced even when they were still on the last--that's an oversight on the part of the maker.

 

[ntempleman]

If they're the same last, it's likely be the making - could be the heel that's unlevel, could be the amount and shape of filler, could be how the welt was attached, could be a combination of any number of things.

 

[Schweino]

X-post from the Meermin thread:

Isn't the insole of a handwelted shoe supposed to be flat? This pair of LM shoes has some kind of stitching groove on the insole, almost looks like they are Blake stitched.

Is this normal?