Timberland Redwood Falls Ankle Boot - Or Is It A Chukka?

 

Timberland makes an insane number of boots.

 

In all shapes and sizes.

 

From the iconic six-inch yellow boot to a variety of work boots, outdoor boots, casual shoes, hiking boots, and things that look like sneakers!

 

In this post, I'm taking a look at what they call a Chukka boot from their Redwood Falls series. Is it a chukka boot or is it really an ankle boot?

 

 

I bought this pair about 10 years ago in Singapore, which is a country that loves Timberland as a fashion brand and Timberland boots and clothing are best sellers all year round, with about 10 stores located in premium fashion malls dotted all around the island.

 

I can't remember what it was called except that it was in their Redwood Falls range, and it definitely was labeled as a chukka boot.

 

Their Redwood Falls range of boots and shoes includes those with more rugged leathers, and lugged soles, and include a few shorter models. On top of that, Timberland offers some models only in certain countries and not others, so depending on where you are, if you go searching for their Redwood Falls range, you may not be able to find them.

 

That's one thing about Timberland. It is such a huge, international boot company that its range is more like sports shoe brands, like Nike or Adidas, where designs change every season, and what you bought a couple of years ago isn't made anymore because they're "out of season" or "out of fashion".

 

Sure, they have some perennials like their iconic yellow boot which I've already reviewed, and a few others like the original Earth-keeper boots. But as for the other boots they make, frustratingly they swing in and out of stock from time to time. They even seem to have different models for different geographic markets. For example, I was in London just before COVID and went into a big Timberland store there looking for something similar to these boots.

 

Nope, didn't exist.

 

Watch my review of these boots on YouTube - click on the link below.

 

 

Timberland is a big internationally selling company, and as such they make their boots in a variety of different countries, almost in every continent in the world. 

 

As a large international company, it makes sense that their customer feedback systems tell them what's popular in whichever market, and their sales and production teams react accordingly. Looking at the various websites - they have one for each country - I can't really find a similar pair, although I do see similarities with other boots they have on the Singapore website that are referred to as Redwood Falls boots of one model or other, which come in moc-toe and plain toe versions. And just to complicate things further, Redwood Falls boots on the Australian and US websites are something different altogether.

 

Anyway, it's a moving feast, so if you do recognise this model and actually know what it's called, put something in the comments here, or on my YouTube channel, maybe even put a link to a website you found them on.

 

But one thing I am sure of, Timberland called this a chukka boot. 

 

 

There are other boots on their various websites that are also called chukka boots, of a similar height and with 4 or 5 eyelets.

 

To many people, this is not a chukka boot. To most people, a chukka boot is ankle high - short ankle high up to 3 or 4 inches - and has 2 or 3 eyelets only. There are some myths about the history of the chukka boot, but from what I can gather in my research, they originated in India in the late 19th century worn by polo players who wore them after a game of polo when they changed out of riding boots into something more comfortable to have their gin and tonics or cups of tea.

 

Originally, they were made of smooth-grain uppers and had thin leather soles, capable of being worn into the much more formal club rooms and bars of those days.

 

They became popular in the British Army 1940s when British officers in the North African campaign saw their Indian and South African Army cousins wearing these in the Cairo lounges and thought they would be great for the desert war because they were a darn sight more comfortable in the hot sand than standard British Army issue Ammo  Boots. They started getting them made in the bazaars but modified the design by using crepe rubber soles (for comfort and the ability to creep silently in night battles), used suede so they were easy to look after, and used a stitchdown design from their South African colleagues' Veldtschoen construction boots.

 

Nathan Clark, who served in North Africa as a soldier, saw his officers wearing these boots and took one home to his famous family shoe-making company which started to produce them for casual wear in the 1950's after the war. And so, the Clark's Desert Boot was born.

 

The design really took off in the 1960's when "Mods" wore them in England, and it was picked up in Hollywood by celebrities like Steve McQueen.

 

While all Desert boots are chukka's, not all chukka's are Desert Boots.

 

Yes, alright, I realise modern service boots issued to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are a boot called "Desert Boots" but I contend that is nomenclature to designate what theatre of wear specific Combat Boots were issued for, and not a definition of the actual term. Those are more accurately Desert Combat Boots, just like Jungle Boots are a specific Combat Boot for the jungle.

 

Hence we enter the contentious world of what names we call boot designs by. For example, tell me the actual difference between a service boot and a heritage work boot - what makes the Iron Ranger a work boot and the White's MP a service boot?

 

Anyway, if you really want to be nerdy, you can quote that Chukka boots look like Desert Boots but traditionally have a thin leather sole, are made from smooth-grained uppers leathers, and have a more formal structure than Desert Boots, which are usually unstructured and have basically only two pieces of leather - the vamp and one piece wrapped around as quarters. A more traditional Chukka Boot would be something like the Crockett & Jones Tetbury.

