297 of 321 people found the following review helpful
These boots are great!,
These boots are awesome. Very comfortable and look fantastic, wear with jeans and your classy and rugged. In regards to size, make sure you order a size down, because they do run big. I wear an 11 sneaker and wear a 10 for the boot, I could probably go down to a 9.5. Secondly, they are suede and therefore do get dirty very quickly and easily. If you are the type of person who has to have that "fresh" look than I would recommend you go with a darker color than sand. I've found that with a brush and some proper cleaning technique they can retain their luster. One thing I do wish I had done before wearing them out is to put some suede protector spray on them. Hope this review helps!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 3, 2012 9:04:30 AM PST
George E. Sine Sr. says:
I recently received a pair of Clarks "Originals Men's desert boot. How can you call them "Original" when they are made in Vietnam. I do believe the originals were made in England
Posted on Oct 5, 2012 8:18:27 PM PDT
T. Catlin says:
I just wanted to chime in, he is spot on about the fit. I usually wear a size 12 (adidas sambas, tigers, etc.), but size 11 was a pretty much perfect fit for this boot. After break in they loosen up a little too.
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 4, 2013 1:41:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 4, 2013 1:53:22 PM PST
Mr. Sine: You're spot-on about that, but nowadays everything is out-sourced. I've worn Clarks since the early 1950s, when the US produced most everything we needed, but the Brits excelled in making fine shoes. Then Clarks cost a whopping $20, and came in your choice of one color: Ivory. The shoes also looked great as they aged, and you were really in style if you owned some Clarks along with a pair of Chuck Taylor Converse high tops in an off-white/cream, also about $20. (Gas was about 20 cents a gallon, so was a pack of smokes or a loaf of bread). Like everything else shoes were better made then, manufactured out of real leather by skilled craftsmen so that you got a high quality product for your dollar, not stiffed with cheap sweatshop run-offs at inflated prices.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 5, 2014 3:58:32 PM PDT
Jermaine B. says:
did you get them with the clarks tag on the lace
Posted on Sep 13, 2014 1:17:53 PM PDT
I've noticed the same thing; the tan suede looks great when it's new, but very soon picks up grime and looks disgusting. I bought the black leather version, and with polish it looks fantastic. Mine are "wallabies," but when I have to replace them after the sole wears out, I may go for this style.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2015 9:08:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2015 9:20:49 AM PDT
Chitown Lurker says:
In response to Mr. Sine's concern: They are "original" to the extent that they are the original Clark's design, and not some knock-off. None of the original people who made these boots likely are even alive anymore, so one could use the same questionable logic on that front to claim these aren't truly "original"...they're made by these whipper snappers! From a practical perspective, the culture of the hands that made them is of no more consequence on the topic of product originality. Now, would it be nice if they had a "made in UK" version that people could opt for, for the sake of sentimentality (or pride, if you're a Brit)? Sure.
Regarding David's comments about stuff being better quality back then, that's about 25% true and 75% rose-tinted nostalgia. I should also point out that $20 in 1950 was the equivalent of just under $200 today...so the boots were in fact about 100% more expensive back then given the economic circumstances of the time. Again, rose-colored nostalgia clouding those inconvenient factors people like to conveniently forget.
If you want to buy desert boots made in the UK or USA, they're out there. And they generally start around...wait for it...$200...
‹ Previous 1 Next ›