# USN Patent Leather Oxford Shoes Authorized



## misratah500 (24 Nov 2014)

So just got home from a trip down to San Diego and I picked up a pair of those lovely patent leather oxfords they sell at the NEX uniform store. 

My Div O, my Chief and several other senior ranks that said they're authorized for wear and they even sell them at the CANEX now. 

I was just wondering if anyone else has heard of this, is wearing them now, or can point me to the reference. 

It's like the CANEX jacket in my mind, it's not issued kit but you can still wear them.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Nov 2014)

Very common to see them worn with mess kit. As a parade or day to day item they tend to be frowned upon. There's unlikely to be anything in the dress manual. You're more likely to find the information in the minutes of the National Dress Committee meetings.


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

I work within the Borg (NDHQ) and many people wear them around here.  Mostly officers who are too lazy to polish their shoes but, sadly, a few SNCOs are wearing them too.  I've never seen it in writing but in day to day practice it certainly goes on.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (24 Nov 2014)

MARLANT rules say authorized with all forms of dress EXCEPT 1As.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I work within the Borg (NDHQ) and many people wear them around here.  Mostly officers who are too lazy to polish their shoes but, sadly, a few SNCOs are wearing them too.  I've never seen it in writing but in day to day practice it certainly goes on.



Resistance is futile.

I would not allow them in my units.


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I work within the Borg (NDHQ) and many people wear them around here.  *Mostly officers who are too lazy to polish their shoes but, sadly, a few SNCOs are wearing them too*.  I've never seen it in writing but in day to day practice it certainly goes on.



I really don't see the big deal, if they look good then why not?  I certainly don't need to piss away time polishing boots and shoes, I have plenty of other things to keep me busy.    

I'd consider picking up a pair.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Nov 2014)

They are in the dress regs, Chap 5 Annex E, Item 28.  For use only with non-ceremonial orders of dress.  Optional item.

Much less controversial than fleece toques.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2014)

$89.99 at the CANEX in Halifax the last time I was there, made by SWAT IIRC.

And IMO, the patent leather looks far better than the issued ones.


----------



## MJP (24 Nov 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I work within the Borg (NDHQ) and many people wear them around here.  Mostly officers who are too lazy to polish their shoes but, sadly, a few SNCOs are wearing them too.  I've never seen it in writing but in day to day practice it certainly goes on.



LOL I love the butthurt and assumptions of laziness.  I could turn it around and say hopefully as a SNCO you made people aware of of the dress regs pertaining to their wear but I know you are you are a lazy SNCO because you didn't know that you could wear them less 1A.  See what I did there?   :nod:




* For the thick.  I don't really think SL is lazy, it is tongue in cheek.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> LOL I love the butthurt and assumptions of laziness.  I could turn it around and say hopefully as a SNCO you made people aware of of the dress regs pertaining to their wear but I know you are you are a lazy SNCO because you didn't know that you could wear them less 1A.  See what I did there?   :nod:



And I could say, as an Officer, YOU should know that a MWO is _not_ a SNCO, especially being that you were in the ranks before.   :nod:

No, Snr NCO and Snr NCM do not mean the same thing.  I say that because it is the common defence thrown out these days.  WOs, MWOs and CWOs are Warrant Officers, not SNCOs.

Gotta love irony.


----------



## MJP (24 Nov 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And I could say, as an Officer, YOU should know that a MWO is _not_ a SNCO, especially being that you were in the ranks before.   :nod:
> 
> No, Snr NCO and Snr NCM do not mean the same thing.  I say that because it is the common defence thrown out these days.  WOs, MWOs and CWOs are Warrant Officers, not SNCOs.
> 
> Gotta love irony.



LOL Good one and very true.  In our common vernacular we lump them all together but there is that difference.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2014)

It's so common and accepted these days I think we should just change the NDA/QR & O to reflect it!


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2014)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> They are in the dress regs, Chap 5 Annex E, Item 28.  For use only with non-ceremonial orders of dress.  Optional item.


More, from another thread:


			
				Simian Turner said:
			
		

> The National Defence Clothing & Dress Committee chaired by the CF CWO has approved the wearing of Bates Patent Leather for non-parade duties (it is in the minutes and has appeared in the CFSU(O) Routine/Standing Orders).  An increasing number of staff officers in Ottawa wear their Bates daily.  Unit Standing/Routine Orders may vary. I would be happy to post a DWAN link if there is any doubt!)





			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Much less controversial than fleece toques.


Only _slightly_ less on some days ....  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Nov 2014)

When I went through CFSIS in 89 we were encouraged to use Leather Luster on our Sam Browne's and could do our Ankle Boots (non- parade).  The reasoning was the LL would not marr your DEU with polish transfer and the boots used on duty would keep their appearance of looking smart and polished in inclement weather.  I did use the LL for the boots for a time but found that it wasn't durable enough for daily wear.  I switched to a liquid Kiwi which was wet weather friendly and also able to allow a fast tune up as required.

My parade boots were another matter.  They were double soled and glass from hours of sweat equity as was proper.  I have looked at the CANEX shoes out of curiosity and don't know if I would make the jump.  I think it is the lack of toe cap that our Oxfords have that make them look "strange" to me.  If they're durable and allow the wearer not to look like crap throughout the day.... meh!  Why, not?


----------



## dimsum (24 Nov 2014)

Hmm, the SWAT ones look like the issued ADF shoes.  Maybe I should pick up a pair for free   >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2014)

Did you say free?  I'm a size 10/10.5   ;D


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Resistance is futile.
> 
> I would not allow them in my units.



