Balmoral Boots

[Isshinryu101]

For what it is worth, Allen Edmonds has their Fifth Street boots on Clearance.

spade soled?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

spade soled?

No.

 

[Isshinryu101]

no.

darn!

 

[Mr. Speakeasy]

I'm glad this debate has really taken off, the catalogue's I have for shoes don't go as far back as I had hoped and the one's i've seen from that era im gonna have to borrow and photocopy, so there's going to be a bit of a delay.

A question I have for Isshinryu101 is do you have any evidence of such a tapered waist on the soles of shoes post-1920 like the ones on my boots?

 

[dhermann1]

OK, little details aside, I am intrigued by these high topped old fashioned mens shoes, and am very curious as to how they are to wear. Assuming a good fit, does the high top provide more support for ankles? How are they for all day use? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Mr. Speakeasy]

OK, little details aside, I am intrigued by these high topped old fashioned mens shoes, and am very curious as to how they are to wear. Assuming a good fit, does the high top provide more support for ankles? How are they for all day use? Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't wear the ones I posted as I fear that they might not hold up to being worn, but all the other hi-top boots I own are beautifully comfortable to wear on a daily basis once they are broken in, they offer nice ankle support
The only downside I have with them is depending on how hot a day it is and how thick my socks are they build up heat and trap it

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Yes. Apart from the slightly aggressive undertones I found this quite educational.I will remember more of it than from people just dropping their trophys, holy grails and whatnot.

 

[Two Types]

The point is that the shape of OP's boots are the basic POST 1920's standard (more like late 30's and later). Boots today are still made in this basic shape. Also note that they are completely devoid of the standard (at minimum) mild spade or pointy toe present earlier boots.

Just to take up this point: are you suggesting that pointy-toes were standard on earlier boots? If so, i would argue against this. The Eatons 1921 catalogue that i posted earlier today has a wide variety of toe styles, including some that are far more bulbous than Mr Speakeasy's.

On a further point: you rightly point out that ilustrations are not as reliable as seeing the boots and, in particular, their soles. However, I noted that in the Eaton's brochure, there are some with obvious spade soles and some without (and some inbetween - I guess they are the 'mild spade'). If a single artist is differentiating between styles in his illustrations, this would lead me to conclude that there were genuine differences in style.

 

[Isshinryu101]

Just to take up this point: are you suggesting that pointy-toes were standard on earlier boots? If so, i would argue against this. The Eatons 1921 catalogue that i posted earlier today has a wide variety of toe styles, including some that are far more bulbous than Mr Speakeasy's.

nope. Pointy toe OR some kind of a mild spade sole are present in 99% (although sometimes they have both).

 

[Mr. Speakeasy]

Yes. Apart from the slightly aggressive undertones I found this quite educational.I will remember more of it than from people just dropping their trophys, holy grails and whatnot.

Balmoral boots are serious business

 

[Two Types]

I did a quick assessment of the Eatons brochure (1921):

Boys balmoral boots: 2 styles - both with rounded toes
'Style & Quality' range: 9 boots - 4 with rounded toes, 5 with pointy toes
'High Class' range: 4 boots - 1 with rounded toes, 3 with pointy toes
'Style & Service' range: 3 boots, all with rounded toes
Heavy boots: 2 boots, both with rounded toes.

What this tells me is that for the higher quality, dressier boots, the pointy toes were more prevalent. However, balmoral boots were also worn as work boots - including one in the range referred to as the 'Police Boot'.
I have also noted that some of the boots refer to having a wide heel, meaning that there was a noticable difference between heel widths by 1921. The same goes for the height of the heel.

The wide range of available styles available from a single Canadian catalogue (all the shoes being manufactured in Canada), in a single year, makes me feel it is very difficult to make too many generalisations.

 

[Isshinryu101]

I'm glad this debate has really taken off, the catalogue's I have for shoes don't go as far back as I had hoped and the one's i've seen from that era im gonna have to borrow and photocopy, so there's going to be a bit of a delay.

A question I have for Isshinryu101 is do you have any evidence of such a tapered waist on the soles of shoes post-1920 like the ones on my boots?

As I wrote, the tapered waist on the outside of the shoe is more a mark of a top shoemaker than a style detail indicative of a particular period. It is VERY difficult to get that topsole edge right up against (or even under) the uppers. The closer cut it is, the finer the shoemakers' skills are considered to be.

Modern shoes

TOP makers like ricardo bestetti do it very well.

 

[Isshinryu101]

I have some sealskin handmades from the late 30's to early 40's with a very narrow waist as well. Sadly, I have not taken the pics yet.

Regardless, my whole point is that people use this site... especially the threads about a particular style of shoe, as a reference for information they use to make purchases. The statement that "a narrow waist on the outer portion of the sole is a clear indicator of a 1910's boot" is simply incorrect. To make a generalization like that, I would say that you would need AT LEAST a dozen pairs with that same detail + NOT see it used at a later date.

