Phil Cook wrote
Rod Speed wrote
SMS wrote:
Phil Cook wrote:

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.

If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in
period where they become more comfortable.

There can indeed and that does in fact happen routinely.

And it doesnt have to be 'full-grain' leather either.

But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably
won't become more comfortable than they are at the time of purchase.

Suede does too, its leather with the best of them.

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away.

Nope, just leather with the finish that some prefer.

It is the inner side of the skin with the outer taken off.

Yes. So the same considerations apply with it becoming more comfortable over time.

Nubuck is the outer that has been abraded to resemble suede.

Yes, which is why said what I said.

Full grain leather has the outer intact. A lot of winter boots intended for rough conditions
are made with the reverse side out to protect the face of the leather from wear.

All irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether some
boots and shoes do become more comfortable over time.

SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is
the outer that has been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather
which doesn't look
good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which a

1. GORE-TEX® lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining)
for breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have
this). NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof
membrane lining.

I do that last all the time. I just dont need boots with a waterproof lining.

2. Vibram® outsole for best traction

I dont need the best traction either. What I actually
need is the best confort and very long wearing instead.

(cheaper boots may have a lower grade outsole).

I am quite capable of checking the outsole.

3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare except on extreme high end).

So its stupid to demand that, it restricts your choice far too much.

Makes more sense to accept that they may not be quite as durable,
but much better value and vastly more range to choose from.

4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for support

I dont need support. My ankles have evolved with all the support I need.

and durability.

Thats very desirable, but not absolutely essential if the price is lower
enough so you can say buy twice as many as the most expensive etc.

Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you
begin to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit,
aesthetics, price, etc..

It makes no sense to do it your way on price most obviously.

Its an important consideration at the same time as considering
the design because it interacts with the design so much.

Phil Cook wrote
SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck?
I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look
good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

Fashion.

Not necessarily. I used to wear them just because they didnt need to be
cleaned like leather boots do. And I wear them all the time in winter too.

Suede looks trendy

Not necessarily.

but is as porous as a sponge, hence the need to add a membrane
to boots and shoes made of it if you want water resistance.

Sure, but many dont need that. Not everyone inhabits that soggy little island.

Nubuck looks like suede but has some water
resistance, not as good as full grain leather though.

In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.

I dont even bother with the wax.

And speaking of fashion and branding:

1. GORE-TEX®
2. Vibram®

In the UK JCB make earth moving equipment, but they aren't the only game in town anymore.

PeterC wrote
Rod Speed wrote

No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.

I worded it rather poorly.

You did indeed.

What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.

Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.

Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.

They can also be stretched a bit.

Yeah, thats the main reason I didnt return them, I decided that it should
be feasible to stretch them if they didnt wear in by themselves. And since
I wear them all day every day in the winter, they likely would wear in.

I dont wear different boots for walking than I wear around the house in winter.

I saw a shoe-stretcher that could widen shoes up to width D

Not sure how well those work with modern glued construction.

- for me, that's narrow.

My feet arent anything special width wise, just a bit higher than average at the top of the foot.

It's easy to get D, so a stretcher needs to go well beyond that.

There's plenty of antique stretchers on ebay and some that appear to be new too.

Roger Chapman wrote:

snip

That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
the countryside away from paved surfaces.

Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.

Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:

1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX

Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.

Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English. One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
was permitted."

Scott Bryce wrote
SMS wrote

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.

Have you spoken with every expert? Nearly everybody who successfully
hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?

Scott Williamson, who has hiked at least 40,000 miles, wears running shoes.

Not only would these people not consider GoreTex important, they would specifically advise against it. The reason is
that under some conditions, your feet will stay drier without it.

The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort are overkill for walking.

Nope, I prefer elastic sided boots just for the convenience of putting
them on and off and they are more convenient for grass seeds as well.

I wear them all day every day in winter and they are a lot eaier
to keep looking decent than with modern running shoes etc.

SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote
SMS wrote
Phil Cook wrote

Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner
side of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer
that has been abraded to resemble suede.

Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade
leather which doesn't look good unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?

Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of
it if you want water resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not as good as full grain
leather though.

Then Nubuck boots should cost more, not less, than full grain leather boots.

Nope, not if they can start with cheaper leather.

This is not the case (at least in the U.S.) where the most expensive boots are full grain leather, with GoreTex
membrane, and a Vibram sole. Give up any of those three key features and the price comes down.

You cant easily separate that from just what the more expansive manufacturers choose to do tho.

It could even be as basic as whether its made in china etc.

I bought my 11 y.o. son a perfectly good pair of full grain leather boots at Wal-Mart for $30. No GoreTex, no Vibram,
but fine for his easy boy scout treks.

They're also fine for many adult's much more extensive use.

The next boots though will have to be better as the weight of the packs and the difficulty of the trips increases, and
they don't care about the weather. Boots are required for safety; they won't allow anyone the backpack trips without
boots that have ankle support and sufficient traction.

More fool them.

Is this really a gardening topic???

Roger Chapman wrote:

snip

That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
the countryside away from paved surfaces.

Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.

Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:

1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX

Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.

Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English. One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
was permitted."

Scott Bryce wrote:
SMS wrote:
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.

Have you spoken with every expert?

Spoken? No.

Nearly everybody who successfully
hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?

No.

SMS wrote:


Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:

1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX

Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.

Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English.



"There, but for the grace of God, goes God."

On 2010-02-23, SMS wrote:
That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
a boot.

We're a quiet bunch.
--
Chick Tower

For e-mail: arh DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net

SMS wrote:

Boots are required for safety; they won't
allow anyone the backpack trips without boots that have ankle support
and sufficient traction.

Boots are /widely perceived/ to be needed for safety. That's not the
same thing.

Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
the experts won't be in them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:49:00 +0000, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Take them orienteering instead and they'll be on rougher terrain with
more need of good soles, and hardly anyone will think they're best off
in boots with Vibram soles and ankle support. Certainly almost all of
the experts won't be in them.

I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
prefer lighter footwear.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

Geoff Berrow wrote:

I've been walking 3-4 miles a day on pavements to keep in trim and in
the recent snow, I wore my boots instead of my usual North Face shoes.
As I only have short legs, I found it harder to walk as fast with the
boots because of the extra weight. This isn't usually a problem when
doing day walks across country or up hills as my pace will be more
relaxed. I can see, however, that someone concerned with speed would
prefer lighter footwear.

Indeed, but the other point to realise is that going faster doesn't
magically protect one's ankles on fast terrain. In practice it's not a
problem because a /safety requirement/ of ankle support is a red
herring. Yes, orienteers damage their ankles from time to time but not
to the extent that you ever see many in something like
http://www.jalas.com/index.php?do=pr...6&page_id=159&
rather than
http://www.jalas.com/index.php?do=pr...5&page_id=159&,
and it's not as if boot-wearers never prang theirs.

That's not to say some folk won't prefer a boot for whatever they're
doing, but a preference and a requirement for safety are quite different
things.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
If a dander across the local farmlands had a significant degree of
commonality with a 30 mile forced march with a 30 kg pack

30kg? 60kg more like...... :-(