Kyle Mitchell

@Mocivnik, I followed up again with Campbell-Randall, who mentioned that SPS Technologia Meccanica of Vigevano, Pavia, Lombardy, Italy manufactures the numbered twist hand presses they distribute. I am pretty sure Movi, a brand of Fratelli Barbieri, is instead what we in shoemaking call a "finder"—a distributor of products from several manufacturers, rather than a manufacturer itself. Italy has many good finders, including TAN, CIAC, newer online sellers like Tutto per la Calzatura, and others. There are also many in Germany, who often focus especially on orthopedic shoemaking. You will sometimes see products with finders' brands marked on them. For example, I have a pair of lasting pliers marked TAN. But these are often white-labeled by the manufacturers for their larger finder-distributor customers. I've seen the very same pliers online with other brands marked on them. I agree that many leatherworkers would be well served with a cheap, generic arbor press like the bluish-purple one you pictured. I had one myself when I primarily made small goods and cases, before I started making shoes. The standard advice was to buy one from a budget Chinese tool store, like this one from Harbor Freight in the United States, then: Grind off a tooth at the bottom of the arbor so that it ratchets at full height, so you can reposition the angle of the handle when the arbor is fully depressed. Bore a hole in the face of the arbor, drill and tap for a set screw on the side of it, and epoxy a neodymium magnet to the bottom of the hole, so you can fix tools in place. Weaver Leather Supply let me know that they will be launching a new press later this year. Their plan is to ship it with adapters for many common tooling threads. That may become the best option overall for many makers. I'll be surprised if it's cheaper than the ugly little Chinese one-ton arbor presses, though.

Sorry for raising this old thread from the dead. I ended up with one of the Italian twist-type hand presses, as well. This topic was one of a very small handful of pages I could find online even addressing the threading for these tools. I bought my press from Campbell-Randall in Conroe, Texas. When I followed up with them, they provided some catalog pages for the Italian hand presses and accessories they distribute, which included a confirmation: Campbell-Randall import a bunch of 1/4-24 tools to fit these presses, and also stock an adapter from 3/8" shaft to 1/4-24. Apart from the effectively proprietary threading, I really like the little No. 2 press. I'll probably end up with more Italian tooling sets, too, since I'm focused on footwear and Italy makes a ton of shoe hardware. But were I starting out from scratch, and especially if I weren't doing shoe work, I'd go with one of the more generic lever- or lever-cam-based hand presses with 3/8" collars and sets screws both top and bottom. Preferably one with a lot of spare tool height. Then get adapters and base plates for any tooling designed for differently threaded presses. Bizarrely, after digging through I don't know how many Italian shoe supply distributors' catalogs, as well as compiling a nice cheat sheet of Italian terms for "hand press" and "punch" and "die" and such, I still have no idea who actually makes these things. Just that they're in Italy. To Matt S's point, I have occasionally seen presses of this style, also offered as made in Italy, also in different shapes numbered 1 through 6, but with other threadings. So "Italian twist press" doesn't necessarily mean 1/4-24 madness. Based on spare parts listings for these presses in a few catalogs, the differences could be entirely in the driven shafts being threaded differently, with all other parts the same. If you're not in the EU, you've got an imported 1/4-24 press, and it's driving you insane, it might actually be cost effective to have a replacement shaft turned and tapped.

Here's the post on twist directions I teased: https://craft.kemitchell.com/three-saddle-stitches/

I received Nigel Armitage's book today. There are a couple sentences on casting mentioning that it changes thread twist, which in turn changes the slant of the stitches. Nothing on any effects beyond changing twist.

Ddat, that's certainly how the Stohlmans' book taught it: There's a whole lot of good (and bad) information out there about how to saddle stitch. In the end, the threads end up either running one always over the other or twisted. If they're twisted, they twist left or right. Casting and needle placement get the same results, in terms of twist and twist direction. I'm wondering if there's some other difference between them. I've seen good stuff stitched both ways!

Thanks, GatoGordo. I had seen Nigel's new videos, albeit sped up to 1.5. They're part of what got me thinking about all this in depth again. I understood Nigel as advocating always crossing the second needle behind the first, pulling the first thread in the hole forward, and placing the second second thread high in the hole. That means casting to reverse the direction the threads twist, and he covers that. He also warns against taking up slack at angles as a valid technique on heartier leathers like bridle, but unnecessary or unhelpful on the tannages more often used for wallets and the like. I'm not sure why he picked second-needle-high as the method to teach. Perhaps for assurance against tying overhand knots, especially for beginners. Perhaps also because there's some extra benefit to casting over needle placement. I don't know. I have his book on order. If it's mentioned there, I'll be sure to follow up.

When shooting for the falling-dominoes effect on the back as well as front side of a saddle stitch, is there any extra benefit to casting to change which thread crosses on top, as compared to placing the second needle through the hole in position so they cross that way? Put another way: Do you other folks here get better looking slanted stitches on the back side when casting versus putting the front-side needle low in the hole? It's dazzling---in both "wow!" and "gah, my eyes!" senses---how much information there is to be found on this stuff now. It seems pretty broadly understood, at least practically, that when saddle stitching in slanted holes, changing the direction the threads twist---corkscrew or candy cane, S or Z, standard or reverse thread, right over left or left over right---changes which side gets the shorter, steeper-slanted stitches. Got that. But as I've been revisiting old notes and doing some experiments on scrap for a new project, I'm seeing what looks like a pattern of better results on the back side with the casting technique. I'm also noticing a preference for casting in the videos and tutorials I've found online, mostly folks focused on wallets, belts, handbag bags, and other small goods, punching pretty wide holes with irons. Coming up on the Stohlmans' book as I did, I'd always just put my "B" needle on one side or the other of the "A" thread in the hole to set the twist. There wasn't a pretty line drawing of throwing any loop over, so I didn't. I suspect, perhaps naively, that putting needles through the holes to twist one way, casting so they twist the other, and having the thread ride up and over as I pull slack might be slightly reaming the rougher exit side of the holes a tad wider. That might help a bit like how pulling threads taught at an angle can. That's pure speculation on my part. When I pull slack really slow, to try and see what's going on, results change. I've also tried watching some YouTube videos that show stitching from the back in slow motion, but what I'm looking for is either too small to see or not really there. Much appreciate any folks taking time to share wisdom or experience! If I can get to feeling like I've got my head around this last bit, I'll have a nice blog post on twist directions, casting, needle placement, and other tricks, with pictures and tables. Maybe clear the path for those coming behind.