Welcome back to the Gentleman's Gazette and our series, is it worth it? Today, we discuss
the iconic Clarks leather boot, the history, the style or construction, different materials,
and of course, whether it's worth your money or not.
In 1941, Nathan Clark, who was the great grandson of the founder James Clark, was deployed to
Burma in Myanmar which is north of Thailand. Before he left, his family requested to keep
an eye out for new shoe models or anything that might be advantageous for their company.
While abroad, Nathan noticed very simplistic chukka boots with a crepe sole that was worn
by officers. When he inquired, he figured out that most of those came from a bazaar
in Cairo, Egypt. He was immediately fascinated by that simplistic boot, with that innovative
new sole that wasn't really around in traditional menswear and he was convinced that would be
a great idea for the company. So he sent sketches back home in the hopes that the company would
pick up production. The desert boot was somewhat revolutionary in the sense that suede uppers
and crepe soles were something associated with lower classes, not elegant gentlemen.
Even though Nathan was really enthusiastic, the company board thought it will never sell.
Determined and convinced of his idea, Nathan crossed a pond to exhibit his shoe in 1949
at the Chicago shoe show. There he was able to show to influential editors and people,
in general, liked it. It was a more casual boot alternative that had been unseen at this
point in time. With all that positive feedback and encouragement, he went back to England
and produced the first range of desert boots which were sold exclusively in the US. In
1950, the original boot looked pretty similar to this. It was a sand colored suede which
he got from Charles F Steed which is an English tannery specializing in suede leathers that
still exists today. He chose the color sand because it closely resembled the sand in Egypt
and so the name desert boot really made sense, at the same time, the boot referenced its
desert origins. In the US, it was a successful boot and because of that, it eventually sold
in the UK as well.It became popular in the pop cultures in the 60s and 70s and it was
worn by famous movie stars such as Steve McQueen or others like Bob Dylan, even the Beatles
wore them. While the original desert boot was made in England, made of English leather,
it is now mostly made in Asia with a few exceptions of making it in Italy. That being said, desert
boot is still by far the most iconic and best selling shoe in the whole clarks lineup.
So now the big question, are Clarks desert boots worth it?
So first of all, there are three versions on the market today. Ironically, all of them
are called original. First, you have the original in a suede leather with a crepe sole that
costs 130 dollars, it's made in Vietnam just like the other original suede boots that use
a waxed leather on top. It has a nice pull up effect but it's not quite the original.
In my opinion, for $190, you get a original Clarks desert boot that is made in Italy with
a crepe sole and English suede leather from Charles F Steed, the same tannery that created
the original boot.
So first of all, let's determine the difference between the $190 Clarks desert boot and 130
dollar version. Supposedly, the expensive version is more hard-wearing and luxurious.
I have to say the leather is quite nice, it's a soft supple suede leather and on the inside,
you can find a scotch grain like texture. What that means is simply the suede is reversed
which is very typical of a leather that you see from steed. On the other hand, the less
expensive version has a suede like texture on both sides which means the smoother outside
was sanded down and overall, $190 boot has definitely a more superior leather. I've had
other shoes with leather from Charles F Steed and it's very durable, very nice leather.
I think on the Clarks boots, they did a good job on not making it too soft. I have a pair
of boots with steed leather from Allen Edmonds which is quite soft and comfortable to wear
but at the same time, it doesn't keep its shape. Now of course, the country of manufacturing
is different. Vietnam likes the heritage tradition of England and Italy, at the same time, the
labor costs are much lower which are passed on to you as a consumer. That being said,
quality can be made anywhere just like crap and if you want to learn more about the discussions
of the impact where something is made, please check out this guy on the website here. At
the end of the day, they have skilled laborers in Vietnam who are eager to learn new skills
and if taught correctly, they can turn out a very consistent product that's very similar
to what you'd find from England or Italy, at least, when we talk about a factory made
shoe setting. In terms of construction, the expensive and inexpensive boot are the same.
Both have some kind of stitching, both have a crepe sole even though it's different; the
Italian made one has a more textured crepe sole which is typically what you find in crepe
sole shoes, the less expensive $130 version has smoother crepe soles and it's definitely
a different crepe. Personally, I prefer the 190 dollar version. If you look at the last,
it seems identical to me and there's really no difference between a made in Italy and
a made in Vietnam version. As I mentioned, the leather is quite a bit different. The
steed leather is definitely the best and thus also on a more expensive shoe. The waxed leather
on the Clarks desert boot is quite a bit harder than the suede ones and because the original
was a suede, I would personally always prefer to have a suede desert boot and skip the waxed
leather one. That being said, the waxed leather develops a nice patina, it has a pull up effect,
and you'll see any kind of scratch you create on it. So if that's something you will like,
it's definitely worth looking into.
