Shoes, Latchets, Buckles

[Mick MacAnselan]

GoF,

I've been reading your web page again (always an expensive habit). I take it that one of the tricks with GAoP shoes is getting the buckles right, because nobody makes shoes 'stock' with the right ones. So what type of buckles should I be looking for, i.e. size, shape, and material? Also, have you been successful getting appropriate shoes and buckles from the same source, or did you have to mix and match, specifying a particular latchet size, then getting buckles elsewhere? TIA!

[JoshuaRed]

Hi Mick -

You'll definitely want smaller buckles for GAOP era. 1" or less...I think mine arrrrr about 5/8" or so., maybe a wee bit bigger. You can see mine on Greg's site, since you're familar with it already. On the Slops page, down towards the bottom with the shoes, Mine are the C&D Jarnigan pair. I'm very happy with them. They do a "custom" early 18th century shoe that is a slightly modified version of their mid-18th Century shoe, with a thinner latch to fit smaller buckles. Even still, once I got the shoes the latches were a tiny bit too wide so I trimmed them down carefully with a sharp box cutter, and re-blacked the exposed edge...worked like a charm.

Btw, I ordered my buckles from G. Godwinin Valley Forge...he has a wide variety of smaller buckles appropriate for us.

If you're investing in period shoes, just make sure they are true straight lasted, vegetable tanned leather. You might also ask them to "armor" the sole, which involves them putting a cluster of nails into the heel to help prevent wear.

While I'm happy with mine, I think if I did it over again I would go with Kevin Garlick, I like the slightly higher heels in his. (I know that sounds SOOO wrong coming from a dude, but it just looks more period)

[kass]

AHA! Now I know your secret! You guys do this period so you can wear high heels and fancy boots!

Next you'll be trying to justify dresses...

WAIT! Petticoat Breeches!!!

Funny, I still think guys in the 1680s looked manly...

[Mick MacAnselan]

Joshua,

Thanks! Looking at the buckles at the link you provided and the pictures of your shoes, I'm guessing buckle #21. Does that sound right? If so, would brass or white bronze be more appropriate? TIA!

Edit Added: Also, is smooth or rough out better for the shoes? TIA.

[JoshuaRed]

Yep, blackjack! #21 they are. I opted for the white bronze finish, it's less shiny and more worn looking. The full outer width of the buckle at it's widest is just over an inch, about 1 1/8", with the inner opening being oh, I'd say 6/8".

This is about half the size of later 18th Century buckles.

I chose the rough out finish for the same reasons listed above. But as far as I know, either way is appropriate, it's just personal preference.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Wow... Josh beat me to it, but saved me some typing.

Currently, there is nobody making specifically GAoP shoes, except by special order. There are some that make an "early" shoe, but since their bread and butter markets are F&I and Rev War the tend to be later shoes modified to look like GAoP era shoes.

There are several original shoes and info at my site

http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/footwear.htm

and

http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/shoeproject.htm

and Josh's are as good as any currently out there.

You want a decent sized tounge, and some height to the heel. For commoner's shoes as stacked leather heel is appropriate. The latch (the parts where the buckle attaches) should be fairly narrow. I would say that you don't want to go larger than 1".

The kicker is, no one has the right buckles for our period

*** EDIT****

I am carrying correct GAoP Buckles... Take a look at my site (scroll down)

http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/footwear.htm

GOF

[Mick MacAnselan]

Thanks Josh and GoF. I have contacted C&D Jarnigan about making a pair with the narrower latches. We'll see what they say. ("Ahh yes, the JoshuaRed Special model, one of our top sellers...") Oh hey, they seem to offer a 'tunnel stitch' option for the piece that reinforces the heel. Would that be the way to go? They say the tunnel stitch is very early 18th century style on their web site.

GoF, thanks for reminding me about the group buy. Do you have a best guess for how long until 'full production' assuming the sample is good? If it's not in the near future, I'll probably go ahead and buy elsewhere, then probably get a pair from the group buy too as a second pair.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

The last e-mail (last week) that I got said that he was finishing up a large commercial order and then going to work on/send my sample.

I would love to give a date.... but since it would be a pure guess, it would be a trap for me that I set myself....

That being said, in his communications with me, it sounded like if we had the 30 orders required, he would start getting shoes out from 6 weeks of that order.

That is probably the same amount of time it would take to have anyone else make the shoe too....

Josh, do you remember how long yours took?

