Photographic evidence of early v. late production officer boots

[iannima]

I know that this is going to be of very limited interest for many people, but since I have accumulated quite a bit of knowledge on these boots given the sheer number of them I own , I thought I would share it as it might be of use to beginners.
The basic distinction that is to be kept in mind is that officer boots come in two finish: Smooth leather for parade, and pebbled leather for service.
Having said this the way the boots are constructed and -with only one exception- the sole are exactly identical between parade and service finish.
As many of us would know, it can generally be assumed that the earlier the production year, the better the quality of the item. This is also true in boots as I am going to demostrate, and in general I would say that, given the choice, one should generally go for the earlier production.
I have put together three boots here. All of them are officer field boots in the pebbled leather finish.
This is a shot of the soles.

The boot on the left is the earliest produced. It is leather soled with traditional wooden pegs (the lighter coloured specks you can see on the sole). You can immediately recognise it in Ebay photographs because of its rather square toe. The parade version of this boot would have a half sole of leather rather than rubber. Wachregiment boots, even of later production, share the square toe, but also have metal cleats at the toe and heel.
The middle boot is of rather early production. I would say end of the 1960s - beginning of the 1970s. It can be recognised because of the pattern of the rubber sole which is rather thin. The toe is rather pointed.
The third boot is of late production (mostly 1980s). The toe is rounder and the pattern of the sole thicker.

[iannima]

The second photograph shows the uppers of the three boots:

Again the leftmost one is the earliest leather soled one.
The main point to note is that the middle one has a slicker, more elegant shape than the later one which has instead a rather boxier appearance. In most cases early production boots are characterised by a triple stitch at the point where the upper joins with the shaft of the boot. Later boots cut the corner with only a double stitch. The triple stitch is better because, once the boots is properly polished and maintained, water ingress is going to be much harder.

[iannima]

You might have been surprised at the fact that despite noting so many pointless details in my discussion, I have been so vague about the production years. The fact is that establishing the production year of earlier boots is actually quite difficult. Later ones have the usual letter code that is used on all other NVA items, so that is easy. But in general, the earliest date code I have ever come across is a B which translates into 1972. Earlier than that the markings are extremely cryptic. Here is a typical example:

The blue inked stamp seems to play the same role as the later letter code dates but I have no idea what it means and it basically is the same across many, many pairs of boots I have come across.
I do own a pair of officer parade boots which is dated this way: "NVA 62" as it would have been normal in the early 1960s for many other NVA items.
So tentatively, I would say that these cryptic markings apply to boots produced between the early to mid 1960s and the very early 1970s.
The size is also visible which should be interpreted this way: 27.5 = length in cm. of the inner sole; 7= width of the inner sole (7 is the most normal for this smallish size. 8 is indicative of a wider sole). I just thought I would add a remark on how eminently sensible and straightforward is this way of sizing compared to those numbers we all use (8, 8.5 and 42) which is unclear to what they refer.

[Ralph P]

Matteo - Thanks for starting this thread, because for sure I am a beginner when it comes to boots. I just grabbed a pair a boots that a STASI member wore and it is slightly different then your example. Mine has stamped marks on the inside and on the bottom of the boot.

Inside the boot markings: NVA 59 2; 30 68177 10; TKO II

Bottom of boot markings: 1868; 172; 30 6

[iannima]

If you have bothered to read this far, I know that many of you are going to think that I am completely mad ... and my friend Dave (Viktor) is undoubtedly going to say as much .
But these things amuse me...

[SCHUPO]

Iannima,

I look forward to an interesting discussion of boots. I can help you with the TKO markings. These stamps are from the Technisches Kontrollorgan. This was an early factory acceptance inspection section and indicate the item has passed inspection at the factory. It can be found on military, police, etc. uniforms, boots, accouterments, etc.

[3x3cut3d]

well im glad this has been posted..im now searching for parade boots
the question i would like to ask is this..im a size 9 uk,which is 43 euro size i think now when buying these boots do you buy a size bigger than your actual size?...the reason i ask is,i bought some west german boots along time ago..these were a size 9 (43) yet i nearly broke my ankles trying to get them on. once on they were ok,then it took me another 15 minutes to try and get them off

[iannima]

Thank you, Schupo,
that explains why it is always identical. The question remains then how one establishes the production year for these boots. Ralph's markings might mean 1959 although I would be interested to see the sole as they would be really early.
Here are the markings inside the boots you have just seen in my photographs:
Leather soled ones:
TGL 108-75473 27 1/2 7 7908 8
10 (on a separate line)
Rubber soled ones (with pointier toe)
27 1/2 7 7576 6
572 (on a separate line)
I don't know about you... but to me all this means nothing

