Late-war brogans...

[WoodenNutmeg]

Opinions on late-war issue brogans in comparison to early/mid-war issue?

http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/catalog/5eyeletbrogan-1.jpg

[reb4lee]

HMM never seen those type's of brogan's. where'd you get them?

[WoodenNutmeg]

Haven't been purchased. But you can get them, from here...

http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Categories?category=1861-65+men%27s+shoes+and+bootees%3Amilitary

[reb4lee]

Well if there from robert land then they must e a good shoe.

[jurgitemvaletem]

They are Robert Land's late war 5 eyelet pegged brogans.

http://www.robertlandhistoricshoes.com/servlet/Detail?no=30


The biggest difference, as stated in the name, are the brass eyelets in the lace holes and the pegged soles instead of the sewn soles.

[WoodenNutmeg]

They look dynamite, regardless.

[redleggeddevil]

By sheer coincidence, I ordered a pair of these at the beginning of this month. I know that Mr. Land only ships twice a month, but I expect to have mine by Labor Day.

I will post my findings when they arrive.

[WoodenNutmeg]

By all means, please do.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"Opinions on late-war issue brogans in comparison to early/mid-war issue?"

Not sure what you are asking, exactly?

The Triad of:

1. Period raw materials
2. Period paterns, models, or forms
3. Perior methods of construction or manufacture?

Or..

1. Modern cost comparison
2. Fit, comfort level
3. Durability, longevity?

Or..

Or more historical discussions of Mental Pictures as to whether it is Historically Accurate to wear "late War" items for "early War impressions..
along the lines of is a M1864 Springfield Rifle-Musket or M1865 Spencer Carbine "good" for 1861 or 1862 impressions or events??

;-) :-) :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Ephraim_Zook]

I'm going to throw out this observation: It has long been a tenet of the hobby that you can use early (earlier) war equipage for a later war impression or event, but the converse is obviously not true. You shouldn't be using 1864 gear at Antietam, for example.

Shoes, I think, pose a problem of their own. Shoes wore out so fast that it is highly unlikely that shoes manufactured in 1862 would still be wearable in 1864, unless you squirreled them away in a trunk somewhere or a QM warehouse had mislaid a stock of them early on, then found and issued them two years later.

On this one I'm going to suggest that your wallet dictates the stuff you acquire. If you can afford several pairs, then buy early, late, whatever. (Of course you have to break all these shoes in. :-) ) If your resources are limited, buy one good pair and live with it.

[TimKindred]

Comrade,

Well, here again, we have a "late war" vs "early war" nomenclature that is not entirely accurate.

The use of metal eyelets for shoes is known well before our period. Shoes recovered from the remains of USS Cairo, for example, have brass eyelets, and many of the surviving examples are low-quarter, what we might refer to as "civilian" shoes. The Oxford type shoe was quite common in our period, if not THE most common style, outside of the military-issue shoe.

I'll have to enquire of Robert what his criteria are that make these a "late-war" shoe. Perhaps it is the result of a contract or change in government requirements and/or patterns. I do not know.

However, if you are looking for a reason to wear shoes with metal eyelets, then by all means wear them at pretty much any time of the war. Letters from soldiers to home are replete with requests for boots, shoes, slippers, etc, especially in winter quarters and/or garrisons. Having these to replace worn out military shoes is certainly possible.

Wearing these later in a campaign might be more problematic. If your unit spent any time in a town, it's possible you might have pirchased/stolen/bartered for a pair of civilian shoes, boots, etc, if your issue ones were worn out.

However, if the quartermaster is anywhere close with his reserves, iy would be easier and cheaper to draw a new pair of issue bootees, etc, if yours were badly worn, unserviceable, etc.

But, having said all this, finding a pair of shoes with metal eyelets would not be nearly as rare as some might postulate.