The trick is getting the 30 orders. I have about 15 that I would consider firm. And a lot of folks are waiting on the sample to make up their minds.

Will post more when I know

(you can never go wrong with 2 pairs of shoes though!)

GoF

[JoshuaRed]

Yes, I did choose the Tunnel Stitch option as well, came out very nice. The shoes took about 2+ months to receive...just due to their backlog of jobs.

Mine came to $139 (I think...just from memory, don't quote me on that) for the rough out, tunnel stitch, armor heel, early 18th customization. I am perfectly happy with them, but I REALLY like the very squared toe on the Whydah shoes...but I have more important things to worry about, like procuring a good period knife and Queen Anne pistol.

[Mick MacAnselan]

I just heard back from C&D Jarnagin, and their reply implies that I should cut the latchets down myself. Now I'd probably be comfortable trimmimg a wee bit off, but I'm not so sure about taking 3/4" off myself. I'll follow up and beg some more...

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Mick

That concerns me too. I think that if the latch is not cut to size when the shoe is made, it may affect the appearance if you want to cut it down..... Especially on a larger sized shoe. It may end up looking "cut-down" and thus a little funky.

That and the fact that they have increased their price their "early" shoe to almost $150 on their "basic" shoe.

It looks like a pair of size 12, straight lasted, smooth-out shoes that you would have to cut the latch down yourself now sets you back $187 ($195 for amrored heels) and take 6 weeks (at least).

Hmmmmm...

Suddenly, that group shoe buy on a pair of shoes copied from the ones recovered on an acutal pirate ship don't look too bad at $135.

GoF

[kass]

Hee! Greg, $135 for custom-made shoes is absolutely phenominal. No matter what!

[JoshuaRed]

Yeah if C&D has jacked their rates like that, I'd go with somewhere else.

[Captain Midnight]

This seemed to be the best place to ask this question, rather than start a new topic, so could anyone tell me how the heels of period shoes were attached? Specifically, I'd like to know how the heel of the Whydah shoe was attached, as I am currently building a pair of shoes based on its design. I know the heels were nailed on in many cases, but could they have been stitched on as well, like the soles? Has anyone actually seen the Whydah shoe up close, other than the drawings of it that are out there? Any help anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated. Also, one other question, it looks as though black was the prevalent color for shoes, but could they also have been oiled brown? Thanks everyone!

[michaelsbagley]

Midnight,

These two pages (from the same web site) are the best information you are going to get on the web.

Making Some post-Medieval Construction Shoes

And

Test 18th century shoe.

Personally, I didn't find this information enough to make the shoes (and I have seen the Whydah shoe in person).... I have taken a couple of classes at a few SCA events, and I think I have almost filled in the blanks well enough to try making a pair.... Now it is a case of finding the time... and working my way through a few of the concepts that while I think I have, may be trickier than it sounds on paper.

Now to try and answer your question more directly.... Heels were made by stacking layers of compressed lesther (hammer the crap out of the leather while it is damp, NOT wet, to compress the leather). The layers were "pegged" together, possibly with the use of glue as well. To peg the layers together, you will need a pegging awl, and some good thin hardwood dowel to use as pegs.... The pegs looks as if they should be about 1/8th of an inch diameter. After the layers are stacked and pegged, they can be shaved into shape.

Let me make this clear, I'm no expert, I'm still trying to figure this out too, and the above is my best guess on all the reading and picking at brains more knowledgable than mine on the topic.

Hope this has helped.

Michael

Edit - On nails, my understanding is that nails were only added to make the bottom of the heel more durable.... I don't believe it was a structural thing in the GAoP... In fact I'm not even sure if adding nails to he sole is a GAoP thing or if a later convention (but not much later).

[Patrick Hand]

Out of period, but you may want to check it of from the Library,

In one of the Foxfire books, they show how brogans were made.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

The heels seem to be pegged on with wooden pegs. Whereas metal nails may have been used on "land" shoes, I would think that metal nails on the bottom of the shoe would scuff the deck (eventually, as the leather wore down), so I would skip the metal nails myself.

Midnight, I have a line drawing of the bottom of the Whydah shoe at my stie http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/shoeproject.htm that shows pegs around the heel.

The real bitch with a period shoe is the type of stitching that joins the "sides" of the shoe and the seam up the back. This is the butt stitching that joins two pieces of leather at the edges (as opposed to overlapping the two pieces and stitching "down" through the top.

