Help with boots please.

[jholl72]

Hi guys,

I picked these up over the weekend and am not sure of what I have.

The boot construction tells me these are an older pair of boots, they somewhat resemble military boots..but there are things about them that IMO are not military.

Someone on another forum suggested they may have been private purchase boots used by WWI troops, so that is why I am posting them here, so you experts can maybe help me.

I don't know if they are military or civilian or age of them, can anyone provide some input please?

[trenchtrotter]

IMHO, not military and not WW1

TT

[jholl72]

Thanks, I wasn't sure..but the fellow over at the other forum thought they may be.

[wainfleet]

They are private purchase boots of the Great War period, and just the kind of thing that often appears in studio photos, especially in the earlier part of the war. A lot of other ranks appear to have bought these themselves, and evidently they were tolerated. This is the nearest you'll ever get to an early war pair of boots and can legitimately be put with an early uniform. A good find - hang on to them!

[hudsonswhistle]

They are private purchase boots of the Great War period, and just the kind of thing that often appears in studio photos, especially in the earlier part of the war. A lot of other ranks appear to have bought these themselves, and evidently they were tolerated. This is the nearest you'll ever get to an early war pair of boots and can legitimately be put with an early uniform. A good find - hang on to them!

Have to disagree with you, ww1 boots did not have the steel toe cap,and the eyelet's went all the way up and these are incorrect all together.

[punjab612]

Weren't standard issue boots brown until the 1920's? Though one pair was 'blackened' for parade wear?

Peter

[CROONAERT]

Those Biltrite rubber heels are post-1946 for starters. Definately not WW1 pp boots!

Dave

[nbroardarrowz]

Hi All,

I am the person from the other forum who suggested that these boots were of a early 20th century design and pattern of Balmoral boot. Whether they were made pre WW1 is another point. The heals my have been replaced with a rubber heal. I have seen a large number of WW1 NZ photos of this pattern of boot being worn. All are private purchase as they don't fit the standard Army pattern of the time. Also in the early WW1 years private purcase boots were aloud to be worn. Initally due to the large number of recurits there was a lack of issuie boots.

The horrizontial counter, the broaging on the toe cap and the 4 pairs of hooks suggest to me that they are an early pattern.

This is my view from a NZ perspective. I would put these boots as being manufactured in the 1920's.

BArry

[jholl72]

Thanks Barry, for explaining better than I did. I am going to keep these boots either way and display them.

So they are civilian boots similiar in style to boots privately purchased early in the war, I guess there is no way to know with unissued stuff.

Thanks all for the information.

[john in minnesota]

I recently sold this pair of 1913 dated USMC boots that are visually similar to the ones you have. These were black leather, had speed lacers , though had full leather heels. I believe yours are very likely 1930s - still "close enough" until you find a pair of issue examples.

[6th Hauraki KIA KAHA]

Hi

I agree with barry on this, in my photo collection this style of boot appears to worn.

If you replaced the rubber soles they would be great.

In the photos the boots appear to be brown rather than black, although I am sure black boots must have also been worn.

here are 2 pictures of my Great grandfathers boots, The photo was taken in England in 1917.

Very similar in design to your boots even with the hooks although not exactly the same.

Jonathan

[wainfleet]

Hauraki’s pics are typical of what is often seen in photos and nicely illustrate the point I was trying to make. It’s all very well for people to say that these look later, but I don't see anything here to back that up. There is nothing about these boots to rule them out of the Great War period. The presence of a toe cap is not an issue since, as I said, these are not pattern boots but were nevertheless frequently worn by other ranks. Rubber heels are not as modern as some people evidently think. In nearly 30 years of collecting I have seen some very similar ones to yours on period officer’s boots, and my own pair of Holyoake Brand Service Boots – quite similar to these – also have rubber heels. In Hitchcock’s “Stand to”, an Irish soldier refers to shells that arrive without warning as “the lads with the rubber heels”.

