Are Boots Shoes?

[mensimageconsultant]

Do you consider boots to be shoes? Some written sources say yes and some say no. It is rather annoying to have to differentiate between the two when giving footwear advice. On this topic, opinions of footwear professionals count more.

 

[Blackhood]

You're a cretin.

 

[gsgleason]

No it's not.

Is this a joke?

 

[mensimageconsultant]

Well, at least that was an answer. Some people do say boots are shoes. It would be simpler re discussion if everyone considered the two types distinct. Terminology is an issue for navigating retail sites, by the way, re boots, socks, etc. - their location depends on what a retailer deems them. Anyway, it's just an attempt at a topic that isn't the usual tired stuff and hoping a footwear professional would opine.

 

[gsgleason]

When I am uncertain I generally consult the dictionary, specifically the oxford dictionary.

The difference seems to be whether or not if covers the ankle.

Shoe: A covering for the foot, typically made of leather, with a sturdy sole and not reaching above the ankle.

Boot: A sturdy item of footwear covering the foot, the ankle, and sometimes the leg below the knee.

 

[wojt]

in my language there's no distinction

 

[mensimageconsultant]

Thanks, interesting. What language is that?

The Oxford Dictionary carries more weight than some sources, but it's not a fashion dictionary. Obviously boots aren't the same as shoes - the issue is whether they're a subset of shoes. It's like a murkier version of pants vs. jeans, though probably everyone would agree that the latter is a special form of the former.

 

[JLibourel]

This is actually kind of an interesting question. I know the U.S. Army used to designate its ankle-high lace-ups as "shoes." They even applied this designation to some footgear that was higher than ankle-level.

When I was a youngster--this would be back in the 1950s--it was common to refer to ankle-high "work shoes." These days, I believe "work boots" is the more common, if not universal, appellation.

On the other hand, chukka boots and their subset, desert boots, have always been called "boots" for as long as I can remember (from the mid-50s), even though they usually do not even cover the ankles.

My mother would refer to "high-button shoes" whereas in forum discussions, they are usually called "button boots."

What L.L. Bean used to call their "Maine Hunting Shoes" are now sold as "Bean Boots."

So, at least in American English, the distinction does seem murky. It would appear that, in American usage anyway, anything over ankle height is now called a "boot."

I'm not a "footwear professional," but I hope this of some help and interest.

 

[wojt]

Thanks, interesting. What language is that?

The Oxford Dictionary carries more weight than some sources, but it's not a fashion dictionary. Obviously boots aren't the same as shoes - the issue is whether they're a subset of shoes. It's like a murkier version of pants vs. jeans, though probably everyone would agree that the latter is a special form of the former.

Polish,there's only buty, which sounds more like boots probably taken from other language. Buty can mean anything from cowboys boots to loafers. So apparently you can live without the distinction.

 

[mensimageconsultant]



This is actually kind of an interesting question. I know the U.S. Army used to designate its ankle-high lace-ups as "shoes." They even applied this designation to some footgear that was higher than ankle-level.

When I was a youngster--this would be back in the 1950s--it was common to refer to ankle-high "work shoes." These days, I believe "work boots" is the more common, if not universal, appellation.

On the other hand, chukka boots and their subset, desert boots, have always been called "boots" for as long as I can remember (from the mid-50s), even though they usually do not even cover the ankles.

My mother would refer to "high-button shoes" whereas in forum discussions, they are usually called "button boots."

What L.L. Bean used to call their "Maine Hunting Shoes" are now sold as "Bean Boots."

So, at least in American English, the distinction does seem murky. It would appear that, in American usage anyway, anything over ankle height is now called a "boot."

I'm not a "footwear professional," but I hope this of some help and interest.

It was. The people liked it. To present an educated guess, "work shoes" might have evolved into "work boots" in part from government regulations that probably require "boots." Possibly the same manufacturer was making for both industrial workplaces and the army and decided to start calling everything ankle-high "boots." Meanwhile, history pages suggest desert boots evolved from custom-made footwear designed to replace soldiers' footwear that they probably called already "boots" (or a non-English word for that).

 

[DWFII]

At one point in time, from what I understand...at least among makers...the distinction was nearly irrelevant. Shoe making was divided among womens' work and men's work. And among "men's makers" the only distinction was between low-quarters and longwork. The shoemaker was expected to do long work (boots) as well as shoes. Many old line shoemaking firms still call themselves "bootmakers," despite a readily apparent focus on low quarter shoes. Anthony Delos presented himself as a 'bottier" when he was working for himself.

Today some styles of boots are patterned quite independently of the way that shoes are patterned. No mean formes, for example. if you make a distinction in the way boots and shoes are conceived and begin life...all footwear that derive their patterns directly from the last are shoes no matter how high the tops. The tops are just extensions of the shoe and you can often see that in the shape of the vamps and quarters.

Of course, on another level all boots and shoes are the same critter esp. at the bespoke level--simply not enough, in terms of construction and materials, to make a realistic distinction. Just more leather.

--

 

[RogerP]

I have always - and perhaps arbitrarily - viewed below the ankle footwear as shoes, and that which rises to and above the ankles as boots. Yet while I refer to Chukkas as boots I really think of them and wear them as I would do shoes.

It's an interesting point (and cool post JLibourel) but I'm not sure I can think of a circumstance where the distinction really matters.

 

[PCK1]

I think it depends on the type of boot...

I would consider a dressy balmoral boot such as a G&G Canterbury to fall into the category of acceptable as a "shoe"

I would consider a heavier derby boot such as the C&J SKYE2 as a boot that cannot fall into the "shoe" category.


If you want to define a shoe as that which falls below the ankle...and a boot as that which rises above the ankle...then its pretty clear cut.

But if you open it up to styles and how they are worn etc...it obviously becomes a very subjective matter.

 

[mensimageconsultant]

How about a vague guideline that weight distinguishes shoes from "pure boots" (those that can't substitute for shoes in general circumstances)? (That would classify even dressy riding boots as "pure boots," which probably is how most people view them.)

@DWFII Your opinion was specifically wanted. Thank you. For the record, could you explain "mean formes"?

 

[DWFII]



@DWFII Your opinion was specifically wanted. Thank you. For the record, could you explain "mean formes"?

The mean forme is an average of shapes taken from the medial side of the last and the the lateral side of the last. Although a formes can be generated in any number of ways, they are, theoretically, as close as you can get to a direct topographical representation/lift of the surface area and shape of the last...except flat.

Formes are used to generate patterns, for shoes, directly from the last. Boots...as I have made them for forty plus years...don't necessarily require direct patterning from the last.