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.
