# First Pair of Dress Boots



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Gentleman, I'm looking for something very similar to the Alfred Sargent Risby Boot (same color and shape). The only reason I'm hesitant to get the AS is; it rains and snows where I live. Does anyone have experience with AS boots in wet weather? Also, I've never bought from AS, what about their quality?


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

Quality is top notch. However, I recommend that you get two pair of boots: one for dress and the other for bad weather. Living in Chicago, weather is also a significant factor. Not sure if they make galoshes for boots.


----------



## Buffalo (Nov 19, 2003)

This thread is entitled "First Pair of Dress Boots" but these don't look like dress boots to me. They look to be very casual in terms of their color and their rubber soles.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

ykurtz said:


> Quality is top notch. However, I recommend that you get two pair of boots: one for dress and the other for bad weather. Living in Chicago, weather is also a significant factor. Not sure if they make galoshes for boots.


Either this, or buy overshoes. I had a pair of dress boots that never really recovered from this last DC winter.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

They make_ dress _boots? That wouldn't be like dress short-sleeve shirts, would it?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Based on the soles of the pair of boots you have referenced, they should be able to stand up to a bit of our Hoosierville winters. Beyond that, as another poster responded, overshoes are the answer. In addition to AS (who puts out very nice shoes and boots), you might consider RM Williams Craftsman boots.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Based on the soles of the pair of boots you have referenced, they should be able to stand up to a bit of our Hoosierville winters. Beyond that, as another poster responded, overshoes are the answer. In addition to AS (who puts out very nice shoes and boots), you might consider RM Williams Craftsman boots.


I hear RM Williams are durable boots, but not as good as Crockett & Jones. I actually fell in love with those beauts from Tricker's, they run around $365, with water proofing and waxing woud they be any good for our Hoosierville weather?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The boots in the first post are not "dress boots." Chelseas (boots with elastic on the side) aren't a dress style. If you anticipate wearing them with a suit, you'll almost certainly want something laced.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> The boots in the first post are not "dress boots." Chelseas (boots with elastic on the side) aren't a dress style. If you anticipate wearing them with a suit, you'll almost certainly want something laced.


The boots in the first post might be a bit casual, but fyi :teacha: Chelsea Boots could be worn with suits e.g. black chelseas with a RLBL navy suit:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Sure, they _could_ be worn with a suit. For that matter, tennis shoes can be, and have been, worn with suits. Chelsea boots are equestrian-themed slip-ons. Pairing them with suits became fashionable in the 1960's amongst various drug-addled musicians and artists, which is what the look still evokes today.


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> Sure, they _could_ be worn with a suit. For that matter, tennis shoes can be, and have been, worn with suits. Chelsea boots are equestrian-themed slip-ons. Pairing them with suits became fashionable in the 1960's amongst various drug-addled musicians and artists, which is what the look still evokes today.


I have a pair of RM Williams and Ferragamo Tramezza slip on boots, and at this point in my life would not consider wearing either with a suit. However, with a sport coat and jeans in the right situation, I'd do it (like in Dallas when I go visit the in-laws).


----------



## Mike147 (Jan 15, 2006)

camorristi said:


> I hear RM Williams are durable boots, but not as good as Crockett & Jones. I actually fell in love with those beauts from Tricker's, they run around $365, with water proofing and waxing woud they be any good for our Hoosierville weather?


Not with that sole...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> Pairing them with suits became fashionable in the 1960's amongst various drug-addled musicians and artists, which is what the look still evokes today.


Yeah. And who exactly wears dress boots, which those apparently aren't, but were they, on whose feet would one find them, save maybe Hitler youth and Ted Turner, but that's only a guess. And Cuff, I like the somewhat looser way you've been making your points recently.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> They make_ dress _boots? That wouldn't be like dress short-sleeve shirts, would it?


To the contrary, they are seriously old-school. Balmoral boots can be even worn correctly with morning dress. They look just like ordinary cap-toes, but go a bit further up the ankle:
https://img261.imageshack.us/i/altmannewyorkmonsieur19yd8.jpg/

Remember that boots have not always been the exclusive property of the working man--Beau Brummell wore nothing but highly polished boots.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

No. What you've pictured are 'high button shoes', formed tight and close like a balmoral, but higher at the ankle. They became superfluous around the time of WWI, immortalized tho as the title of a 40s Broadway musical.


