ITT: Affordable boots.
Considering buying new boots but I'm a bit on a budget. What shoes for tall men (wearing size 13.5) can you advise ?
Please help these cost around 200 - 300$ and I only had them for maybe 2 years. How do I fix them without having to spend too much.
just copped these on menlook for 60 euros, base price is 140
Have my eye on these but I haven't been looking for very long so I don't want to pull the trigger yet. Any recommendations?
also interested in this
I recommend what I've recommended in every boot thread: stick with the big five (Danner, Red Wing, Wesco, White's, Chippewa) or invest in Oak Street Bootmakers, Sanders, Trickers, Aldens, or Allen Edmonds
I won't ever buy another pair of RWs after buying the pair I have; quality is laughable compared to some of my other boots
I only have one pair and very limited experience; they're an American institution and most people don't have issue with them
My complaint: I didn't like the leather; I still don't like the leather, actually. It's very tough and doesn't breath. Also, it's paper thin and requires frequent conditioning.
That and I'm pissed that my new Mocs require 400 dollars in repair just to put a log sole on them. If I had known that before purchasing, I would have just bought a custom pair of White's, since they'll basically let you build the shoe however you want it
400 dollars for a resole? Lol, what cobbler did you go to?
As for leather quality, Redwings are great for the price. Never had any issues with the leather, condition them maybe 4 times a year or so, and they've held up real well, so I'm gonna call bull on the leather being particularly thirsty. As for the leather being tough, well, Redwings are still workboots first, so it should be.
Picked these up recently and would like some feedback on them.
Does anyone know of any relatively affordable alternatives to the viberg service boots? (Pic related). I really like the slim silhouette and the lower ankle. Not a fan of high ankled boots (even redwing iron rangers are too high for my taste). You might suggest chukkas for the height but I like the full lace up enclosure
Everyone had been getting these. I recommend sizing down. I wear a size 11 so I got a size 10. Also buy an gel insole for extra comfort. Wear two pairs of socks to break these fuckers in. Then wax they offer actually softens the leather
>random folded layer
>tweed outta nowhere
>two sets of eyelets?
>laces doing the most confusing shit
>random shit printed on the side
>zipper with no purpose
If you're serious, you fucked up bad. Michael's Jackson's Bad.
If you're fucking with us, that's no consolation because the person who made these boots was serious.
C/N IR's? If I do get 'em, won't be full price, likely seconds from STP or otherwise. So C/N sub 200 IR's?
Have had a pair for about 5 years
Nice leather and construction
Very durable soles
Surprisingly comfy when broken in - have traveled and hiking in these with no blisters
Toebox is kinda long, looks funny from some angles. Try the in person before you buy
No tread on soles = no good in mud or snow
People on this board will call you an MFA/meme-tier pleb. They might not be wrong.
Sub $200 is the right price.
I got pic related from a friend. They are broken in and super comfortable. I started wearing them everyday and like the way they look. What are your thoughts on wearing boots this high?
Did i fuck up in buying these? I can still return them
This is the pair I wanted, but they don't have any more in stock
I'm looking into a pair of 1460s and want to make sure i get the right size. I fit a 9.5 US shoe size with a very thin insert for my arches (a few mm probably). What size docs should i get?
Those are witch shoes senpai
If you want boots go here
Anyone care to share info/experience with Church's? Recently bought these, waiting for them to arrive, but I understand the brand has a lot of controversy because of the prada buy out. Are the rumors true?
My only other experience with English shoes is two pairs from grenson, and 6 pairs from sanders & sanders thanks to mark mcnairy.
I really like mark mcnairys line but regular sanders look too dadcore.
The grensons are shit.
Also debating on buying a pair from tricker's next, or the (Spanish?) brand Meermin I've been hearing about.
What would be the best trickers boot model with wingtip?
Also would greatly appreciate suggestions for long wing boots. Not mall tier though please, and nothing obvious like Alden.
this thread is 98% shit.
Can't even understand why you would bother posting all this marshals/ross tier footwear.
What other brands are church's equivalent too?
Would it be a stretch to say as good as alden?
got a pic of someone wearing this? or similar
Not from a shop though.
I have experience with sanders, but not trickers.
How can they be so close if my sanders run me 450 tops through mark mcnairy, but trickers 700ish?
Could you say which american brand they are closest to?
Love how sleek they look
don't love blake stitching with a faux welt for $900
>not understanding that cemented soles are justified even for 600+ shoes
People like you have some severe mental disorder. Just because its expensive it doesnt automatically need to be welted. Especially in high fashion it would be retarded for them to be more often than not.
