Worrying Wilts

[tocemma]

Regards

Tocemma

[squirrel]

Interesting photo and I look forward to seeing the replies from the experts.

The one with the needle looks like Frank Lampard!

[Joe Sweeney]

TE,

Not sure I like the look of the guy with the cig in his mouth!!! Looks like he is plotting something.

The boots aren't related to any official pattern.

I have a nice 1916 dated pair very similar to those pictured (no large backstrap) mine have a nice heavily billed sole and has been hob'd too.

Not heard about these being relegated to Home Service only--that is interesting. Can you recall your source?

Joe Sweeney

[7t2ndswinger]

Interesting photo and I look forward to seeing the replies from the experts.

The one with the needle looks like Frank Lampard!

Super Frankie Lampard please.

[tocemma]

Joe,

I condensed some of the notes from the reference cards for the holdings of the Boot and Shoe Museum in Nottingham. Some of this information may need to be reconciled against what you have from ACD records, but I think it is essentially correct.

The patterns withdrawn by February 1916 were introduced to increase the scope of supply in the early days of the war, when the shoe industry was undergoing the process of organisation for the purpose of standardisation. They date from November 1914, when there were two boots known as Trade Patterns No 1 and 2 which were issued for recruits and home service. No 2 was withdrawn in January 1915 and the No1, improved in some respects and renamed Standard Pattern No 1, was finally withdrawn in February 1916. Another temporary pattern the B6, a Blucher with a twelve iron outsole was withdrawn at the same time standardising the patterns of boots designed by the trade.

As soon as this was done, the emergency practice of taking over manufacturers stocks, or orders being executed, which had grown to such a pitch that quantities of boots were commandeered under legal powers of requisition, was superseded and a great improvement in supplies resulted.

The specifications for trade patterns No1 and No2 were issued in November 1914. Their chief virtue was that manufacturers, unable at that time to make the Regulation boot, could take on the 'Trade' boots, and thus supply an approved article. The trade pattern boots were made screwed and stitched, whereas the new Galosh pattern required rivetting and stitching machines. Six million pairs were ordered before the close of 1914. In January 1915 the cheaper boot, the No2, was withdrawn. The No1 boot was revised and given a new name, emerging as the Standard No1. Large quantities were made, but the boot was finally withdrawn in February 1916.

With each of these boots a twelve iron outsole was permitted.

In every way, variety of materials, process of making, substance of of outsoles, the temporary patterns were devised so as not to prejudice the the supplies of the sealed pattern regulation boots. At the same time they were designed for service and fulfilled the desired requirements.

Towards the end of its production life the Standard No1 was riveted and stitched as per the regulation pattern, in order to assist the standardisation of methods of attachment and facillitate the repairing scheme.

Orders for ankle boots handled in the last quarter of 1916 were confined to the B5 pattern.

I believe these are the boots seen in many photographs of Kitcheners Army, mixed up with Bluchers and Reg No2 boots. The boots shown in the photograph are, judging from my notes and the pattern drawings on the cards, are the Standard No1 pattern. I was hoping you might be able to confirm this with refernce to ACD records.

I am in the studio tonight so I do not have a scanner available, but I will scan the diagrams tomorrow. I think the patterns will be familiar from some of these early pictures.

Regards

Tocemma

[high wood]

I think that the number is 20788 and therefore could be Pte Herbert John Flower, 20788 Wiltshire Regiment later Private 49334 Northumberland Fusiliers.

Simon

[tocemma]

Hi Simon,

Thanks very much you could be right there. Having looked at it again it does look like a double 8. Wierd how that happens! I could find nothing under 20785 or 86 on the NA site. I have no idea what the 6 8 2 is stamped above the service number though.

Regards

Tocemma

[Joe Sweeney]

TE,

Here is the RACD pattern lists--You've cleared up one mystery with the B-1, B2 and B-6. I believe the B-1 cooresponds to Trade Pattern number 1 as there was very little desciptive info in registries. The registries dis not stipulate Trade pattern--it only called out No. 1, No.2 regulation No.2 etc in "B" series. There was an "A" series too. Trade Pattern number 2 may refer to the B-2 Triple Soled (??) In which case I have an original of this too. The 1916 dates coorespond to the dates the B1 and the B2 were declared obsolete.

Series RACD Pattern Date Notes

B 1037i/1907 27-Feb-07 Renewal of older patterns. Often called a "Blucher" boot

B 7325/1911 10-Feb-11 screwed heel--"Blucher" Pattern

B 7326/1911 10-Feb-11 rand (welted) heel --"Blucher" Pattern

B-1 8219/1915 23-Feb-15 Experimental

B-1 8374/1915 14-May-15 Standard

B-2 (also known as R2) 7891/1913 Aug-13 Regulation--double soled

B-2 (also known as R2) 8373/1915 14-May-15 Triple soled

B-2 (also known as R2) 8731/1916 Mar-16 Double soled-renewal

B-2 (also known as R2) 8732/1916 Mar-16 Triple soled-renewal

B-2 (also known as R2) 9117/1916 Sep-16 No details

B-3 No Recorded patterns

B-4 No Recorded patterns

B-5 8375/1915 14-May-15 Introduced Rivet and Machine sewing

B-5 9119/1916 Sep-16 No details

B-6 8376/1915 14-May-15 No details

B-7 9572/1917 26-Jul-17 Temporary Pattern "Extended Counter"

Boots ankle, clump sole with toe case 9902/1918 8-May-18 Toe Case introduced for Troops in Italy

Boots ankle, clump sole w/o toe case 9903/1918 8-May-18 New Pattern

Boots ankle, hobbed sole 3103/1918 17-Sep-18 All boots made with toe case

Boots ankle, billed sole 3104/1918 17-Sep-18 All boots made with toe case

Boots ankle, hobbed sole 3370/1920 7-Aug-20 Dismounted Services (removed all Temp Black Leather from Service)

Boots ankle, billed sole 3371/1920 7-Aug-20 Mounted Services, Tank Corps and MT Drivers(removed all Temp Black Leather from Service)

Boots ankle, hobbed sole 3558/1921 13-Aug-21 Dismounted Services

Boots ankle, billed sole 3559/1921 13-Aug-21 Mounted Services, Tank Corps and MT Drivers

Boot Ankle 4055/1924 20-Oct-24 WWII type construction in Brown Leather

Boot Ankle 10085/1927 5-Mar-27 Pattern 4055 Ankle boot made of Black Leather

What's hard with studying boots is conflicting sources encountered-I think primarily due to the independence the industry was given--so its possible that what the industry called a boot is not what the WO/RACD called a boot. Case in point is the History of N'Hants published in the 1920's calls boots slightly different than IAW RACD info and issue info--

Below is a plate from that work--The B-5 as shown is not a B5 IAW WO/RACD and there is no such thing as a Cavalry Boot 1916--Officially it was a Boot, Field, Mounted Services and just a predecessor of the 1917 boot.

Boot, Field, Mounted Services

RACD Pattern Date Notes

8448/1915 19-Jul-15 New Pattern

8848/1916 No date found Renewal

9556/1917 14-Jul-17 New pattern

Joe Sweeney