British Three Strap Boots

A place for discussion of mounted services uniforms, headgear, footwear and related personal equipment of the horse soldier.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

British Three Strap Boots

Post by Pat Holscher » Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:51 pm

From a recent post on the "First Appearance of Three Stap Boots" thread:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by David Webb</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by servicepub</i>
<br />See a pair of 3-strap boots and boot trees at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 2217688559
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have a pair of those boots (As far as I can judge from the picture)with trees. They came from the Royal Artillery recently. This pattern of boot was part of the artillery uniform (with breeches) between the wars but virtually disappeared in 1939/40. By then it was deemed old fashioned, worn by the older officers. They are described in a reference book as "Artillery Pattern", which suggests that there might be other patterns.
Interesting that they were still in the "young officers" store in 2003.
Sadly, although mine fit my feet, the original owner had skinny legs, and I cannot do them up. I am wondering if I can get them altered or stretched.
David

David Webb
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

David, very interesting. Indeed, with that I think I'll start a new thread. Some of us have been wondering if there might be a British connection, and this might be it.

Pat

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Followup information on this pattern of boot would be most welcome. A few questions:

1. When did the British army adopt this pattern of boot as the "artillery pattern", and when did it quit using it?

2. What did enlisted men wear at the same time?

3. When you say you acquired the boots at the "young officers" store I don't quite follow (probably that Atlantic language seperation thing). Are these still used for some purposes?

Pat

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:01 pm

Here's an English made pair, but which belong to an American officer:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... egory=4729

Apparently the seller noted stocked or could order an English made boot.

Pat

servicepub
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by servicepub » Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:10 am

Pat, (and others)

I have done a considerable amount of research into the military costume of Canada over the past 100 years but have not found specific reference to this type of boot. Mind you, not finding the information doesn't say that it wasn't worn.
As the forum members will know, officers' goods were private purchase items and a great deal of latitude was allowed if the goods were for field use. There was always a caveat that, for private purchase items, all officers must appear on parade in identical rig. This allowed some units to authorise, as an example, fur caps of a particular style for officers.
The boots that I have for sale on e-bay are not marked with any manufacturers stamp or brand. They are marked on the sole with a "4" and with a "10". I assume that the "4" is a British or European size while the "10" is accurate for Canada as I can slip these on quite comfortably. However, markings on a sole do not necessarily indicate the origin of the boots.
My extensive research into CEF uniforms could only uncover the official clothing for Other Ranks with most documents directing officers to obtain "the aproved pattern" from their tailor.

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:16 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by servicepub</i>
<br />Pat, (and others)

I have done a considerable amount of research into the military costume of Canada over the past 100 years but have not found specific reference to this type of boot. Mind you, not finding the information doesn't say that it wasn't worn.
As the forum members will know, officers' goods were private purchase items and a great deal of latitude was allowed if the goods were for field use. There was always a caveat that, for private purchase items, all officers must appear on parade in identical rig. This allowed some units to authorise, as an example, fur caps of a particular style for officers.
The boots that I have for sale on e-bay are not marked with any manufacturers stamp or brand. They are marked on the sole with a "4" and with a "10". I assume that the "4" is a British or European size while the "10" is accurate for Canada as I can slip these on quite comfortably. However, markings on a sole do not necessarily indicate the origin of the boots.
My extensive research into CEF uniforms could only uncover the official clothing for Other Ranks with most documents directing officers to obtain "the aproved pattern" from their tailor.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Given that the pre war Canadian Army was quite small, and that I suspect, but do not know, that quite a bit of the overall size was in reserve units, have you found a lot of variety in the officers uniforms? I've seen commentary noting that there sometimes seems to have been some variance noted in US reserve units, but then I haven't seen that documented.

Pat

David Webb
Society Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 7:48 am
Medals: 3
Last Name: Webb
Location: United Kingdom
:
Society Member In Memoriam Donation - 3rd

Post by David Webb » Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:43 am

I have not got too much further on boots, but this is what I have so far.
Generally, the pre-war officers uniform dates from the 1902 revisions, with various minor amendments. The breeches are part of that uniform.
There are specific requirements for officers in mounted regiments and mounted officers in unmounted regiments -
1911 - specifies Stohlwasser pattern gaitors
1913 - slightly contradictory - for officers not wearing field boots, leather gaitors with laces and six hooks down the front.
At some time after that, standard mounted pattern boots were substituted, but I don't have a date.
1933 - Trousers were authorised as an alternative, worn with brown ankle boots, or shoes for walking out.

Apparently mounted boots were to be seen complete with spurs under the desks of admin officers who liked the image as late as early ww2.

Other ranks would have had "ammunition" boots and puttees pre war. But with a different stud pattern to the infantry.

Can anyone else help with more information?

"Young Officers Stores". Sorry Pat - my fault. This is a scheme whereby officers leaving a regiment could donate serviceable uniforms and kit for new young officers to buy cheaply to relieve the considerable financial burden of setting themselves up. Also boosted regimental funds.
It sort of suggests that my boots were in store for a long time, or that they have an interesting story to tell.





David Webb

tmarsh
Society Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:02 am
Medals: 1
Last Name: Marsh
Location: USA
:
Society Member

Post by tmarsh » Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:53 am

Just an interesting note,the German Army actually used a pattern of the 3 strap boot from 1935-1939. It was reportedly not like. Tom

servicepub
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by servicepub » Mon Jan 26, 2004 7:44 pm

In digging through the National Archives of Canada I came across a memo dated 1933 which described the 3-strap boot to a "T".
The description is then repeated in the (British) "Dress Regulations for the Army - 1934" which regulated the Dress for Officers (Other Ranks were 'clothed', Officers were 'dressed')
Para 573 describes the boots as being authorised for wear with Service Dress, either 'At Home' or 'Abroad' by the Royal Horse Artillery, only.
Hope that this helps.

