Joy of Tights (aka pantyhose): Boottights - an idea whose time has come? (or maybe gone?)

Saturday, 28 December 2013

Boottights - an idea whose time has come? (or maybe gone?)

Socks with those?

I'm always on the look out for innovations in the world of tights. (What an exciting life I lead). So I was interested when I came across an article by Amelia Champion. Ms Champion first describes tights as at best a necessary evil in winter:

"I love the bare legged look but there’s something about showing skin in December (even in Los Angeles) that seems unseasonal. Tights are a necessary headache in winter, like changing the oil in your car and paying your taxes. Unfortunately they're slippery and thin, and I’ve never found ones that I love enough to buy in multiples. In the colder weather (the only time you’d want to wear them, really) they leave my feet a throbbing, blistered mess. Plus... the snagging. Oh, the snagging"

Tights, sometimes necessary, but never nice?

She then becomes an evangelist for the cause of BootTights (like the CamelCase?)

"But last week I received a pair of simple black Bootights—a product that’s sturdier than the average pantyhose and comes with a warm, cushy sock attached—in a holiday party gift bag, and the discovery has turned me into a believer. There's nothing sweeter than when form meets function, and this sturdy fashion hybrid feels unbelievably luxurious. I think most women appreciate a little convenience around the holidays."

Ms Champion - presumably in her Boottights

Now I did a bit of research and came across an article for BootTights in the UK from July 2011, (a tad early for winter?), where they were described as:

"An end to socks with tights! New hosiery has built-in foot panels for wearing with boots"

The rationale for this fashion innovation is much the same as that offered by Ms Champion; i.e., the eradication of:

Slipping feet
Slouching socks
Cold toes

One Joanne Darbost is masterminding the introduction of BootTights to the UK- a snip at £22.99.

But BootTights raise two questions. One do you need to wear tights and socks with boots?

What no socks?

I find that boots often fit quite snuggly with tights - but perhaps that's just my fat legs.

We can see she has taken her boots off, but where are her socks?

Something similar comes in the reader responses to the Daily Mail article on BootTights. Linda writes:

"Erm, I never wear socks over tights and I don't know anybody who does. Good opaques in the winter will keep your feet cosy."

Smiling because she has no slouching socks in her boots, just her trusty opaques?

Now as other contributors correct Linda - a lot of use do wear socks with tights and boots.

"Oh Linda, where have you been living? I think you will find that a huge number of women wear socks over their tights in their boots when it's cold."

Here's some photographic evidence for Linda:

Boots on - far right

Boots off - showing socks - and her bf doesn't seem to mind

There are reasons why you would wear socks and tights with boots:

Warmth (obviously). Not only an extra layer of material, but another layer of air between your tights and socks.
Fi. To make your feet fit snugly in your boots.
Fashion. Get that boots with socks and tights look, with those socks just peeping over the tops of your boots.

And yes there are problems with socks on tights in boots. They can slip down. Although some would deny that there is any problem:

"I have tights from M&S that cost a few pounds a pair, and are still looking great after years. Ditto socks. My socks don't slouch, and the tights-socks combo doesn't slip (nor can I work out how or why they would). And I'm not remotely embarassed to take my boots off to reveal that I'm wearing tights and socks - why should I be?" (CJ comment on Daily Mail article on Boot Tights)

However, I don't think BootTights are the answer. In criticizing them I can't do better than start with the comments from the Daily Mail article above.

"I can't see the point of these though. When you ladder the tights then the socks are useless too. Boots tend to rub on the tights sometimes around the top and make them catch and look scruffy. Still, if you wear really long skirts, then this isn't an issue I guess."

Why so sad? Serious discussion of whether the top of her boots are rubbing her tights

Of course long socks stock your boots rubbing. Not an advantage you get with BootTights. Just not these socks maybe.

And here's another:

"It's not like these look any more attractive with boots removed. Why would I pay £23 to replace something a fraction of the price that works fine? And what if these get laddered? £23 down the drain. And it doesn't have the advantage of separates of being able to be mixed and matched - thicker socks for colder weather or bigger boots etc. Endless combos of different patterned tights and different sized socks. Epic fail. Can't think of anything I'd be less likely to spend £23 on."

Would these be anymore attractive if they were boot tights. Someone's not bothered anyway.

When you take your boots off....

...is it better to have your socks off too? (These tights must be interesting - she is studying them!)

One type of boot .... one type of sock...

... another type of boot another type of sock (Nice tights!)

Jessica echos some of the other criticisms:

"Like most people I wear a pair of socks with my tights. However, if I have a long day I put them under the tights as, being 99% cotton, they are absorbent and fresher than nasty nylon/polyester on one's feet. The tights featured here means you would need to by other tights anyway to wear with ankle boots. Also, I wear different thicknesses of sock depending on the fit of the boots and the weather. So in all these tights are an expensive fail."