shoe construction...behind the veil

[chogall]

Norm

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?

Normal.

 

[DWFII]



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?

Pretty sure that's just an "inseam shadow"...and indicative of a hand sewn inseam...albeit caused by a thinnish insole and a relatively deep channel.

Generally not a problem.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[chogall]

On man. No wonder it's reject.

The insole is much lower grade than my pairs.

 

[vmss]



On man. No wonder it's reject.

The insole is much lower grade than my pairs.

do you mind making a photo of yours for comparison?

 

[Zapasman]

Pretty sure that's just an "inseam shadow"...and indicative of a hand sewn inseam...albeit caused by a thinnish insole and a relatively deep channel.

Generally not a problem.

edited for punctuation and clarity

Smoking paper insole or just terrible quality?.

 

[DWFII]



Smoking paper insole or just terrible quality?.

I am not sure what a "smoking paper insole" is. It looks thinner than what I use but my standard isn't necessarily a universal "standard." (Insoling is sold by the pound--thicker insole shoulder or insole bend costs more) It's probably as thick as most manufacturers use (if they use leather insoles) and certainly as thick as some historical work. Beyond that, I think the channel is cut too deeply into the insole and the feather too far in from the edge (some small risk that the "dimpling" will be felt under the ball of the foot). And maybe the inseaming awl that was used was too big and the inseam not hammered and rubbed to set the stitches. Quality...? hard to tell from a photo. IMO...

 

[Zapasman]

A smoking paper is the super thin/lightweight paper champion (banana leaves are not the same).

But I think this insole is more a bad quality insole than a really smoking paper insole. Thanks for the rest of your inputs DW.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

I'm going to get tons of shell cordovan and cement them on top of one another until they are an inch thick. I'll get that made up into insoles for my next pair of shoes.

 

[DWFII]



I'm going to get tons of shell cordovan and cement them on top of one another until they are an inch thick. I'll get that made up into insoles for my next pair of shoes.

the ultimate cement construction.

 

[DWFII]

FWIW...(click to enlarge)

 

[chogall]

waist seems to mean different areas for shoes then for feet? When it's welter waist to waist it means welting from the edge of the heel stack/rand all the way to the other side? Instead from ball to ball?

 

[DWFII]



waist seems to mean different areas for shoes then for feet? When it's welter waist to waist it means welting from the edge of the heel stack/rand all the way to the other side? Instead from ball to ball?

Well, that's the way I was taught...and it makes sense, aye? What is your waist on your body--it is the soft area between the bones of the ribcage and the bones of the hips.

The waist on a foot is the soft (relatively) area between the metatarsal heads and the roots of the metatarsals...although really closer to the met heads than the roots).

The waist of a shoe is between approx. one inch behind the treadline and the breast of the heel.

As far as that goes, I have never heard welting from the seat to seat called "waist to waist." Sometimes I've heard it called 3/4 welting or 7/8's. 3/4's is probably the more accurate term because the heel is usually 1/4 the SLL (standard last length) and the breast of the heel usually corresponds to the welt ends.

Again, marketing ...and the convenient "fuzziness" of approximate nomenclature...has created more confusion than the language and clear communication can stand.

Heck, swim across the pond and even among shoemakers the terminology sometimes changes.

PS...The low instep is measured across the middle or intermediate cuneiforme.

The high instep is measured vertically (as much as possible) across the root of the fifth (the low "X" on the illustration).

This is fundamentally an old method of measuring but also a synthesis of much more modern thinking in anatomy and foot / shoe mechanics.

The reason the measurements are taken across prominent bones is because that's where nerve endings are closest to the skin and when they are sandwiched between the shoe and the bone, pain is much more likely to result.

Many lastmakers do not recognize both a high and low instep simply because most low quarter footwear does not cover or rise as high as the high instep (the top of the tongue might just barely). It is useful in other ways however, and is particularly useful when making boots...pull-ons or high top shoes..

There is an additional measurement that I take, both for boots and for shoes--the long heel. It is taken from the back of the heel to the middle cuneiforme and when the last accurately reflects that measurement as well as the low instep (there is an interdependency) , the shoe will never slip in the heel or gape at the topline.

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[DWFII]

FWIW...and food for thought.

 

[Nick V.]

^ All the photos, drawings and, philosophies in the world still won't override my experience that after doing 1000's we still have not had one shoe come back with damaged welt -or- inseam stitching.
I suppose it's possible that eventually it can happen.

 

[bdavro23]

^ All the photos, drawings and, philosophies in the world still won't override my experience that after doing 1000's we still have not had one shoe come back with damaged welt -or- inseam stitching.
I suppose it's possible that eventually it can happen.

Shouldnt the above read "failed" instead of damaged? Putting a screw into the welt/ inseam is most certainly going to damaged it, the only question is the degree of damage. That damage may not compromise the structural integrity of the shoe, but it is damage nonetheless. Am I missing something?