Jump to content

USMC Footwear WW2 to early Vietnam


craig_pickrall
 Share

Recommended Posts

I only found 3 exceptions to this "rule of soles" ... but what is very interesting is that I found only one contractor for every sole, Panco.

 

The first exception is a very big sized pair, Endicott's contract of June 17, 1943. The sole is smooth, but the heel is exactly the same as the standard Endicott's pattern. Here's the comparison :

post-17306-1307202537.jpg

post-17306-1307202549.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two other exceptions I found were postwar contracts, 1947 and 1948.

 

The sole patterns are not so different, but not completely similar because they were used by two different contractors, International and Herman.

 

Just note that the stitching is also somewhat different.

post-17306-1307202959.jpg

post-17306-1307202970.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My last observation is that the earliest bonndockers had brass eyelets, whereas from 1942 to the end, they had steel eyelets.

 

This is a picture of a 1941 dated pair's eyelets ...

post-17306-1307203275.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the pairs shown before in this thread had USMC inspector's stamps.

 

I found also some USN boondockers, manufactured by the same contractors as the USMC but also some made by other contractors, with different soles. One pair was made by International Shoe and had exactly the same sole pattern as the USMC ones, but I found a pair made by Brown Shoe Co. (an army shoes contractor, if I'm right), with this sole pattern :

post-17306-1307203995.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other informations I gathered searching for contracts dates :

 

> only one Endicott's contract is mentioned in the excellent "Grunt Gear" by A.Tulkoff, but there's at least two more, dated June 1943 and Oct.1944.

 

> most International Shoe's pairs had NOm contract numbers inside while the others contractor's pairs didn't until 1945.

 

> to conclude, I just want to mention that even if they are sometimes mistaken for contract numbers, the 5 to 7 digits numbers written after the size inside the boondockers are probably lot numbers as they seem to be attributed without any link with the contract date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corpsmancollector

Great work etienne, a valuable addition to the forum's archives :thumbsup:

 

Thanks for taking the time to share the results of your research with us.

 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

combat-helmets

I agree with the others.. Sometimes you take things for granted and don't give them a second thought, but this was a really interesting and informative posting! Inespecially like the identification by the boot soles.

Very interesting stuff indeed! :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, that was just my humble contribution to this awesome forum where I learn so much.

 

I had the opportunity to actually see or study pictures of just a little less than 30 pairs of boondockers, almost all the contracts mentioned in "Grunt Gear" were represented ... but I guess it's possible to find other contracts and possibly other exceptions, who knows ! ... I'll keep watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great job! If it is okay with you I would like to merge this into this thread: http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...?showtopic=3497

 

No problem :thumbsup: This thread already as some good examples of sole's patterns ... I'll try to broaden my research to KW shoes, as they seem to have soles pretty similar to WW2 boondockers, but with beveled heels :think:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...