Are you talking about gemming?
Welting or not, expense ought to mean you pay for at least some increase in quality. Do you really go for designer brands that use shitty materials and shitty construction that will last about as long as a $20 wal-mart shoe.
not person you are replying to but please, more detail.
I prefer a genuine welt.
I can't justify the price of my shoes being 400-2200 usd if they don't have something as simple as a goodyear welt.
not yet, currently made my way up to 600 range.
Maybe late this year I'll pull the trigger.
Or should I save up for lobbs?
leather looks bad but boots themselves look decent enough
Apparently it's temple of jawnz, which is now defunct
has apparently been replaced by falcon garments with a price hike
>for at least some increase in quality
Do you unironically believe that a pair of shitty 300 bucks boots (that also has to be welted) uses the same sort of quality leather as a pair of 500 bucks cemented ones? Fucking hilarious my friend.
You dont even realize that the cost of the welt adds to the production cost which means corners must be cut for the materials. The $500 pair will look way better, and in case of high fashion you would never want to replace the soles anyway. Welting is a technique that is supposed to make it easier to resole mostly leather sole based shoes (which tend to last way less time than cemented rubber).
See above. Point is that a welt is pointless for shoes like pic related. You would never replace the sole anyway and IF you were then the shoe would look generic as fuck. Which means a welt is pointless since it doesnt add anything of value since you will never make use of it.
The shoe itself isnt better because its welted. The welt is only there so the shoe lasts longer due to having the option to replace the sole. Good luck finding a cobbler who has these sort of soles, though.
>designer brands that use shitty materials and shitty construction that will last about as long as a $20 wal-mart shoe.
Is that what people actually believe? That high fashion items are not of high quality nature?
That's a dumb ass argument though.
You are stating the obvious. Who would get fast fashion footwear resoled time and time again far past its expiration date.
That being said it doesn't change the fact that under different circumstances and expectations shoes, even as low as 200. Should absolutely have a welt. Otherwise you are a sucker getting ripped off.
You can dickride your fave designers all you want, but at the end of the day, he/she knows that they are ripping you off, and you should know it to.
Too some extent I can accept this, but when they are intentionally cutting corners down to even a welt, I don't see why you don't expect them to do the same with everything else.
All you said was there is no need to maintain durability, but how can you justify the price at that point?
Don't say because you consider it a piece of 'art'.
And thats fine. I just wanted to point out that a shoe being expensive doesnt mean that it has to be welted to be worth its price because the welt rarely adds value. For most boots a welt is crucial, I agree. Hell, I have like 4 pairs of high fashion boots and all of them have a good-year welt. Simply because most boots have simple soles, the boot is supposed to be the highlight. But for derbies etc it simply is different.
There are plenty of shoe makers out there, especially new ones, that have selling points like 'good year welt' or 'horween' leather.
However many of these brands don't last long because the corners they cut are obvious.
This is exactly why there are discussions on forums, to sort through the junk and filter out the shoe makers that are actually WORTH IT.
This is why there is only like 10 brands being commonly discussed.
SLP is not a rip off, heck I think they are like 1 of 3-5 makers offering Chelsea's in a whole cut.
But those creepers if they were pic related, are an awful example of a welt not being necessary. Aside from the sole, everything else looked like shit, period.
The only thing up for debate really is the unique sole and shape. To each his own, but I sure as hell wouldn't go around acting smug pretending I got a justified price for it. Or even imply they didn't cut other corners besides the welt.
I was the guy talking about welts. I concede your point. You were right.
Still, the shoes in question were some shit-tier "designer" mallcore brand retailing for ~$200 when they were worth like 1/4 of that.
well on that we can agree.
But for those mall tier shoes, I don't think they are a genuine welt, so I wouldn't consider the shoe's price to be justified let alone wearable.
It's an obvious intention to mimic a good quality shoe, but your post sounded like you were saying GENUINE welts mean nothing.
And no one outside the US will give a shit about it. Also: if your shoes selling point is the welt then it obviously has a generic design. Its simply supposed to last longer, not to look unique. Meaning that to these people clothes are a means to an end, in which case I wonder why someone who supports that would even bother with a fashion forum.
>why there are discussions on forums
Which are mostly riddled by bias. A lot of people on these forums never actually owned a pair of high fashion shoes so they are automatically under the impression that its low quality bait.
>This is why there is only like 10 brands being commonly discussed
Which is irrelevant to the topic, see above.