 

 

At any rate, these Timberland boots fail as "Chukka Boots" primarily because it is largely agreed that Chukka Boots are low, ending at or under the ankle bone, and have only 2 or a maximum of 3 eyelets. The shafts of these end slightly above the ankle bone and have 4 eyelets and one set of speed hooks. Apparently, according to my Facebook boot enthusiast group friends, these are more correctly called ankle boots.

 

What is an ankle boot?

 

What did I say about entering the contentious world of boot names?

 

 Leaving naming rights aside, let's take a look at how these boots are constructed.

 

The uppers are said to be full-grain leather, but looking at it closely, I believe it's corrected grain, meaning the grain surface has been lightly sanded to remove imperfections, to make a perfectly smooth leather that's uniform and easy to handle in large-scale boot manufacture.

 

This is a distressed leather. I think it's actually an oiled nubuck, oiled and waxed in the tanning. It has that soft nappy feel of nubuck but also feels waxy to the touch. You can feel the nappiness of a nubuck, but it’s waxed down, so that when you run your hands over it, the wax moves over the nap of the nubuck, creating that distressed look.

 

 

It has a good feel on the hand and is soft and supple, but it's actually quite thin at 1.5 mm. That’s suede-like thinness.

 

I've no idea what tannery or country the leather comes from. Timberland says that they "source the majority of our hides from US cattle that are raised for food and processed according to USDA guidelines." That's not the only source though because they go on to say that "additionally, we have banned the sourcing of hides from certain countries or regions where we have learned of animal husbandry concerns." 

 

So, some effort is put into ethical sourcing anyway. That's a good thing.

 

The leather is waterproof and was advertised as a waterproof boot when I bought it. The tongue is the same leather and it's gussetted right up to the 4th eyelet, but with a canvas gusset. While the leather and the joint between the uppers and the sole may be waterproof, I'm not sure if this canvas gusset is a weak point or not. I haven't had wet feet in the rain but I haven't waded through a river either.

 

The hardware looks like brass - I'm not sure if they are - and they're all washer-backed to protect the tongue, which is a good thing.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the lasting, when they stretch the uppers into shape over a last, as well as the stitching is mass-produced production-line systems processed by computer and machine. While handmade boots do not necessarily mean that a person's hand stitches the boot, it usually means that a human hand guides the boot through the stitching machine. And certainly, a human being stretches the leather over the last and hammers it into shape. 

 

In this case, I reckon it's all production line processed with dozens of boots being mechanically stretched over a line of lasts, and there's a computer-controlled stitching machine in there somewhere. As a result, the stitching is perfect. Perfectly aligned stitches and stitch density, no loose stitching, no wheel marks or stuff ups to be seen. 

 

That's to be expected when machines make everything exactly the same - although obviously, things do get screwed up from time to time, and so I have to conclude that quality control protocols and inspections are pretty good. There must be a pair of human eyes that examines what comes out of the other side and checks for mistakes.

 

The toe box is unstructured, and despite the backstay, if the heel is structured, it's with a very thin piece of something - probably cardboard because it really feels soft. 

 

 

I say probably cardboard because there is quite a fair amount of synthetic materials in this boot. It's fully lined with a cotton-polyester fabric lining - quite comfortable, but I find it can make my feet smell in hot weather. Unlike leather, cotton doesn't really wick sweat away.

 

Taking a look at the sole construction, like the classic Timberland 6-inch nubuck yellow boot, the outsole is attached using thermally injected polyurethane. The uppers are stuck into a mould and molten TPU is injected into the mould, and as it cools is stuck to the uppers. This means totally not re-solable. 

 

Once you wear the sole out, the boot is a throwaway. 

 

It's not an expensive boot, so I think this is perfectly acceptable because the leather is probably not going to last much longer than the sole in hard use, and if you get 3 or 4 years' everyday wear out of it, your cost per wear is acceptable in my opinion.

 

The moulding of the outsole creates a welt-like design, purely for aesthetic purposes with some moulded stitching involved. The upside is that this is totally waterproof because the direct injection of molten TPU creates a complete seal.

 

 

The insole is just cardboard or leatherboard with a canvas cover on top, and Timberland gives you a padded foam, removable footbed for comfort.

 

The moulding of the outsole creates a great, grippy pattern. I don't know what you'd call this pattern, not quite lugs, not a commando pattern like they use on their classic 6-inch boot, and more like a criss-cross of rosettes that form a good pattern that grips but also doesn't pick up gravel and dirt between the lugs. I like it.