In the end it is a matter of opinion, since the photographers of the day were thoroughly inconsiderate and did not photograph lots of boot soles for the benefit of future collectors. Personally I would strongly advise against changing the heels. I stand by my statement that what you have there is a very early private purchase boot, probably of the Great War period.

[Kirkes Lamb]

Have to disagree with you, ww1 boots did not have the steel toe cap,and the eyelet's went all the way up and these are incorrect all together they look like a dpm army boot to me

"DPM" - that means Disruptive Pattern Material! Do you mean DMS? Directly Moulded Sole? If you do the pattern is not right!

[truthergw]

Boots like these were repaired on a regular basis and what you see now is the last repair. This could easily be ten or fifteen years after the boot was made. So this could be a wartime boot last repaired say, 1930?

[CROONAERT]

So this could be a wartime boot last repaired say, 1930?

No it couldn't. Biltrite didn't make those rubber heels with that logo until after 1946.

If they'd been worn enough to need a new heel nearly 30 years after the end of the war, I'd have expected a little more wear in them than is evident from the photos if they were of Great War antiquity.

Dave.

[CROONAERT]

Rubber heels are not as modern as some people evidently think. ...

...I stand by my statement that what you have there is a very early private purchase boot, probably of the Great War period.

Of course rubber heels aren't a modern thing - the "Russet marching Shoe" of the US Army of about 1910 had rubber heels similar to this (and , in fact this boot looked very similar to the one illustrated).The thing is ,private purchase or not, they still had to stand up to certain criteria and specifications. The Russet boot failed for field use (which is why they can only very rarely be encountered on photos of US troops outside of the USA), one of the reasons being that there was no heel protection on the upper as it was basically just a "shoe with added ankle height" common on civilian footwear. If you notice the boots worn by the NZ soldier in 1917 and on the USMC boot, there is either added heel protection or the "ankle leather" is attached to the sole making a far sturdier piece of footwear. This feature is encountered on practically 90% of footwear worn by the allies (and most central Powers) during WW1.

Just my opinion, but there are too many civilian features on the illustrated boot for it to be a military issue (even private purchase) item for any army (though, as mentioned, it does resemble certain items worn during the period so they would, indeed, make an ideal stop-gap).

Dave.

[truthergw]

No it couldn't. Biltrite didn't make those rubber heels with that logo until after 1946.

....................

Dave.

I agree. That would make it very unlkely indeed.

[nbroardarrowz]

Dear All,

This is a very effective debate.

I would like to offer a summary of the boots that started this thead based on the views of other posts.

The boots are not military. They are a civilian boot (Balmoral pattern). The heals have been replaced(likely post 1946).

This pattern and design of boot was worn by some soliders during the WW1 period. (when this happened they are refered to as private purchase by todays collectors). The boots photographed were likely manufactured during the 1920-1930 period.

Barry

[wainfleet]

OK, let’s have another go at clarifying what we actually know and what is supposition.

First, Biltrite as post-1946: googling Biltrite finds Biltrite Industries, founded in 1946 in Toronto. It also finds The Biltrite Corporation, and American Biltrite (Canada), both of which have been manufacturing rubber products since 1908. Is there specific evidence that this particular logo was not used till 1946? Unless there is, we do not have a date for these heels, but wartime production remains a possibility.

The boots are not military issue; they are a civilian pattern: We established this some time back.

The date of manufacture: We don’t know. It could be wartime, it could be later. The only thing that might have pointed to the 1920s was the "later" heel, and if the heel isn’t provably later then that argument loses its force. I quite like the superficial resemblance to the B2 pattern in the long stitch running from the back to the first eyelet, which I’ve seen on a number of officers’ boots of the period, but that of course doesn’t prove anything.

I couldn’t understand Dave’s point about heel protection, but in any case unfitness for purpose was never a bar to contractors either in the Great War or at any other time. If the option is second-best or nothing, second-best wins out quite often.

So what we can say about these boots is that they are of indeterminate date, possibly made, and heeled, during 1914-1918; possibly later. They are not issue boots, but bear certain similarities to private purchase boots worn by some other ranks during this period. That’s all we can say unless new evidence is brought forward. Personally I would regard these as legitimate, if not exactly typical, display items with a uniform of the period in the absence of a pair of B2s. The owner can make up his own mind.

