Engineer boots

[IcyTrooper[CMD-DL]]

Being both a GML and a DCA here, much like Blackwatch, gives a unique opportunity for a perspective in how things are looked at.

I've solicited the knowledge of some fellow GMLs and we agree that shape and obvious details are at the first and foremost of approvals if there is no specific guidance that states otherwise.

What that means is that laces would be a no go because it is obvious in the art that there are no laces and that would be an easily seen detail. Stitching or zippers on the other hand are a lot more minute and should be reserved for the L2 consideration. Same thing applied to a bulk of our other costumes as well. Another example would be belt loop holes, etc.

[RAIDER[COTG]]

5 hours ago, SpaceWelder said:

With respect, the silhouette of the commuters that I posted clearly does not match the art.  

That particular commuter may not (I agree the ankle is wide and the references show a tighter wrap around the ankle/shin)...but there are no laces in the references...and as we have discussed there is also no indication of a stretch fabric.  That is absolutely certain and therefore cannot be ignored. The approach should be similar to what @Kessel has been doing...scouring the interwebs for suitable options that match the references.  Possibly other boot styles outside of the commuter could work or variants of styles (Ive been looking at Captain style boots...variants of Chelseas though not exact TK style Chelseas)...we have discussed chelseas and the stretch fabric (not seen in references) but even that would be less noticeable then laces though they also are a bit on the shorter side.

The Imperial Army Sapper CRL has an example that has a bit tighter ankle.  I understand the look you are shooting for, but references cannot simply be put aside.  I suggest further hunting and discussion of options out there.

The covering is an interesting idea but the amount of texture it adds to the boot is a quite a bit much.

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

On 7/4/2020 at 3:05 PM, Raider said:

I suggest further hunting and discussion of options out there.

The covering is an interesting idea but the amount of texture it adds to the boot is a quite a bit much.

I've let this simmer for a bit and at the risk of becoming the Dets new PITA, I do have a suggestion.  Bear with me if you like.  TL/DR at the bottom.

First, I'll concede the philosophical differences we have about the laces.  If we ever get back to gathering, it would make for a lively debate.  First drink is on me.

Next, here's what we do have evidenced in the art:

1- A tight ankle.  There are contour lines on the inside of the right boot just above the ball of the ankle.

2- A below the calf height.  I think we're on track with the 8"-9" spec.

3- A small heel lift.  Most boots have this so as long as it's not some weird high heeled french riding boot it shouldn't be hard to find

4- Relatively little tread profile. 

5- Some kind of reinforcement/stitching around the back of the heel. 

6- Some kind of reinforcement/stitching along the the top of the foot/tongue of the boot.  

For these parameters I suggest a combat or combat-style boot with a low profile cover where the laces either are or are completely removed.  I've begun working on a prototype of such a lace cover and will share if the idea has traction.  Specifically, the Rothco 5075.  If the toe cap is a point of contention, the 5975 is another option though is fails parameter #4.  They are still very much in production, easy to find, and at a very reasonable pricepoint especially when considering it's a boot that I'm guessing most of us could wear outside of trooping.  

Look, most importantly I want my costume to be right, but if you want more people to join the ranks, they also need to be easy to find.  Scouring the internet for one-off auctions and out-of-stock international providers for a boot that fits two out of six evidenced parameters doesn't make sense to me.  I get the pushback at this point, the commuters were floated and some have purchased and painted them.  Grandfather them in if you like.

 

 

TL/DR - We should be pushing a combat boot with a lace cover rather than the commuter style.

Thanks for reading.

 

[RAIDER[COTG]]

1 hour ago, SpaceWelder said:

I've let this simmer for a bit and at the risk of becoming the Dets new PITA, I do have a suggestion.  Bear with me if you like.  TL/DR at the bottom.

First, I'll concede the philosophical differences we have about the laces.  If we ever get back to gathering, it would make for a lively debate.  First drink is on me.

Next, here's what we do have evidenced in the art:

1- A tight ankle.  There are contour lines on the inside of the right boot just above the ball of the ankle.

2- A below the calf height.  I think we're on track with the 8"-9" spec.

3- A small heel lift.  Most boots have this so as long as it's not some weird high heeled french riding boot it shouldn't be hard to find

4- Relatively little tread profile. 