User avatar
Philip S
Society Member
Posts: 2102
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 9:26 am
Medals: 2
Last Name: Sauerlender
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
:
Society Member Donation - 8th

Post by Philip S » Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:09 pm

That is very helpful indeed...thank you. Would it be possible for you to copy the description in the dress regulations? Also what is the context of the Canadian memo?

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Tue Jan 27, 2004 6:02 pm

I'd echo Philip's request. Interesting information. That 1933 date is an early one.

Pat

servicepub
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by servicepub » Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:14 pm

The 1933 note was merely a verbatim description of the boots which was then published in the 1934 Dress Regs.
The Dress Regs state (under the headings - "Royal Horse Artillery" and "Service Dress, Home Service";
573. Boots. - Brown field : the boots are laced at the instep with seven pairs of eyelet holes ; plain toe-caps with two rows of stitching 1/16 inch apart ; bellows tongue coming to within about 2 inches of the top of the boot and curved downwards toward the centre so as to obviate any pressure of the tongue on the shin bone ; top lined to a depth of about 4 3/4 inches ; fastened with three buckles and straps spaced equidistantly up the leg, proportionate with the length of the boot ; brass buckles 1/2 inch wide ; horizontal counter about 3 1/4 inches above the top of the heel ; the front flap is stifined with whalebone and there is a backstrap about 5/8 inch wide. Spur rests are optional and a detachable garter (1/2 inch wide) at the top of the boot is also optional.

As can be seen the desription is detailed enough to provide expert information to a cobbler. This is typical of the introduction of a new item. It allowed the officer to ensure that he was buying the exact product required. Future Regs would only refer to the boots as being of the "approved pattern"

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:18 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by servicepub</i>
<br />The 1933 note was merely a verbatim description of the boots which was then published in the 1934 Dress Regs.
The Dress Regs state (under the headings - "Royal Horse Artillery" and "Service Dress, Home Service";
573. Boots. - Brown field : the boots are laced at the instep with seven pairs of eyelet holes ; plain toe-caps with two rows of stitching 1/16 inch apart ; bellows tongue coming to within about 2 inches of the top of the boot and curved downwards toward the centre so as to obviate any pressure of the tongue on the shin bone ; top lined to a depth of about 4 3/4 inches ; fastened with three buckles and straps spaced equidistantly up the leg, proportionate with the length of the boot ; brass buckles 1/2 inch wide ; horizontal counter about 3 1/4 inches above the top of the heel ; the front flap is stifined with whalebone and there is a backstrap about 5/8 inch wide. Spur rests are optional and a detachable garter (1/2 inch wide) at the top of the boot is also optional.

As can be seen the desription is detailed enough to provide expert information to a cobbler. This is typical of the introduction of a new item. It allowed the officer to ensure that he was buying the exact product required. Future Regs would only refer to the boots as being of the "approved pattern"

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Great information, thanks. Could we take it, then, that the pattern was first introduced in 1933, becoming standard that year or the following?

Pat

servicepub
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:12 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by servicepub » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:17 am

That's correct.

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:44 pm

The following item is courtesy of Clive (servicepub), who sent it to us:

Image

This is from a British Army Council Instruction dated 1933.

Pat

Larry Emrick
Society Member
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2000 6:11 pm
Medals: 1
Location: Canada
:
Society Member

Post by Larry Emrick » Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:24 pm

Here is a pair of what would appear to be the exact thing on ebay: ww1 british officer's boots: WW1 British Officer's tall boots with 3 strap fasteners and a gusset to keep the weather out. These are in good condition, but have seen some use. Fitted with stout nails and a small projection for spurs. Size is approx a UK 10. The stitching on part of the gusset of one of the boot has come adrift, but this would not notice if the boots were done up. These exact boots are shown on p20 of Chappell's book on Service Dress 1902-1940.

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:23 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Emrick</i>
<br />Here is a pair of what would appear to be the exact thing on ebay: ww1 british officer's boots: WW1 British Officer's tall boots with 3 strap fasteners and a gusset to keep the weather out. These are in good condition, but have seen some use. Fitted with stout nails and a small projection for spurs. Size is approx a UK 10. The stitching on part of the gusset of one of the boot has come adrift, but this would not notice if the boots were done up. These exact boots are shown on p20 of Chappell's book on Service Dress 1902-1940.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That pair is pretty close, here it is:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... otohosting

The toe is different though. This has that "Mocassin toe" type construction.

Comments?

Does anyone have the book by Chappell that is referenced? I'd be curious if it shows this pattern and what it says about it.

Pat

Terry Newton
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 11:26 pm
Location: USA

Post by Terry Newton » Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:40 am

It says the size is "UK 10." How does that compare to my 12 to 13's?

Terry Newton
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 11:26 pm
Location: USA

Post by Terry Newton » Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:55 am

It says the size is "UK 10." How does that compare to my 12 to 13's?

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:29 pm

Bump.
Pat

Animadvertistine, ubicumque stes, fumum recta in faciem ferri?

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:38 am

Bump.
Pat

Animadvertistine, ubicumque stes, fumum recta in faciem ferri?

Post Reply

Return to “Uniforms and related”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest