The Crispin Colloquy

This is a bit of a rabbit-hole, as I discovered when I horribly confused one correspondent just last week. The Oxford English Dictionary has refs. to Wellington boots mighty early:
[1813 Morning Chron. 17 Nov. A young man..of a genteel appearance, although shabbily dressed in a blue coat, white waistcoat, military pantaloons, and Wellington half-boots.]
1815 Cobbett's Weekly Polit. Reg. 25 Feb. 247 The young gentleman, the farmer's son,..now sports his military-cut-upper-coat of superfine, lined with silk, his Wellington boots, his jemmy rattan, and his bit of blood.

Rees only discusses Hessians with side seams in 1813. And, these had the rear leg panels cut, then wet-formed on a block to get the reduction at the ankle, IOW a shaped leg with dead straight side seam (no draft). O'Sullivan (1834)--a shameless plagiarism of Rees--is the "first" work to show illustration of the straight back, drafted side seam we associate with the Wellington style. The 1824 'Art de la Chaussure' is not much help, but shows 2-piece Hessian, Prussian or Souwarrow, and Hussar, all side-seamed boots https://www.lalibrairie.com/livres/art- ... 21379.html This book, however, seems to be the "first" showing the full compliment of heated edge-irons and wheels for finishing, but I digress...

Style names are not used with precision universally, then or now, and mostly refer to cosmetic appearances, e.g. Hessians *usually* referred to knee-high side seamed boots, with top line cut in flamboyant curves, dips, and swooshes (see Rees' various pattern options). The Brits figured-out how to crimp the fronts without wrinkles (like the wrinkled Hussar boots). These often displayed top edge bindings (metallic braid) and decorative fringed silk tassels center front. These were worn over tight pantaloons (long breeches). Google Hessian boots.

The 2-piece boot style named after the Iron Duke (pre-dating the 4-piece "dress" version), were lower cut (mid calf), and plain without cumbersome tassels, to be worn under (or over) trousers. In the 1820s(?) (at least before O'Sullivan in 1834), the pattern and cut changed (in England and the US). The shaped, blocked backs, and straight side seams of the Hessian cut were abandoned in favor of straight-up-the-back leg shaping, and the necessary ankle reduction achieved by cutting a curved draft out of the side seam, either side, familiar to all you cowboy bootmakers. This diverging branch on the family tree of boot patterning had the Hessians staying with the blocked backs, non-drafted side seam look, but the Wellington going with the straighter back, more stovepipe leg shape, and drafted side seam at the ankle.

BTW, these are Wellington's Wellingtons:

The ones DW posted yesterday at 11:55 would be Wellington's Hessians IMO. Photo credit I chased said "maker unknown...Nat. Army Museum", but who knows.

Well, I urge you to correct me if I'm wrong but...

As mentioned above you told me at one point that Wellingtons were a side seamed pull on-boot, as contrasted with a Hession which, IIRC, you said was a back seamed pull-on boot.

From the photo, the boots I posted were side seamed boots.

And they are, apparently, two piece (or at least full front)

But FWIW, I see a separate vamp on the boots you posted...so they are not full wellingtons...as I understand the terminology.

Again school me...my information suggests that the boots Wellesley commissioned from George Hoby at the end of the war (or at least the ones Hoby made for him) were two piece side seamed boots--full Wellingtons, if I understand correctly. That Wellesley had Hessian boots made before, or even after, Waterloo or wellington boots treed with Hessian trees seems reasonable.

The photo I posted came from a search for "Wellington boots made by George Hoby" and reportedly came from www.english-heritage.org.uk. There are a number of photos of this pair of boots on the 'net (from different angles) but all are associated with Wellesley and Hoby.

[shrug] I dunno...

Listening more than talking here, but...

DW, since these are ascribed to Maker Unknown, could it be that they are inaccurately labeled, and made by someone making another choice for assemble?

I dunno either...

Well, they weren't ascribed to "maker unknown" in the search I did. And as i said, some variation of these pair of boots come up repeatedly when a search association is made between Hoby and Wellesley.

And @das I missed your post #801 above. When I followed the notification I got from this topic, I ended up at #802.
Your post 801 makes sense (and I never doubted that the boots at gettyimages actually belonged to Wellesley) although it contradicts what I remember you telling me about the differences between wellingtons and hessians (namely the presence or absence of a side seam). Which only goes to show that esp. at a certain age, memory doesn't serve.

[Parenthetically, I just ran across a study that claims that the first memories of 40% of the population are false or imagined. FWIW...]

Had I seen #801 I would have been well and truly "schooled." My apologies.

