View Single Post
  #65   Report Post  
Old 24-02-2010, 05:33 PM posted to uk.rec.walking,uk.rec.gardening,uk.rec.birdwatching,misc.consumers.frugal-living,alt.rec.hiking
Phil Cook Phil Cook is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2009
Posts: 192
Default walking boots-- which are good?

SMS wrote:

Today, it would be exceedingly foolish to purchase hiking boots or trail
shoes for wet conditions that were not GoreTex. Actaully if they were
full grain leather you could get away with the lack of GoreTex by
applying Sno-Seal or some other wax, but that affects breath ability.
For non-full-grain leather you can't apply those waxes, so GoreTex is
even more important.

Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
get wet.


I remain unconvinced that GoreTex is the wonder material you purport
it to be. My last pair of four season winter walking boots were sans
Tex and my current pair have it. I never noticed my feet getting wet
(from the outside) in the old pair despite a good many years in rather
"mixte" conditions. Bogs and slush can be wet in the extreme and both
tend to feature prominently in Scottish winter hillwalking. The reason
I bought my latest pair with Tex are that they fitted me better than
any alternative, the comfort was the killer application for me rather
than the liner.

What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots or
shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable. Fit, fit
and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-)
pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish...