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?

+1I agree with the foregoing. The simple fact is that language does evolve. It has been my understanding that Chelseas and Jodhpur are two different kinds of boots, as illustrated above.
Blogs, which are essentially not much more than an individual's personal opinion are hardly conclusive evidence! They may be "reputable" in your opinion, but that doesn't make them infallible or an absolute truth!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.
Perfect. I think the argument from me comes from when people are wearing rubber soles / muted leather with business or dressy suits / suits.I suspect that I am in the minority - not you. There is a pretty massive hate on for Chelseas on this forum that I have never been able to understand. And no, I'm not attributing that hate to you - but I've read some incomprehesibly over-the-top categorical dismissals of Chelsea boots here in the past, and from more than one or two members.
I don't think of a Chelsea as a first choice for a dress boot - a lace-up bal boot is best. But on a sleek last, the clean vamp and toe box of a Chelsea present, at a minimum as "acceptable" with a suit to my eyes.
If this pairing is wholly unacceptable, I'd be keen to hear why.
That some manufacturers, like Trickers, use the terms interchangeably whilst others don't does not make your argument "true", that you are, therefore "right" in your definition and that I am, therefore necessarily wrong. What it proves is that the terms are not absolutes. Your case is only conclusive if all established manufacturers make the distinction that you are so keen on imposing. That they don't proves that the distinction between fastening is not an absolute, especially when the jodhpur boots sold by manufacturers of equestrian wear, which is the origin of both Chelsea and Jodhpurs, are almost invariably produced with what you appear to be determined as the key feature of a Chelsea boot, an elasticated gusset.What Edward Green thinks:
Chelsea:
Jodhpur:
What C&J thinks:
Chelsea:
Jodhpur:
Lobb and Church's didn't show both a Chelsea and a Jodhpur.
When you search for "Chelsea", Pediwear has over 30, all with an elasticated gore and no straps.
When you similarly search for "Jodhpur", Pediwear shows 4, all without a gore and with straps.
To argue against that puts you in the same category as someone who thinks that a blue linen unstructured SB1B made by Maison Martin Margiela is a blazer, because that's how Barney's describes it.
The right Chelsea boot would be acceptable. Not those, however. They would need to be very sleek.
Sorry, but I became somewhat distracted. I had meant to say that you carry off that look with your usual aplomb; a very stylish combination indeed.I suspect that I am in the minority - not you. There is a pretty massive hate on for Chelseas on this forum that I have never been able to understand. And no, I'm not attributing that hate to you - but I've read some incomprehesibly over-the-top categorical dismissals of Chelsea boots here in the past, and from more than one or two members.
I don't think of a Chelsea as a first choice for a dress boot - a lace-up bal boot is best. But on a sleek last, the clean vamp and toe box of a Chelsea present, at a minimum as "acceptable" with a suit to my eyes.
If this pairing is wholly unacceptable, I'd be keen to hear why.
Nothing at all wrong with that choice - I have certainly never advocated that everyone should wear Chelseas, with a suit or otherwise.RogerP has excellent taste, and this isn't a criticism of his clothing choices at all, but I'm not going to emulate the Chelseas-and-lounge suit look. To a child of the '60s, it seems to cry out for pipestem pant legs and a Beatle haircut, which I'm also planning to avoid.
Not at all. The fact 1920s gangsters wore them would work in favor of my adopting the fedora.Nothing at all wrong with that choice - I have certainly never advocated that everyone should wear Chelseas, with a suit or otherwise.
But isn't your reason for avoiding them rather like saying " I won't wear a Fedora because that's what 1920's gangsters wore." ?