DW,

It'll only make matters worse, but yes you're right, there are back seamed Hessians with vamps and let-in tongues like top boots off the HMS DeBraak, which sank in 1798. But, they only muddy the waters of the genesis of the true Hessian-Wellington cut (side seamed) if we start with Rees and the surviving side seamed boots to play connect the dots.

Speaking of memory, I had a quick glace at O'Sullivan's plates--not his text--but I only saw blocked backs and ramrod straight side seams. So, we might have to look to Devlin, 1839 for drafted ankles? Storms are brewing here, so off goes the computer until tomorrow.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Paul, seems like that was a might confusing to me, and not much to do with your original question about linings and stiffeners and counters. Don't think I've ever seen a fully lined 2-piece Wellington from the 1800s, and no 4-piece ones lined like cowboy boots until cowboy boots. The English dress Wellingtons in the 1800s, the rear leg extends all the way down, the counter's stabbed on top with the stiffener inserted in between, so kind of a "pocket" job I guess.

Another wrinkle the Hessian-Wellington story: in the US "Hessian" was nothing to name a boot (think the German mercs in the Revolutionary War), so apparently we had Suwarrow boots, named after Gen. Suvorov (d.1800). There's an 1810 NY patent for crimping Suwarrows, so they were apparently side seamed and whole front by then. In the charming but "use with (much) caution" 'The Book of Feet' by Joseph Sparks Hall (US edition 1847--downloadable on-line) we are told: "The Hessian or half-boot was made with a seam in the back [NB a la the HMS DeBraak examples from 1798], and was worn over pantaloons fastened around the ankle with ribands or galloons. After a few years, it gave way to the Suwarrow boot, so named after Suwarroff [sic], a Russian general, celebrated for his campaigns in Turkey, Poland, Italy, &c. He died in 1800; soon after which time the Suwarrow boot was introduced into England and the United States. This boot was worn by citizens, as well as in the army and navy; it was made with a seam at each{143} side, and reached nearly to the knee. In front it was scolloped, and ornamented with a black silk tassel. Sometimes gold tassels were worn by military and naval officers in full dress. We recollect having seen Commodore Decatur, while his ship, the United States, lay in the river Thames, in Connecticut, during the war of 1812, wear a pair of elegant Suwarrow boots, with gold tassels, on an occasion of his being invited to a dinner party in Norwich.

The Suwarrow boot continued in fashion for about fifteen years, when, after the battle of Waterloo, it was superseded by the Wellington boot, which it is well known was named after the duke of Wellington. This boot seems to have settled the laws of fashion respecting the feet, as decisively as the battle of Waterloo settled the affairs of Europe."

Curious, since the OED cites refs. to the term Wellington boot in 1810 and Feb. 1815--Waterloo was not fought until June '15.

Thank you for the acknowledgment, Al.
It was a bit confusing. But then I know that you and DW have a long history of communicating at a different level than most of us here. No problemo. I was gleaning what I could, including a new boot name and new vocabulary words! Suvorov/Suwarrow, ribands and galloons!

Thank you also for your observations about never seeing " fully lined 2-piece Wellington from the 1800s, and no 4-piece ones lined like cowboy boots until cowboy boots". Could that possibly include the "stitched-in" or "hard counter"?

Also, your use of the term "stabbed" is new to me, and quite clear relative to the stiffener or pocket counter set up. I have seen pictures of boots so "stabbed", and now I know a little more about that. It also helps me to be aware of the possible the progression of construction elements such even heel slides in the development of CB boots.

I'm finding it very fascinating that it appears there was no definite timeline, or progression really, of construction elements in the "history of the cowboy boot".
It's as if, except possibly for the "hard counter", most all the construction techniques were already out there. It would appear it was just necessity that brought them together to be what it is. Come to think of it, heel slides are also possibly unique to the form and function.

Your follow up post is very interesting! I'm surprised I had never heard of Gen. Suvorov. Then again, it is. (Tyler Beard must not have either)
So thank you very much for that reference to the Suwarrow Boot.
Could it be that Billy the Kid is actually wearing Suwarrows and not Hessians?

That last quandary IS curious! What's up with that?! A historical contradiction!

Paul,

Glad to provide food for thought anyway. Historically-speaking, no, I've only see the hard sole leather stiffeners, stitched-in, in cowboy boots. In British, and Eastern US, the "counter" is the exterior piece that shows outside, the "stiffener" is the thing behind it that makes things hard and maintains shape. "Stabbing"/"stabbed" is the old hand-closing term for going straight through with a straight awl, like a sewing machine needle does. When Devlin made his "shamrock tongue", 64-per inch, etc., he "stabbed" it.

