Discussion on Luft DAK low boots

[John Hodgin]

Did you ever had a pair like the 2nd in hand? The leather is so thin, it almost felt like paper. Woudnt last long.

As you know my pair are like these and as you also know I consider them, as well as the first pair Harry shows, original. Zero doubts in my mind or heart on both pairs.

[Harry]

Thanks to all for your input, I really appreciate it.

@ Jos: yes, a very large size for WWII - possibly why they were never issued. I think Gerard's pair are also the same size and are mint/unissued also.

I have a pair of mint/unissued flight boots in an even bigger size (32.5) dated 5 - 43, here is an image of the label

I guess bigger sizes, though made, were not needed as much and many sat in stores.

[Harry]

[Though this leather was used by the Luftwaffe, I suspect these are Heer contract (due to the eyelet arrangement and greenish canvas) though I am not certain of this.[/QUOTE]

The canvas colour appears tropical tan to me, not green. The problem with much of the tropical gear that was actually used/worn, is that it has faded/sun-bleached quite a lot, often to almost white. The canvas of these unused boots has retained its strong colour IMO

[jasan]

Hi gents,
I have read carefully whole discussion but something makes me little bit nervous. As I don´t consider myself to be expert to judge items if orginal or not. So I will comment what I can see and what is let say obvious. You discussed the second pair all the time and stated the first one as a Ok. I believe that you are right but actually it is not pair but two single shoes from different pairs! Regarding the second pair I can confirm that this pair looks like shoes produced according regulations for "Heer" .
mfG
jasan

[Jos L C]

I think that the 1st pair is a matching pair, there might be different color leather inside, but when you look at the soles you can see that the heel parts are pieced together like a puzzle, meaning that all rest parts were used and both shoes are the same construction..
There even are matching pairs in 2 different sizes, not everybody's feet are textbook.

Jos.

[jasan]

I don't think so. Matching means the same but those shoes are not same. According production manual left and right shoe were produce together to make pair. Other thing is if soldier had a chance to change with someone one of shoes for more suitable size. And this first "pair" consists of shoes of two different sizes. So it could not be called matching pair from my point of view. It is like a pair of shoes where left shoe is made by different producer than right.

[Harry]

I noticed that the first 'pair' shown have different dates of manufacture - one dated May '41, the other June '41. They also have different colours to the leather trim on the inside of the ankle... but they may well have been worn as a pair,

[Gran Sasso]

What about that missing detail?

[OSS]

What about that missing detail?

That small piece of leather is typically seen on LW boots. While I continue to believe these boots to be original, I suspect they are Heer contract and made to Heer specifications (notice the hooks for the laces instead of the eyelets typical on LW contract).

[Gran Sasso]

That small piece of leather is typically seen on LW boots. While I continue to believe these boots to be original, I suspect they are Heer contract and made to Heer specifications (notice the hooks for the laces instead of the eyelets typical on LW contract).

However you turn it, something is wrong:

- either its LW-boots, than its missing the little tongue

- or its Heer boots, than the thin leather typical for LW-boots does not match

[Gustav 43]

I had the second pair - the discussed pair of the tropical boots, in hands while inspecting the items at HH auction,I must say I did not like them...the missing piece of leather ,the strange shape of the front part and very thin leather were the main issues for me...just IMO of course
But,we are learing every day and this forum is a good place to exchange opinions and discuss such "questionable "items"
Gustav

[jasan]

I noticed that the first 'pair' shown have different dates of manufacture - one dated May '41, the other June '41. They also have different colours to the leather trim on the inside of the ankle... but they may well have been worn as a pair,

Oh, now I see where is the problem to understand what is matching or not. You and probably others don´t know correct meaning of each stamp. Not only the first one represents size of shoe. The second stamp doesn´t say month of production but represents sizemark of width. That means shoes are different and not matching pair.

[jasan]

I had the second pair - the discussed pair of the tropical boots, in hands while inspecting the items at HH auction,I must say I did not like them...the missing piece of leather ,the strange shape of the front part and very thin leather were the main issues for me...just IMO of course
But,we are learing every day and this forum is a good place to exchange opinions and discuss such "questionable "items"
Gustav

Hi Gustav,
regarding shape of shoes I would not be so strict. From company's archiv of certain shoes manufacturer I was able to dug out internal discussion regarding shape of this tropical low shoes - they were not able to keep same shape as others...
mfG
jasan

[Hptm. Fuhrmann]

Oh, now I see where is the problem to understand what is matching or not. You and probably others don´t know correct meaning of each stamp. Not only the first one represents size of shoe. The second stamp doesn´t say month of production but represents sizemark of width. That means shoes are different and not matching pair.

True, first part of the stamp stated the 'Schuhzeuglänge' (footwear-length), second part the 'Schuhzeugweite' (footwear-width). So the pair is indeed mismatched with one shoe being wider than the other.

[Jos L C]

Regardless these differences I would vote that it is a matching pair, so to speak.., look how the soles are made, this isn't the standard and try to find a left and right shoe in same unworn condition and the special way the soles are made .., think it's harder than winning the lottery.

Sometimes large size was useful..

Jos.