data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/08a2f/08a2f54cfb86d5841a3cdc4fef5c93b76d300b99" alt=""
One thing that more or less all types of classic or traditionally constructed shoes have in common is the use of toe stiffeners to retain the shape of the toe and to protect the foot. The use of stiffeners have come and gone through the centuries, depending on what types of shoes that has been in fashion at the time.
The topic came up in a thread on StyleForum recently, where the American bootmaker D.W. Frommer II, who have written a number of books on shoemaking, took help from D.A. Saguto, who is a famous shoe historian and among other things have translated the book Art du Cordonnier to English (Art of the Shoemaker), one of the oldest shoemaking books that have ever been saved for our times, written back in 1767 by the Frenchman M. de Garsault.
Saguto summarises what he knows about the evolution of toe stiffeners, or toe puffs, the hard part found on all traditionally made shoes and many others, placed between the lining and upper leather over the toe area. It gives the toe its shape and protects your foot, making them possible to look and work the way they do.
The earliest information Saguto could found was from the 1660’s, when a type of sharp square toes were popular on men’s shoes. A quite thick piece of leather were then pulled over the last before the upper leather was lasted, and a small amount of paste was placed in between the layers. However, given that the skived stiffener wasn’t secured with any type of stitching or anything, just that old days paste, the stiffeners often tended to curl in and hurt the feet of the wearers. On women’s shoes at the same time in history, one also used toe stiffeners, but here they were safely inserted between the lining and the upper leather and sewn in with the upper when the hand welting were done, so very similar to how today’s toe stiffeners are made, apart from the fact that it was mainly thick textile that was used as material for the stiffener.
Showcased in the article are shoes from the collection of the art museum The Met in New York. Here’s a pair of men’s square toes, likely with toe stiffeners, dated between 1660-1675.
Beautifully decorated women’s French court shoes dated 1690-1700s, which supposedly has toe stiffeners of textile. The pointy toes was a new fashionable thing at the time, and became more common on women’s shoes in the 18th century.
A bit later in history, between something like 1680s-1750s, very high square toes, aka box toes, were in vogue. The common solution for these were to extend the insole and bring it forward up over the toe, and a separate box piece was butt-stitched to it (when you put two edges of leather “butted” against each other, and stitch a saddle stitch from a 45° angle where the awl holes meet in the middle of the edges that are against each other). The upper was then lasted over this.
For women’s shoes during the 18th century, the toes have gone from square to pointy and later round/almond shaped, and the toe stiffeners were commonly made of rag paper or cardboard (maybe one can say that “shortcuts” and ways to make things easier/cheaper have always been used also back in history, but maybe there were other practical reasons for the material uses, I don’t know).
In the 1800s the toe box became in general became higher on men’s shoes, usually even higher than here. these are a rare pair of utilitarian men’s shoes dated 1725-1750. These have a very sturdy toe.
During all these time, “regular” round toe shoes were still used but they were always soft-toed without any type of stiffeners. It wasn’t until the second half of the 19th century that men’s shoes began to be lined in the same way as women’s shoes had been for a long time, and one started to insert toe stiffeners between the lining and the upper leather in the same way, and the way that classic handmade shoes have their leather toe puffs made today became standard.
Today’s bespoke shoes and similar have the stiffeners made out from veg tanned thick leather pieces, split and grinded down, and attached between the leather layers and hardened using paste, very much exactly the way it was done 100-150 years ago. For mass produced shoes, during the 1900s one went away from leather toe stiffeners to the much quicker and cheaper celastic ones (plastic impregnated fabric), and they are what’s used also on premium Goodyear welted factory-made shoes. Even if the heel stiffener is made of real leather on those, toes are plastic, the practical advantages of leather vs celastic toe puffs aren’t considered worth the higher material and especially production costs.
A pair of American balmoral boots made in the 1920s. Made with proper leather toe stiffeners sandwiched between the lining and the upper leather as in today’s handmade shoes. All pictures above: The Met
When making a leather toe stiffener from scratch, as is standard for bespoke shoemakers, a lot of work is needed.
Basically all factory-made Goodyear welted shoes today have celastic toe puffs, which are these sheets that then are heat formed on the last in a quick, easy and cheap way.
Hi Jesper.
I believe that the boots that we all know today as Chelsea and Balmoral boots were once know as Congress Boots in the U.S.A. . A name that’s been lost to the past, That’s a story that could make a lovely blog post. For your reference, I have on my factory wall of a few images Congress https://i.imgur.com/8n9z83P.jpeg. 🙂
Thanks Vesper. A little bit of and odd question but do you know why leather toe puffs are superior? I understand the argument behind leather heel stiffeners but I prefer if my shoes retain the shape in the front and celastic seems a better choice
Don: Good idea, a history article about the chelsea boot would be interesting surely. Think it came to the US from UK though (the balmoral boot definitely did, it was supposedly Prince Albert who had the first known one made) if remember correctly, even if the name congress boot was established in US.
Fernando: Cheers! A leather toe stiffener don’t change shape if you don’t want it too, but that’s the one benefit, that you can re-shape a leather toe puff (if for example too tight) by wetting it since it’s a living material, and especially it’s more or less indestructable, if you get stepped severely on the toe you can just wet it and insert lasted shoe trees/the last and the shoe is back in business. If a celastic toe puff breaks, the shoes are ruined. But for regular wear the difference is more or less non-existing, which is the reason why it’s a shortcut popularly made also for more expensive shoes, while the difference between leather heel stiffener material is highly noticeable in a different way.
Thanks, great explanation
Hi Jesper, great article. I recently deconstructed a pair of Carmina oxfords and noticed a couple interesting materials in addition to the stiffining materials. On the backside of the outer leather there was a nylon mesh material glued as the interlining. I also noticed some nylon used to reinforce and protect some of the stitches and the eyelets. I’d be interested in knowing the range of materials used as interlining from factory-made to hand-made welted shoes (granted, this may require a dedicated post).
Paul K: Thanks! There’s quite a lot of info on that topic in this article, where shoes from Loake, Carmina and Paolo Scafora (hand welted) are disassembled: https://shoegazing.com/2016/08/28/in-depth-disassembly-of-shoes/
Was it the same stiffener material on your pair, celastic toe and leather board heel stiffener?
Jesper, thanks for directing me to the [very informative] disassembly article. It’s amazing how many similarities I found with the Carminas I disassembled:
– cracks in the creasing of the upper
– rusted metal shank
– metal staples remained from lasting
– loose thread used for the welt
– cracked insole due to not sanding the top grain
– leather board heel stiffener
– celastic toe stiffener
Are there any modern books you would recommend to learn in-depth details around welted shoemaking?
Thanks again and keep up the great content!
Paul K: Thanks for sharing! Yeah quite interesting that so many of the things we saw that could be problematic are still there, especially the insole one would’ve hoped been addressed and changed at this time.
Regarding modern books, the obvious suggestion would be Laszlo Vass book Handmade shoes for men, if you haven’t read that yet.