When it comes to the welt, you see a higher stitch density on the Italian version than
on the less expensive version. Normally, on a Goodyear welted shoe, a higher stitch density
indicates a higher quality but in this case, the shoes are not Goodyear welted and I don't
think it matters in everyday life. Both versions have two rows of eyelets. The less expensive
version has metal rivets, the Italian version doesn't have any rivets. The shoelaces on
the Italian version are better, the waxed cotton on the other ones, they're just regular
cotton or a polycotton so you can tell there are slight differences. The original desert
boot from Nathan Clark had orange contrast stitching on the boot which made it different.
None of the boots that I have here actually have that stitching which again, makes me
wonder why they call it the original. Clearly, they must only refer to the style of the last.
Inside of the shoe, you don't find any lining as discussed before and there's an insole
that is slightly padded in the back. Interestingly, the made in Italy is highlighted versus the
made in Vietnam is not.
In terms of fit, walkability, and comfort, I find it to be all very similar. In terms
of sizing, I think the Clarks run true-to-size if at all, a little smaller. I got a US 11
or a UK 10, sometimes I wear UK 10 and a half so keep that in mind, otherwise, I think they
have a very average fit. They're a little wider in the heel but I have very slim heels.
If you usually were Goodyear welted dress shoes, the Clarks will feel a lot softer.
If you are used to trainers, you might think you have to break them in. It's all upon perspective!
So is it worth it? What's the verdict? I think the $190 version definitely wins on the quality
front; it has nicer leather, nicer stitching, master details, better shoe laces, and definitely
a better leather. In terms of value, I think the made in Vietnam version wins simply because
these slight differences are not worth the $60 difference which is almost 50% based on
a lower 130 dollar price point. So apart from that, the big question is, our
Clarks desert boots worth it in general?
Well it depends. I would say yes, they are worth it if your wardrobe in general leans
towards the casual end because the crepe sole of these boots are only suited for casual
outings. They're also not a winter boot or suited for colder weather at all. Because
there's no lining and just a single layer of leather, your feet would freeze very quickly.
I think Clarks desert boots are worth it if you appreciate the understated simplistic
look of them and if you wear a lot of denim jeans, maybe chinos, they're definitely not
suited to your wardrobe if you wear suits, maybe dress pants, or other kinds of slacks,
because they simply clash in terms of formality. So if you plan to wear it frequently, I think
they're worth 130 dollars, if you want to splurge on $190 version you definitely don't
make a mistake but if you're tight on money, you're just fine going with $130 version.
So what color and style combination should you go for?
Well, the original one is a sand colored suede boot with a crepe sole and I think if you're
interested in authenticity, that's the version I would buy. Of course, that light tone of
leather also stains more easily, shows dirt and signs of wear very quickly, so if you
prefer, you can go with darker Suedes or if you're not a fan of suede, you can also go
with other colors. Overall personally, I'd stick in the brown range. If you want to be
a little more flamboyant, you can go with blue or other bolder colors but at the end
of the day, that limits you considerably in terms of flexibility and variety in your wardrobe
because you can only wear it with very specific pants and outfits. I think clarks desert boots
are not worth it overall if you like to dress up because in that case, I suggest you go
with a leather sole it creates a nicer sound and it's simply more elegant. Personally
I'm also not a a big fan of the clarks desert boot last it's very round boring and a bit
clunky in my opinion. I prefer longer lasts maybe with a slight chisel such as on this
chukka boot here so overall for myself I don't think a clarks desert boot is worth the investment
simply because I have other chukka boots that I like more if I didn't have a chukka boot
at all I would probably go for the $190 versions that's made in Italy simply because I appreciate
the better leather.
So that's it for this video if you enjoyed it, please give us a thumbs up subscribe to
our channel hit the little Bell so new is it worth it videos come right to your inbox
and if you like this series please check out the others. I'm certain you'll love them as
well.
So in today's video i am wearing a very casual outfit which I would typically wear if it
was a frequent chukka boot wearer it consists of a button-down collar dress shirt with a
checked pattern in white dark grey and blue my pants are denim or jeans in a dark blue
wash it is a little weathered and my socks are shadow striped socks in blue and red from
Fort Belvedere honestly I could combine this outfit with all three chukka boots the sand
one would provide quite a bit of contrast there's the classic the waxed leather one
with a pull up effect goes well because it's a medium brown and
even the dark chocolate brown would look very good with it the other thing to keep in mind
is to match your belt color to your boots I know it's difficult to match it 100% exactly
so you don't have to go for that try to keep it in the same realm and you'll look quite
smart.