>Aside from the sole, everything else looked like shit, period
Damn, so now youre turning your subjective opinions into facts. Classic example of an American being under the impression that his opinion matters. I have bad news for you: youre irrelevant in fashion.
>pretending I got a justified price for it
Damn, an American who doesnt even understand how supply and demand work. I am kinda disappointed.
>likes how sleek the boot is
>doesnt like blake welting
Why do you suddenly ramp up the price? I was talking about the 500-600 range. Hell, to my knowledge there are hardly even any high fashion shoes that cost 1k or more. But excellent job moving your goal post you little shit.
Its hard for me to link shoes when its hardly ever possible to tell if theres a welt or not. You have to understand that high fashion often tries to go for a clean look, which means that a shoe that has no visible stitching isnt automatically cemented. It might be a combination of both. You will have to specifically ask the manufacturer. Pic related for example is cemented while cheaper shoes of the same designer are goodyear welted. It often is more important to have a clean look, welt is just an addition in high fashion which can be found in the $300 price bracket yet is hard to find in the $700 price bracket of the very same designer.
I mean, you can check out HF whole sale websites and see for yourself. Unless you can look into the shoe its going to be impossible to tell if the shoes is welted or not. Especially since some (as I stated earlier) use a combination of welting and cementing. They basically welt the sole to the upper and the cement more 'soles' to the sole.
>it obviously has a generic design. It's simply supposed to last longer, not to look unique.
How is this a negative?
welted shoes are nowhere near a norm among the general population.
How does wanting a classic good quality pair of shoes disqualify you from fashion? Especially when most people consider high fashion to be anything over 200 usd at their local mall.
If you want to wear dumb ass looking shoes that's fine, but why not ask for quality as well?
Aside from the subjective opinion of the designer, there isn't much of a difference between shitty high end creepers and shitty mall tier creepers. The only difference is the snotty attitude one gives.
>How is this a negative?
Again, you look at fashion as a means to an end. If thats you motivation then why do you even bother with fashion forums? Of course it isnt a bad thing. Nothing in this world is inherently good or bad.
>How does wanting a classic good quality pair of shoes disqualify you from fashion
Fashion mostly is about looks. Cuts, designs etc. The quality of the garment is important but often less so. Caring more about quality than the look of the piece means that fashion is a means to an end to you.
You buy clothes for the same reason 'normal people' do: For them to keep you warm and last as long as possible. You simply get higher quality because you want them to last as long as possible and enable re-soling. I get that the goal could still be to emulate a cleaner look, but welted shoes simply dont serve any purpose apart from what I stated. Buying a fully canvassed jacket for example adds an incredible level of comfort. So do jumpers made from high quality cashmere etc. A welt doesnt do that, it adds nothing but longevity.
>If you want to wear dumb ass looking shoes that's fine
Jesus Christ pal
>there isn't much of a difference between shitty high end creepers and shitty mall tier creepers
Alright we are done here.
I was thinking of getting the not cropped ones. I'm starting to think that the cropped ones look better.
I'm sure if the shoes were german welted or something, the product listing would definitely try to show that off. It'd be pretty fair to assume cementing with no visible welt and no stitches on the underside of the sole.
Actual fashion isnt for poor people because it combines unique designs with high quality construction. Its as simple as that.
You can still buy brands like Zara and try to look good but that wont change the fact that a) the quality is embarrassing and b) the design are stolen from high fashion outlets, which makes all their clothes shit by default. See pic related: one season is Balmain, the other Zara. Take a guess who stole from who.
>the product listing would definitely try to show that off
But it doesnt. Most of the time its not even mentioned that a jacket half are fully canvassed jackets. Especially the latter should be a main selling point but in high fashion it simply isnt, thats why stores dont even bother with it. They will list shit as obvious as a full lining, but many wont mention jackshit regarding the construction. And its the same with shoes.
>It'd be pretty fair to assume cementing with no visible welt and no stitches on the underside of the sole
Thats what one might think. And it case of the shoes I linked thats also the case. However, I have seem multiple shoes that had no visual stitching on neither outside nor sole yet were still welted. No good-year welt though, it was a storm welt for example.
And as I said: the same designer might sell good-year welted shoes for less than cemented ones. The design is the selling point, the quality of the material comes afterwards and the construction... well. I stopped counting how often I messaged customer support to find out about the construction regarding a certain piece.
I'm curious about this too.
I have a few shoes that never developed a crease, and aside from scuffs and wear on the sole, the uppers are great.
Are the boots just that great? or that new?
Someone post aged ones
Most times it's obvious when a non welt shoe is good quality.
