Clarks Desert Boots Lately

[Feraud]

Thursday Boots have them as well, for $149.00. If they're anything like their other boots (I have three pair), they;re comfortable and durable. They offer both regular hard, studded rubber soles and crepe ones.

good to hear. I was wondering about these.

 

[milandro]

I wore Clark’s for years, the last pair I bought had the crepe soles, they were junk. The soles were only glued on. There was a stitch line around the sole but it was just for show, didn’t actually have any structural purpose. I returned them when the sole separated, the shoe store said it was pretty common.
B

I think that the crepes soles of the Desert Boots (there is now a Desert boots II which isn't crepes at all) are stitcher around the shoe, at least it appears to be from this video on YouTube where they cut in half the shoe and they take everything apart. Quite solidly made , methiks

 

[Fifty150]

The same channel reviews a few of the different chukka models.

CHUKKA BOOT REVIEWS Grant Stone Chukka Boot Review - • How Grant Stone's... Clarks Chukka Boot Review - • 7 Things I HATE A... Amazon Chukka Boot Review - • Amazon’s Dirty Li... Thursday Chukka Boot Review - • Thursday Scout Ch... Jim Green Vellie Chukka Boot Review - • The Worker Bee Ve...

 

[milandro]

they are not only OTHER chukka models, they are entirely different brands (one Clarks) , but this thread, I though, was specifically about the Clarks Desert boot.

Anway the point that I was trying to make was that the Clarks sole IS stitched and NOT simply glued

 

[Fifty150]

As a kid at the academy, these were the types of shoes that we were issued. Whether they were good shoes or not, I didn't know. It was usually Bates or Rocky brands. You got whichever shoe was in stock at the uniform supply, in your size. At the time, I didn't know any better, nor did I know enough to be able to tell the difference. Some guys liked the patent leather for easy cleaning. Other guys said that the full grain leather was better for long term wear and for breathability.

For a lot of guys in my generation, we grew up wearing sneakers. It was the breakthrough decade of sports shoes as daily wear. From Converse, to Reebok high tops, to the most iconic sports shoe of all time, Air Jordans. Anyone who grew up after this decade wore sneakers period. Guys would grow up knowing nothing about well built shoes, the break-in, the leather care, etc.

A new subculture grew out of this. Guys would spend hundreds, if not over $1,000 on a pair of sneakers. Any other shoe, whether a pair of loafers, wingtips, cap toes, or whatever, was thought of as a "dress shoe", and only tolerated if you had to wear them to work or church. And even then, you spent the least amount on those, because you didn't want to waste your money on shoes that you didn't even want to wear. Nobody cared about materials, or craftsmanship. And the shoe manufacturers knew this.

This sneaker fad probably spawned the disposable shoe industry. I remember having sneakers with a little pocket. I always kept a $20 in each shoe....... just in case. I might need cab fare if some girl takes me out on a date, and she was not nice to me.

This was the decade of dress shoe quality going down in price and quality. They had to manufacture shoes that felt like you were wearing sneakers, and bring down the cost. Brands like Rockport gained notoriety as a shoe that wore like a sneaker, and cost about the same as a sneaker. Skechers grew out of LA Gear. Mephisto now sells sneakers and sandals. Whereas shoe manufacturers who wanted to maintain their heritage of manufacturing quality shoes saw a decline in sales. People still bought good shoes. Alden and Allen Edmonds did not go out of business. But the prices went up. Thus furthering the divide between rich and poor. The working man had to decide if he wanted to spend a half day's wages, a day's wages, or a week's wages on a pair of shoes.

What I learned along my journey in life, was that my feet, are not sophisticated connoisseurs of fine shoes. I discovered, after countless $$$$ spent, that my feet favor good traction. Not just my feet, but also my ankles and knees which could twist if my foot slipped. So that heavily disfavored leather soles. Over the decades, I found myself not wanting to lace and tie shoes. This sent me in the direction of elastic shoe laces, gored slip on shoes, and zippers. Then I got to a point where I didn't like shoes at all. I would rather wear boots, or at least something that came up to cover the ankles. That was where I found myself buying Allen Edmonds desert boots that reminded me of what I wore back in my days of wide eyed innocence.

 

[handymike]

I had a pair of Clarks in leather with lug soles that came off in about a year- glued on…my desert boots have been in rotation for over 5 years with no problems coming off. The gum soles have hardened over time, and now the shoes are slippery so I need to be careful on concrete floors.

 

[Trenchfriend]

I think they are about the same PC.

I meant to mention before, nothing beats a pair of old Clarks Wallabee for comfort. Imo
B

But the risk of twisting ankle? Always liked their look, but feared the concept.

