More shoe questions - what do you think of these?

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

More shoe queries....

Are these more accurate for GAOP than the Fugawee Concords?

http://www.re-enactmentshop.com/18e-Shoes.JPG

Anyone delt with these guys before?

Thanks again for all of your help!

[michaelsbagley]

More shoe queries....

Are these more accurate for GAOP than the Fugawee Concords?

http://www.re-enactmentshop.com/18e-Shoes.JPG

Anyone delt with these guys before?

Thanks again for all of your help!

I wouldn't bat an eyelash at seeing those at a GAoP re-enactment. They're actually pretty sharp shoes!

That said, for those perfectionists who fret over the nitty gritty details, most of the detail that tends to seperate the earlier period shoes from the later mid-18th century shoes is in the side to hind quarters, which are completely not visible from that picture. The rather long tongure is a very good sign, but the profile of the side seam is usually one of the key details in seperating early from mid 18th century shoes...

On the whole shoes are one of the items that the most leniency is given towards as there just aren't that many manufacturers, and most of the manufacturers that are trying to get it as close to possible for the GAoP, have extremely long waiting/ordering periods, or are really expensive, or both. Fugawees and/or Jardigans have kind of the de fatco standard for their comprimise in accuracy, price, and turnaround time, and you will likely find that a larger percentage of GAoP re-enactors wear the Fugawees or Jardigans than any other shoe.

As for the above company, I've never dealt with them, nor have I heard from anyone who has.

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

Thanks as always Michael!

You are quickly becoming my Authenticity Sensei!

I had the same reservations about not seeing the soles or back of them and of not seeing their name mentioned in "shoe circles".

More shoe queries....

Are these more accurate for GAOP than the Fugawee Concords?

http://www.re-enactmentshop.com/18e-Shoes.JPG

Anyone delt with these guys before?

Thanks again for all of your help!

I wouldn't bat an eyelash at seeing those at a GAoP re-enactment. They're actually pretty sharp shoes!

That said, for those perfectionists who fret over the nitty gritty details, most of the detail that tends to seperate the earlier period shoes from the later mid-18th century shoes is in the side to hind quarters, which are completely not visible from that picture. The rather long tongure is a very good sign, but the profile of the side seam is usually one of the key details in seperating early from mid 18th century shoes...

On the whole shoes are one of the items that the most leniency is given towards as there just aren't that many manufacturers, and most of the manufacturers that are trying to get it as close to possible for the GAoP, have extremely long waiting/ordering periods, or are really expensive, or both. Fugawees and/or Jardigans have kind of the de fatco standard for their comprimise in accuracy, price, and turnaround time, and you will likely find that a larger percentage of GAoP re-enactors wear the Fugawees or Jardigans than any other shoe.

As for the above company, I've never dealt with them, nor have I heard from anyone who has.

[michaelsbagley]

Thanks as always Michael!

You are quickly becoming my Authenticity Sensei!

I had the same reservations about not seeing the soles or back of them and of not seeing their name mentioned in "shoe circles".

I wouldn't read anything into not seeing or hearing mention of them... Just a week or two ago I saw a post from HellfireHannah (I think?) about shoes from two other sources in the UK that looked pretty promising as well that I had never heard of. Vendors in this hobby are popping up and dissapearing all the time so while dealing with a new vendor for the first time can be a crap shoot, it may turn out they are great.

I don't know about being an "Authenticity Sensei" though... Sounds pretty foreign to me... Even Asian, like those Ninja fellas that are always getting their butts kicked by trying to off my mates and I.

[Quartermaster James]

Well, I've stumbled over this site before though I can't recall if it was via recommendation or not. It may have been when I was looking for Patton boots.

While the shoes look nice, 75 Euros is currently $99USD. After shipping from Belgium and any funds transfer costs, I can't say they look that much nicer than Fugawees.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Quartermaster James

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

well i ordered a pair. they were cool in sending additional pictures. Seems they do not have the correct sides, they are not hand stitched and the back isn't butt stitched, oh and the heel is low, but honestly, I think they are the most accurate off the shelf shoe for 1680 - 1730. They are rough out, have small D buckles, long tongues, and square toes. I'll report back when i receive them.

[LadyBarbossa]

If ye've ordered from them, do let us know about how their shoes are/review them. Always curious about the reenactment shoes out there.

Someone sent me this link via MySpace messaging (I believe they are on the Pub, too) of a place over in the UK that offers period footwear. Their footwear looks a little closer to the period.

http://www.re-enactment-shoes.co.uk/

Some of the post 1550 shoes would work. So if anyone has seen them, ordered from them, let us know with a review. They look like good shoes and none too pircy.

