I'm looking at this boot below, which is a gore-tex chelsea boots. I'm thinking of using it for rainy weather or slushy snow weather, but could it be acceptable with a business suit?
![Image]()
Would chelsea boots be acceptable with a business suit?
2 reading
Byoin
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Joined
·
10,801 Posts
Yeah. Roger makes everything look good though.
Joined
·
1,366 Posts
Funnily enough, I actually didn't say that they would be "in conspicuous poor taste". I said they would be distracting and this might not be right for business. Taste is a personal and subjective thing and this is presumably why business dress is by its nature so conservative ("better to play things safe" etc.).
My comments were aimed primarily at the OP/thread and are just one man's opinion. I'm sure a man as confident as yourself in his chelsea boots will have no problems at all living with that. :cool2:
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
+1 for the Minority Report.
Whatever the merits of boots with suits, the OP goretex model should be as far away from a suit as a match from kerosene.
Joined
·
6,406 Posts
And thank you, sir. :biggrin:Yeah. Roger makes everything look good though.
Chelsea boots have an elastic gore.
Jodhpurs boots have straps, one or several.
Sometimes Chelsea boots are called jodhpurs. In that classification, there are two types of jodhpurs - with straps and with an elastic gore (Chelsea). Hence the confusion. However, that classification is simply wrong, on top of being confusing. I don't know where it came from.
If Chelsea boots are too informal to wear with a suit, jodhpur boots definitely are. If Chelsea boots are OK to wear with a suit, jodhpur boots... well, they are still too informal anyway.
Jodhpurs boots have straps, one or several.
Sometimes Chelsea boots are called jodhpurs. In that classification, there are two types of jodhpurs - with straps and with an elastic gore (Chelsea). Hence the confusion. However, that classification is simply wrong, on top of being confusing. I don't know where it came from.
If Chelsea boots are too informal to wear with a suit, jodhpur boots definitely are. If Chelsea boots are OK to wear with a suit, jodhpur boots... well, they are still too informal anyway.
Joined
·
6,593 Posts
It's just my taste. I like my Chelseas and will wear them casually and with a sports coat and odd jacket to work. The gore just seems off to me with a suit, and Chelseas will always have a 60's Mod association for me due to my age. I wouldn't wear a derby boot with a business suit, and I'm not in legal or finance. I would and have worn the right derby boot with suits for other purposes. But with a pinstripe navy or charcoal suit for serious business, I have better choices in my bals.
As a matter of fact, as my collection has grown, I don't think I've ever chosen anything but a bal shoe or boot with a worsted suit. Now poplin, linen seersucker, I have no problem with derby shoes, but it's not applicable to boots as it's the wrong season.
Now if I were to obtain a tweed suit or three, I might find my bal boots pairing with them, and if in the right mood, maybe then a Chelsea.
This is all personal taste of course. As noted Roger makes everything look good. With his boot selection, the wearing of a.Chelsea is a deliberate decision, not something he does because it's the dressiest boot he owns, or the only one he has that can be pulled off with a suit. He's obviously in a funkadelic mood when he makes that choice. And that's OK, I choose my footwear based on my moods also, as there are many options available to us both for any outfit.
Today I was in a mood to wear a ball cap and soft squishy sports shoes, with plastic and rubber soles. Then again, I was playing golf in the broiling sun. I got out of Newark airport on Friday a half hour before they closed!
As a matter of fact, as my collection has grown, I don't think I've ever chosen anything but a bal shoe or boot with a worsted suit. Now poplin, linen seersucker, I have no problem with derby shoes, but it's not applicable to boots as it's the wrong season.
Now if I were to obtain a tweed suit or three, I might find my bal boots pairing with them, and if in the right mood, maybe then a Chelsea.
This is all personal taste of course. As noted Roger makes everything look good. With his boot selection, the wearing of a.Chelsea is a deliberate decision, not something he does because it's the dressiest boot he owns, or the only one he has that can be pulled off with a suit. He's obviously in a funkadelic mood when he makes that choice. And that's OK, I choose my footwear based on my moods also, as there are many options available to us both for any outfit.
Today I was in a mood to wear a ball cap and soft squishy sports shoes, with plastic and rubber soles. Then again, I was playing golf in the broiling sun. I got out of Newark airport on Friday a half hour before they closed!
Joined
·
4,200 Posts
As others have stated - so let me add my voice to theirs - the right style of Chelsea, absolutely. Minimal ornamentation, a sleek last, black or deep brown, gore matching the colour of the leather, not contrasting with it, then I would have no problem wearing a pair. However, as a practical matter, buying such a pair intentionally for wearing with a suit would be low down the list of my shoe priorities. If I were putting together a new rotation from scratch, a dress Chelsea would not, I think, make my top 12 list.
Joined
·
6 Posts
I personally would not. Maybe a SC and trousers and only brown. Black for me needs to be a cap toe (AE PA is my choice!)
That pretty much sums up my opinion as well. Because of my age, I have a visceral aversion to Chelsea boots because of the Carnaby Street/"Mod" associations. I know this is silly because these boots existed long before the Mods.
