Posts
Picture from Robert Land Historic Shoes http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=13 I have noticed more of our soldiers wearing “High-low” boots at events. While these are interesting reproductions, they are generally not correct footwear for Continental infantry. We don’t want any new pairs worn at events, and will decide how to handle the existing pairs already purchased by members. (That’s a matter for the board.)
I asked Al Saguto, the Master Cordwainer (shoemaker) at Colonial Williamsburg, and former 1 VA member, to give me his opinion on these. Al is one of the foremost experts on colonial era footwear and lectures here and abroad on the subject. His beautiful coffee-table book on 18th c. footwear, "Art of the Shoemaker," was recently published by Colonial Williamsburg. Here are some of his comments.
“High-lows” (called “shoe boots” and “half boots”) of the one (iffy) pattern that Land and Fugawee make are indeed greatly over-done by reenactors -- low shoes should always dominate.
In 18th c. period images, High-lows (a 19th c. British term not documented in colonial America) are seen on grooms exercising horses, gentlemen bird hunting, Queens Rangers and Hussars, and even satirical cartoons of women doing "male" sports.
The documentary record is a little more helpful. In Virginia, “shoe boots” and “half boots” can be found mentioned in runaway ads (slaves and apprentices), probate inventories, etc. In the Virginia Public Store Records research report at Colonial Williamsburg there is an item listing them as uniform issue footwear for the Virginia dragoons in 1775 –‘76, in lieu of the more expensive top boots for riding. Evidence suggests that “shoe boots” cost about two to three times more than common shoes, so while not a luxury item, they were more costly.
Regarding archaeology, so far known there's only one surviving child’s High-low in North America from a 1760s-70s site in New York City [Colonial Williamsburg owns this -- see 'Art of the Shoemaker’], as opposed to 4,500+ surviving low shoes. In addition, there is one circa 1773+ High-Low from a farm in the UK, one woman's circa 1780-5 in the UK, another similar woman's High-Low in Germany, plus a man's "costume" fancy-dress one in buff leather circa 1730.
So, there are not many surviving High-Lows. The current repros are too loose fitting in the legs to be very convincing, and the machine stitching down the facings of the Land's, in imitation of hand whip-stitching, (which should not be visible) is not well done.
To summarize Al’s comments, High-lows were made for special use, and cost several times more than shoes. This fact alone tells us that these would not have been made for infantry soldiers. The fact that at least some High-lows were made for dragoons because they were cheaper than regular riding boots supports the idea that cost was an over-riding factor when it came to soldier’s footwear.
While Al points out that High-lows were not unknown in America, the fact that only one High-low has been found, compared to thousands of shoes, seems to be a good indication that they were not very common among the general population, much less the Army. It’s certainly possible that “gentleman” officers might have owned these, but among the “common class” that made up the bulk of the Army High-lows would have been much less common. The exception among the lower class seems to be those who worked around horses.
I think High-lows are similar to some of the civilian clothing that many of us own. You generally wouldn’t think about wearing your fancy silk frock coat to one of our military events and High-lows fall into that civilian category. If you own a pair, and love to wear them, try wearing half-gaiters to cover them up. If you have problems with your feet, let’s discuss it – we want everyone to be able to participate.
I asked Al Saguto, the Master Cordwainer (shoemaker) at Colonial Williamsburg, and former 1 VA member, to give me his opinion on these. Al is one of the foremost experts on colonial era footwear and lectures here and abroad on the subject. His beautiful coffee-table book on 18th c. footwear, "Art of the Shoemaker," was recently published by Colonial Williamsburg. Here are some of his comments.
“High-lows” (called “shoe boots” and “half boots”) of the one (iffy) pattern that Land and Fugawee make are indeed greatly over-done by reenactors -- low shoes should always dominate.
In 18th c. period images, High-lows (a 19th c. British term not documented in colonial America) are seen on grooms exercising horses, gentlemen bird hunting, Queens Rangers and Hussars, and even satirical cartoons of women doing "male" sports.
The documentary record is a little more helpful. In Virginia, “shoe boots” and “half boots” can be found mentioned in runaway ads (slaves and apprentices), probate inventories, etc. In the Virginia Public Store Records research report at Colonial Williamsburg there is an item listing them as uniform issue footwear for the Virginia dragoons in 1775 –‘76, in lieu of the more expensive top boots for riding. Evidence suggests that “shoe boots” cost about two to three times more than common shoes, so while not a luxury item, they were more costly.
Regarding archaeology, so far known there's only one surviving child’s High-low in North America from a 1760s-70s site in New York City [Colonial Williamsburg owns this -- see 'Art of the Shoemaker’], as opposed to 4,500+ surviving low shoes. In addition, there is one circa 1773+ High-Low from a farm in the UK, one woman's circa 1780-5 in the UK, another similar woman's High-Low in Germany, plus a man's "costume" fancy-dress one in buff leather circa 1730.
So, there are not many surviving High-Lows. The current repros are too loose fitting in the legs to be very convincing, and the machine stitching down the facings of the Land's, in imitation of hand whip-stitching, (which should not be visible) is not well done.
To summarize Al’s comments, High-lows were made for special use, and cost several times more than shoes. This fact alone tells us that these would not have been made for infantry soldiers. The fact that at least some High-lows were made for dragoons because they were cheaper than regular riding boots supports the idea that cost was an over-riding factor when it came to soldier’s footwear.
While Al points out that High-lows were not unknown in America, the fact that only one High-low has been found, compared to thousands of shoes, seems to be a good indication that they were not very common among the general population, much less the Army. It’s certainly possible that “gentleman” officers might have owned these, but among the “common class” that made up the bulk of the Army High-lows would have been much less common. The exception among the lower class seems to be those who worked around horses.
I think High-lows are similar to some of the civilian clothing that many of us own. You generally wouldn’t think about wearing your fancy silk frock coat to one of our military events and High-lows fall into that civilian category. If you own a pair, and love to wear them, try wearing half-gaiters to cover them up. If you have problems with your feet, let’s discuss it – we want everyone to be able to participate.
1 comment:
I came across your site while doing searches for authentic picturs of Revolutionary War uniforms. I was recently told the story of an ancestor who was in the Continental Army, but deserted; I decided to put on hold the book I'm writing to get an outline done on a story based on this ancestor. Since I have almost no facts, most of what I'm writing will be based on what I can learn about that period ... and intuition. I'd really (really) appreciate it if you or someone you can refer me to could be someone I could pester with those many questions such as ... did the soldiers purchase their own uniforms? Were they issued rifles, had to bring their own or both? What did it most likely look like at Valley Forge (rows of tents with mud when the snow melted)? I've many more! I'm not trying to be historicaly perfect but I also want the authanticity that facts as to how it was will bring to the story. You can reach me at suzibikerbabe@hotmail.com, even to say 'no thanks' ...thank you.
Post a Comment