~Lady B

[michaelsbagley]

Just a week or two ago I saw a post from HellfireHannah (I think?) about shoes from two other sources in the UK that looked pretty promising as well that I had never heard of.

Those are the ones I was thinking of when I posted the above... The "S3 - Late 17th century shoe" are really sharp looking... If I hadn't had 2 pairs of period shoes fall onto me in the last few months, I would have seriosuly considered those! And at 70 pounds, that is just over $100 (this week ) I can't imagine that the total price including shipping would come to much more than what a pair of Jardigans or Fugawees would cost. Both the S1 and S2s are pretty sharp looking as well, and cheaper yet!

Thanks for re-posting that Lady B.

[LadyBarbossa]

Ahh... so, it was Hannah. Thought it was from one on the Pub. :)

I loved the shoes at that place. Whenever the Fates grace me with stability again, I'll obtain a pair from them ( plus other places like Fugawee, yes, I'm turning into a garb whore).

They do look nice pairs. They look more like the ones in the museums which impresses me the most.

Ye be welcome, Michael.

I am rather curious about the Reenactment Shop, too, with their goods. I've not heard anything about them much enough to really give a yay or nay. But their products do look good.

~Lady B

[hellfirehannah]

About those shoes from the UK that I found.

The latches are 3/4 inches so no cutting down needed.(if you have a st of GOF's buckles) He does take paypal & after shipping to the US, they would probably run about $140 or so(maybe a bit less).

The big thing is that the buckles are modern as he cannot find a supplier of period buckles...then again they are (very)hard to find. That and the are not straight lasted.

Otherwise when I have some cash saved back I'll probably order a pair.

Edited April 18, 2009 by hellfirehannah

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

The Reenactment Shop sent me more pictures before I ordered. Here they are for reference. I should receive them this week.

[michaelsbagley]

Those are sharp! The side seam is very similar to what the "Late Period" shoes are from Loyalist. In fact the only real difference I am seeing between those and the loyalist shoes is that those appear to have slightly thinner soles (which may or may bnot be a good thing depending on personal preference), the the latchet straps look a little wider, and the toe does not appear as bluntly squared as the Loyalist shoe are, which is a detail on the Reenactment Shop shoe I like better!

[Jack Roberts]

Yep, I would have to agree with you Michael. Those do look sharp.

I do like the higher heel of the loyalist's shoes though.

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

Shoe Update

I just received these hours ago, so I may have another opinion later, but here is my initial observation/review.

Toes: Nice and square

Sole: Low heel, but looks to be all leather with nails in the heels. Really a bit slick as to be expected.

Last: They are made left and right

Buckle: Comes with buckle that looks like a mini DD. However, they work, but do not quite connect to the straps correctly. Once they are buckled, it's hard not to have the center piece (that goes through the hole) a bit, uh, erect if you will.

Leather: Seems to be a high quality, comfortable, if not a little thin.

Comfort: Been wearing them for a couple hours around the house, with no socks, and they are amazingly comfortable. Almost slipper like in comfort.

Style: High tongue, square toe = pretty nice. I personally feel these are a little more correct than the Colonial era Fugawee shoes, if you take the left and right aspect out of the equation.

Cost: Shipped from the Netherlands, with buckles, and shipping: around $140

Questions? I'll try to answer them. I will say these are INCREDIBLY comfortable right out of the box.

BTW: They arrived in a used cardboard box, bubble wrap and nothing else. Not that it mattered much.

[Guest]

Those look good...

I have a pair of Funguies.... just wish they sold the "Concords"in straight last..... (they were inexpensive enough.)

So I have a pair of shoes that are "almost right"..... but not quite.... (until I got into Airship Pyrates, that was one of my next purchases... a better pair of shoes...)

Kinda funny.... but for my Buccaneer stuff.... I'm using an old worn out pair of American Civil War Brogans that I cut down..... The funniest part.... is they are really dang close to period.... (well if you ignore a few holes where some of the stitching use to be..... I have to goop that over with ... dang... I know what it's called... just can't remember the word..... mash in a buncha shoe polish, kinda buff it... seal alla it... well other than the sides are open....(I'll remember what it's called just as soon as I post this...))

