DMS High Leg/BCH Boot Sizes?

Was wondering if anyone had a size chart for the later high leg pattern of DMS/BCH boots? The earlier DMS ankle boots were in normal UK sizes (ie '11L'), but the high leg ones all seem to have weird number sizes such as 258S and 270L. I first thought that these were just mm sizes, but I've seen people say that 258 and 270 are UK size 9 and 10 equivalents, respectively, which doesn't match up with mm sizes, unless these people are just talking shite.
Anyone have any idea?
 
Last edited:

ugly

LE
Moderator
It’s not any help but I was 11m in dms and 282/102 in bch
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
I hope you get an answer because the subject interests me too.

The actual Continental sizes were normed in (I think) the 18th Century and based on the so-called "Paris Stitch" - which was one-third of one centimetre in length.

British shoe-sizes, on the other hand, are based (believe it or not) on the length of a barleycorn, ie one-third of an inch. The largest size anyone would ever need was deemed to be 12 inches (folks were a bit diddier back in the day), which is why we call that measure a "foot". Every size below that was reduced by one-third of an inch to give the respective sizes.

MsG
 

smeg-head

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I hope you get an answer because the subject interests me too.

The actual Continental sizes were normed in (I think) the 18th Century and based on the so-called "Paris Stitch" - which was one-third of one centimetre in length.

British shoe-sizes, on the other hand, are based (believe it or not) on the length of a barleycorn, ie one-third of an inch. The largest size anyone would ever need was deemed to be 12 inches (folks were a bit diddier back in the day), which is why we call that measure a "foot". Every size below that was reduced by one-third of an inch to give the respective sizes.

MsG
Now, I had always understood that the British imperial measurements were derived from the court of Henry VIII. Allegedly, British courtiers used measurements from good King Hal, so a foot was the measurement of the Royal foot, an inch was the measurement from the first knuckle of the thumb to the tip, a yard was the length of step he took etc. I could of course be wrong and would be interested to be corrected.
 
I hope you get an answer because the subject interests me too.

The actual Continental sizes were normed in (I think) the 18th Century and based on the so-called "Paris Stitch" - which was one-third of one centimetre in length.

British shoe-sizes, on the other hand, are based (believe it or not) on the length of a barleycorn, ie one-third of an inch. The largest size anyone would ever need was deemed to be 12 inches (folks were a bit diddier back in the day), which is why we call that measure a "foot". Every size below that was reduced by one-third of an inch to give the respective sizes.

MsG
I doubt it.

Feet and yards were around some time before industrialisation and mass production made its way into the footwear industry.

People wore things like clogs if they couldn’t afford bespoke shoes. There could have been no concept of a standard ‘shoe size’.

Indeed, I believe that until quite recently the top of the range shoemakers had wooden formers for the feet of individual customers.

So while I believe you may be right about ‘barleycorns’ as a unit of measure, I don’t believe you’ve got the chronology right about the naming of the ‘foot’ as a unit.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top