MIGHT they be 1910's boots? Sure, they may be. I just notice that they lack enough details that are common for boots from that era to make a positive ID impossible. My opinion is based on comparisons with maybe 50 pairs of vintage boots I have handled from 1900 to the 1940's. Actually not enough to be absolutely sure of anything. This is in contrast to the 2000 pairs of shoes from 1920's thru 1950's I have handled. Much more confident in my inferences for them.

I dont mind debating this point, it's just that you have mentioned only the narrow waist as your proof they are 1910's, and then we saw maybe a dozen+ catalog scans of drawings of the uppers of boots that seem similar (except for the fact that they all some sort of a spade point at the sole... the one drawing where the sole drawing and the drawing from the side are VASTLY different).

Is this enough to say, "1910's boots"? No. Not enough proof for that.

 

[Mr. Speakeasy]

I have some sealskin handmades from the late 30's to early 40's with a very narrow waist as well. Sadly, I have not taken the pics yet.

Regardless, my whole point is that people use this site... especially the threads about a particular style of shoe, as a reference for information they use to make purchases. The statement that "a narrow waist on the outer portion of the sole is a clear indicator of a 1910's boot" is simply incorrect. To make a generalization like that, I would say that you would need AT LEAST a dozen pairs with that same detail + NOT see it used at a later date.

MIGHT they be 1910's boots? Sure, they may be. I just notice that they lack enough details that are common for boots from that era to make a positive ID impossible. My opinion is based on comparisons with maybe 50 pairs of vintage boots I have handled from 1900 to the 1940's. Actually not enough to be absolutely sure of anything. This is in contrast to the 2000 pairs of shoes from 1920's thru 1950's I have handled. Much more confident in my inferences for them.

I dont mind debating this point, it's just that you have mentioned only the narrow waist as your proof they are 1910's, and then we saw maybe a dozen+ catalog scans of drawings of the uppers of boots that seem similar (except for the fact that they all some sort of a spade point at the sole... the one drawing where the sole drawing and the drawing from the side are VASTLY different).

Is this enough to say, "1910's boots"? No. Not enough proof for that.

See this is interesting, I have never seen shoes past 1920 that had a tapered waist until your post so you have opened my eyes,
And if you wouldn't mind my asking what are the eras of the shoes you have pictured?

 

[Two Types]

Ish: I think that is a fair assessment.

However, are you sticking to your original assessment of a 1940s date on the boots?

Or do you agree that there is evidence of such a wide range of styles in the 1920s, that they could easily be from that period? (i.e. that flat rounded toes, bulbous toes and point toes were all evident on balmoral boots during the 1920s)

 

[Isshinryu101]

Ish: I think that is a fair assessment.

However, are you sticking to your original assessment of a 1940s date on the boots?

Or do you agree that there is evidence of such a wide range of styles in the 1920s, that they could easily be from that period? (i.e. that flat rounded toes, bulbous toes and point toes were all evident on balmoral boots during the 1920s)

Actually, I am leaning more towards 1930's. Mr. Speakeasy is certainly correct when he looks at the waist to help in dating. I had said early forties because there was still some of the previous decades' narrow waist action happening then... it pretty much disappeared by the middle of the decade. 1930's is a much safer assessment, and I must move toward that camp now. 20's is possible, but there was still a LOT of sole forefoot "action" going on at that time that is absent from the pair in question. They could be later 20's, but I lean toward the 30's.

 

[Isshinryu101]

See this is interesting, I have never seen shoes past 1920 that had a tapered waist until your post so you have opened my eyes,
And if you wouldn't mind my asking what are the eras of the shoes you have pictured?

first 2 are 30's, and last is late 20's, early 30's. The early 40's still had some shoes with vary narrow waists, but the trend was changing toward thicker. As my post above states, I now agree that they may well not be 40's, and am leaning more toward 30's. Please note, waist debate aside, your pair was DEFINITELY sewn by a Master Bootmaker. Today, he would sell only bespoke, and probably at the highest price range ($4k+).

 

[Two Types]

Would you say that, the assessment that the boot was made by a master bootmaker - rather than being a factory made boot - actually makes it even more difficult to accurately date the boot? (on the grounds that they might have been a custom made boot that could have been with a combination of styles, making catalogue illustrations redundant in this case)

 

[Mr. Speakeasy]

Would you say that, the assessment that the boot was made by a master bootmaker - rather than being a factory made boot - actually makes it even more difficult to accurately date the boot? (on the grounds that they might have been a custom made boot that could have been with a combination of styles, making catalogue illustrations redundant in this case)

That's an interesting point, they might have been made for someone with a particularly wide foot, I have narrow feet by modern standards and these actually feel roomy.
This change could made the sole look more 30's could it not?

 

[Tomasso]

Would you say that, the assessment that the boot was made by a master bootmaker - rather than being a factory made boot - actually makes it even more difficult to accurately date the boot?

Certainly, and the same would go for apparel as well. My father wore bespoke suits cut in the same style (30s) for well over fifty years. They were impossible to differentiate without looking at the date in the pocket.