5- Some kind of reinforcement/stitching around the back of the heel. 

6- Some kind of reinforcement/stitching along the the top of the foot/tongue of the boot.  

For these parameters I suggest a combat or combat-style boot with a low profile cover where the laces either are or are completely removed.  I've begun working on a prototype of such a lace cover and will share if the idea has traction.  Specifically, the Rothco 5075.  If the toe cap is a point of contention, the 5975 is another option though is fails parameter #4.  They are still very much in production, easy to find, and at a very reasonable pricepoint especially when considering it's a boot that I'm guessing most of us could wear outside of trooping.  

Look, most importantly I want my costume to be right, but if you want more people to join the ranks, they also need to be easy to find.  Scouring the internet for one-off auctions and out-of-stock international providers for a boot that fits two out of six evidenced parameters doesn't make sense to me.  I get the pushback at this point, the commuters were floated and some have purchased and painted them.  Grandfather them in if you like.

 

 

TL/DR - We should be pushing a combat boot with a lace cover rather than the commuter style.

Thanks for reading.

 

Not a PITA lol...and I love gyros.  So yea feel free to keep discussion going.  Its not a problem at all.

A couple notes to keep in mind so you understand my baseline:

1) CRLs are ever evolving.  Discussion and critique is allowed...even encouraged.

2) My role (among many others) as DL is to make sure (particularly with newer CRLs...older ones are a much wider discussion for a PM maybe if you are interested lol) the standards coincide with the references...and the DCA team typically facilitates that.

3) References are priority over anything.  Thats a precedent here and in any detachment Legion-wide...especially now as the process has evolved.  Availability is secondary.

So yea you arent a PITA by any stretch.  You will, as all new proposals will, have the uphill battle of making the case for acceptance of a proposal.  Certain commuters have been the best off-the-shelf representation.  They seem to fit more than 2 of the 6 criteria you listed (assuming those criteria are accurate).  As @IcyTrooper mentioned, sometimes its a matter of what is less noticeable.  So to reiterate visible laces are def out of the question...height is an obvious factor (cant hide height thus eliminating the previously accepted Jackboots).  The ankle wrap and stitching is an area where I think more leniency could be allowed.  Hence, the commuter as the current push...because not all have a super loose ankle as the one you purchased.

However...

I think you could make a case for reference evidence for a discreet lace cover.

Regarding the boots then, we only have 2 really good shots for the Engineer boots.  One is at a distance which shows no texture...so this shot is really the best.

Here I do see drawn lines at the tongue area of both boots.  Ankle reinforcement is less certain.

If we looked to the other army troopers we can borrow from a couple other shots...

The first shot shows the rear...nothing there really except maybe a heel stitch...no ankle reinforcement really seen.

Second shot again clearly shows no laces but drawn lines could indicate (or allow for) lace covers.  Notice though very discreet and minimal. Cant be bulky or flappy (tight to the boot).  Ankle reinforcement appears lacking.

So after looking at those, Id be open to seeing a lace cover.  The 2 Rothco boots you mentioned though I would say would be unusable based on the toe cap and the sole...both obvious and noticeable divergences from the references here.  So back to finding an alternative base boot.

To wrap up, anyone already approved regardless of any change is always grandfathered.  We dont need to worry about that.  Availability should be considered BUT sometimes it does just come down to custom making something.  Im a Scout first...our boots cannot be bought off-shelf...a base boot has to be purchased and then custom work done to get an approvable (or more accurate in the case of our army costumes) look.

So Im ok personally with you exploring a cover that can meet some parameters (minimal, tight to boot)...but different boots that meet the larger criteria (height, sole, decorative stitching etc).

[RAIDER[COTG]]

Here are 2 more options that may work as long as the height is within range that appear to have a tighter ankle (simple google search for commuter boots).  They have a higher cost but that is a reality for our club at times.

Im sure there are more out there. And if none work to your liking you may have to look at custom/commission.  This particular costume is fairly entry level with nearly all parts being very friendly to a budget unlike most costumes where everything consists of costly armor parts, must be tailored/custom fit, etc.

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

Hey guys, I'm gonna move my dispute over to my WIP thread.  @Ronan, sorry, I didn't mean to hijack your thread!