[nbroardarrowz]

I agree,

Barry

[CROONAERT]

I couldn't understand Dave's point about heel protection, but in any case unfitness for purpose was never a bar to contractors either in the Great War or at any other time.

Yes it was. Certain specifications had to be adhered to otherwise they would never have left a parade square (if they ever got there in the first place!).Even specific unit SOP's had to conform to certain rulings. If it was the case that "anything goes" then i'm sure that some wag would have attempted to enter the trenches in carpet slippers!

The heel protection point isn't so much about protection, rather the design and structure of the boot. I am yet to see any boot passed for service in the allied armies (prior to WW2) in any theatre where the "shoe" is completely seperate from the ankle.

I have very grave doubts whether the illustrated boots were ever designed or used for any type of military service whatsoever but, as has been said, there are certain similarities and they actually do "look a bit like" some unnofficial privately purchased boots that were encountered during WW1 (but ,then again, if you ignore the chemical resistant compound soles on my 3 month old work boots - so do they!)

Dave

[john in minnesota]

Dave Croonaert,

I have several photos to illustrate your point regarding ankle support:

WW1 US issue garrison Boots=

WW1 British B5 boots=

and German issue ankle boots=

[alliekiwi]

Does anyone know what company/ies made boots for the military in the UK during the Great War? Were there any specific companies that had contracts for boots?

Allie

[Grovetown]

Quite an interesting discussion, but one that seems to have got hung up on small or assumptive details.

First, the heel/ ankle/ shoe debate is seemingly a fair enough one; but it is non sequitur. Beyond the 1910 US boot, superficially the best example is – and shame on you JTP – the British B2. Of course this is not exactly the case, as the B2 had internal heel support and was backstrapped – as is plainly the case in respect of the boot in question. Below is a forum picture by Joe Sweeney of a 1915 B2.

Second, in respect of ‘private purchase’ – one-off purchase by individuals – one should be minded that there were also ‘commercial’ versions of everything that were bought by (especially) the TF; at a unit level; and by the Government. That the item, in either the private or ‘commercial’ context’, should meet "certain specifications" makes sense, but is also non sequitur. As Joe Sweeney has pointed out elsewhere, in the ‘panic of 1915’; the Government acquired all sorts of stocks of ‘commercial’ items in order to fill gaps – as long as they were fit for purpose. I have a number of items that are plainly marked and dated, and issued; that bear no relation to ‘specifications’ (for which read ‘Patterns’), but were considered fit in the ‘panic’.

Also: there were nine or 10 Pattern boots known during the war - from the 1911 '1037', the six 'B series' and to two or three 1918 types; the last being in May 1918 (and outside the B Series). Without chapter and verse on those - beyond the B2 and B5 - it is hard to say that this doesn't conform to specification/ Pattern.

Third, whether the boot is period is, of course, moot – but it cannot be challenged on constructional details or resoling/ re-heeling grounds. I have a (commercial) 1916 dated/ issued boot (resembling the B5) that has (happily) kept its heels – but has been resoled apparently many times. Wear is nothing as I also have a pair of B5s that are unissued, mint and without any wear despite being over 90 years old. As an aside, the 1946 Biltrite was a 'tire' company; and not involved in shoe repair. The Biltrite Corporation and American Biltrite (Canada) Ltd have been in shoe repair since 1908.

Finally, herewith two images of boots – variously sported by a QWR and a Royal Scot – that both show the ‘floating’ ankle horizontal seam (backstrapped or internally supported or not); the ‘brogue-ish’ toe cap and/ or ‘speed lacers’; or all three. The following post shows the same, but this time a West Surrey and a KOSB.

Consequently, whether contemporary or not (heels being irrelevant), the boots are perfect – as Wainfleet asserted – for a tableau display illustrating the garb of the infantryman of the time, especially the 1915 period.

Best wishes.

GT.

[Grovetown]

As mentioned above, Queens and KOSB.

GT