However, that not make it the majority.
There are hundreds of brands selling cemented shit shoes along with shit soles and leather quality.
Don't act like this isn't the case.
Just as there are shit welted shoes.
"actual" fashion rarely lists any of this because they rely on their brand names to sell shit. simple as that. You think any of SLPs shit would be worthwhile if released by a random company?
Yeah, everyone has to start somewhere.
They don't even over charge in my opinion for their footwear.
Plenty of competition at their price range, and nowhere near an unjustified rip off.
>I have a few shoes that never developed a crease
Thats impossible. There always is a crease simply because there has to be if the shoe is actually worn. Good leather simply makes the crease looks less shit. I have a decent pair of boots that developed a less obnoxious crease, which I am really happy about.
Considering the lack of alternatives? Yes. I mean, I never bought SLP but I am pretty sure that the brand isnt much different from lets say Prada, Paul Smith Mainline, Marni, Valentino etc in that regard: Their garments still are high quality with the main selling point being the design.
Good luck finding alternatives to high fashion garments at a lower price point. Cuts, designs, construction. Nothing will match. Sure you can buy Zaras stolen designs and have somewhat similar looks, but you will lose the quality. Or buy exclusively tailored clothes and get the maximum amount of quality, but you will lose the design. High fashion simply combines them. You lose some quality but get design in return. Which is the reason why this stuff sells for that much. Just because you cant put a number on the RnD of design doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
>However, that not make it the majority.
And I never claimed for this to be the case.
>There are hundreds of brands selling cemented shit shoes along with shit soles and leather quality
No idea because I dont really give a shit about anything below a certain price point because I made had very bad experience with it.
if you're looking at quality then most of it is a complete rip off. you'd have to be pretty deluded to think otherwise.
yes, everyone has to start somewhere, but doesn't mean that you can jump in and charge the shit that most fashion labels charge.
What are some good socks to wear with boots? Red Wings and Katahdins are really all I need this winter but I've only got on pair of O'Hanlons. I really like them, but is there another sock that people have used and like?
Sandes kelso, yes or no? Im wondering if they are too dadcore
Since there seems to be 2 knowledgeable people in this thread, I have a question.
What high-end fashion boots will last me a while? I've been looking at RO and SLP. Would these be similar quality? I want a boot I can wear almost daily that can last me quite a few years.
>There are hundreds of brands selling cemented shit shoes along with shit soles and leather quality
That why I said that its a combination of welt and cementing. If you use blake welt then you will only see stitching on the sole and on the inside of the shoe. However, if you cement additional soles to the stitched sole then it will look like its cemented entirely. You cant tell the blake welt unless you inspect the inside of the shoe.
Its a commonly used practice to have a cleaner look. Personally, I dont even understand the point because you will still not even bother with replacing the sole but I guess its to add some form of construction quality.
if you want less dad core get the mark mcnairy wax black boots.
almost exact same upper, just little cooler.
That being said, this specific leather is really hard. Break them in slowly is creases will be gross.
yep pic related
Mark mcnairys made in england shoes are sourced through sanders.
are these some kind of welt besides goodyear? or cemented?
>What high-end fashion boots will last me a while?
Most can if you treat them properly.
>I've been looking at RO and SLP
RO arent really what I would consider boots. SLPs however are supposed to be decent quality. However, considering the design I am not sure if I would call the price tag justified. Minimalist Chelseas arent uncommon, so I dont see why one would pay 800+ for them. Might just be me though.
Its hard to give brand related advice considering your tastes. I mean, RO and SLP basically cater to completely different people and looks.
>Would these be similar quality?
Might wanna browse SLP and RO forums and try to look for heavily used shoes. Thats usually a pretty good method to tell if a label sells junk or decent products.
>I want a boot I can wear almost daily that can last me quite a few years
Thats a bit of a problem. Usually you will want to rotate between at least 2 pairs because the leather needs to recover. You can treat them with shoe cream, wax and moisturizer, use shoe trees etc. but its still ill advice to only have one pair of leather shoes.
Then again, I am not 100% sure if that stops being the case past a certain price point. I simply am used to rotating shoes.
Again, the goal it to emulate a cleaner look. It has no practical value whatsoever and is 'pretty common' in high fashion. Especially since thick soles became a thing.
The need to rotate shoes to improve longevity applies to every end of the spectrum, though it holds especially true to leather, which needs time to dry out, lest you start getting odor, mold, or rot.
