Opinions on British ammo boots

[WWIIBuff]

Hi guys,

What are your opinions on this pair please.

Thanks

[WWIIBuff]

Boots

Bottom

[WWIIBuff]

Boots

Marking

[Ciaran Byrne]

To me they look to be pre-war. My ones which were dated 1942 had only 12 or 13 hob-nails. THis may have been an wartime economy measure.

[paulbear]

these look like 60s 70s issue that have been capped and double souled for parade by the owner at his expense. We used to take the pebbles off also for a brighter shine

PAUL

[WWIIBuff]

Post war!!!

Thanks for the feedback guys.

The boots had added padding inside them and when I removed it today, I found the date, it's 1953. Fortunately I did not pay very much for them. I saw them at a militaria show as it was closing and I was walking out the door. I only paid $50, so I figured that even if they turned out to be post-war, the price was right and I could use them for now.

[Marc Sherriff]

What difference is there in a pair from the 1940's and a pair from the 1950's, apart from the date?

[paulbear]

I would think the quality ie the thickness if the leather would be better on the later pr.

PAUL

[WWIIBuff]

Boot differences

The only reference book I have is "For King And Country". That book makes mention of 4 or 5 changes to the boots from early to late war. Those changes were mainly to the number and pattern of hobnails used, then later the size of the hobnails, and even the elimination of one screw from the toe plate later in the war.

Other than these changes, the 1953 boot appears to be almost identical to the pictures of WWII period boots I've seen. I am a purist collector who typically shys away from post war dated items, but for now, since they look the same to me, they'll work.

I am however also curious to know if there really is some difference that I'm not seeing.

[Adrian Stevenson]

Hi John, I am not aware of any differences.

Cheers, Ade.

[WWIIBuff]

Differences

Thanks Ade!