livinghistory.ie

Thanks Jason, a lot of effort went into getting the result as shared in the images above, a bit more tweaking and I reckon I'll have a top quality version of the shoe style known as the Lucas Type 2.

They look beautiful Con, well done. The artwork and finish is superb. I love seeing good quality Gaelic kit being made, there is few enough of it out there from the early period.

Three questions:
1. Where did you get the evidence for the webbing? Would thonging not be a more logical choice?
2. Where did you get the evidence for the church banning pointed shoes?
3. Will you ever make available/sell your patterns for the shoes? I know how tricky it is to adapt the Lucas patterns to actually work. It'd be well worth it for people to pay a fee for a good quality pattern for this kind of shoe.

Beir bua,
Billy.

consmiles wrote: I also say that neither Lucas nor the person who added the template sketch used that template to make a Lucas Type 2 shoe because it cannot work out. I made my own template and after many attempts I have the result as shown above. There is a left and a right cut, i.e. these shoes are handed. I will improve the template on the next pair. These are not turn shoes. That is to say they are not sown inside out and then turned outside in. I chose 2 ply nylon thread as linen thread often breaks when being pulled tight - even the 3 ply linen thread with beeswax breaks.

Hi Con,

You do a very good job with re-enacting high quality higher class goods. You do a lot of things early medieval shoemakers could make, which I can't do with my current skills.
But you miss at least a couple of things you could learn from Lucas papers and other images to make your shoes as perfect as examples from museums.
1) Yes, the pattern "after Lucas" is not very good for reenactors today. Nobody knows size etc this pattern was made for. But it's still turnshoe - you may check examples from museums if you don't believe Lucas.
2) Zigzags on the upper seam means that it was not done "edge-to-edge". Is was sewn inside out, probably using running stitch. Example from the NMI has beveled edges to decrease thickness of leather and make the seam inside more flat.
3) Shoemakers at the period had wooden lasts. There were technologies like stretching of wet leather.

You do a very good job with your shoes and I believe that you can make perfect shoes, just like archaeological finds available. Just don't be stopped by "this is impossible".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTQJXrTt7us

Hi Billy, thank you for your kind words.

1)Lucas Type 1 has holes for thong and Lucas Type 2 has slots for webbing/strap/braid... I chose webbing.
2)The Roman Catholic Church was shocked by the obscenity of the pointy shoe aka poulaines and banned them on the pretext that men could not kneel to pray while wearing them - see Google
3)Maybe, but take into account that 25 foot of thread was used, holes spaced at 5mm using goose foot awl, this is not easy to make and its highly unlikely any casual attempt would succeed - this would mean disappointment for purchasers of patterns. You could buy a pair of shoes and cut one up, wet it and make it flat.... copy it... plagiarize...
I sell Lucas Type 1 and 2 shoes.

Hi Oleg, thank you for your kind words.

1) The 'After Lucas' pattern for Type 2 does not work. No words can fix it. It cannot be used to give similar results to museum specimens. If it did work then you'd see shoes made using it... Turnshoe? Why? Because people who do not make LT2's say it must be? I have wetted and turned the toe area - maybe you can call that 'turnshoe'. I have looked at the Leitrim shoe while I was displaying leather shoes / kit in the national museum. Lucas was not a shoemaker.
2) Zigzag seams are edge to edge. The running / tunnel stitch can be done from the outside. If such stitching techniques are being used on a shoe that is inside out then the stitching is done from the outside and when finished then turned outside in. The beveled edge on the upper seam makes a 2mm zone which does not give enough thickness for a goosefoot awl to make a tunnel. I've not seen a LT2 cut open showing stitch holes on the top seam so its all conjecture.
3) Wooden lasts existed for sure. That is commercial production equipment. I stretched wet leather to form the upturned toe area but I reckon the quality of the end product depends primarily on the correct cut first. The shoes I make and sell are made to measure - every person will have one foot slightly longer and the 'short' foot will be slightly wider.

I don't understand your 'impossible' comment. See the pictures of my Lucas Type 2 shoes - they may be the only pair made in modern times that look like the museum specimens. A lot of time and effort researching, designing and making better versions of the template went into producing my Lucas Type 2 shoes. I use 3mm vege tan leather which is not cheap so each attempt that allows me to improve the result costs money. In your video it appears that soft (not vege tan) leather was used and the shoe displayed was based on the 'After Lucas' pattern. It looks like a leather that will not allow tooling or carving. The finished result in your video is close to a poulaine - careful - the church might ban such a pointy shoe...

Sorry if it sounded harsh or unclear.

xxx

...

xxx

...