I whole heartedly agree with you however sometimes resistance is all I have left to keep me going around here.  lol


----------



## dimsum (24 Nov 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did you say free?  I'm a size 10/10.5   ;D



Sure - slight (well, 1 in 4 or so) chance of the soles falling off due to bad glue, esp on ANZAC Day parades   :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Nov 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Resistance is futile.
> 
> I would not allow them in my units.





			
				Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I whole heartedly agree with you however sometimes resistance is all I have left to keep me going around here.  lol



I would say, it is not up to you to "allow" them at your unit if they are (and they are) authorized for wear in the dress regs.

Now, I am an old fart from back in the days when the Navy would not allow us to leave the ship to cross over from the Dockyard to the base in Halifax without first getting into our service dress. However, even in those days, the Navy (as opposed to the Army's clear abhorrence of anything but spit-shined boots looking like mirrors) only cared about the shoes being black, polished and clean - no more no less -except on special parades. 

And the USN pattern patent leather shoes were authorized for wear even in those days.

This said, could someone from the Army explain to me why, other than as an excuse to get in the face of recruits as a training aid, it is so critical to the operations of the CAF that the shoes you wear everyday to the office be painstakingly spit-shinned instead of just black, clean and polished (with whatever polish product you wish to use including liquids) ???


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Nov 2014)

OGBD - I'm the RSM of my unit and I have a huge say in dress policy....and I would not allow them in any form of dress, less mess kit. More correctly I would advise the CO on my opinion.

Personally I think they look cheesy and cheap.


----------



## Tibbson (24 Nov 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would say, it is not up to you to "allow" them at your unit if they are (and they are) authorized for wear in the dress regs.
> 
> Now, I am an old fart from back in the days when the Navy would not allow us to leave the ship to cross over from the Dockyard to the base in Halifax without first getting into our service dress. However, even in those days, the Navy (as opposed to the Army's clear abhorrence of anything but spit-shined boots looking like mirrors) only cared about the shoes being black, polished and clean - no more no less -except on special parades.
> 
> ...



You are correct, it isn't up to me to allow them or not.  I'm not in a position to make that determination however my point was that IF I was in a position to decide I'd decide not to allow them.


----------



## Old EO Tech (24 Nov 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> OGBD - I'm the RSM of my unit and I have a huge say in dress policy....and I would not allow them in any form of dress, less mess kit. More correctly I would advise the CO on my opinion.
> 
> Personally I think they look cheesy and cheap.



I agree completely, very cheap and chessy.  And while it is technically the CO that signs all orders in a unit....we all know were the dress orders really come from ...


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Nov 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This said, could someone from the Army explain to me why, other than as an excuse to get in the face of recruits as a training aid, it is so critical to the operations of the CAF that the shoes you wear everyday to the office be painstakingly spit-shinned instead of just black, clean and polished (with whatever polish product you wish to use including liquids) ???



Because it fosters attention to detail, which in itself reinforces personal discipline, and personal discipline fosters group discipline. You may not believe that, but everything about dress, drill, and ceremonial has to do with group discipline. Group discipline allows us to move troops around the battlefield without having to explain every last thought.

Discipline: from the latin disciplina - meaning knowledge or instruction

I know that sounds pedantic, but you did ask.  ;D


----------



## Mortar guy (25 Nov 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Because it fosters attention to detail, which in itself reinforces personal discipline, and personal discipline fosters group discipline. You may not believe that, but everything about dress, drill, and ceremonial has to do with group discipline. Group discipline allows us to move troops around the battlefield without having to explain every last thought.



While I don't disagree at all, I would also argue there are far more important expressions of personal and group discipline than shiny shoes. If given the choice between having an Army with impeccable shoes or a physically fit Army, I would choose the latter. I know the choice isn't that simple. But maybe nowadays we could shift our focus slightly away from the parade ground and more towards the battlefield. Also please note I am not advocating looking like bags of shite, before anyone jumps on that idea!

MG


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Nov 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Because it fosters attention to detail, which in itself reinforces personal discipline, and personal discipline fosters group discipline. You may not believe that, but everything about dress, drill, and ceremonial has to do with group discipline. Group discipline allows us to move troops around the battlefield without having to explain every last thought.
> 
> Discipline: from the latin disciplina - meaning knowledge or instruction
> 
> I know that sounds pedantic, but you did ask.  ;D



Well, thank god we sailors are an undisciplined and unruly bunch of individuals   

But, seriously: I agree with your view above (except for the ceremonial having to do with group discipline: at least in the Navy we use ceremonial as a means to develop in group sense of belonging and service bonding, not anything to do with discipline self or group wise), but it remains something that you develop in basic training and after you have developed the sense of self-discipline, it needs not be continually insisted upon - when not needed for parade reasons.

To give you an example: I would suspect that in AFG, while the personnel in theatre wore the combat uniform all the time (which I gather one does not press crisp nor shines the boots of), and did not exactly practice drill too often, the very nature of what they were doing fostered attention to details - their life depending on it - and that the very implication in combat operations fostered group discipline/self-discipline. 

At the same time, I don't see how spending an hour every night spit shinning boots would increase attention to details or group discipline of, say, my ASW team, as I am running them through a week of ASW simulations at the combat simulator in Fleet school. If they  are not self-disciplined/group-disciplined by that point of their career, we've got a problem.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, thank god we sailors are an undisciplined and unruly bunch of individuals


As the recovery programs say, the first step in dealing with a problem is admitting it   >

All kidding aside, if you want a (violent) rehash of the value of time spent doing boots vs. other activities, a decent amount of strong feelings both ways can be found at a previous thread here.


----------