 

Overall, as man-made as the materials are, the TPU sole and the foam footbed make for a pretty comfortable boot, with lots of shock absorption.

 

On to sizing.

 

I take a UK 7.5 true to size, in average width. That translates into a US 8.5D. By true to size, I mean as measured on the Brannock device. A Brannock Device is one of those things you stand on in a shoe store. The salesperson will slide the sliders around to measure the length of your feet, the length to the ball of your feet and measure the width of your feet at the widest point.

 

In heritage American boots like the Iron Ranger, the Higgins Mill, and Alden Indy's, I take an 8D. 

 

That's the usual thing - go down half a size.

 

Timberland run large. These are an 8 Wide. Timberland don't have B, C, D, E widths - they just have standard and wide. I tried an 8 standard width in-store and it was just a bit too narrow. I tried a 7-and-a-half wide and it was too short. So like my 6-inch classic Timbs, the best size for me seemed to be this 8 Wide. 

 

It's ok, but it is roomy. 

 

Pretty roomy. 

 

I've taken to using an orthotic insert to fill up the volume, and also to give me a little more arch support, because this thing does not have a shank. That's a piece of steel or other stiff material that runs across the gap between the heel and the pad of your feet, supporting your feet from collapsing into that gap. A shank gives the heel/foot structure rigidity. Without a shank, the pressure of your feet into the boot can cause the unsupported gap to deform. In time over the day, this can give you very tired feet.

 

The orthotics, with built-in arch support help.

 

Once I found the fit, apart from needing the additional arch support, I found them to be very comfortable.

 

That's another advantage of this type of mass-produced boots from a good manufacturer - they are designed to wear comfortably out of the box. They don't have thick, rugged leather in the uppers. They don't have thick heel counters that need to have heel slip broken in. They don't have multiple layers of leather and cork soles that are stiff until they break in where your foot naturally flexes.

 

No break-in is required in these, because there's nothing to break in - just like your Nikes or Reeboks.

 

Mind you, such a shoe from a bad manufacturer could be quite uncomfortable - if not out of the box, then over time, as the foam and cardboard break down. They wouldn't be as well-designed around the foot, and the way they are actually put together - large seams, badly placed seams, that sort of thing - could cause aches and pain as you wear those.

 

I think overall, if you compare these to quality Goodyear welted or similar well-constructed boots, they'd probably rate 4 or 5 out of 10 for materials and construction. But for comfort, I'd go as high as an 8 out of 10.

 

 

Turning to leather care, I don’t actually think you need any!

 

The leather is tanned in such a way that I don't think you need to baby it. It's a Nubuck that's waxy enough to stay moist. It's presented in a distressed state so doesn't need polishing.

 

I think if you really did want to condition it, something like Smith's Leather Balm would work.

 

Once, when these got drenched and spattered in blacksoil clay after a trip to the North West of Oz, I did wash it with water and then applied a smear of R M Williams' saddle dressing - it worked out fine.

 

That means what you can wear them with is also easy - it's a casual no-worries, distressed leather boot, so you can match it to any casual gear, jeans, not-so-dressy chinos, T-shirts, flannels, polo shirts, that sort of thing. It's very much a Timberland aesthetic - "I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok" kind of vibe.

 

 

As to value, I bought these about 10 years ago for about $180 Singapore dollars. Most Timberland boots, apart from the classic 6-inch yellow boots sell for around that price in Singapore, and still do. That's about the same in Australian dollars, and about 100 US dollars, at least if bought in Singapore.

 

So anyway, let me talk about that subjective thing called value, not from a monetary perspective but from a use perspective.

 

From what I've said about the construction and the leather, maybe you're expecting me to say these are cheap boots and not worth it.

 

Well, actually, I take all that lower-quality production thing on board and I actually like these boots for what they are. I really like the aesthetic - the slightly bulbous toe and the slight toe spring, the chunky, grippy sole, the chunky yet slim shape, the distressed leather - even the NOT chukka height!

 

I like the look of it as it is.

 

They are waterproof, I have worn them in heavy rain and muddy conditions with no ill effects. The sole is very grippy in muddy or worse conditions, and it remains grippy even when you step off the mud onto wet, slippery brick paving in tropical rain. They are easy to clean and take care of, and they are - once you sort out the arch support - comfortable to wear and walk around in.

 

What's their value as a knock about boot to me?

 

Not bad.

 

Not something I'd reach for every day, but when I do put them on, I feel comfortable and safe.

 

At least 7 or 8 out of 10 in value.

 

In summary, a boot that enthusiasts of quality boots may look down on, but I like them, and they fit a certain kind of lifestyle, and let's face it, they're not expensive.

 

Sometimes, inexpensive is good.