Mercurio
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- 6,180
From my point of view, I feel that even though both fell in the same boots category and that the differences might be subtle, the main one between chukka and desert boots is that the latter tends to be lighter in weight as most would be unlined and has a floppier upper. An essential component of most deserts boots is that they have crepe rubber soles, most chukkas would have leather or Dainite, usually lined and more structured with a sturdier construction type.What’s the difference?
Origin can also be considered:
On the one side, "The style can trace its origin back to the sport of Polo where a Chukker or Chukka is a seven and a half minute playing period. Chukka boots themselves also resemble the Jodhpur style worn by Polo players and they became very popular among off-duty players thanks to their high levels of comfort.",
On the other, "the Clark’s Desert boot was inspired by the boots worn by British Army soldiers during the Western Desert Campaign of the second world war. These boots were manufactured for British Army officers in Cario’s Khan el-Khalili bazaar and featured distinctive crepe rubber soles"
A chukka can be more easily dressed up and wore with more formal attires, the desert boot is quite informal and normally would be used only with jeans, chinos or corduroys. I wouldn't use a desert boot with flannel trousers but certainly would with proper chukka boots.
To illustrate what for me are the differences, from the same brand:
Loake Sahara desert boots:
Loake Pimlico chukka boots: