Balmoral Boots

[Isshinryu101]

HA! Conspiracy Theorists. See: Scientific Theory et al.

 

[Mr. Speakeasy]

 

[Two Types]

Conspiracy theory?

I don't think there is anything conspiritorial in forwarding the notion that bespoke items are more difficult to date than factory made items.
As Mr Lyles notes, if the same man orders the same style from the same maker over a long period it increases the difficulty of dating an item. It doesn't make it it impossible, just more difficult.

(I own a that is cut like a 1960s suit, feels like a 1970s suit and yet can be accurately dated to 1990. It had no labels but the date was worked out when I found the original tailors measurements form in the pocket. The clients phone number was written on the form but had been crossed out to include a new dialling code. That code was introduced in 1990. Without that I doubt that anyone would have guessed that date within ten years).

 

[Isshinryu101]

I don't think there is anything conspiritorial in forwarding the notion that bespoke items are more difficult to date than factory made items.
As Mr Lyles notes, if the same man orders the same style from the same maker over a long period it increases the difficulty of dating an item. It doesn't make it it impossible, just more difficult.

(I own a that is cut like a 1960s suit, feels like a 1970s suit and yet can be accurately dated to 1990. It had no labels but the date was worked out when I found the original tailors measurements form in the pocket. The clients phone number was written on the form but had been crossed out to include a new dialling code. That code was introduced in 1990. Without that I doubt that anyone would have guessed that date within ten years).

Scientific theory tells us that we can compile all evidence and make comparisons to data which we have already collected. This is the best and most efficient manner in which to make a diagnosis/ hypothesis. Of course there are intangibles that exist, and they always account for a bit of uncertainty in said diagnosis (IE: see House, MD... take the most likely answer and toss it away).

In the world that exists on this plain of consciousness, however, the most likely answer (based on all compiled data) is USUALLY the correct one. It is a waste of time to "beat the dead horse" beyond this, especially because to do so simply states, "There Is NO Answer".

If new evidence is to emerge in the future, then it may be time to re-assess all data once again. "What If" scenarios do not constitute "new evidence".

 

[Isshinryu101]

(I own a that is cut like a 1960s suit, feels like a 1970s suit and yet can be accurately dated to 1990. It had no labels but the date was worked out when I found the original tailors measurements form in the pocket. The clients phone number was written on the form but had been crossed out to include a new dialling code. That code was introduced in 1990. Without that I doubt that anyone would have guessed that date within ten years).

On a side note, this example applies to a newer item that could be mistaken for an older one based on "old-fashioned styling". Not an older item that somehow predicted the future and used a style that had not been around yet (in an attempt to appear newer?).

 

[Two Types]

That may be so, but it was only used to support the argument that if a style has not changed, it makes it more difficult to date an item - to my mind that does not need any scientific explanation. The central point to this argument are the words "more difficult" - i.e. it isn't impossible, but that one needs a higher level of experience, knowledge and historical resources to find an answer.

And i would also argue that in, certain circumstances, it can work the other way i.e. an item appearing to be later due to the fabric. I recall a discussion about a tie from the 1930s, someone thought it to be much later simply because of the fabric, until someone else pointed out the fabric in question (possiblly one of the early man-made or rayon-type fibres) had been used in clothing for much longer than was widely thought.

Again, it comes down to being "more difficult" to date - not impossible.

 

[Isshinryu101]

Round and Round and Round and Round and Round......

 

[Isshinryu101]

Just to be clear. We all know this is not an exact science, and unless the date is stamped on the shoes for us to see, there is always going to be a factor of the unknown. We cannot be 100% sure.

However, what we DO have is the evidence + whatever past data has been collected. Based on this, we make our best inference. If new evidence comes up (like a shipping slip with a zip code on it), then we can revisit and re-assess. This is the nature of all inexact sciences. Do the best we can with what we've got.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Just to compare with the lates 30s boots we thisgerman catalog from 1938

But I am not a shoe collector so the details are less obvious to me.

 

[cookie]

There is a pair of shoes dating to the 20s on eBay in an impossible size but the pics will assist the discussion.

Note the two tone painted sole which is very 1920s.

 

[herringbonekid]

even the high end makers (such as St. Crispins, bottom photo) fail to bother with the inward curve of the ankle that vintage boots have (top),
making the ankle look thick:

 

[Isshinryu101]

even the high end makers (such as St. Crispins, bottom photo) fail to bother with the inward curve of the ankle that vintage boots have (top),
making the ankle look thick:

It is a matter of comfort and mobility. When you go up on your toes, the back of the boot pushes up against your ankle. Everyone KNOWS I favor vintage shoes in almost every way, but St Crispins' model is more comfortable... even though it doesn't look as ***y from a straight side view.

 

[herringbonekid]

i must say i've never noticed any tightness on the back of the ankle while wearing these:

perhaps i don't stand on my toes enough to notice ?
but i'm the sort of man who doesn't mind (indeed, likes) the feel of heavy tweed against his legs, when i hear a lot of modern men can't stand it.

 

[cookie]

but i'm the sort of man who doesn't mind (indeed, likes) the feel of heavy tweed against his legs, when i hear a lot of modern men can't stand it.

You can see someone about that problem or migrate to the Shetland Islands as another option!

 

[Rudie]

I actually find boots with the curved ankle feature much more comfortable. Others tend to fit badly and don't hold the heel in place.

 

[herringbonekid]

it just looks so glaringly wrong to me, and i can't understand why modern bootmakers don't see it too (especially when they're putting so much attention into other areas).

 

[Rudie]

What hbk says.

 

[Isshinryu101]

it just looks so glaringly wrong to me, and i can't understand why modern bootmakers don't see it too (especially when they're putting so much attention into other areas).

Try the Saint Crispins. Fit of their RTW is up to bespoke levels. I normally favor Vintage makers over modern (as I think many vintage makers were superior to EG and Lobb UK's RTW), but St. C. are up there with the best of all time in the RTW arena.

 

[Rudie]

I don't think this is a matter of quality, at least not for me. It's a matter of design and style, a matter of eye candy or eye cancer.

 

[herringbonekid]

i spoke to a contact at Jeffery West and he thinks it might be down to a change in last types; the old lasts were in 3 pieces... the centre would have slipped out then the other two pieces would have room to slide out.
modern lasts are one piece and if the ankle was as tight as a vintage boot they wouldn't be able to get the last out of the boot, so they have to do a wider ankle.