Respects,

[DukeRPSC]

Brass eyelets on shoes of this period are quite common and by no means rare. A look at contemporary civilian photos will confirm this assertion. Why the Army continued to contract for shoes without the brass eyelet reinforcements ( other than the obvious and probably miniscule cost savings and simple hide-bound conservatism ) is unknown. Workmen of the period had to buy their own shoes, so they'd probably spring the extra few cents if eyelets were available from their vendor and they could afford it. Comrade Kindred's observations and concerns are well-founded, however; just how does one justify this particular shoe as opposed to the greater run of the mill bootee absent some QM document indicating the shoe was particular to your unit...and then for a specific time slot and event?

I know the generic approach has been argued time and again, but when you are portraying the average, common, everyday soldier in the field, how do you rationalize or justify the odd, the exceptional or the uncommon? "Momma sent it to me?" "I got it off a dead Fed/CS cavalrymen who happened to have this kind of shoe and in exactly my size?" "Aliens made a UPS delivery so I could have a special shoe different from all my messmates?" "These shoes came attached to a meteorite that landed in my tent?"

Believe you me, I have made all these excuses and methods of presentation at various events, living histories, state and national parks and there are only so many visitors that will buy this line. Still....some do and I relish the resulting credulity when I pass off my Mary Lincoln Rifles impression. The bonnets, Zouave rifles and striped pantaloons are so rive gauche.

David Culberson
Green Patent Leather Miner Boots Mess (& Mounted Zouave Partisans )
Lexington, SC

[tmattimore]

From the grave at Glorietta pass came a pair of welt construction sewn sole federal brogans with brass eyelets . Were they around to be worn? Yes, were they common? who knows? Eyelets were invented in 1843. I do know that Robert would not make up a pattern out of thin air.
Tom

[TimKindred]

Tom,

I agree with you, and I am not in anyway inferring that Mr. Land's work is based on anything other than serious research. I own shoes from you and him, and have enjoyed both immensely.

My curiosity is simply upon what research he reconstructed the "late war" brogan. I've sent him a letter regarding that, purely to satisfy my own interests, since I am ignorant of that particular style.

Respects,

[WoodenNutmeg]

Results? Reviews? Feedback?

Bryan O'Keefe, Esquire

[Picket Post]

I think overall they look decent, but the heel looks way to large (this is an issue with most shoe vendors). Perhaps the makers of the shoes with the large heels have seen originals with large heels. I can not find any originals with the extra tall and wide heels.

Another problem with reproduction shoes is that the sole of the shoe is too wide. On the originals that I have seen, the top of the shoe where it meets the sole is wider than the sole itself.

Just my 2 cents. With this said, I think Land and Serio make the best shoes available today.

[tmattimore]

After 17 years of making and with about 6000 pair of shoes to my name I would like to dispell a reenactorism.
When you look at an original brogan you will assume that it was made wider then the sole. This is not the case. Many have stated this in error. Realize that there is to my knowledge no shoes made 140 years ago that are still on the makers last. When the shoe is on the last and is made it assumes the shape of the last and the sole is then attached. After wearing it in adverse conditions the upper stretches and sags over the edges of the soles. I have original 1917 dated shoes that are unissued and the leather has sagged over the edge of the welt from just sitting around, If I ever see one of my shoes 140 years from now I will expect to be as sagy and droopy as I will be at that time. Also take in to consideration that at least half of the shoes I have made are for people with E, EE and wider width and many with flat feet. Saying that a shoe made for a modern foot should be in exactly the same proportions as a 140 year old shoe is like saying that vendors should not make size 48 jackets.
I also have an original last that has a very round bottom heel and is made for a 3/4 inch heel height.
On another note at least half of the shoes purchased during the war were sewn soled. Thus the appelation "gunboats" as these were much wider then most people wore, as they were used to the shape of pegged shoes.
I have an unworn boot in the collection that is very narrow waisted but it has been kept stuffed with paper since 1920 at least. It does not extend over the sole except at the shank area.
I also have a pair of die cut soles for a straight last style that are narrow waisted but quite wide in the forepart They are about a womens size 5 in length but even on a 5 d would need to be trimmed in the fore part to fit the shoe.