I kind of like jodhpurs and might well acquire a pair were I younger. However, they just seem too rakish for a decrepit old fart like me!
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
See the explanation here https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...s.com/community/showthread.php?229759-Chelsea-Vs-Chukka&highlight=chelsea+boots
As you can see, Chelsea boots are a variety of short boots, sometimes called Jodhpur boots, worn originally under cavalry overalls. Hence the classification which you say is wrong, isn't, as "Chelsea boots" are essentially interchangeable with "Jodhpur boots"; they are both the same, short boots, without laces, worn under trousers.
Thanks.
Well, I've just googled a bit and here's what I found:
https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/chelsea-boots-guide/
https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/jodhpur-boots-guide/
From the article on Jodhpur boots:
"Many manufactures today advertise Jodhpur boots without straps but fitted with elastic on the sides. These are not Jodhpur boots but more like the Chelsea boot and one should not get confused between the two. The Jodhpur boots come in two variations with the characteristics described above. Any other boots regardless of what the manufacturer may call them are not Jodhpur boots."
Whether that is correct or not, I don't know. I also don't know if the original classification used Chelseas and Jodhpurs interchangeably. My understanding has always been that Chelseas have an elastic side and Jodhpurs have straps (one or two, rarely more). I am also aware that some shops call Chelsea boots jodhpurs, as I wrote in my post above.
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Chelsea boots, as I pointed out above, originally had straps, then elastic was invented and elastic gussets tended to take over. Similarly, some jodhpur boots have straps, some have elastic.
Joined
·
6,593 Posts
A Jodpuhr has a strap, Chelseas an elastic gore. Please provide pics showing the reverse to be true. Additionally a Jodpuhr has a front piece that opens and a flap around the upper from the opening vamp, a Chelsea is a single piece construction with no flap. Now I can see confusing a George boot and a Jodpuhr, but not a Chelsea.
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
That's rather a peremptory tone that you're taking!
Let's look at the historical context. Cavalry boots used to be jacked with a protective kneeguard, then, in the 1790's, the Hapsburg cavalry went over to using a boot with a stiffened shaft, but without the knee protection, ending just below the knee. This form of boot was popular with Arthur Wellesley, so, as he became more famous it was named after him, the Wellington boot. Meanwhile, cavalry increasingly wore overalls over their expensive leather breeches (the Household Cavalry still wear goatskin breeches on parade) to protect them, and increasingly, to save expense, replacing them. The overalls were buttoned along the outside seam, and military tailors quickly added a strip of lace along the seam. Once the overalls became permanent, the buttons were redundant, but the strip of lace along the seam was retained, being the origin of military trousers with a stripe along the seam. The overalls meant that boots were increasingly worn under the overalls, which meant that, again to save expense, they could be made shorter and cheaper, rather like this https://www.shipton.com/wellington-mens-black-calf-boot.html which is still worn by British cavalry officers under their mess overalls. However, a cheaper form of boot was sought that only covered the ankles (as that was all that could be seen, the overalls or trousers being strapped under the foot to keep them from rising) so the Chelsea boot was developed, so called because of it first being used in Britain at Chelsea Barracks. These had a strap to close them . However, when elastic was developed it was used as a gusset to replace the strap https://www.sanders-uk.com/shop/product/chelsea-1864t . Meanwhile, British army experience in India, where the cavalry trousers, adopted from Indian cavalry style, were called jodhpurs, led to the same kind of boot being also called a jodhpur boot, whether with strap or with elastic https://www.sanders-uk.com/shop/product/newmarket-2943t . As you can see, the strapped jodhpur boot and the strapped Chelsea boot are the same. Put in a search for jodhpur boot with Shipton and Heneage you get this: a search for Chelsea boot brings up the same https://www.shipton.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=chelsea+boot .
So, Chelsea boots and jodhpur boots are the same. Short boots originally to be worn under overalls, fastened without laces by a strap or a gusset.
There is no confusing a George boot and a jodhpur boot as they are entirely different. For a start, George boots are not worn by cavalry!
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the difference between Chelseas and Jodhpurs is currently quite clear. You can ask pretty much anyone, and the answer in the vast majority of cases will probably be the same: Chelseas have elastic sides, and Jodhpurs have straps (there are other differences, but this is the most important one). Now, I'm not a historian, much less one with a major in history of clothing, so I can't say whether that was originally true or not. The articles I just linked here are from a reputable source and seem to indicate otherwise. Your view may very well be true, but I suppose it would be better if it were supported by something other than a few Shipton & Heneage webpages.
I have a black pair of these
I really like them, leather takes a nice polish but doesn't come plasticky like some black Chelsea's. I don't wear suits often enough to ever not wear cap toes with them, but I think these fill the sleekness requirement although they can also be used as a more casual sleek black evening shoe in colder weather
I really like them, leather takes a nice polish but doesn't come plasticky like some black Chelsea's. I don't wear suits often enough to ever not wear cap toes with them, but I think these fill the sleekness requirement although they can also be used as a more casual sleek black evening shoe in colder weather
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
