Instep Patterning

@thenewreligion, do I remember correctly that you read through Cottle and McKinney’s How to Make Western Boots book? If so, do you remember how they described the process of patterning for fit across the instep? Could I trouble you for a capsule summary?

I suspect something based on long-instep and short-instep measurements, possibly locating the long-heel measurement on the crest of the middle cuneiform bone. Perhaps with an ankle girth measure factored in, too.

I’ve been thinking about that a bit, since one of the patterning points that I still feel weak on is the curve of the quarters for boots above the ankle. I’m getting it right in practice, but by luck and guess-and-check more than any more fundamental understanding.

All the original pattern work I’ve done so far was for lace-up boots, but it’s clearly only more important for elastic-free pull-on boots like riding boots. Cowboy boot makers have to get this more right than lace-up makers, I expect.

The biggest should-have-been-obvious “eureka!” moment I’ve had so far is that the curves of Derby quarters are highly dependent on both heel pitch and facing gap. The higher the heel pitch, the longer the radius of the curve. The narrower the intended facing gap, the longer the radius of the curve.

Sorry if I misunderstand your question, but since the vamps are one piece all the way up to the ankle basically the pattern doesnt have much to do with the fit. Youre kind of draping leather over the last like a wholecut. The lack of lacing means all the pressure is on getting the last to have the same measurements as the foot. the key measurements is the short heel because that band from the ankle break down to the heel is the main lever for lifting the heel. Tight is no good but any laxity registers as lag in lifting the heel and makes it feel less and less like a footglove and more like a footbox. The other main one they harp on is a snug waist measurement just behind the balls and a relatively loose ball measurement with room for toes, should fit like a handshake.
The challenge to me is transferring the foot measurement points - mostly anterior ankle flexure, middle cuneiform, “cuboid” (head of the 5th metatarsal), waist and ball - onto the last without anatomic landmarks. The best method i’ve seen is to pick a last that has the right short heel already, then use the short heel measurement to mark the ankle flexure/high instep point on the last. From there you can measure how far down the other measurements cross the center line with an empirical spacing like 1cm each, or use the tape method like lee does. Cottle is a really sloppy book, more of a rough guide. I’ll send some screenshots of a couple better sources.

1 Like

Don’t let me make homework for you, @thenewreligion! And sorry if I wasn’t clear.

The concept I’m trying to get my head around is how to pattern lace-up boot quarters to fit around the crook at the front of the ankle, where the instep ends and the shin begins. There’s a 3D-to-2D problem there, especially when patterning from tape last forms split down the main axis. You’re patterning two quarters attached to the sides, with the idea that when folded over and laced tight, they’ll meet a straight line over the top of the foot.

Here’s a photo from my second pair process at the point where I was feeling through this:

You can see the curve of my pattern piece on the lower right and some tracings of quarters on other pairs of boots for comparison. I literally unlaced some boots, lay their quarters over sheets of paper, and traced them, trying to get shapes I could compare. There was a lot of variation. In the end, I cut out my pattern pieces in paper and foam, basted them together, put them over my feet, glued scrap paper onto the fronts of the quarter pieces to get the right shape, and copied those additions back to my pattern.

As for doing this more systematically, there are some clear guide points.

From the vamp point up to the instep point, you can just measure the distance across the top of the last, subtract half your intended facing gap, and make sure the quarter is that tall there. This makes the straight part of the quarter pattern, down over the foot, below the ankle joint.

If you have a short heel measurement, that’s a checkpoint, too. The “crook” of the curve of the quarters—the point where it swoops closest to back bottom of the heel—should be:

\text{quarter depth} = \frac{\text{short heel} - \text{facing gap}}{2}

There are also clear checkpoints wherever you measure the girth of the leg. For my second pair I had the girth of my leg where I intended the tops of the quarters to end, so I made sure that

\text{width at boot height} = \frac{\text{leg girth at boot height} - \text{facing gap}}{2}

So ideally that’s three points to connect: one over the vamp points, one in the crook of the ankle from the short-heel measure, and one from your lowest leg girth measure. The gap in my knowledge is how to draw the curve connecting those points. Right now what I have is basically “do it with a French curve so at least it’s pretty, then just try it”.

Rough Sketch of Three Points to Connect

I was thinking that pull-on boot process might have some good lessons here, since it’s such a critical area for fit, as you pointed out. You’ve gut to hug over the insteps to keep the feet from sliding down into the toes, but you’ve also got to have a wide enough pass so the foot can actually push through.

But I’m starting to understand, thanks to your note, that this comes in not so much at the patterning stage, but at the lastmaking and crimping stages. I’m sure there’s some fitting or calculation that goes into making sure cowboy boot vamps are the right size for the crimp board and the last in the first place. But the shape is really defined by those forming operations, not at the clicking table, as it is for lace-ups.


Really appreciate this tip. I was tempted to add a copy of the book to a Panhandle Leather order back when they carried it. If and when I really get inspired to do some pull-on cowboy boots, I’ll probably save my pennies and send for Frommer’s pull-on book instead, even if chunks of it are redundant with his packers book that I already have.

Ah ok i see. Yeah for making laceups your vamp is really going to follow more of shoe rules i think, stopping at the vamp point and all that. Is Mikhail Bliskava’s boot pattern post helpful?

I definitely found that pattern post interesting when I was first starting out, but as I recall it doesn’t really give any guidance on the shape of the curve, apart from, effectively, “connect the dots”.

The same is broadly true of Patrick’s Modern Pattern Cutting, except using instep-girth rather than short-heel measures for lace-up patterns. I believe that book does use short-heel for pull-on “riding boot” styles. But it still doesn’t explain the curves. Just shows them.

