We need help identifying this brand of shoes.

[Jenesaisquoi]

I am sticking this in here, even though I haven’t read it properly yet, in case it sparks some ideas.

Scroll down to read about army boots with vulcanised rubber soles

WWI FACTS & FIGURES & MYTHS

RECRUITS The average height of the recruit back in 1914 would have been around 5ft 5in, with anyone above 5ft 7in something more of a rarity, whilst there we many more somewhat 'shorter' than your...

www.tommy1418.com

 

[megs1477]

Call me crazy, but does the L (or Z) of the lettering mimic the larger shape (in lighter blue) above it??
I'm attaching A pic showing what I'm talking about along with a sharpened view of the original.

Could it be a R? I used the vulcanized rubber info mentioned above and found the patent. I found companies that cited that patent and looked at all their soles (insomnia is great for research). I found Reiker.
I linked their logo below. Could this be an R and the trefoil the same as the sole below? If it is correct I would assume this is an older version.

Thoughts?

 

[megs1477]

Here is the YouTube show Sheryl was on.

Does she discuss the shoe? I haven’t been able to watch.

 

[Gemmie]

Could it be a R? I used the vulcanized rubber info mentioned above and found the patent. I found companies that cited that patent and looked at all their soles (insomnia is great for research). I found Reiker.
I linked their logo below. Could this be an R and the trefoil the same as the sole below? If it is correct I would assume this is an older version.

Thoughts?

View attachment 380955

Not for me although others may see it. I'm of the mindset it's a flexing animal whose image is inverted on the opposite side (since it is). So an R on one side wouldn't make sense to me.

 

[5W's]

Then the only way to have any idea is to actually know the tread imprint. What it says, IDK I suppose its possible to narrow that down? IMO its kind of hard to even state that because as we' have seen there are a couple of logos that could go here as they all make sense. That 13 is it a size? Or just some kind of number attributed to whatever? If this footware made an imprint like it did the ground it made the imprint in had to be malliable or paint, or blood? It had to be something similar to what I just suggested because otherwise I just don't see how this pattern could be made by that particular footware.

I'm replying to myself there is no 13 sorry to confuse anyone the 13 was on an image reconstructed of the ororignal image of the tread we are all discussing here. I can't erase or delete what I've posted in error about the 13. I got confused with the reconctructed image and myself for whatever reason that the reconstucted image was the original image. I guess it can happen sometimes. But going forward I won't repeat the same error. Everything apart from the 13 still is correct, though.
If this footware made an imprint like it did the ground it made the imprint in had to be malliable or paint, or blood? It had to be something similar to what I just suggested because otherwise I just don't see how this pattern could be made by that particular footware.

 

[5W's]

IMO whatever the imprint is made on is maliable. The reason I say that is because on a surface that's rigid the imprint wouldn't be as well imprinted as it is in the image given us. For the most part we can see the top and bottom of the imprint. Then further if the imprint is made in a maliable surface then can we say the weight of the person helped in making the imprint. And if it was female would the imprint be such as the weight is less or a male adult's they weight more? Has anyone firured out if its a right or left foot?

 

[RaspberryMama]

I've been thinking about the fact that the image is the same on each side, but inverted. It's very similar to the images on playing cards. The "club" symbol also leads me to consider cards. I've been thinking it doesn't work though, because the images are side by side instead of vertical like a playing card.

BUT does everyone else see what looks like a J in the center? And an upside down J next to it? So, for kicks, I checked out the Jack of Clubs card. Guys, he's always holding some sort of club upright in his hand. If it were a monochrome print, it could easily look like he's raising his fist or flexing his arm in front of his face.

Some Jacks show the full face, but an online search shows some are profiles, which I feel our image is.

I haven't had time to dig into shoes connected in some way to a Jack of Clubs. But I did turn the image sideways and, very much like a card, there actually is a vertical inverted image of a profile with raised arm or club as well. I'll try to draw it over the image to explain what I mean.

What kind of club (nightclub?) might have custom shoes made? Is that even a reasonable path to pursue?

 

[RaspberryMama]

I'm replying to myself there is no 13 sorry to confuse anyone the 13 was on an image reconstructed of the ororignal image of the tread we are all discussing here. I can't erase or delete what I've posted in error about the 13. I got confused with the reconctructed image and myself for whatever reason that the reconstucted image was the original image. I guess it can happen sometimes. But going forward I won't repeat the same error. Everything apart from the 13 still is correct, though.
If this footware made an imprint like it did the ground it made the imprint in had to be malliable or paint, or blood? It had to be something similar to what I just suggested because otherwise I just don't see how this pattern could be made by that particular footware.

Thanks for clearing up the 13! Lol, I thought I might be crazy. I agree the surface that the print is on probably had some "give". The fainter, secondary pattern looks like cloth of some sort.

 

[5W's]

Thanks for clearing up the 13! Lol, I thought I might be crazy. I agree the surface that the print is on probably had some "give". The fainter, secondary pattern looks like cloth of some sort.