[iannima]

the question i would like to ask is this..im a size 9 uk,which is 43 euro size i think now when buying these boots do you buy a size bigger than your actual size?...the reason i ask is,i bought some west german boots along time ago..these were a size 9 (43) yet i nearly broke my ankles trying to get them on. once on they were ok,then it took me another 15 minutes to try and get them off

Julian,
Bundeswehr boots are very stiff, made in much thicker leather and the way they are stitched is different, all of which makes taking them off harder. I have had the same problem as you had. I think you will find that NVA boots will be easier to get on/off.
Your size should be something like 28.5 but do bear in mind that a 28 or a 29 are also likely to fit as these boots stretch a bit when worn and a thicker sock/inner sole usually solves the problem if they are too big.
If you are at all serious about wearing the boots (I know, I know: I must be mad...), you should equip yourself with a boot jack such as this one:
http://www.derbyhouse.co.uk/ProductD...ryID=GentsBoot
The way they are used is this: you hook one boot in the U shape whilst you step with the other foot over the sloped part, and you pull...
In the old days an orderly would have helped the officer get his boots off, but the NVA was a socialist army... and these feudal rituals were dispensed with...

[Ralph P]

Here is a picture of the bottom soles as requested.

[Mike G.]

Matteo,

This is without question a very long overdue thread. Thank you for initiating it. Great idea.

I wonder if I might impose on you, and ask a request. When opportunity and time permits, would you mind posting photos depicting the differences between Enilisted and Officer Service Boots?

Also, it is my understanding that for the most part (Wachregiments and special special unique ceremonial details apart) Enlisted wore the service boot both in service and parade, just with a more heavy application of boot polish and brushing for the latter. True?

Thanks,

[iannima]

Matteo,
Also, it is my understanding that for the most part (Wachregiments and special special unique ceremonial details apart) Enlisted wore the service boot both in service and parade, just with a more heavy application of boot polish and brushing for the latter. True?

Thanks,

Michael,
Any excuse for taking my boots out of the cupboard is good enough for me!!!
I can answer your second question immediately and I know where you get it from: the Keubke Kunz book.
That is false. Wachregiment troops wore the smooth leather soled boots. It is obvious from the photographs that this is the case as any amount of polish applied to the pebbled leather ones, is never going to achieve that uniform mirror finish that is so obvious. Trust me: I have tried.. and I roughly go through two tins of polish per months! One can achieve a lot as any British Army serviceman who has had to polish a pair of ammo boots can tell us. But ammo boots are short ankle boots partially covered by canvas gaiters. A pebbled leather finish will always show on the much wider expanse of the shaft of a riding boot, and the light will shine differently on it.
This for me is the prime example of how the Keubke Kunz book should not be considered Gospel, much as it is all (or most of) that we have...

Ralph,
I would confirm then that your boots are dated 1959 as my 1962 boots have a similar pattern of wooden pegs along the edge of the sole.

[iannima]

As requested by Michael,
Here we have the sole of the EM (left) and Officer (right) field boots.

It should be borne in mind that there are some EM boots, -I have one pair- with the officer sole, especially in later years as I think they were just using whatever was available.
Both boots were produced in the 1980s.
Curiously enough the older boots that have survived, sometimes in mint conditions, are nearly always Officer ones. A rather odd pair of leather soled EM ones was shown on this forum a couple of months ago.

[iannima]

And here is a side view showing the main differences:
1) EM are much lower (32 cm. against 39-40 cm.). There is remarkably little variation in the height as the feet size increases, but these figures are for 27.5 boots.
2) EM are unlined
3) in EM ones the pull tabs are stitched with a square pattern, whereas officer ones have a single line of stiching showing on the outside of the shaft.

In German there is a difference in the way the two boots are referred to: the EM ones are known as Knobelbecher which literally is the tub in which dice are shaken before being cast. The short flared shaft is their main characteristic. They are as old as the German army. A similar version was used by victorious Prussian troops against the Austrains and their allies in 1866. The Officer ones are referred to as Schaftstiefel because of their slenderer, higher shaft.

[Mike G.]

Hi Matteo,

Thanks for posting the comparison photos showing the difference between EM and Officer Field Service Boots. Well done.

Regarding the other: Actually my prior post may have been misunderstood. If revisited, I upfront acknowledged the fact the different Wachregiments, both EM and Officer, wore the same boots. I know this from having lived in Berlin during the Cold War, and having witnessed it first hand.

I was thinking in terms of regular service soldiers, who also from time to time, had to participate in parades. My understanding (and not from the Keuebke book) is that the EMs of the normal units, wore Service boots that were highly polished.