----------



## Grayland (Oct 22, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> No. What you've pictured are 'high button shoes', formed tight and close like a balmoral, but higher at the ankle. They became superfluous around the time of WWI, immortalized tho as the title of a 40s Broadway musical.


Why don't I see any buttons then? Look like balmoral boots to me. Similar to Ron Rider boots.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

I don't know why you're dead set against the concept of dress boots. It's not a controversial idea.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

amplifiedheat said:


> I don't know why you're dead set against the concept of dress boots. It's not a controversial idea.


Perhaps someone needs to think outside the box :icon_smile_wink:, AE Park Avenues aren't the only dress shoes out there!


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

*Ref. Dress Boots*

What I see in your picture is what is referred to in equestrian circles as a paddock boot. You can see them in their formal extreme worn with riding habits in gaited horse or walking horse events. Normally, these are casual not dress boots. You can see pictures of a young Jacqueline Kennedy wearing them with jodhpur britches.

The next picture is of what are commonly referred to as strap jodhpur boots or just plain strap jodhpurs, although jodhpurs originally referred to the britches. These boots were adopted from the RAF by fliers in the USAAF during WWII. Prior to the elimination of britches shortly after the outbreak of WWII, my father, a U.S. Marine officer wore them with lace-up leather puttees with his britches as his field uniform. For the Army the Strap Jodhpurs were acceptable for liberty, whereas the Marine Corps used them strictly with field dress. I have, however, seen them worn with greens and khakis from time to time by Marine officers up until the transition to black leather.

I have worn strap jodhpurs for over 45 years. A pair by Justin (I don't think Justin makes strap jodhpurs lasted over 20 years through mud and muck and after being waterlogged twice. A cleaning and polishing brought them right back and I wore them with sport coat and slacks, often cavalry twill slacks, to town and have received compliments on the look. With today's relaxed dress code, you could probably wear them to work anywhere a tweed sports coat and slacks is acceptable.

FWIW, E. Vogel makes custom boots, including strap jodhpur boots in a variety of excellent leathers. You can view them at their web site at vogelboots.com.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Very informative that. Thank you. I bet they do look good the way and the where you've described you wear them.



amplifiedheat said:


> I don't know why you're dead set against the concept of dress boots. It's not a controversial idea.


I'm not. It's the nomenclature.

Try it this way: I've many pair of Chuck Taylors, lo tops and hi tops and the high tops are just higher versions of the lo tops, not boots. Some of what's been mentioned here are like that, i.e. tall shoes that are fine as dress since only the wearing knows they crawl up past the ankle. A true boot, however, seems best worn as TDA003, the poster just prior, has said he does.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

You might also consider Dehner's Dress Wellington boots. I've an older black pair that were originally purchased for wear with my USAF Class A's (back in the day) but, have held up so well, I still wear them with civilian suits during the cooler weather months, these days. In other words, they are holding up under the stresses of Indiana winters and any time you can get more than 20 years of wear out of pairs of boots or shoes, that's a "good" pair of footgear!


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

tda003 said:


> What I see in your picture is what is referred to in equestrian circles as a paddock boot. You can see them in their formal extreme worn with riding habits in gaited horse or walking horse events. Normally, these are casual not dress boots. You can see pictures of a young Jacqueline Kennedy wearing them with jodhpur britches.
> 
> The next picture is of what are commonly referred to as strap jodhpur boots or just plain strap jodhpurs, although jodhpurs originally referred to the britches. These boots were adopted from the RAF by fliers in the USAAF during WWII. Prior to the elimination of britches shortly after the outbreak of WWII, my father, a U.S. Marine officer wore them with lace-up leather puttees with his britches as his field uniform. For the Army the Strap Jodhpurs were acceptable for liberty, whereas the Marine Corps used them strictly with field dress. I have, however, seen them worn with greens and khakis from time to time by Marine officers up until the transition to black leather.
> 
> ...


Very informative indeed! E.Vogel Jodphurs look nice, but at $660 they're more expensive then Crockett & Jones!



eagle2250 said:


> You might also consider Dehner's Dress Wellington boots. I've an older black pair that were originally purchased for wear with my USAF Class A's (back in the day) but, have held up so well, I still wear them with civilian suits during the cooler weather months, these days. In other words, they are holding up under the stresses of Indiana winters and any time you can get more than 20 years of wear out of pairs of boots or shoes, that's a "good" pair of footgear!


