my new highland shoes

[DWFII]

As I understand it the Culloden is made as close to historical standards as possible. The standard would have been a vegetable tanned leather turned grainside (smooth side) in and the "nappy" side...the fleshside" would have been treated with sperm whale oil or perhaps cod oil. When the shoes were made up, the flesh side would have been "stuffed" (blackened) with lampblack (soot) and sized (burnished) with a flour paste. Shoe polish wasn't in it...as we understand the term, it wasn't known at the time.

Additionally, it is not at all certain that a heel stiffener/support would have been used. And certainly no toe stiffener.

I have all this from the individual at Colonial Williamsburg who I mentioned in a previous post. So I am pretty certain of the facts. This link will take you to a photo essay of a pair of these shoes being made (under the tutalege of my friend).

I do not know how strictly the Culloden follows the historic model but I recall reading that the Culloden is a single layer shoe.

BTW...Bespoke is always MTM (made to measure) but MTM is not always bespoke.

And if I can expand upon that, as a matter of personal opinion...I think that straight lasts are poor templates for made to measure. The foot itself is not straight. Some folks even have a severe turning of the foot towards the medial (inside) or lateral (outside). Made to measure, by implication if not definition, is an attempt to model the foot as closely as possible while maintaining a certain aesthetic appearance. Back in the day, such niceties as instep and joint girths may have been observed but from what I have gathered only casually.

And if I may take just one more moment to say that what I offer is not comparable to the Culloden or the Glenfinnian. It is a contemporarily made (and fitting) shoe with historic sensibilities. It makes no attempt to replicate either the glory nor the deficiencies of the historic shoe. But rather draws the best from both worlds.