I asked Mikhail when i met him at the boot camp, his answer was basically eyeball it as long as your facings dont overlap but at some point its trial and error :slight_smile:
So unless i misunderstood and i very well could have cause im out of my depth i don’t think he had a more mathematical way to do it than what you did with the basted fitter thing.
Also reading your initial question i might be having a dim bulb moment. The problem translating anything above the short heel for cowboy boots is that it can only get wider from there which is why pull ons look like pipes in that region as opposed to the lovely inward curve of a packer just above the heel. Even the cbb lasts go straightish up from the ball of the heel. I suppose a simple answer for you could be to just take a series of measurements, or at least one horizontal ankle measurement just above the heel and subtract the gap. It’ll probably force the back of the quarter to dip in there even if the facing follows a French curve
I have the frommer packer book but haven’t read it yet, you said you have it?

1 Like

Hey, thanks! Didn’t expect you to go bugging other people about any of this. But glad you got to go to Boot Camp!

I do. Read every page.

I initially got over the sticker shock knowing it’d go to Mrs. Frommer. But the book was worth every penny, just standing alone.

Hes a really open and friendly guy so i figured it couldn’t hurt to ask :slight_smile:
So the packer book doesnt address it? Seems like one of those fine detail things dw wouldnt miss

1 Like

Western Packers actually does a full rundown of patterning with a geometric method, but he just says to freehand the facing curve:

Draw a gently curving line, freehand, that connects the following points: …

rem: You can also use a French curve here.

I finally got around to reading the pattern chapter from that book today. Man it makes me realize what Amara Hark was talking about when she said he writes like he talks, after watching his videos. Hes a trip. I would like to think we would have gotten along if wed met.
So to me steps 28, 34, and 43 account for leg meaurements and a consistent facing or lacing gap at pretty close intervals, and the curve is really pretty constrained and just to give a nice line to the facing. Most of the curvature of the leg seems to be adjusted for in the back line. Is there enough freedom in how to draw that curve that it could cause an issue with facing gap? Let me know if im getting off track again:)

1 Like

It has for me in the past, I think. But don’t put anything past a beginner as new at this as I am. To your point, more experienced hands may have all the guardrails they need with the ankle-girth and instep-girth checkpoints.

I did end up making some adjustments to the curve of one of my original patterns after mocking up in foam, right in the crook of the ankle. That was specifically to try and keep the facing gap right there.

I really appreciate you being a sounding board for me on this, @thenewreligion. I hope you’ll feel comfortable using me for any similar head-scratchers that come up on your end.

For now I think I can close this one out. I’m satisfied realizing that even the sources I know that wrote out geometric patterning methods basically said “draw a pretty line” at this point, at least for now.

Others coming later should feel free to reply again, or start new topics for discussion.

Saw another case of “just freehand” the curves in Hobarth’s Designing, Cutting and Grading Boot and Shoe Patterns today:

Then get the curve of the back of the leg by means of a curve, drawn by your eye…

This finishes the leg except the curve at the throat, which, unless you have some fixed curve, you must put in with your eye, striking the comb of the last.

There are some notes and diagram examples of how heel spring changes the curves:

A new shoemaking friend here in the East Bay shared some notes from Frank Jones’ Pattern Cutting book. The final advice on front and back curves is just “[d]esign the front line” and “[d]esign the back-curve” there, too.

I’m going to try asking some of the folks I know who design on computer what they do. They may be essentially “freehanding” these curves, too, just with computer drawing programs.

I’m sure the commercial patterning software vendors have some procedures. But what they do automatically might not be as good as what people do by eye.

For anyone who happens on this later, there’s another interesting geometric method for for locating a guide point to draw facing curves of boots in Brophy’s Pattern-Cutting Made Simple. It uses intersecting arcs based on heel girth, oriented from a heel point based on heel height and sole thickness. Here’s my screenshot of the relevant figure, plus my typed-up notes:

Figure 3

Figure 3

Line AB is perpendicular to line EF.

Line CD, the ground line, is perpendicular to line EF.

The distance from D to B is the heel height minus the sole thickness.

The radius of arc TLF is half the heel measure from O.

The radius of arc GLH is half the distance from T to O.

Point L marks the middle of the throat.

1 Like

Brophy warns a number of times in his text that the figures aren’t draw terribly accurately. I found that’s true of the Figure 2 I shared earlier.

Here’s a redrawing, properly to scale, showing the circle-based method for finding the crook of the instep:

Well the other thread is locked but my thought on Brophy instep measure is it’s kind of a trivial solution I guess, it basically works out to “mark the bend of the throat (the short heel) as half the short heel measure drawn 29 degrees from the heel” If you take the short heel from the last (and you do it at about 29 deg from the ground) it should land on the last. Where if you take it from the foot and the last has curved away from where the ankle would have been (true for most lasts I think) then that point should float above the last copy/forme. Anyway I think what I’ve heard is for Chelsea type you need more room there than just the short heel anyway or it tends to pinch at the front of the ankle. And for slip ons the needs of the foot passing the shaft dominate. I made my wife do the math don’t go thinking I know how to calculate stuff

Yep, with fixed proportions you can spec it by angle, too. It’s just easier to draw two circles with a compass than get an angle just right with a protractor.

Brophy was really into calculating with circles as a general method. He mentions it several times in the book.

From the text, he was also clearly afraid that he’d scare people off with geometric methods. Not without reason, I’m sure.

The best method for one-off fitting so far is probably tracing a side profile. Second best probably a big, plastic profile gauge. Take the profile across the foot, lay the gauge down flat on paper to trace, mark the position on both sides of the foot on the pedograph or foot tracing.

Sorry about that. I shouldn’t reply to locked topics without unlocking. Just plum forgot.

I’ve unlocked and moved your post over.