I like those boots Jodphurs from Dehner, but quite expensive at $380. I prefer this design, but I'm leaning towards the AS Chelseas because of the Dainite sole. Leather soles are more comfortable but can very slippery on wet surfaces.



eagle2250 said:


> You might also consider Dehner's Dress Wellington boots. I've an older black pair that were originally purchased for wear with my USAF Class A's (back in the day) but, have held up so well, I still wear them with civilian suits during the cooler weather months, these days. In other words, they are holding up under the stresses of Indiana winters and any time you can get more than 20 years of wear out of pairs of boots or shoes, that's a "good" pair of footgear!


I see your point, actually most equestrian stores call them Paddock Shoes and most regular shoe stores call them boots.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Try it this way: I've many pair of Chuck Taylors, lo tops and hi tops and the high tops are just higher versions of the lo tops, not boots. Some of what's been mentioned here are like that, i.e. tall shoes that are fine as dress since only the wearing knows they crawl up past the ankle. A true boot, however, seems best worn as TDA003, the poster just prior, has said he does.


Your concept of a "true boot" seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the definition of "boot." Consider this:

Hi-tops are not boots because they lack a distinct heel. Bal boots, like those in the photo, are "true boots."


----------



## fxh (Feb 17, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Sure, they _could_ be worn with a suit. For that matter, tennis shoes can be, and have been, worn with suits. Chelsea boots are equestrian-themed slip-ons. Pairing them with suits became fashionable in the 1960's amongst various drug-addled musicians and artists, which is what the look still evokes today.


Yes. Wearing these boots with a suit will exclude you from any meaningful conversations or getting beyond the basement IT Help Desk in a job.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

amplifiedheat said:


> Your concept of a "true boot" seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the definition of "boot." Consider this:
> 
> Hi-tops are not boots because they lack a distinct heel. Bal boots, like those in the photo, are "true boots."


Chelsea and Jodphur/Paddock Boots are boots, it's a fact of life :icon_smile_big:. That defention seems inaccurate, because many shoe manufacturers consider sneakers with high tops hiking boots, but I never made that claim.



fxh said:


> Yes. Wearing these boots with a suit will exclude you from any meaningful conversations or getting beyond the basement IT Help Desk in a job.


This picture strengths my concept of thinking outside the box. Mr. Rudd looks like anything but a drug dealer or a rocker in his R.M.Williams. Wait :icon_scratch: do I sense sarcasm :icon_smile_big:.


----------



## MikeN (Jun 11, 2010)

I like how the prime minister of Australia (Kevin Rudd) wears R.M Williams. Very patriotic of him.

However, I don't like how that R.M tab is visible in front when sitting. I like boots for suits (when the weather requires it), but dislike those cloth tabs that every manufacturer tend to put on them, they are only a hassle.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Scissors, snip ,snip, solved!


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> They make_ dress _boots? That wouldn't be like dress short-sleeve shirts, would it?


I wouldn't expect to see anyone in a British officers' Mess at a formal do with anything other than a variant on these.


With mess dress like this.

Spurs or not depends on Service, Corps and Regiment.

I haven't seen similar for civilian use though.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

What do you think of this BBBF short hem trouser and Jodphurs combination?


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

camorristi said:


> What do you think of this BBBB short hem trouser and Jodphurs combination?


I'm hesitant about that particular execution, but the basic concept has been done well. I'm thinking of Peter O'Toole in khaki uniform in _Lawrence of Arabia_.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

camorristi said:


> The boots in the first post might be a bit casual, but fyi :teacha: Chelsea Boots could be worn with suits e.g. black chelseas with a RLBL navy suit:


I do NOT care for this combination.....


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

camorristi said:


> What do you think of this BBBB short hem trouser and Jodphurs combination?


It may not look 'airy' enough. You've got no-color pants over a foot going commando into a summery w'tip with white laces. Why mess that up by shoving on a heavy-looking boot. This is about looks, right? Or do you have a certain need to wear a boot in that manner? What's BBBB?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> It may not look 'airy' enough. You've got no-color pants over a foot going commando into a summery w'tip with white laces. Why mess that up by shoving on a heavy-looking boot. This is about looks, right? Or do you have a certain need to wear a boot in that manner? What's BBBB?


