# An Illustrated History of Fine Men's Boots



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

There have been a couple of recent posts regarding boots for men and this seems to be a rather neglected area, so I have been doing a bit of historical research on the subject to gain a deeper understanding.

From the historical persepective, boots have traditionally been the prerogative of menswear and were the dominant form of men's daytime footwear up until the early twentieth century. When men first started to wear knee high riding boots in town even when not riding in the 18th century, Richard 'Beau' Nash was want of stopping men in the street and confronting them with: "Sir, you have forgot your horse!" Throughout the 19th century boots remained a prominent feature of men's daytime footwear.

It was said that George 'Beau' Bummell had his boots polished with champagne.

Even until the early decades of the 20th century boots for men in the form of button boots and Balmoral boots were standard fair for any well dressed man. The follow cartoons depict men's footwear from 1912:

Here are the corresponding cartoons of women's shoes from 1912.

It is simply fascinating to note that the majority of men's footwear are boots but with the women's footwear, the shoes dominate. In fact if you look back further in time before Queeen Victoria popularised the wearing of Balmoral boots by women, you rarely if ever see a depiction of women wearing boots.

Still it seems a shame that something so obviously elegant as the button boot that was such a staple of the gentleman's wardrobe has fallen by the wayside. That said, more recently, Winston Churchill still favoured Balmoral boots of the following sort:

However overall, despite the exception of the likes of Churchill, boots as part of daytime business wear have been in decline since around the 1920's. Wellington boots once sported by the likes of Mr Darcy of 'Pride and Prejudice' are rarely seen worn by men except as equestrian wear. Jodhpur boots and chelsea boots are today the only remnants of the tradition of wearing boots of equestrian origin for daytime wear, and certainly the more elegant examples of these boots can certainly still be worn with a suit as was once commonly done in the nineteenth century.

The following examples are all from J.M. Preston:

Perhaps, the trend towards wearing Oxford shoes - a trend started by rebellious university students - in place of boots is part of the process of increased social egalitarianism. Maybe boots will however someday regain the once illustrious place they once held in menswear. They certainly exude a great sense of authority, that would have immediately identified the wearer as being a man of distinction, as well as further helping to prevent the shins from peeking underneath the trouser cuffs. One day we may then see the trend towards wearing low cut Oxford shoes as the very start of the slippery slide down the slope towards everyone wearing sneakers.

Further reading:

https://www.wemakehistory.com/Fashion/Regency/RegencyMen/RegencyMen.htm


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I would assume from their name that chukka boots also had an equestrian origin. As I recall, they take their name from a period of play in a polo match.

"Dress Wellingtons"--leather boots of the Wellington pattern with 8- or 10-inch uppers were fairly popular for dressy casual menswear in the USA back in the 1950s, but I haven't seen them in many years. I think a major problem with them was that the trouser cuff would get caught on the top of the upper with great ease and frequency. 

One doesn't see too many dressy boot styles these days except for the chelsea and the chukka and, much less frequently, the jodphur. I just got the discontinued Allen-Edmonds York boot (a double zipper style) the other day. It's nice. It wouldn't them with a suit, but they are handsome with less dressy attire.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

JLibourel said:


> I would assume from their name that chukka boots also had an equestrian origin. As I recall, they take their name from a period of play in a polo match.


"Chukka - (also see Desert Boots) are ankle high, with two eyelets, usually suede, unlined, cushy crepe-rubber sole. Originally worn by polo players and derived from chukka, a period in polo games. First worn in the U.S. in 1924 by the Duke of Windsor who had visited India, played a little polo and picked up a few pairs of these boots."

Quote taken from:

So there you have it - you were absolutely right!

As for the unquestionable fact that high Wellington boots are an awkward match with trousers, it is little wonder that 19th century gentlemen wore them with breeches and pantaloons, which are much more suited to such dress boots.

The following page on breeches, trousers and pantaloons comes from a exceptionally fascinating exhibition that is part of one of the Further Reading links I gave above.


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

There is quite a good history of boots . 

Aus


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Thanks for that. I meant to also include that in my list of further links but accidentally omitted to do so.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Thank you, Sator, for beginning this most informative thread. For those intrigued by the Japanese JM *W*eston advertisement in your initial posting, the Weston website contains some additional examples. It can be found through this link www.jmweston.com and going to "collection" and then to "boots."


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

medwards said:


> Thank you, Sator, for beginning this most informative thread. For those intrigued by the Japanese JM *W*eston advertisement in your initial posting, the Weston website contains some additional examples. It can be found through this link www.jmweston.com and going to "collection" and then to "boots."


It's a pleasure, medwards. I enjoyed myself writing it. Thank you as well for providing the JM Weston link - I was looking through this website as I wrote but used the page out of the Japanese men's magazine, Leon as it gave a nice succinct set of views of some beautiful boots by this French bootmaker. I should have thought of providing that link as well. And whoops!!! it was a slip of the fingers when I typed 'Preston'  Oh yes, also make sure you take a look at their fine Balmoral boot as well.


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

Early on in my sartorial odyssesy, I tried to imagine what my own personal style would look like when I was done. I tried to think of certain signature items that I could wear. At one point, I thought it would be neat if I wore nothing but dress boots. I still might make them a major component of my wardrobe at some point, but as long as I'm thrifting and eBaying, I've gotta go with what's readily available.

There is something inescapably masculine about boots, though. Boots are for riding (horses and more recently, motorcycles), for working in the field and the mine, and for marching to war. Wearing boots taps into that history.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Mr. Knightly said:


> There is something inescapably masculine about boots, though. Boots are for riding (horses and more recently, motorcycles), for working in the field and the mine, and for marching to war. Wearing boots taps into that history.


