Quote Originally Posted by OC Richard View Post
Oh yes, I'm sure there are plenty!

But images of people wearing one kind of shoe don't cancel out images of people wearing another kind of shoe; they just show that both kinds of shoes were worn.

Likewise posting 50 images of women from that time period doesn't prove that all people of that time were women (if I may resort to a bit of reductio ad absurdum).

Your claim was that ONLY buckled shoes were worn, and that claim is dispelled by showing images of men wearing other styles.
That's simply not true. I would not expect such distortion from someone as well read and knowledgeable as yourself. I said that buckle shoes were the man's shoe during the 18th century.

Beyond that it is nearly self-evident that "both kinds of shoes were worn." "Other kinds of shoes" as I said in another post. There is no shortage of photos of people wearing buckle shoes in the 21st century...or cowboy boots, for that matter...but that doesn't make them the man's shoe for our time.

Having said all that I would stipulate that I'm not an historian (are you?), I'm a shoemaker with access to bona fide historians and material relating to shoe history. History isn't about speculation and wishful thinking...not even history as I imagine it. We can concoct scenarios all day long about how pirate shirts might have been worn with kilts somewhere, sometime; or how kilts could possibly have been worn in the 14th century in some remote and forgotten glen (Brigadoon?) where no records were kept.

But as the saying goes "if there is no photos, it didn't happen" If there is no evidence, or so little evidence as to suggest anomaly, then we cannot call it history. It begins to drift into the realm of fantasy and Renaissance Faires.

I stand by what I said...and what I believe the history clearly shows: Buckle shoes had little or nothing to do with the early 17th century (Pilgrims) and everything to do with the 18th century.