I will second what this guy says about SLP quality:price, but this kind of thing holds true for all fashion brands. People still pay the premium for SLP for the slight differences in the shape or profile of their shoes in relation to another of the same type and similar quality.
I wasn't entirely sure about these and wanted second opinions.
>How do you treat them properly?
-Try to rotate between 2 or more pairs of shoes
-Dont treat them like shit just because they are shoes (instead of walking through every puddle you encounter maybe skip a few). If they get really wet let them dry naturally, they will be fine. Leather is skin after all
-Try to keep them coated (wax) in the rainy/snowy months. That basically costs like 5 minutes once every 2 weeks and will not only protect them from water damage but also the aggressive salt that the streets are full of
-Moisturize and Cream them every now and then
-Either get shoe trees for boots, put a bunch of socks into them when you dont wear them or store them in the box. If you leave your boots standing around they will start to slouch
Thats all there is so it I guess. It really isnt a lot of work. In fact, the tiny bit of effort you have to put in might prolong the shoes life by a decade.
Probably depends on a million factors. I mean, at least 10 years I guess but I dont see a reason why they shouldnt last until you die.
The two pairs that I use on a daily basis are 5-6 years old and they still look great. I dont think that its the leather that will make them look bad, but the stitching or the fact that you might damage them while tripping etc. Then again, this might the different when you goal is to emulate a totally clean look. I dont care if my boots slightly slouch but I could imagine that being an annoyance to someone wearing really minimalist Chelseas.
Santalum will handmade you a pair of clones for $2-300. Look them up on reddit, specifically goodyearwelt.
I have 2 pending orders with them now, both are being made and will be done in a few weeks. Their communication is a little slow at times, but they've always answered me and when they are answering emails, its not uncommon for us to have a quick 5-10 email exchange over the course of 30 minutes.
Solid guys, so far. I'll shill for them any day.
yes they are mine: the toebox is somewhat elongated but it makes for layering socks to be much more comfortable
Are Wolverine 1000 mile good for $200?
Just bought some Thorogood Heritage moc toes (pretty much exactly like the Red Wings, but better constructed) for $80 (vs $265 for the RWs). Did I do OK?
80 bucks is a good price but
I think they look gross
and the heritage line is catered directly toward white-collar fuccbois who want to emulate the look of blue-collar americana
but don't let me rain on your parade enjoy your savings
Due to your lack of funds the pieces you have access to will have shit quality. So if you appreciate tailoring, which is something you should when youre into fashion, then you cant really afford to be poor or else you will never be able to buy any of the pieces you desire. Only exception to this are tailors, after all they can make or some times duplicate the very pieces that they crave. No need to pay a brand or market premium. If you buy cheap, you get cheap. Its almost always bad or stolen designs, and always uses shit construction and raw materials.
Being able to properly match different pieces is something that isnt even as much related to fashion as it is to simple shit like color theory. Stating facts isnt pretentious, but its obvious that you dont like it. People never like to hear the truth. They love to hind behind lies, behind the things they accomplished or already have. The thing they should do however is focus on their flaws and figure out how to get rid of them.
lol basic bitch
annd played with these for ages. dare to dream
I was scoping these Varvatos boots for a minute after seeing them on here but I'm undecided as to whether or not I love them.
antonio maurizi shearling lined boots on ebay for like 120 right now.
Made in italy, decent leather, and will keep you warm.
I have three pairs of service boots in various configs.
Once I find something that fits me (a difficulty) I stick with it because of the hassle of sizing my fucking feet and coordinating fits.
They are nice, well made and comfy but definitely overpriced as one could get nice, well made and comfy from so many other makers. Problem for me is style and sizing; Viberg does me well in this regard.
I think that's an old model.
I was looking at a pair of Varvatos boots a while back and the build quality is crappy for something that cost $250-300. Not very comfortable either.
They look nice in photos and at a distance, but I doubt they'd last long at all.
You could say something like that about any hobby on the planet, but people rarely do, because it's retarded and entirely subjective.
>Music isn't for poor people since there's no way you could possibly feel something from your shitty 50 dollar Walmart speaker system, you at least need a set of Coincident Triumph's!
>Music isn't for poor people, since there's no way you could truly feel something coming out of your Coincident Triumph's! You at least need some B&W 800 Diamonds!
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you're obviously a pleb who can't afford to truly listen to his music.
A good fit is important, but fairly easy. It's not hard to learn how to tailor your own clothes, or take your own measurements. And lol at matching different pieces being less related to fashion, unless you look at fashion more as a way to flex your status and wallet than as an art form. When you go look at a painting, is the first thing you pay attention to the quality of the paints and canvas being used? It might have made things easier for the artist to paint what they wanted, but passion, artistic direction, and skill trumps that still.
