Mablung

Thanks. And you're right on about the heel seam issue. I'll fiddle with some craft foam and figure out how to put a dart in the heel as you described. I also need to adjust the height and length of the top of the upper, as it gaps at my Achilles tendon; I think I need to cut the upper piece in more of a trapezoid shape rather than a rectangle. No, zero drop on these. I've worn "barefoot" style shoes for several years now and swear by them. So, no heel, and the sole is quite thin: just the leather insole glued to a thin piece of crepe rubber as the outsole. I'll take a pic of the side of the shoe this evening.

Knock 'em dead. A while back I did a pair of basic scout moccasins for my wife that she uses as slippers and to run outside briefly. The hardest part was getting the puckers in the toe box right; I didn't have a scratch awl at the time, but sticking it in the pucker space like the directions said to do would have helped keep everything even.

Simple Ecological Shoemaking, on Etsy. Can't remember the author's name offhand. I just posted a pair of chukkas I made using her pattern.

Forgot to say earlier, the sizing was pretty easy on these. I used the largest pattern in the "Simple Ecological Shoemaking" book available on Etsy and adjusted it for my couple-sizes-larger feet and adjusted the width a little to better accommodate my forefoot. With some careful measuring and re-measuring to get the foot measurement right and keep the sole/heel/vamp proportions right, getting the size dialed in was pretty easy. These need just a little adjustment, but I wanted to make another pair in a different color anyway. The heel/ankle piece needs to be a bit taller and I need to adjust the length of the heel in a way I haven't quite determined yet to get the heel seam out from under my heel, when the shoes are on. I think adding a heel cup will help in that regard. I may add a toebox piece as well to give the toebox some more shape and a little panache.

Why thank you. They were really fairly easy to do, since I didn't make the pattern myself. I used crepe rubber from Tandy, cut from the 1/8"-thick sheets they sell. Intentionally minimalist soles; only insole is a piece of the same 4/5 oz. oil tan I used for the upper.

Well, I've finally made a foray into shoemaking, beyond the pair of moccasins I made my wife. This was a little different. I used the Simple Shoemaking stitch-down chukka pattern for these. I had to adapt the pattern to my larger foot, but other than having to figure out how to adjust the fit for the heel so that my heel isn't right on top of the rear seam, I think I got the fit adjustments just right. Now to wear them for a week to break them in and figure out what mistakes I made, other than slightly wandering stitch lines (had to eyeball the placement of my chisels) and slightly ragged, uneven edges.

Are you finding white, rather than just a light tan, veg-tan leather somewhere? I don't think veg tan that hasn't been treated or finished in some way shows up a pure white. But I also may not understand what you mean. If the leather is already white and will absorb water readily like any other veg tan, then you should be able to carve it like usual.

Not unless you go way overboard with the paint. Just don't put way too much and you should be fine.

A good friend is a very talented woodcarver, and he uses some very small gouges just like this for detail work.

Well, I'll go pop some popcorn now, since we have a new provocateur to get schooled on manners...

Totally thought for a second you meant a 7mm caliber rifle. I also thought at first this thread was about a tool for hair weave. My brain is not firing properly right now.

Round diamond files are your friend for such things. So is wet/dry sandpaper glued to a mandrel or dowel. Search through here for some methods. A good number of posts have discussed this kind of issue already.

I guess the lack of prevalence of fighting with swords obviates the need for very strong but flexible steel of the type. The knives I have are probably just prettier than others of similar steel. Still, I like it. It's snazzy. Sometimes, that's enough. Anyway, enough of my thread hijack.

You know, was just reading something indicating Wootz steel was actually a form of particle metallurgy, not a means of pattern-welding, as I thought. So, I may need to stick my foot in my mouth over this one; that will have to wait for tomorrow. But, figured I'd throw that out there, since I probably made a few eyes roll, and may have proven the maxim from the Book of Proverbs, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and prove one's foolishness." As I think about it, I think I do need to walk back my rant about the two methods of manufacture being essentially the same; they aren't. But, given that true Damascus was a particle steel, I wonder what would happen if one were to etch currently popular particle steels, like the S30V a couple of my knives are made from. Interesting question. Then there's the point the article I read made, which is that it's not clear why "Damascus steel" is called that, with one theory being it was a derivative of the Arabic word for water, "damas," and that being applied because of the wavy appearance of Damascus steel. That makes me wonder if my rant against pedantry still has some basis, albeit on different grounds, but that is a question for tomorrow.