Heel slides in cowboy boots require a full lining to stitch them too, otherwise the stitching would show on the outside of the boot leg.... Another thing, there was a strong German-speaking immigrant influence out there, especially in Texas in the late 1800s. "Shaft" is just German for what is called in English the boot leg.

It would be great if somebody could untangle the mares' nest of myth and lore on the evolution of the cowboy boot. How it went from the Civil War Army surplus waxed calf Wellington boots with square toes, to full-on "Tom Mix"? I see a lot of cosmetic elements in common with Easter European (Czech bootmakers in Texas?): colorfully embroidered uppers, high heels, flamboyantly cut top lines, etc.

Billy the Kid might have just called his, "fancy boots", and you bet, history is fully of contradictions to sort out, which is why it's detective--work and the best history is always written in pencil LOL. Other "problem" is, 19thc authors like Joseph Sparkes Hall can be pretty trustworthy when they are writing about their own lifetimes (and regions), but when they wander back in time and start quoting things without footnotes, "buyer beware", the stories often fall apart PDQ. Old J.S. Hall ought best be remembered more for inventing spring-sided boots https://collection.maas.museum/object/141906 than writing books on the history of shoes since antiquity (and who the strident editor of the US edition was, I have no idea).

Al,

I was beginning to suspect as much about stitched in counters, Spurs would have called for it too I suppose! And I suppose further the obvious end would be back panel liners with heel slides, especially as critique poured in about drooping boots and saddle rub wear. Additionally, I figure as throats tightened up, the wear of the foot at entry and exit would require some attention to prevent excess wear in the pass area.

Of course, we've heard and read that makers utilized their sewing machines to stiffen the tops. It would be cool to know who and when but I'm sure one followed the other. Maybe we're just left to come to our own conclusions based on what we know.

And I'm also thinkin' the commonality of elements is a natural result of the melting pot as the ingredients were added, making it all a uniquely American stew!

Paul,

Enjoying our chat BTW. Gotta be careful of "correlation is not causation" Europeans rode, spurred, in un-lined boots in the Middle ages, and un-lined supple boots of elasticated (via currying) "draw leather" that fit like stockings (tighter than tight throats, as below) as late as the 18thc , with a bit of a stiffener though.

It's a grand game of connect-the-dots, a lot to ponder always.

(Sir James Murray-Pultney & Sir John Murray, by John T. Seton(?), c.1788-94, Nat. Galleries of Scotland)

And a few hundred years earlier (c. 1475, Book of Hours, Poitiers, France http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/19/76937):

Point well taken, Al.
I enjoyed it as well.
Thank you,
Paul

What was the secret to keeping their boot-stockings up?
Didn't they somehow get tied onto their hose or pants?

Their boots, or their stockings (hose)?

Boots (18thc) often had separate boot garters, worn sometimes hidden inside, others that went up over the knee cap, fastened to the boot at the back via a loop sewn inside. Less frequently a small leather tab that buttoned onto the knee breeches buttons at the outside of the knee. Stockings/hose were held up by the breeches' "garter", or knee band, buckled snugly below the knee cap. Medieval? I have no ideas, sorry.

If you Google "18th century boot garters", Pintrest links #1 (Tudor period), and #3 (1770), show different boot garters, #3 the over-the-knee ones.

Thank you so much, you are the best!

I knew you would know, and what you have written makes perfect sense. While searching for what I thought I vaguely remembered from looking at patterns for elizabethan clothing and info on repro stockings, I found this googled info on medieval men's stockings and pants.

https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/ ... ns-hosiery

You're welcome--glad to be of help. I think there's "better" stuff on the subject on-line. At least Pintrest had actual period images, portraits, etc. of boot garters, but I kept getting a pop-up that froze up the page, so couldn't save or link to the good ones. Must have to subscribe now?

I found this online:

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/c ... 5&partId=1

under this search:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/c ... +shoemaker

And you found a gem! Boot with over-the-knee garter is cool, but look at that early "Hussar" (Hessianish) boot with side seams plus separate vamp. Surely the "1800" at top, or "1804" penned in the lower corner, is a better date than the "1840" lower down. I'm sure Northampton Central Museum has Hill in its index of UK shoe and bootmakers, if you want to find his dates working at that address.

das,

Are you familiar with this illustration from another source? Or the maker and when he would have been working? When i click on this rendering, the picture gets larger of course. But for the life of me I can't see "1800" at the top...I see 1864. Just an anomaly, I guess...seems like by 1864 these styles would be all but forgotten.

Yeah, Sharon!

That collection is interesting! I got lost down a "rabbit hole" for about an hour that included looking at clasps!

The more I look at historical boots, I'm coming to realize that while the Western Boot had its own story, the patterns existed long before.

Paul