>You can bench 225? Yeah well I can bench 230 fucknuts
>Music isn't for poor people
Horrible analogy because you can easily buy an instrument and learn it and by doing so duplicate the very music you love. Hell, among many people you are not even acknowledged as someone who 'is into music' unless you play at least one instrument. So theres that. Tech equipment isnt 'that expensive' either. A pair of top of the line headphones can be bought for way under 1000. The required amps usually are chump change as well. Both will last a decade, probably even longer. You cant run around with 1 outfit for 10 years.
Comparing fashion to audiophile equipment (which most people cant even make use of because they wouldnt even be able to spot the difference between 'expensive' and 'outrageously expensive' gear) is retarded. You would have a point had I said that you need to most expensive, top of the line clothes (read: nothing below 1000 bucks for a sweater, no jacket that isnt fully canvassed etc), but I didnt.
>It's not hard to learn how to tailor your own clothes, or take your own measurements.
Then why dont you do it? Why does hardly anybody do it? Oh right, because they are too lazy.
>unless you look at fashion more as a way to flex your status
Its funny that you say that because as far as I am concerned its poor people who use clothes as a status symbol. To me fashion is a hobby and I prefer for people to not know what brands I am wearing.
>When you go look at a painting, is the first thing you pay attention to the quality of the paints and canvas being used?
Jesus Christ, another atrocious analogy. If anything a painting would be comparable to the cut of a piece of cloth. However, you will never see interesting cuts when buying cheap. Why? Because weird or sophisticated cuts arent what the mainstream crowd is interested in. And, if you didnt know, its exactly that mainstream crowd that cheap labels try to appeal to. In case of a design not being generic it was very likely stolen (see anything sold by Zara).
>oh yeah? I can do 235!
>pssh, I was talking about close grip dingus
>Horrible analogy because you can easily buy an instrument and learn it and by doing so duplicate the very music you love. Hell, among many people you are not even acknowledged as someone who 'is into music' unless you play at least one instrument.
Not particularly relevant. You're talking about making music, not consuming music. We're not talking about designing clothes.
>Comparing fashion to audiophile equipment (which most people cant even make use of because they wouldnt even be able to spot the difference between 'expensive' and 'outrageously expensive' gear) is retarded
Why? Because most people can't spot the difference, or care about the differences, that might be big for an enthusiast? You mean how most people can spot the difference between a stolen design and the real thing.
>If anything a painting would be comparable to the cut of a piece of cloth
An entire painting only comparable to the cut off a piece of cloth? I guess if you really do think that, my analogy is atrocious. But, if you think a painting is more than that, I don't see how it is.
Look, I understand where you're coming from. But, I think a better way to look at it is not that "fashion isn't for poor people" but that "being fashionable is easier if you have money". It's easier to purchase things in the niche you care about if you have the cash to fork over for it, that's true. But, what I'm saying is that's true for anything. Doesn't mean that fashion is some hobby that's above the below average persons income level to get into.
Also, just saying, the idea that color and pattern are less related to fashion than form and quality is just plain untrue.
>We're not talking about designing clothes.
How the hell is playing an instrument the same as designing clothes? Designing something requires ridiculous amount of talent and an impeccable understanding of underlying rules. Playing an instrument and therefore copying something, some one wrote is not the same as composing, which would be the true equivalent to designing.
>difference between a stolen design and the real thing
They sure as hell can between well tailored and badly tailored clothes. They also can between good and bad raw materials. The only reason they arent aware of them is because they have never tried them but they are blatantly obvious as soon as you do. The same cannot be said about audiophile equipment. You need trained ears to even notice the minor differences.
Sound is also subjective. Comfort hardly ever is. People hate suits because they only know what a fused piece of garbage feels like. Hardly anyone will like wearing fused suits. However, anyone will love a fully canvassed garment that leaves more room to breathe and move. Thats not subjective, audiophile equipment is. Hell, some people prefer the shit that are Beats by Dr Dre.
>above the below average persons income level to get into
As I said, I agree if a person know how tailor some of their own pieces then its fine. Otherwise the interesting stuff related to fashion is gated behind money. Theres a reason why some hobbies are considered 'rich people hobbies' and to me fashion is part of that group unless you have talent.