[Commodore Swab]

I keep wondering if pirates may have only worn shoes when they were in town or having portraits made. The reasons behind my thinking come from having trying to walk much less run in sand or jungle terrain. Boots are simply safer and more comfortable not only in keeping sand out but also the vermin on the ground. Even barefoot on a beach makes more sense than shoes. As for work aboard ship, I feel there is no need for shoes even climbing the rigging and this comes from personal experience. The only problem I would see is a hot deck. IMO Shoes of any kind were a valuable commodity and most likely worn only when nessary so as to not wear them out prematurely. I consider my feet tender but I don't have a problem walking around barefoot all day at an event (I try to avoid asphalt) or even on coral rock (not a reef mind you). I also believe shoes due to their impraticality were a matter of class, wearing shoes was a way of establishing that you did not need to do manual labor. Boots were common before GAoP and were common after, why would there be a timeframe when everyone switched to shoes?

Having said this walking around in a pair of anything might be more comfortable might not depending on the event. I personally have a pair of boots (more a ren style) that I will be taking to PiP but only wearing for parade, or at night.

[Dutchman]

i spent a couple of nights a few weeks ago trolling colonial probate inventories of the time and noted a few things on foot wear. Out of 120 or so inventories;

boots are only listed twice and they are located in the barn with horse tack

shoe uppers, soles, and buckles are listed seperately as individual parts as in spare or replacement parts

there were lots of "negro shoes" listed. what makes these shoes different? rough side in v/s out?

a few things to remember about probates. they are subject to the inspectors viewing and cataloging. these were household inventories- not sailors. absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But all the same these findings do give some insight to household importance.

[Commodore Swab]

I would completly understand that. The perplexing part about pirates is that they would have been spending time in port where shoes would be best suited, and they would of spent considerable time onboard ship which depending on their duties would regulate their footware, or tromping thru underbrush/beaches where I feel boots would of been best suited. Couple with this the lack of evidence, perplexing isnt it.

[michaelsbagley]

I would completly understand that. The perplexing part about pirates is that they would have been spending time in port where shoes would be best suited, and they would of spent considerable time onboard ship which depending on their duties would regulate their footware, or tromping thru underbrush/beaches where I feel boots would of been best suited. Couple with this the lack of evidence, perplexing isnt it.

You've mentioned tromping through underbrush a few times now... Pirates as I understand them, worked on ships, occasionally went into port (towns or cities) to spend their swag before heading back out to sea again.... I can't think of a great number of times when they would be tromping through scrub.

Sure they did the careening thing every few month, and might do a bit of foraging while careening, but would a bunch of guys whose ideal of the high life was spending everything they earned on drink and vices keep extra footwear around just for the once every few month possible tromp through the woods foraging?

Now the early buccaneers (les boucaniers) would have spent significant time in the scrub, but they are a different story altogether.

Please understand I am not trying to thumb my nose at you, I'm just trying to discuss this with the logic as I understand it. If you have some reasonable evidence that counters my understanding, i would love to hear it.

cheers

[Dutchman]

I think at one point Foxe or GoF had a reference to a sailor actually selling his boots before he boarded ship. Can either help out here? Then there are the many pair of boots recovered from the cobblers shop in Port Royal. I know shoes have been recovered from wrecks of the period, but is anyone aware of any boots?

Edited May 18, 2009 by bbcddutchman

[Commodore Swab]

I am aware of that they recovered many boots from the sunken section of Port Royal. In talking about underbrush I am thinking more of the natural foilage here in the FL Keys, not really underbrush but still. I also recall reading how very often pirates attacked towns. Thats whats on my mind, I would love to have a nice pair of shoes that I could wear in the fort and around the camp but barefoot works for me.

[LadyBarbossa]

What about these?

The two from 1720s look like a period type of half-chap. I think this makes more sense as you can add and remove when the time requires, store easily, etc... Be easier to keep than clunky boots. But how common they would be... especially onboard ships... :::Shrugs::: any of these found?

~Lady B

[michaelsbagley]

What about these?

The two from 1720s look like a period type of half-chap. I think this makes more sense as you can add and remove when the time requires, store easily, etc... Be easier to keep than clunky boots. But how common they would be... especially onboard ships... :::Shrugs::: any of these found?

~Lady B

I think the fact that all three pairs of those boots are depicted with stirrups speaks volumes about the use of boots in our period.... And to be honest, the second and third image in that set looks more like shoes and gaitors than boots in my opinion anyways...

[Silkie McDonough]

Can some moderator change the title of this thread ...I keep clicking on it wondering what show is being discussed and I find SHOES!

Please?

[michaelsbagley]

Can some moderator change the title of this thread ...I keep clicking on it wondering what show is being discussed and I find SHOES!

Please?

Good suggestion, I've been meaning to do that for weeks but have put it off out of laziness.