Vietnam era jungle boots or ????

[Bob Hudson]

I have sold a lot of Vietnam era jungle boots, perhaps dozens of pairs and I though I knew them pretty well.

 

One rule I had was that even if dates were wore off, you could always tell Vietnam era jungle boots by the back of the heels: the ones made during the war had a seam on the heel and the ones made later did not. Like this:

 

 

Anyone have thoughts on that?

[Nam1968]

I have sold a lot of Vietnam era jungle boots, perhaps dozens of pairs and I though I knew them pretty well.

 

One rule I had was that even if dates were wore off, you could always tell Vietnam era jungle boots by the back of the heels: the ones made during the war had a seam on the heel and the ones made later did not.

 

Anyone have thoughts on that?

 

It was like that until the mid seventies according to this site; http://lastpatrol.wordpress.com/reference-...s/combat-boots/

 

Maybe somebody else knows more than this ?!

 

Kindly /F

[Bob Hudson]

It was like that until the mid seventies according to this site; http://lastpatrol.wordpress.com/reference-...s/combat-boots/

 

Thanks for the link: that supports what I have always believed and what I have always seen until yesterday when I picked up the pair shown above and they have the heel seam and what appears to be a 1982 date (it almost looks like it could be "62" but that's as improbable as "82").

 

 

 

[B229]

Thanks for the link: that supports what I have always believed and what I have always seen until yesterday when I picked up the pair shown above and they have the heel seam and what appears to be a 1982 date (it almost looks like it could be "62" but that's as improbable as "82").

 

I would say that your boots were manufactured in 1982 (plenty of them were) and that the heel seam is an unreliable way to prove when the boots were manufactured. I have yet to see any real proof, such as a specification, the shows when and why the heal existed or didn't. This is the only way to prove or disprove this theory, not using something posted on a reenactors website.

[Bob Hudson]

I would say that your boots were manufactured in 1982 (plenty of them were) and that the heel seam is an unreliable way to prove when the boots were manufactured. I have yet to see any real proof, such as a specification, the shows when and why the heal existed or didn't. This is the only way to prove or disprove this theory, not using something posted on a reenactors website.

 

I have sold dozens of pairs of these boots and until this week everyone had a Vietnam War era date on them and I have seen many post-Vietnam boots in thrift stores and none of them had the heel seam.

[B229]

I have sold dozens of pairs of these boots and until this week everyone had a Vietnam War era date on them and I have seen many post-Vietnam boots in thrift stores and none of them had the heel seam.

 

I don't doubt that, but again I have yet to see an official source show when and why the heel seam was or wasn't present. The boots you posted are an obvious exception, so the heel seam theory isn't reliable without further proof.

[Nam1968]

Sorry if I upset B229 with a link to a re-enactor site, thought it would be a good start.

Here's one of my boots anyway.

[Nam1968]

...seem

[B229]

Sorry if I upset B229

 

Not at all...it takes a bit more than that to upset me. And I certainly didn't mean any offense to you either.

[Bob Hudson]

One thing that we have done a lot of on this forum is to debunk myths or conventional wisdom regarding what is and what aint't.

 

I've had to change my view on this one. I will still say that boots which do not have the heel seam could not have been made during the Vietnam era, but if they do have the seam it does not guarantee they were made before 1975.

[taucco]

i recall moore militaria website: in its reference section (in which i have faith) you can find this phrase about that back stitch.

The vast majority of VN era boots have this stitch, but it is not a 100% guarantee that all boots with the stitch are VN era as I have seen post war boots with the stitch dated as late as 1980. As a side note I have seen several pair of late 60's dated boots made by Endicott Johnson Corp that do not have the stitch.

[johnnyrocket]

I love my Jungle Boots and wear them almost everyday. If these could talk...OH! what a tale they would tell.

 

[Svensson]

I have heard from other collectors that there are some Vietnam dated boots that do not have the heel seam, but I have yet to see any myself.

[decontrol215]

I've seen some pairs of Vietnam era jungle boots with no heel stitch. It's worth mentioning that they've always been panama soled, I've never seen a vibram sole boot without the heel stitch. Here's a good example on ebay right now:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-NOS-US-Army-Tropical-Combat-Green-Jungle-Boots-Size-10R-Dated-1985-Vietnam-/281670709165?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4194e1efad

It's interesting that boots with a heel stitch were still being manufactured a full decade after the Vietnam Era ended.

[decontrol215]

Pics for reference:

 

 

[decontrol215]

[SlaminRamen]

A.jpgI love my Jungle Boots and wear them almost everyday. If these could talk...OH! what a tale they would tell.

 

What sort of laces are those? Looks like paracord?

[marko]

I have sold a lot of Vietnam era jungle boots, perhaps dozens of pairs and I though I knew them pretty well.

 

One rule I had was that even if dates were wore off, you could always tell Vietnam era jungle boots by the back of the heels: the ones made during the war had a seam on the heel and the ones made later did not. Like this:

 

6.jpg

 

Anyone have thoughts on that?

 

Hi,

In fact in 1968 Endicott Johnson made jungles boots without sewing of heel

 

Your boots of 1982 is probably made by Altama (PJ code in square).

 

Marko

[Nyet]

I have a pair where the vinyl portion of the fabric is camouflage. I've always wondered when they were made.