I have a strong urge to wear boots :crazy:CD. Brooks Brothers Black Fleece (BBBF).


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> I do NOT care for this combination.....


It's not a good angle.


----------



## Ay329 (Sep 22, 2007)

Since the OP likes the A.S. design...why doesn't he contact A.S. to see if they can order it in Whiskey or Ravello cordovan leather (similar color as pictured originally).

Expect a possible 220 pound premium just to use cordovan...which is known for its water resistant properties. 

But I do not know how weatherproof the side gussetting is on such a boot...perhaps via A.S. MTO program, they might consider cordovan leather facings on the side gussetting


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

amplifiedheat said:


> It's not a good angle.


Same look, different angles.












Ay329 said:


> Since the OP likes the A.S. design...why doesn't he contact A.S. to see if they can order it in Whiskey or Ravello cordovan leather (similar color as pictured originally).
> 
> Expect a possible 220 pound premium just to use cordovan...which is known for its water resistant properties.
> 
> But I do not know how weatherproof the side gussetting is on such a boot...perhaps via A.S. MTO program, they might consider cordovan leather facings on the side gussetting


I'm considering getting the Tricker's Chepstow Jodphurs with Dainite soles ($400 total). I'll wear them when there is minimum wetness.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

fxh said:


> Yes. Wearing these boots with a suit will exclude you from any meaningful conversations or getting beyond the basement IT Help Desk in a job.


Actually according to the papers the bloke on the left of picture could be looking for a new job by the end of the year.


----------



## Richard Baker (Feb 13, 2009)

Boots in town were a necessity in the times before the cities had sealed roads and horses preceded motor cars., and nowadays their heaviness makes them less elegant and not really appropriate with suits - that's why they are not suitable in the evening and there are no patent boots for black tie or white tie. In a muddy country or outer suburban setting they might have a place in bad weather, but it is a mistake to believe that a boot as such is better in rain - it is the sole that counts, and any boot with the usual single sole won't stand a good rain. At least a double leather sole is needed (No Hawaiian pun intended!).


----------



## JQB (Nov 29, 2006)

camorristi said:


> but I'm leaning towards the AS Chelseas because of the Dainite sole.


Just to pick up on the Dainite sole, it loses it's grip very fast. The studs wear down until flat, great for town but you will slide in the snow. The sole actually lasts a long time and is obviously waterproof, and with an AS shoe (being goodyear welted) the sole is replaceable. Best thing about dainite - two stamps of the feet and any mud is off, worst - you get no more grip than leather after a couple of months wear.

Also consider AS storm welted items - designed to keep the wet out longer. I don't think any of the boots pictured have storm welts, which are easily visible.

Always get Goodyear welted - the stitching is effectively outside the shoe, whereas blake stitch or mocassin you can get capillary action straight up the stitch holes onto your feet.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

JQB said:


> Just to pick up on the Dainite sole, it loses it's grip very fast. The studs wear down until flat, great for town but you will slide in the snow. The sole actually lasts a long time and is obviously waterproof, and with an AS shoe (being goodyear welted) the sole is replaceable. Best thing about dainite - two stamps of the feet and any mud is off, worst - you get no more grip than leather after a couple of months wear.
> 
> Also consider AS storm welted items - designed to keep the wet out longer. I don't think any of the boots pictured have storm welts, which are easily visible.
> 
> Always get Goodyear welted - the stitching is effectively outside the shoe, whereas blake stitch or mocassin you can get capillary action straight up the stitch holes onto your feet.


I have decided to get the Tricker's Chepstow Jodhpurs, are you suggesting I keep the original soles instead of having them replaced with Dainite? What about double soles? I thought about Commando soles, but they will look ugly. I'm not very worried about heavy rain, I'll just wear them in light rain or no rain at all. Thanks for the information!


----------



## JQB (Nov 29, 2006)

camorristi said:


> I have decided to get the Tricker's Chepstow Jodhpurs, are you suggesting I keep the original soles instead of having them replaced with Dainite? What about double soles? I thought about Commando soles, but they will look ugly. I'm not very worried about heavy rain, I'll just wear them in light rain or no rain at all. Thanks for the information!