What this means is period shoes have to be done by hand as there is no machine that does the butt stitching. This takes the maker time and costs the consumer money.

But also it prevents them from being "mass produced" on a machine.

I am working with a maker on a shoe design from the Whydah, but the guy is telling me he has to be able to do it on a machine.

This may be one of those compromises... I guess it depends on the final cost though. If he can make the Whydah shoe, designed as the Whydah shoe but machine stitched, for around $100, it may be a reasonable proposition.

Just to illustrate, here is a picture of a later shoe being made, the pink and yellow lines show how an earlier shoe differs.

Here is a closeup of the actual Whydah shoe and the butt stitching on sides and back

I would also add that the Admiralty Slops Contract from 1706 calls for a double soled, round toe shoe... which is what the Whydah shoe seems to be.

GoF

[Fox]

The use of the Whydah shoe as THE pirate shoe concerns me. Although it is the only shoe recovered from a pirate site, it has a fashionable but impractical tall heel, and many have questioned whether shoes with such high heels would have been popular amongst seamen. The general pictoral evidence of sailors from that period tends to show more practical lower heels, but nevertheless it is the only genuine pirate shoe we've got.

The conundrum can be solved by looking a bit deeper into the antecedents of the shoe. From the size it appears to be a child's shoe, and the fine silk stocking found with the shoe tends to indicate that it was owned by someone with a bit of dosh - probably John King. King was a spoilt little rich boy who stamped his feet until his mother let him join the pirates. If the shoe was owned by John King - and it seems likely that it was - then it was hardly a "typical" pirates shoe.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...s_a_boy_pirate/

[michaelsbagley]

The use of the Whydah shoe as THE pirate shoe concerns me. ...

Okay,

Foxe, I can see your logic on the use of the Whydah shoe... Thanks for sharing your insight there!

Would the Phip's shoe make more sense? It's dated to around the 1690s... but it may be a better example of an average sailor's (and hence average pirate's) shoe?

Article in French regarding the Phips shoe

Or would one of the shoes from La Belle, be a better example? Again the La Belle find is dated to the 1680's...

An Article about the Belle Shoes

GoF, would you be willing to post the sketch/photo/image of the bottom of the Whydah shoe here? Or if there is copywrite issues, would you be willing to send me a copy as well? (for personal reference only, I will not redistribute if you do not want it circulated).

Midnight, my appologies, I just re-read your post, and realized you were not asking how the heel was assembled, but how it was attached to the rest of the shoe. Yes, the sole does appear to be sewn to the rest of the shoe via a rand (a rand is similar to a welt, but for the back portion or heel of a shoe... Although the term rand has been used in different ways at different times with regards to shoemaking). The second link I posted in my original post has some picture of how a heel is attached to a rand, but I didn't find that image and the attached commentary very helpful in figuring out how it was done, it took me a fair bit of further reading and picking some shoemakers brains to figure that out.... And I'm still not sure I completely "get" it.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Regardless of the heel size, it still represents shoe making/construction of shoes that would have been worn in and around 1717.

So, where there is speculation that it could be John Kings shoe, we do know for certain that it is a shoe from a 1717 pirate ship, so, while I won't claim it to be the representative example of all pirates shoes, it probably is constructed as any shoe of the period would be.

I would imagine that the shoe maker I am talking with would/could put just about any size heel that the customer wanted.

And oddly, it certainly does look like a double soled round toe shoe... to bad the ASC did not specify heel size.

But here is one from the 1690 wreck of the Elizabeth and Mary that has to have at least a 1 1/2' heel!

Elizabeth and Mary Shipwreck

Now, of course, this shoe could have belong to John's King's spoilt brat cousin Philbert.....

GoF

[Quartermaster James]

Hmmm...that appears to be no more heel than on my average cowboy boot. Nothing impractical there.

[Fox]

You wear your cowboy boots much on a a square rigger?

No, the Whydah shoe is not the only period shoe recovered which has a large heel. No, it is not proven beyond doubt that it belonged to John King. Yes, it is indeed a shoe from a 1717 pirate shipwreck.

