Repro service shoes vs. the real thing

[Mike K.]

Okay everybody, there have been a number of good threads about all the various military footwear out there, along with suitable alternatives. However, in reading (and re-reading) all these threads I never saw any mention of how the repro footwear compares with the original WWII stuff. I have personally seen and worn some of the repro boots and the leather seems rather thin for combat footwear.

My question to anyone who can offer input - how does the leather on reproduction GI service boots/shoes compare with that on the originals (especially in terms of thickness)?

 

[Mike K.]

Well, okay then....
[huh] [huh] [huh]

 

[Teekay44]

Mike,
I have used and worn both originals and repro's in reenacting. The repro's last. Wearing 65+ leather in the field is not an option now. 15 years ago it was all we had. The service shoe (rough out) repros I have are especlly nice. Very tough. I have had 2 sets of original toe caps. The leather was slightly thicker on one pair and the same thickness on the other as the repro.
My buckle boot original and repros are for all intents the same. I have service shoes from What Price Glory and the buckle boots from At The Front. My para boots are Corcoran and are exact as the wartime model in every respect.

TK

 

[Trotsky]

Oh Gods, buy the At The Front brown ones, they are just fine for the money and if you wear them out you can get new ones.
I have had mine for about a year and they serve as my main pair of shoes.

 

[Mike K.]

Hey, there are some friends out there with an answer!
Thanks for the input guys. I love the service shoes and they make great everyday footwear for me. Never having seen/held/worn any originals I've just always wondered how the leather compared. I just ordered a nice pair of cavalry boots from WPG but unfortunately had to return them as they were too tall for my legs. The leather on them was about the same quality as on other repro footwear.

 

[Edward]

I've got a question about the repro stuff too - Mr K., if you don't mind me butting in here, this seems a better palce to ask than another thread. I'd like to know how the colour compares. I've looked at the boots in WPG, and those in the Soldier of Fortune UK-based site. The WPG boots seem definitely more a tan shade, the latter more a light milk-chocolate shade. was this sort of variation normal in the era (c/f russet and seal A2s), or is one more period correct than the other?

Idle curiosity, I admit as I'm not a re-enactor and I'm looking at the boots from the POV of daily footwear (I really want a pair of Alden Indys too, but... the cost!).

 

[Teekay44]

The WPG boots are (in my opinion) in the color range for service shoes. My original toecaps were very slighty lighter. But then the 2 pair that I had were slightly off as compaired to each other. Age, dye lot and even the leather itself comes into play. Even today with the leather upolstery sold by the company I work for , no two are the same. The WPG repros are a nice russet brown.

Just a side note. In some pre-war US Army regular units everyone used the same brand of shoe polish to try to keep everything a uniform color.

 

[MrBern]

ATF

ATF offers two pairs of boots for $200. I recently picked up service shoes & paratroops to give my old corcoran boots a break.

I've not got wartime originals to compare.
But compared to 1951 boots, I tend to find the `51s are more formfitting, less bulky or clunky.
The left & right side eyelets seem further apart in modern boots. So you see the boot tongue thru the laces . This gives the vintage boots a neater appearance.

I'll try to get some pix up later this week.

Also the ATF service shoes had a nice firm captoe. I've seen previous repros that had a very soft unreinforced toes. Yuck.

Also the rubbersoles are a bit softer than corcorans or originals. Definitely a more sneaker type traction. I hope they dont wear out faster.

I was told that WPG boots didnt have much arch support.
Oh, the ATF para boots' heel hasnt got that "no slip" angled heel that purists love to argue about.

 

[Edward]

The WPG boots are (in my opinion) in the color range for service shoes. My original toecaps were very slighty lighter. But then the 2 pair that I had were slightly off as compaired to each other. Age, dye lot and even the leather itself comes into play. Even today with the leather upolstery sold by the company I work for , no two are the same. The WPG repros are a nice russet brown.

Thanks. The SOF boots from the YUK site seem to be a darker colour to me... I expect eventually, I'll probably pick up both to have different shades, wearing them for civilian use as I intend.

Just a side note. In some pre-war US Army regular units everyone used the same brand of shoe polish to try to keep everything a uniform color.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.... I was fascinated when I discovered that the Wehrmacht boots weren't originally black but turned that colour with regular applications of dark polish. I wonder sometimes ho many things like that that folks nowadays knock themselves out trying to replicate when in reality it's a trick of the light or the polish and not the shoe as-new itself that dictates the colour we see in photos....

 

[MrBern]

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.... I was fascinated when I discovered that the Wehrmacht boots weren't originally black but turned that colour with regular applications of dark polish. I wonder sometimes ho many things like that that folks nowadays knock themselves out trying to replicate when in reality it's a trick of the light or the polish and not the shoe as-new itself that dictates the colour we see in photos....

I see that a lot too. Some field uniform pieces seem to be khaki & collectors want the reproductions in khaki, BUT sometimes unissued examples are closer to a sage green. The sun fades.
I have a few 1st pattern HBT jkts and they are minty green. I'm told they were originally a darker shade & that soldiers often had to dye them darker.

 

[The Wingnut]

Hence the dreaded 'khaki hound' syndrome. Is that khaki? It's got to be khaki. It's not real if it's not khaki. Because they didn't make anything but khaki. Khaki? Khaki! Khakikhaki! KHAKI!

...type that word enough times and it starts to look rather dumb.

 

[MrBern]

I've heard the same thing for say, Civil War buffs. Do you reproduce certain items in a light blue denim for a salty look? Or go strictly by the unissued look of a dark denim?

In cinema, notice in Band of Brothers, for some of the fogged in London scenes waiting for Dday, the JumpSuits were a distinct olive drab as made by SMWholesale.com but for the sunnier scenes in Normandy the uniforms were quite clearly khaki.
Obviously, there are multiple costumes for the actors. And some of this is for the mood set by the cinematography.

Oh, back to boots, I had a book full of shots of all the real life Dday gear. One page had ikes gear, from sidearm to briefcase, another had Patton's wardrobe, from oriental print suspenders to leica camera. For the combatants, I noticed in a lot of shots the service shoes were split at the spines stitching behind the calf.
Not sure if this was a modification for comfort, or jsut the shoe falling apart from use.