Authentic Desert Boots? Nah, super basic soft shoes with no real foothold.

 

[handymike]

Agreed, but a nice flat casual shoe.

 

[Bfd70]

I’m a wallabys guy.
i get them cheap at the Clarks outlet. I don’t expect much.

 

[milandro]

I like Wallabees , I just got a special model which I have yet to wear the first time

 

[Fifty150]

It may come as a surprise to some around here that not everyone can pay $350+ for a pair of shoes

Not a secret that I grew up poor. Actually, I'm still poor. So wearing cheap shoes is perfectly acceptable to me. Amazon had a pair for $20. And it shipped to me in 1 day. Beeswax. A shoe brush made it look like a different pair of shoes. The soles look like they will be comfortable. I think that I got my money's worth.

 

[Fifty150]

As my next ex just pointed out, "you don't need another pair of shoes, good thing they're only $20".

 

[milandro]

very well done, although these are the Clarks desert boot 2 featuring the lighter bottom not made of crepes but some other (lighter) material. The price is a true bargain!

I am forever looking for bargains too, aside from being thrifty (which has become a second nature ) this is the only way that I can justify, to myself, that I need yet another pair of shoes.

Clarks Desert boots have a special place in my mind. Growing up in Italy the " Polacchine" as this type of shoe is known there , featured in the '70 and later on in the '80 among young people. I am no longer that age but I still like the shoes.

 

[Trenchfriend]

And the Wallabees even don't have natural crepe soles, these days, while the price is horrend!

TR soles, thermoplastic rubber

 

[milandro]

I can't comment for all models but the wallaby which I have ,DO have natural crepes sole.

They do produce some models without though but it is not the norm (in Europe at least).


https://www.clarks.eu/gr/en/originals/originals-icons/wallabees/

 

[Fifty150]

these are the Clarks desert boot 2

There appears to be 4 different shoes which are similar.

Desert Boot
Desert Boot 2
Bushacre 2
Bushacre 3

Desert Boot has crepe sole, and no insole.
Desert Boot 2 has a different sole, and an insole.
Bushacre 2 has a different sole, no insole.
Bushacre 3 has a different sole, and an insole.

The boot that I got for $20 was Bushacre 2. A harder rubber sole which may offer better traction. No insole. Just like the Desert Boot, there's a thin layer of material going about 2/3 down the shoe, and really nothing else. Your feet are more or less just standing on the sole without any other padding or support.

I think I've solved my dilemma with inexpensive insoles.

 

[Fifty150]

Here's sort of a comparison a Desert Boot vs similar looking Clarks boot.

 

[milandro]

Yes, the Desert boots ( I wasn't aware of the " bushacre" model) 2 are different and I don't like the sole. I certainly prefer the Desert Boot (1 so to speak) even if the inside is totally flat. Also in the NL they are available in size 11 (46) or 12(47). one is too small and the other one is a little too big so, for many reasons , comfort too, I need to wear some insoles on those (while on the wallaby I fit the 46 perfectly, as is).


I go a real long way with the desert boots, they are great and comfortable shoes with a price tag that isn't out of proportion for what they are.

 

[Trenchfriend]

The old Germans report, that even in the 60s, there were already Clarks knock-offs available on german market. Sure, crepe shoes were big in the 50s/60s and around students in the 70s, but maybe Clarks gave indeed licensing to other companies?

 

[milandro]

this type of shoe has always existed, in my youth in Italy they were called " polacchine" (this link is in Italian but you can have it translated by google), this type of shoes originates in the 1800.... nothing too new under the ( Desert) sun!

https://magazine.artigianoinfiera.it/polacchine-glossario-artigianato/

https://www.calzaturebelfiore.com/blog/2019/10/23/polacchini-storia-e-curiosita-di-questa-calzatura/


Tthe use of crepes soles wasn't unique to this brand either. The crepes sole is called Para or Pará from the name of the Brazilian state.

The use of natural rubber for soles material is old if not ancient and probably precedes de first clarks . ]


The first pair of shoes with Pará rubber soles were apparently sold in 1820


"..Modern rubber’s origins are in northern Brazil, in the state of Pará, at the mouth of the Amazon. It was from here that the first samples of the unusual substance known as caoutchouc, or Indian rubber, were exported to Europe in the late 18th century. Then, about 1820, an unidentified New England sailor brought a few pairs of rubber shoes with him from Pará to Boston for exhibition and sale. They became a sensation.....>


https://www.mvtimes.com/2018/03/07/this-was-then-rubber-shoes/

I don't think the design of the Desert boot has ever been patented or was ever patentable since it is such a basic design the small alteration of which makes it different.