Absolutely true. And to this list, we might also add heroic aviators

This photo of Charles Lindberg dates from 1927.

For centuries boots were a symbol of a heroic and aristocratic kind of masculine elegance.

This painting of Lord John Stuart and his brother dates from the 1600's. If you look at women's shoes of the 17-18th century and up until the early 19th century, they are very dainty feminine things, at times looking rather like ballerina's shoes.

It is frankly rather unusual that today women wear boots more than men. It is a role reversal, almost as though men had started to wear skirts and women trousers.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Very Nice illustration.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

This is a really interesting thread...thanks Sator. I find myself wondering how many forum members, in addition to myself, occassionally wear boots in business and business casual situations. My current preferrences are a pair of black jodphur boots, crafted from kangaroo leather, and a pair of RM Williams Craftsman series, crafted from chestnut calfskin.

I for one, would like to see the wearing of boots, as part of our business dress, become a more common occurence.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

I've been rather surprised by the interest a number of my colleagues on this Forum have shown in dress boots -- not riding, Chelsea or jodphur boots -- but rather stylish ankle boots, often smartly punched or brogued and designed to be worn with tailored trousers and such. You may recall a past discussion of the special order Edward Green Shannon boots that RJman commissioned, for instance. And much of the attention at the most recent Edward Green trunk show here in Washington centred on a new Dover-like boot. Perhaps this footwear is making a resurgence?


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

We don't need boots as often as our grandfathers did. 

Half boots keep the ankles warm and dry. That matters on cold days when you're outside a lot, but that's usually not a work day. 

Of the shoes in my wardrobe, the Bals and my spectators are worn the least.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Yes, the question of whether boots are practical in our day is definitely a question worth asking. Boots such as dress Wellingtons are meant to be a lot warmer and you might ask if in the age of central heating whether this is superfluous. 

On the other hand, perhaps the fact that Nash in the 18th century would dissaprove of his fellow countrymen sporting the English country gentlemen's look in town with dress Wellington's and jacket with tails, even without a horse, suggests that already in that age the wearing of such footwear was as more a stylistic choice than a practical one. The university students who rebelled against the then compulsary wearing of boots and chose to wear Oxford shoes instead, obviously also felt that low cut shoes were more 'practical' - just as some students might today might argue that sneakers are more 'practical' than a pair of Oxford shoes.

One practical thing about boots definitely relevant today is that they provide greater ankle support that seems to lend the gait a greater biomechanical stability while walking. Perhaps that is the reason why the moment you put on a pair of even light ankle boots, the gait instantly gains a certain firmness with strides becoming bolder, with a certain confidence, even swagger.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

Sator said:


> Yes, the question of whether boots are practical in our day is definitely a question worth asking. Boots such as dress Wellingtons are meant to be a lot warmer and you might ask if in the age in central heating whether this is superfluous.
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps the fact that Nash in 18th century would dissaprove of his fellow countrymen sporting the English country gentlemen's look in town with dress Wellington's and jacket with tails, even without a horse, suggests that already in that age, the wearing of such footwear was as more a stylistic choice than a practical one. The university students who rebelled against the then compulsary wearing of boots and chose to wear Oxford shoes instead, obviously also felt that low cut shoes were more 'practical' - just as some students might today might argue that sneakers are more 'practical' than a pair of Oxford shoes.
> 
> One practical thing about boots definitely relevant today is that they provide greater ankle support that seems to lend the gait a greater biomechanical stability while walking. Perhaps that is the reason why the moment you put on a pair of even light ankle boots, the gait instantly gains a certain firmness with strides becoming bolder, with a certain confidence, even swagger.


may i assume that style was named for the university students?


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

*Origin of Oxford Shoes*



a tailor said:


> may i assume that style was named for the university students?


Alan Flusser writes in 'Dressing the Man' (p193):

"The Oxford shoe derives from the Oxonian, a half-boot with side slits that first gained popularity at Oxford University in 1800. The side-slit soon developed into a side-lace that eventually moved to the instep as students began to rebel against knee-high and ankle boots"


----------



## Eskie (May 5, 2006)

Just a quick clarification on jodhpurs. It refers not only to the type of short boot described, which may be used for casual riding, but also to jodhpur trousers, over which are typically high riding boots.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Eskie said:


> Just a quick clarification on jodhpurs. It refers not only to the type of short boot described, which may be used for casual riding, but also to jodhpur trousers, over which are typically high riding boots.


I agree entirely. I personally think that 'jodhpurs' should, strictly speaking, refer primarily to the equestrian styled trousers. The term derives from a place in India and was clearly imported into the English language during the years of the Empire. We should say 'jodhpur boots' even though, when discussing shoes we often tend to assume other understand what we mean when we just say 'what a lovely pair of jodhpurs'.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Lastly, here is one more view of the JM Weston double monk strap boots only this time shown with a suit. The boots project a slightly rakish image that remains thoroughly sophisticated despite.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Mr. Knightly said:


> Early on in my sartorial odyssesy, I tried to imagine what my own personal style would look like when I was done. I tried to think of certain signature items that I could wear. At one point, I thought it would be neat if I wore nothing but dress boots. I still might make them a major component of my wardrobe at some point, but as long as I'm thrifting and eBaying, I've gotta go with what's readily available.
> 
> There is something inescapably masculine about boots, though. Boots are for riding (horses and more recently, motorcycles), for working in the field and the mine, and for marching to war. Wearing boots taps into that history.


I am aiming for that. I have decided that all I will buy from now on will be boots - I have two pair, and 3 pair of shoes which are between 7 and 4 years old. as the shoes wear out, I will replace them with boots. that is the plan anyway.


----------