I wouldn't replace the leather sole with dainite before speaking to the factory that makes them. The structure of shoes and boots is slightly different for those with commando/dainite rather than leather. If you take the leather one off and replace with dainite you may end up destroying the upper at the crease, as it puts much more stress at that point. (so i have been told by several factories) - may be to do with a stronger welt etc.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

JQB said:


> I wouldn't replace the leather sole with dainite before speaking to the factory that makes them. The structure of shoes and boots is slightly different for those with commando/dainite rather than leather. If you take the leather one off and replace with dainite you may end up destroying the upper at the crease, as it puts much more stress at that point. (so i have been told by several factories) - may be to do with a stronger welt etc.


By the way are you associated with Shipton? I was looking at the Wingham tan strap boot with Blake construction, can you post more pictures of it? It looks very simillar to Tricker's Chepstow. I have e-mailed Tricker's about the Dainite soles possible problems.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

"Exchanging the sole on a Tricker's Chepstow from a Leather to a Dainite would cause no problems at all. It would be an option tp have the Chepstow Custom Made should you wish.
I have the Higham and Dalham by Alfred Sargent. One is a Double Leatrher Sole, the other a Dainite. I personally much prefer the Dainite Sole, and will soon remove the Leather Sole from my Higham and replac it with a Dainite Sole." (Richard from Shoe Healer)


----------



## JQB (Nov 29, 2006)

camorristi said:


> By the way are you associated with Shipton? I was looking at the Wingham tan strap boot with Blake construction, can you post more pictures of it? It looks very simillar to Tricker's Chepstow. I have e-mailed Tricker's about the Dainite soles possible problems.


Yes I am. But I can't be seen to be overtly commercial here - only impartial. Being frank The Wingham is not of the same class - it is in our cheaper range. Our top end ones are C&J. I think you ought to send private message if you want to talk specifics. Sorry but don't want to be barred!


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

amplifiedheat said:


> To the contrary, they are seriously old-school. Balmoral boots can be even worn correctly with morning dress. They look just like ordinary cap-toes, but go a bit further up the ankle:
> https://img261.imageshack.us/i/altmannewyorkmonsieur19yd8.jpg/
> 
> Remember that boots have not always been the exclusive property of the working man--Beau Brummell wore nothing but highly polished boots.


Does anybody still make Balmoral Boots? It doesn't appear Alden or AE do. I would seriously consider such an item.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

harvey_birdman said:


> Does anybody still make Balmoral Boots? It doesn't appear Alden or AE do. I would seriously consider such an item.


I think manufacturers like Tricker's, Alfred Sargent, Herring, and Loake still do.

https://www.herringshoes.co.uk/

https://www.shoehealer.co.uk/


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

Thank you, sir!


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

camorristi said:


> I think manufacturers like Tricker's, Alfred Sargent, Herring, and Loake still do.


With all due respect, that is a blucher boot, not a balmoral boot.


----------



## JQB (Nov 29, 2006)

harvey_birdman said:


> Does anybody still make Balmoral Boots? It doesn't appear Alden or AE do. I would seriously consider such an item.


We are thinking of bringing some black ones back, with eyes half way up and hooks to the top. But probably contemporary last and captoe/oxford without broguing. But is there an appetite anymore? Leather or dainite sole? heavy weight or light-weight?


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

camorristi: These are Balmoral Boots


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> camorristi: These are Balmoral Boots


I can't tell the difference, I guess I was looking at the cap toe. Still learning :teacha:.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

camorristi said:


> I can't tell the difference, I guess I was looking at the cap toe. Still learning :teacha:.


I'm also still learning....

Here is the thread that taught me about Balmoral boots:https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?86170-Reasonably-Priced-Balmoral-Boots


----------



## VinceRich (Apr 15, 2010)

Why do you want boots if not to wear them in rain/snow?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

VinceRich said:


> Why do you want boots if not to wear them in rain/snow?


Style, not necessity! it doesn't rain everyday over here.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

An interesting video!


----------



## JQB (Nov 29, 2006)

camorristi said:


> An interesting video!


what a brilliant video - i'll show that to anyone who questions our prices!!:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## expressingmyself (Jun 16, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Sure, they _could_ be worn with a suit. For that matter, tennis shoes can be, and have been, worn with suits. Chelsea boots are equestrian-themed slip-ons. Pairing them with suits became fashionable in the 1960's amongst various drug-addled musicians and artists, which is what the look still evokes today.