Really, so you think the fainter part might be cloth? That's interesting. Instead of cloth do you think it could be another type of material? I can't think of anything maybe rubber, or some type of non slip material placed at strategic plcaes on that sole?

 

[RaspberryMama]

Really, so you think the fainter part might be cloth? That's interesting. Instead of cloth do you think it could be another type of material? I can't think of anything maybe rubber, or some type of non slip material placed at strategic plcaes on that sole?

I'm not really seeing anything placed on the sole... I'm seeing an overall cloth (denim, maybe?) pattern. Could you point out exactly what you're referring to?

 

[A1home]

For the Quicksilver angle:


View attachment 379583

Teva?

 

[5W's]

I'm not really seeing anything placed on the sole... I'm seeing an overall cloth (denim, maybe?) pattern. Could you point out exactly what you're referring to?

Actually forget about the sole of the foot. I meant the entire tread the parts that are making the imprint may be rubber or non slip perhaps? Do you think those areas could be denim? Or the patterned parts?

 

[Danielle holmes]

Ironically, there is a nationally recognized "shoe print expert" testifying at a trial in Pike County Ohio. His name is Bill Bodziak.

Shoe impression expert testifies in Pike County massacre trial

Bill Bodziak, a shoe impression expert, is on the stand Monday. Bodziak specializes in footwear and tire impressions.

www.wlwt.com

Possibly he or his company might be able to lead you in the right direction.

JMO

What do you think???

 

[5W's]

I'm not really seeing anything placed on the sole... I'm seeing an overall cloth (denim, maybe?) pattern. Could you point out exactly what you're referring to?

I was just looking at an image of the imprint from one of the first images and I see what you mean now. Yes you are right that can be denim. But then this image has been altered from the original though.

I hope this comes out correctly.

 

[5W's]

I'm not really seeing anything placed on the sole... I'm seeing an overall cloth (denim, maybe?) pattern. Could you point out exactly what you're referring to?

If it was denim or cloth then could it still be footware?

 

[5W's]

I'm not really seeing anything placed on the sole... I'm seeing an overall cloth (denim, maybe?) pattern. Could you point out exactly what you're referring to?

The only thing is it looks like footware and footware usually is not cloth or denim. Although I suppose some parts of the tread could be different materials.

 

[CSIDreamer]

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting what you're saying about denim correctly. I'm a bit fuzzy with a bad cold.

I brought up denim awhile back. I don’t think the fabric pattern is part of the imprint. I think the shoe imprint was found on something fabric.

 

[EllaMinnowP]

IMO, the tread pattern or any part of the outsoles which created this print needn’t be, and most likely are not, made of cloth. It does appear that the partial imprint or “shoe track” was made on denim or cloth. To me, it seems that the person who was wearing the shoe probably stepped in something wet, then stepped on or kicked the fabric surface.
Perhaps, if it had been a track in mud or the like, an impression was made at the scene and then later the result was transferred to cloth?
IDK, but my point is that I don’t believe the shoe itself is the source of the denim or cloth looking background shown in the picture.

 

[RaspberryMama]

Actually forget about the sole of the foot. I meant the entire tread the parts that are making the imprint may be rubber or non slip perhaps? Do you think those areas could be denim? Or the patterned parts?

I don't see any reason to think something extra was on the tread? I think the shoe pushed down on something and that faint pattern can be seen throughout the photo. It's not the texture of the tread, but of what the print was impressed on.

But many rubber treads are nonslip. I think that's the primary reason for making rubber soles.

I feel like I'm really missing what you are seeing. I'm so sorry!

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I don't see any reason to think something extra was on the tread? I think the shoe pushed down on something and that faint pattern can be seen throughout the photo. It's not the texture of the tread, but of what the print was impressed on.

But many rubber treads are nonslip. I think that's the primary reason for making rubber soles.

I feel like I'm really missing what you are seeing. I'm so sorry!

I understand and agree. I think the cloth is what received the imprint -- maybe it was a victim's clothing, or other clothing or cloth at a crime or accident scene? (speculation, obviously)

I'm not even positive the pattern we are looking at came from footwear. I mean, that's how it was described to us and it well may be, but it could also be an assumption or a working theory. I'd love for the OP to clarify what exactly is known and what is assumption or speculation.

If not footwear, what else could it be? Presumably it was used to hit or press onto the background cloth.

I had the thought about playing cards as well.

I also see a rough likeness to the MLB baseball logo, so maybe a bat? Or a logo from a cap?

I disagree with a poster above that we are seeing the entire image of whatever made this. If it was made onto a narrow surface such as a person's arm or leg, the area of impact could be smaller than the entire print/logo/whatever, due to the curve of the limb, if that makes sense. Like if someone stepped on a person's arm crosswise, the impression left on the sleeve won't be a full footprint, because a foot is longer than an arm is wide.

My curiosity is killing me on this one and I hope we learn more and eventually figure out what made this imprint!

MOO