Men's Clothing Forums banner
41 - 60 of 63 Posts
I have to agree that while the common historical origin is fascinating (and I mean that!) it does not support the proposition that, in the contemporary context, Jodhpurs and Chelseas are interchangeable terms for the same boot. That might have been the case in 1790 but it is not the case today.

This is a Chelsea - it is NOT a strapless Jodhpur:



This is a Jodhpur. It is NOT a gore-less Chelsea with straps:



And if I may say so, two particularly stunning examples of their respective categories.
 
I 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.
+1

Language does indeed evolve, and chelsea and jodhpur boots have been different types of boots for decades, at the very least.

In clothing, words have more often gone the other way and lost their meaning. While "suiting" is properly a term that describes the cloth a suit is made from, over the past few years everyone has just started using it instead of "suit" or "suits". And I know that in American English "oxford" has long been used for any shoe with laces, but the original meaning that is still used in British English is so much more specific.
 
Suit yourselves. You are, of course, free to believe what you want. However, put "Jodhpur boot" into google images and you get both styles. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=j...ms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmiK3vtMnKAhVDOhQKHeVkBDoQ_AUICCgC&biw=1242&bih=585 Look at any online shop selling equestrian clothing and this is what you get Surely they are all wrong? Surely you should be contacting them all to tell them that what they are selling are really Chelsea boots?
The strapped Chelsea boot is merely an earlier form of Chelsea boot, which is why people like S&H who sell them still call them Chelsea boots, or, manufacturers like Trickers, who use both terms interchangeably, and why both kinds are called Chelsea boots by people who wear them professionally.
Never mind, believe what you like.
 
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.
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!
Call them what you like, but don't tell me that I'm wrong when I'm not; just because "most people" think that they know what they are talking about doesn't make an absolute truth.
 
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.
 
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.
Perfect. I think the argument from me comes from when people are wearing rubber soles / muted leather with business or dressy suits / suits.
 
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.
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.
If you wish to use your definition as a sort of shorthand for the difference between Chelsea boots with a gusset and Chelsea boots with a strap, please feel free to do so, but that doesn't mean that your definition is right whilst mine is wrong, and that you can impose your, rather arbitrary, definition on everybody else. That others on this thread agree with you, or that you can find some shoe manufacturers that share your definition doesn't make your definition an absolute.
 
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.
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 just came across this Meermin MTO while looking for a pic of chukka so for the chukka thread.

The sleekness of the Elton last is making me rethink my position on Chelsea boots being too mod for a suit. We're this a dark brown, I could see it being used with a worsted navy or darke grey solid suit. Still wouldn't wear it to the boardroom, but for less formal buisness, I could see this with a suit.

Image
 
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.
 
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.
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." ?
 
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." ?
Not at all. The fact 1920s gangsters wore them would work in favor of my adopting the fedora.
 
I somehow missed this thread and am not going to pretend I read it all.
My recollection is that the British mods would wear Celery boots and their snug little faddy suits. Not really business suits, I guess. I may be wrong and thinking of some other ugly boot, but I'm pretty sure it was those elastic ankle ones.
 
^^LOL!

Understanding that this may invite a Cyber-beating to rain down upon me, candor forces me to admit to wearing any one of several pairs of Chelsea boot designs and the occasional "cowboy boot" design with my suits. To my eye(s), they have worn quite smartly under such conditions and have garnered the occasional favorable comment. ;)
 
41 - 60 of 63 Posts