Got quite a chuckle from this. Well done.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

JQB said:


> what a brilliant video - i'll show that to anyone who questions our prices!!:icon_smile_wink:


Let me tell you a couple of two things, first of all the Kenneth Cole and CK crowd do not even know of the North Hampton shoe industry so they won't bother questioning anything, second of all people who buy these shoes are gentlemen with a taste for the finer things in life, who appreciate a well-made shoe, I doubt they will ever question the prices. :teacha:


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> Sure, they _could_ be worn with a suit. For that matter, tennis shoes can be, and have been, worn with suits. Chelsea boots are equestrian-themed slip-ons. Pairing them with suits became fashionable in the 1960's amongst various drug-addled musicians and artists, which is what the look still evokes today.







So your choice could be :-

1) Copy the style of internationally famous, dapper dresser Patrick MacNee.

or

2) Listen to the bloke from ..err Atlanta.

_We don't make a party out of lovin';
We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo;
We don't let our hair grow long and shaggy,
Like the hippies out in San Francisco do.

Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear;
Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen.
Football's still the roughest thing on campus,
And the kids here still respect the college dean. _


----------



## JQB (Nov 29, 2006)

ZachGranstrom said:


> camorristi: These are Balmoral Boots


Now those are a really nice dress boot. Basically an extended shoe rather than boot. All the other ones are a much heavier build. I can see us coming up with one of those specifically to wear with a suit - thanks for the pic.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

JQB said:


> Now those are a really nice dress boot. Basically an extended shoe rather than boot. All the other ones are a much heavier build. I can see us coming up with one of those specifically to wear with a suit - thanks for the pic.


They would look better without hooks at the top.

I bet they are really annoying if you get a pair and the tongue slips to one side.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> They would look better without hooks at the top.
> 
> I bet they are really annoying if you get a pair and the tongue slips to one side.


That part is supposed to be covered with your trousers, plus if it wasn't for those hooks, putting the boot on would be very time consuming.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

harvey_birdman said:


> Does anybody still make Balmoral Boots? It doesn't appear Alden or AE do. I would seriously consider such an item.


There was talk that AE had one coming out, but I don't know what became of that.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

harvey_birdman said:


> Does anybody still make Balmoral Boots? It doesn't appear Alden or AE do. I would seriously consider such an item.


WS Foster make them - or sell them. I think C&J actually make them.

https://www.wsfoster.com/shop/Ready....html?osCsid=8efeff26b806601d9ae0253def055507


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

harvey_birdman said:


> Does anybody still make Balmoral Boots? It doesn't appear Alden or AE do. I would seriously consider such an item.





amplifiedheat said:


> There was talk that AE had one coming out, but I don't know what became of that.


The new AE balmoral boots are coming out this fall. Srivats purchased one of the sample pairs earlier this year. These are the AE Fifth Street bal boots in burgundy shell.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> WS Foster make them - or sell them. I think C&J actually make them.
> 
> https://www.wsfoster.com/shop/Ready....html?osCsid=8efeff26b806601d9ae0253def055507


You don't see people wearing English country boots very often in the US. It's either New Balance or AE oxfords :icon_scratch:.



Cardinals5 said:


> The new AE balmoral boots are coming out this fall. Srivats purchased one of the sample pairs earlier this year. These are the AE Fifth Street bal boots in burgundy shell.


I wish they had a longer neck.


----------



## JQB (Nov 29, 2006)

camorristi said:


> You don't see people wearing English country boots very often in the US. It's either New Balance or AE oxfords :icon_scratch:.
> 
> I wish they had a longer neck.


Agree - Longer neck - AND hooks not eyes at the top - takes forever to get in and out otherwise - perhaps that is why the neck is short? But really nice looking boot - after all your trouser leg will cover most of it.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

camorristi said:


> You don't see people wearing English country boots very often in the US. It's either New Balance or AE oxfords :icon_scratch:.


The Foster's are not country boots.

Look at Tricker's for country boots.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> The Foster's are not country boots.
> 
> Look at Tricker's for country boots.


I knew that, I was just generalizing .


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

camorristi said:


> I knew that, I was just generalizing .


* I knew that !*


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

camorristi said:


> An interesting video!


+1. Excellent...certainly one of the more entertaining shoe making videos I have seen!


----------