Ironically, then, "Damascus" steel isn't truly "Damascus," either, insomuch as it didn't originate in Damascus. It does share the same pattern, though, and it sounds like all forms of "Damascus" steel share the feature of pattern-welding techniques being the basis of their manufacture, and the pattern comes out through acid etching (which also occurs through patina of high-carbon steels developed through use). Personally, I've always found the insisted distinction between "pattern-welded" and "Damascus" silly for that reason. I think it's a distinction without a real, meaningful difference. I get that someone may point to the great flex of "true Damascus" as opposed to "pattern-welded". The same response applies, however, because the degree of flex is a function less of pattern-welding/Damascus manufacture in and of themselves but of using specific kinds of pattern-welding techniques and combinations of steels and other materials to highlight certain characteristics. All steel flexes to some degree. Sword blades need to more than others, and the necessary flex can be achieved using steels not made according to the Damascus method. The importance is less the Damascus method and more the materials. The Damascus method did so more cheaply, yes, I understand that, so it had some advantages that made it desirable, and the patterns look sexy. But it's still pattern-welded, just by different means than people use today to create patterned mixtures of steels with certain characteristics. So, I don't like the distinction because it seems to me emphasize differences that are not innate to the materials or the process of combining metals to make the patterns and produce the desired properties. Viewed in that light, "Damascus" and "pattern-welded" mean the same thing. Okay, rant over. To those who still maintain there's a meaningful distinction, feel more than free to make the distinction. I can be a pedant with the best of them (or, depending on one's perspective, worst), so I have great respect for all pedants. I just think this distinction is overly and needlessly pedantic. Please, for the love of all things good, do not let this turn into the M&G debacle. I just wanted to vent my annoyance at what I think is a needless but harmless distinction that doesn't make real sense (to me) to insist upon.

Thanks for the writeup. That's really interesting, and a good advertisement for using Mop & Glow as an acrylic finish for those who want a leather-appropriate and highly effective finish. I may have to get some for some knife sheaths I'm making. I also appreciate someone who also appreciates a good pistol optic.

I've got some great fixed blade knives in pattern-welded Damascus. If I could get a round knife from the manufacturer, I totally would. It's well stretched and folded together, based on the manufacturer's literature and videos, and with a little elbow grease to get the bevel set, it sharpens to a mirror polish like a dream. Holds the edge well, too. You know, I might ask them if they could make one to the pattern of my Al Stohlman knife; it'd be way better than the poorly-heat-treated D2 that knife uses...or I could make one out of a billet of their steel, since the company sells billets...hmmmmmm...

I thought of it as well. Fortunately, this chap is a little better about considering a suggestion politely, without becoming snarky and insulting.

It depends on the style of thing you want to make. I've made my wife and sister purses out of 4/5 oz. oil tan that are soft and pliable, not a ton of structure; they were meant to be that way, with one big compartment and a flap closure. I made my mom a tote bag out of 5 oz. chrome/oil tan (S.B. Foote utility side—overrun of Red Wing boot/shoe leather) that is stiffer and has more structure, but still basically soft. Look around on here for different things people have made. You can get some different "looks" and structure if you use 3–5 or 6 oz. veg tan for a purse, depending on just how structured and rigid you want it to be. There are a lot of good exemplars for wallets, including clutch-style wallets, on here, too. The consensus seems to be that the outer panel should be 4 or 5 oz. at the most, with 2/3 oz. pocket panels, plus maybe a thin liner. Otherwise, you'll have too much bulk that will require endless skiving, as already pointed out.

You know, that makes sense. I wasn't getting much burnish until I was nearly done. The last few inches of beveling burnished nicely, so I think you're right. This was 2/3 oz. shoulder, so I could easily have let it dry a few more minutes before doing the cuts and beveling. I probably added more water than was really necessary, but I wanted to make sure the color stayed even, since I was leaving it natural instead of dying it.

Fredk's method would work well if you are wanting to mold a slip/sleeve sort of case. (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the design, fredk.) Saddleback's method is for making a case that grips the edges of the frame with a raised lip, like most cases people use now. Saddleback's video is pretty complete, so with some watching and rewatching, a little measurement and math, and a couple attempts, it shouldn't be too hard to clone, I don't think. I've got that on my list of projects.

Thanks! Shoulda been more clear on the carving. The barn is inverted and originally I was going to do all of it inverted, but spur of the moment as I was beveling, I decided to do the other elements in relief instead. Make them stand out as the focal point and let the barn fade into the background. The inverted portions are by no means even, but it makes the beams look a bit darker and at least a little bit more "woody" that way.

Did this as a quick project to hang on my office door at work. It turned out much better than I thought it would. All I did to finish it was give it a couple coats of NFO and punch a couple holes for a piece of dark green chrome-oil-tanned scrap to act as a hanger string. Would appreciate some pointers on the backgrounding and beveling. Can't figure out what to do with the beveling, as it keeps coming out choppy, even if I make small moves and many strikes. I used a matting tool for part of the background, mostly to fade out the beveling on Mary, Joseph, and the manger and Jesus. The star points along the barn roof beams didn't come out right, but I didn't realize that would be an issue until I had done the swivel knife work and beveling.

Is that when cleaning with the pumice hand cleaner? I assume so but wanted to make sure I hadn't missed a change in tack in regard to cleaning. If so, that looks pretty good, as long as one doesn't mind any later finish being a bit matted due to the surface scratches.

@ThomG To state Chuck's point another way, the pumice takes off part of the surface. The surface is slightly glossy because the very, very top layer is glossy. Thus, removing the gloss = removing part of the top layer—thereby damaging the leather. Unless, of course, you desire to take off the top. Then you have achieved your end, but if you want the leather to stay intact, then you've damaged it.