VALERY Posted 7 July , 2011 Share Posted 7 July , 2011 Bonjour, I found these ankle boots two months ago. This pair looks like, as for myself to the early B5 pattern (without rivet). It has the broad arrow stamp on the internal side. More to follow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALERY Posted 7 July , 2011 Author Share Posted 7 July , 2011 I would like to know if you share my assessment about a B5 early pattern. Thank you Valery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 7 July , 2011 Share Posted 7 July , 2011 Valery, I would not say a B5. The B5 specifically introduced the rivet in 1915 (although you never can be 100% certain on what got accepted). However, earlier patterns of British boots were very similar to the B5. Pattern series 1037 with its last iteration in 1037i/1907 and two new patterns 7325/1911 and 7326/1911 looked similar to the B5. All these patterns were in the B series. The use of terms B1-B7 did not start until 1913. It definately is not a B2 boot. These have very nice billed soles and heel and toe tips. It might be an earlier pattern boot--I would say not the 1037 series which went back to prior to the Boer War and had differences with this boot. What is on the instep inside? What size? I see an 8 on the ouside instep and what looks likea 5-1 on the quarters? Joe Sweeney These could also be commercially available boots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 9 July , 2011 Share Posted 9 July , 2011 Valery I think one can safely say that this is a pair of prewar or very early war British Army boots. They are extremely rare and you were very fortunate to find them. They also have severe "red rot" and urgently need conservation. For some good advice on the subject, see this thread: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=145338 Best wishes, W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VALERY Posted 12 July , 2011 Author Share Posted 12 July , 2011 Thank you gentlemen for your accurate and kind answers. There is no mark on the instep inside. I can read a 51 on the side with a broad arrow between the W and D. Now, I have to fight the red rot and hope it's not to late. I need to find CELLUGEL! These boots were stored in a cellar a little bit wet.... Cheers Valery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 13 July , 2011 Share Posted 13 July , 2011 Valery Cellugel will stabilise the red rot, but it can't return the strength to leather that has been affected. So if you treat those boots with Cellugel, they will not get any worse, but you will need to keep in mind that the leather around the top of the ankles is weak and must be handled with care. W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leigh Mc Posted 13 July , 2011 Share Posted 13 July , 2011 Nice boots mate! I hope you can successfully treat the red rot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted 12 December , 2018 Share Posted 12 December , 2018 I know this is an old post but if anyone is out there here is my question: I have an identical pair of boots as the ones shown with the exception is the rear pulls are cloth not leather. They were blackened it would appear and have the same War Dept stamp and broad arrow as on this pair. So... when did this form of stamp and the punched hole broad arrow style exist? No date on mine just a "Hand Made" stamp on bottom and a size of 7. Are they early/pre-war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 13 December , 2018 Share Posted 13 December , 2018 Since posting above in 2011 I've learned that the Blucher pattern of boot, whichI believe the above boots are, continued in production throughout the war, though in much smaller numbers than the B2 or B5. Yours may be the same pattern, they may be a Territorial pattern, or they may be something else. It's not possible to say much without photos and maybe not even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted 15 December , 2018 Share Posted 15 December , 2018 Thanks, Wainfleet, for the input. I've managed to take a few pictures of the boots (in spite of the dog). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 15 December , 2018 Share Posted 15 December , 2018 These boots certainly appear to be the same pattern as those posted above. My only slight doubt is the absence of a width fitting, ie 7 over 5 instead of just plain 7, but that also applies to the first pair vetted by none other than Joe Sweeney, who probably knew more than anybody about the subject. I suppose it's just possible they could be some oddity like police or prison boots, but on balance they look to me like an early or prewar British Army boot. Do you have any context or history for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo Posted 15 December , 2018 Share Posted 15 December , 2018 I bought these in the spring from a well-known London militaria shop. They were described as trade pattern boots but I've read the Chris Pollendine books on the subject and these don't seem to match what was pictured as such. There is a famous period photo of new recruits donning new uniforms (circa 1914) in barracks and pictured on the floor are a pair that match these (absence of rivet and cut). Thanks again for your input- much appreciated! Gord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now