Appleseed

Have been using the Terra Kiger 2's for a few seasons, the 'sticky rubber' sole (I don't know how different the TK3s are) has definitely worn a bit quicker than I expected. I don't baby them, and they've definitely been chewed up by lava rock, etc. TK3 looks like it might have improved upon some of the weak areas along the midsole / toebox area. Will probably pick up a new model whenever the next iteration hits-

Literally the use case the Field boot was developed (and incorporated by our armed forces world-wide) for, tho. I do think there's better options, especially if you want WP lining, tho- (and to clarify, the Field boot has made some significant changes since the SFB, which was referenced in the ^last)

I, for one, have noticed almost no break-in (and this seems to be a touted-advantage of the Nike Field boots by most of .mil people). There's always a couple of hours / day for my arch and heal to adjust from sneaker to boot (and vice versa) - but....

100%. If I'm out for <4 hours, I'm usually just in trail running shoes

No GTX liner, so it depends on how you prep them and what you're comparing too. They've got a gusseted tongue, but the non-AR 670-1 compliant models are just synthetic suede and canvas. If you're one of those people that wants a waterproof liner and wears gaiters when hiking, then these probably aren't for you. Like I alluded to before; if in the backwoods for days on end, I'd go with another boot. But for tromping around the city (and throwing in a random day hike here and there), they're great (but the leather versions would be more suited to wet winter conditions).

Only difference between the Field 6" and the fully AR 670-1 compliant model is leather and a couple extra eyelets...Outsole and ventilation are all the same otherwise. Definitely not fashion boots in the pejorative sense.

^ I mean they're boots - should be a bit stiffer than the Trainers. I've been on the road in the Field 6" for the past month and can find almost 0 fault. Exactly what I've been wanting for a while, and no precious-ness. Of course, if they were primarily for approach / mountaineering purposes, I'd go another direction. Am finding the versatility and aesthetic pretty unbeatable tho.

@CountZatara @shoreman @Yoshiii Yo - sorry for the late reply, have been out in the Midwest all week. J,P:A is definitely my home, and I'm more-or-less the P in that little acronym. Thanks for the props!

Interesting - I can't imagine why PDX would keep it off the shelves for another 2/3 weeks unless HQ had made the request. Would love to see everything out in the larger marketplace so I can see measurements for the new pieces....

Odd yes, as some (most?) already have it sitting in the back. My impression from Arc' PDX SA convo. was that everyone would be putting it on shelves in Sept. Arc' gauging reaction to keeping it as webstore exclusive for the time being?

^ bingo. And w/ the newer P10's, you'll need to do that for even the 1" AustriAlpin buckle on the NXL 25 model.

Popped into the PDX store yesterday and they pulled out an Anode Comp from the back (not going on store floors until Sept.?). Beautiful pant and the contrast between the nyco and wool paneling is quite pronounced. Reminded me a bit of saddle pants, but not in a negative way. Was hoping they'd have an Haeden Overshirt for me to try, but alas.

Hmmm, still reads like shorter-body-length to me. Look at where the sleeve/body hem are landing, espc. in the screen grab matthewcng posted. Def. looking forward to it, either way-

Can you clarify - longer in rear? I didn't pick that up at all from the vid. Maybe my impression of 'different' is stemming more from the fabric texture. Optics :shrug:

Looked quite different in the FW promo video that was circulating a month or two back. 2 pockets, not 4. Seemed shorter in body length... I too, am loving the SS Field Overshirt and am looking forward to picking up one (or more) of the Haeden versions later this year.