>the idea that color and pattern
Form and cut are what makes pieces special. Quality of a weave can give it a pattern without using multiple colors. Colors themselves are almost exclusive to color and season theory. You need to know what fits, and you need to know what fits you. But the same concepts also apply to stuff like interior design. Its not exclusive to fashion. How weave or cut match the human body kinda are. Thats also why black is so versatile.
>How the hell is playing an instrument the same as designing clothes?
Using a sewing machine is certainly closer to designing clothes than just wearing them is. That's all I'm saying
What people find comfortable is certainly subjective. What cuts people like are certainly subjective. Fashion is entirely subjective. Saying audio equipment is any more subjective is lying to yourself. You say "some people prefer the shit that are Beats by Dre." and I say "The only reason they prefer Beats is because they aren't aware of higher end choices because they have never tried them, but they are blatantly and obviously better as soon as you do". What's interesting is subjective. Fit is king, sure, but that's more related to knowing what works for your body personally, and again, is entirely subjective.
you two arguing are fucking dumb
money makes fashion art and music much, much easier
it's possible to do pretty darn well, quite well even, without money, but you will always be limited by your resources
high fashion is the hardest to do well with, but any poorfag can at least dress well by finding some clothes they like that fit and learning to take care of them
it's no yohji, but you don't need to wear rick to look good
just save up for a pair, it's worth it.
> (pretty much exactly like the Red Wings, but better constructed)
Just copped these but in dark brown. Did I fuck up familia?
How can I tell if shoes are fake welted or actually welted?
I just got boots for $60 on sale, down from $200. I can clearly see stitching around the edge of the boot and in a groove that goes around the sole, but I heard that some companies fake it to create an illusion of quality.
I don't really care that much, I'm really just experimenting with styles right now.
No pics atm.
pardon my french
The big distinguisher is checking the stitches per inch (spi) along the top of the welt, and along the bottom of the sole, and ensuring that they match.
Bought these the other day, im size 12 and they're 12wide, would there be much difference. Cost me just over $100 AUD
Got the off etsy, last pair. I think they were $78USD, used 1980's leather combat boots. I think it was closer to $120aud after shipping but was still a good deal. Found them just by google searching black combat boots in the shopping tab :)
black suede timbs are bae
best boots I've ever had, still wear them after 3 years
Just copped these for 70 euros.
I really like these so far
Got these for 80 bucks in Canada. Covered in salt because winter. I should probably wash em'
Make sure you get leather care cream and rub that shit on them every winter or they'll break down fast. If you use the leather care stuff they'll last a really long time.
If anyone is interested, i'm selling some essentially brand new Loake Chelseas on Grailed
EU Size 9
Fits similar to a 43 Common Project, 10.5-11 Nike/Vans
Retails for $240 (doesn't include shipping and duties from England)
Leather Upper and Lining
Great Materials and Construction
Made in England
I've had my Red Wings for 5 years, and every time I look down at them the toebox still hurts me inside.
Also looking for a nice pair of Chelseas. $450 is my max price for a really nice pair, preferably around $250 though.
what do you think of these? (they are not that expensive)
These are good examples of boots to not buy. I don't mean to shit on you guys, I just dont think any of these were good purchases.
You all know the type, surely you've seen hundreds of pairs like these in the wild. As a rule, if a pair of boots has a glued sole (!!!!) and/or looks like it was constructed out of multiple different materials, it is not a good buy. I'll get to why later.
These are all examples of good purchases.
Good, sturdy welting/stitching, eyelets set into the leather, made out of real leather and not either plasticy fake stuff, dairy cow "leather" or cheap suede.
If the difference between these two sets is not abundantly obvious, it might be best to do a little research before investing in a pair of boots.
So, to answer your question: affordable boots should usually be avoided. Boots are objects of utility before they are embodiments of expression; this is true for all clothes, but applies the most to boots. I keep finding myself repeating this all over this board, because it has proved true in my experience 100% of the time: if you spend more, you will get more. An expensive pair of boots that is made from thick and high-quality leather that is hand-tanned, hand-stitched and welted sturdily with a strong and tough outsole and leather insole will be a better investment than a $60 pair of shit sacks made from pleather with a couple single-needle stitches and a glued cheap rubber sole.
spend lots of money on boots unless you like the look of >>10817303 and dont want to look nice
I'm looking for boots like these. They are about $300 which I don't mind spending if they're decent quality, but I'm not sure the reputation Frye boots have around here.
I'm looking for slim profile lace up black boots without a toe cap or any brogue. Something that can be dressed up or dressed down.