However, this is all silly debate which misses the key issue (see the very first sentence of my last post). The fact remains that the odds are heavily in favour of it being John King's shoe, even just as a childs shoe it cannot be considered typical as a pirate shoe, and regardless of its pedigree one single item should never be considered typical without other examples. As John would say, I'll give you a dollar for every high heeled shoe you can find on a sailor in the GAoP if you give me a quarter for every low heeled one I can find.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that the Whydah shoe should be entirely disregarded, particularly when it comes to questions about construction techniques. But in terms of style it would be dangerous to assume that it was typical of sailors' footwear of the time. IMLTHO to see any number of pirate reenactors running (or mincing) around in high heels "because the Whydah shoe is like that" would be as bad as the same number of bucket boots... well maybe not quite as bad, but you know what I mean...

[Captain Midnight]

So then, it is safe to assume that the heel was pegged to the sole (which itself was stitched to the upper)with wooden pegs? I am familiar with the various methods of attaching the heels (i.e. stitching, pegging, nailing, etc.), I just wanted to know which was the most common method of attachment for an early 18th century shoe, with a particular interest in the Whydah shoe simply because it is a definite find from a pirate vessel.

fwiw, my shoes are NOT 100% accurate replicas of the originals, as I could only do such work by closely examining the original, which I have not. But they ARE 100% hand made by myself in period appropriate construction methods (although not exactly like the Whydah shoe). I have only seen the archaeological drawings of the shoe, and the few photos of it shown on Gentleman of Fortune's web site. My shoes are cut in the style of the Whydah shoes, straight-lasted, with a stitched sole, and butt-stitched heels, but I was not aware that they were butt-stitched as well on the side-seams, which I had already overlapped and stitched before I found this fact out. I also did not make the heel quite as tall, as I am already a tall man (6'-4"), and I felt that the lower heel would be more comfortable on my feet to tramp about in all day. Granted, they are not extremely low heels, they have a decent height to them, just not "high heels" so to speak. The latchets on them are narrow (3/4"), and were designed that way from my own pattern of the Whydah shoe.

Also, FWIW, I tend to agree with Foxe in his assessment of high heeled shoes on board a ship...imho I would almost bet that most of them were lower, although I might add that climbing rigging in shoes such as the Whydah shoe would have been easier, as the higher heel would help grip the lines better. I have actually experienced climbing with high heeled footwear myself, and can tell you that the heels are a great help. I was a lineman for an electrical company for several years and wore climbing boots with a pronounced heel which "gripped" the climbing spikes strapped to my legs.

If I were to make a pair of shoes that were meant to be replicas of the Whydah shoe, I would go with the higher heel, and would butt stitch my side seams as well as the heels, but my shoes were adapted to meet my own comfort needs and could be better described as indicative of a common sailor's footwear rather than strict replicas of the original shoes.

[Matty Bottles]

Pics?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Captain Midnight.

Yes, its safe to assume that the heel was pegged with wooden pegs.

If you haven't read the pdf of the 1686ish wreck of the French ship Belle, I would definately download and read it.

Here is some more from that work.

From The Analysis and Conservation of the BELLE Footwear Assemblage by Anthony G Randolph Jr.

(pg 61)

Shoemakers use wooden pegs fashioned from local deciduous species to fasten the heel to the sole structure.  Western European shoemakers used straight grained woods such as yellow oak or cherry, while eastern European craftsmen favored birch...

More on Heel construction (pg 83)

The poorest shoes were fashioned with jump, or peche, heels.  Peche heels were created by compressing the leather scraps and hide glue in a book press; once stiffened, the resultant material was shaved to heel form.  The second type was the stacked leather heel, which was fashioned from beaten leather disks, or lifts, cut from the rump of a treaded cattle hide, the third heel was shaped from leather-covered wood.

Stacked leather heels, the most common variety used during the early modern period, were fixed to shoes with tapered hardwood pegs.  To begin, the first heelpiece of split lift, was fixed to the sole structure with small brass brads hammered into the center of the heel.  The sole structure and split lift were then perforated and the lift stitched to the shoe body.  The brads were then removed and their holes were expanded using a heel awl.  Small pegs were then inserted in their place, from the sole extending downward.....

there is a lot more which is worth the read if you are interested in making some shoes.

more on heels (pg 61)

and also

Two different types of thread were employed during the shoemaking process.  Sewing thread which was used to fasten the sole structure was fashioned from 24 strands of coarsely spun green hemp.....  Stitching thread, which was employed to stitch various upper components, was made of 12 strands of finely dranw linen of flax.

Take a look for yourself at

http://nautarch.tamu.edu/anth/abstracts/randolph.htm

GoF