Can someone tell me if these are good or recommend me some? Fashion isn't a real hobby of mine so I don't want to spend over $400.
anyone know any affordable monk strap black boots like pic related?
are monk strap boots fedora-tier?
i don't know yet. just wore them twice for some kilometers.
got me a blister on the right back of the foot.
it is real leather, sole is not stitched.
and they have a small zipper on the other side which i thought was practical but don't like that much anymore.
they were 80€ originally.
can make high quality photo if you want to.
thanks, I'll check em out on the website, no need for photo.
I have a pair of non-stitched florsheim oxfords that came apart and I just fixed them with shoe-goo. seems like non-stitched is not a huge problem if you have a tube lying around, amirite?
C/N? anyone know the quality of these boots or similar?
These are £120 in the sale down from £240
Not copped but i'm tempted -might be the 'sale' getting to me
Does anyone have a list of the more out-there shoe/bootmakers? Guidi is the most well-known of these, I think. Others include A1923, Layer 0, Carol Christian Boell, and m_moriabc.
I just love these. Too bad the cheapest you'll get any of this type of thing new is $1k+.
>Guidi, a1923, Layer_0, CCP, m_moria
You basically listed all, only really missing MA+ and Carpe Diem and both are by Maurizio Amadei who is behing m_moria as well. Those are the top tier artisanal boot makers pretty much.
As far as designers that have interesting boots go I'd say Rick Owens, Ann D, Julius and maybe Devoa as well.
There are also some 'lower tier' brands that focus on boots that I like such as 10sei0otto, The Last Conspiracy, Marselle and Officine Creative
That's exactly the kind of info I wanted. Thanks a lot, anon.
If I'm ever at a stage in my life when I can afford them, I probably won't be able to work them into my wardrobe, but it's fine to drool right?
Opinions on Wolverines? How is the sizing?
I wanted slim combat boots in a non shiny material, and pic related are the closest I could get so far. Thinking of copping, quite good price too
they're known for their whole 1000 mile schtick, but at this point that trademark has become so well-known that current prices reflect the brand being famous
at retail price, you could probably do better elsewhere
on sale, go for it
>I probably won't be able to work them into my wardrobe
Eh, lot of the shoes aren't that 'out there' I feel like lot of the lace-ups those brands have are really surprisingly easy to work to a wardrobe, it's just that the context of the internet with lot of these is the whole SZ type of look which skews peoples perception.
I mean when everything on your fit compliments each other it's always great but you could throw something like this for example: >>10836759 to a plenty of fits and they wouldn't look off.
The more 'out there' boots and ones with very distinct features are probably harder to work to fits like these Julius boots or some Ann D stuff.
Agreed. I hate to hype my own shit, but I owned a pair for like two years. I'm selling them on Grailed
Do you think I could work in a pair of backzips into an otherwise clean wardrobe? Here's what I usually wear
This is my usual style. I love guidis, but I'm not sure if they fit too well with the otherwise crisp and clean wardrobe
Current boots. Looking to cop a distressed pair one day. Though I'm happy with what I've got.
And these are my babies. I've posted them a few times in other threads but I like them sooooooo much.
>recommends military boot instead of what OP wants
Lol it's a hell of a drug. Fun facts pimps used keep their nails longer because they could count money better. Facts your great grandpa tells us.
Peter Nappi Rocco. I got for a steal on the Spring app. Retail is about $700 got them for $100. Go there now dude if your a 8.5 to 9 they have this slick derby for $125. I'd cop it but I have baby feet.
Do ann d boots usually go on sale? I really want to cop pic related
Bought these, in mail atm
first real boots, had shitty ass malis before
I was interested in Desert Mali's. What was your grievances?
They aren't comfortable. The beeswax are okay, but the black stretch out completely because of how thin the leather is. The eyelets on mine touch. The crepe soles are slipery when wet and I've almost fallen down countless times because of them. The laces break, but that's whatever. I just really don't like how uncomfortable they are.
I think they can work pretty easily in wardrobe like that, they are just boots with interesting effect, you can't just throw them in any outfit but they aren't as hard to work with as they may seem.
Pic related, people make a huge deal about them because of the context they see them on internet and the price but they aren't some big scary shoes that you can only wear when your wardrobe costs +50k
I think the beauty of them is that they are very interesting and standout shoe if you want them to be. Just let your pants hide the creasing and they look like regular old black boots,
One of the key features is the slim shaft though so that's something you have to keep in mind if you want to show it. Very distinct silhouette like that but at the same time I feel there is lot of versatility in there. Also probably why you mostly see them worn with either very slim pants or bit baggier ones with very extreme taper, it gives a natural flow to the silhouette.