Jump to content

Shoes that look better with age...


kiya

Recommended Posts

@Max - looking forward to your comments/review. 

 

I've found Chippewa and Redwing fit very differently. I need to size up 1/2 to 1 in Redwing whole size over Chippewa. Do know why really, as the outside appearance of Redwing is not any bigger or different. I did get sized in a Redwing store once on double-footed Brannock. The guy had me in a 10, and I normally wear a 9. Iron Rangers looked like clown shoes on me with their bulbous toe. RW sizes their shoes based on where the ball of you foot is, not the overall length. I do find them narrow (even before I got into my current barefoot mental-ness) and they recently came out with a few models/colors in wide, so you might consider that if they're narrow for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for derailing this excellent thread with my enthusiasm for foot-friendly footwear... 

 

Here's a good video showing the downsides to basketball shoes and the negative effects they have on feet, as well as on the body's overall athletic performance. The problem areas he discusses with basketball shoes can be related to any foot wear, and the impacts on the feet and body are generally the same. 

 

 

 

I've learned a lot from reading and listen to Dr Ray McClanahan. I've even bought his CorrectToes and wear them nearly everyday with Injinji toe socks. I have noticed some positive changes in my own feet/toes, but not sure how much more they will get "corrected". 

 

 

 

Here's another good video demonstrating the transition from running with conventional footwear to running with barefoot shoes. 

 

 

 

If you search YouTube for barefoot running videos, and watch some analysis of the best elite runners, even those athletes that wear shoes with slightly elevated heels are still running with a forefoot strike and a long back leg stride. 

 

This is an extrapolation totally on my part, but the idea about heel striking when running can be applied to walking. We've been programmed to believe (due to wearing shoes with elevated, padded heels) that we're supposed to extend our leading leg forward in front of the hip and land with our heel first and then roll forward onto the ball of the foot. This is not a natural movement pattern. When barefoot running or walking, the the leading leg does not extend past the hip, rather the trailing leg extends farther backwards, and the forward foot lands with more emphasis on the forefoot than the heel. The ankles and knees will flex to about shock and prevent trauma due to impact. Otherwise there's a risk on injuring your heel. 

 

For years and years I bought into the supportive insole and footwear BS, especially White's whole schpeal on the "natural phenomenon" of the foot being at a certain angle when relaxed when one leg is crossed over the other, White's arch to alleviate fatigue, blah blah blah. If your feet hurt when you don't wear supportive footwear, it's because your feet are accustomed to wearing supportive footwear. You feet and body will adapt to what you throw at it, for better or worse. 

 

Now I look at that as complete and utter BS and a marketing scam that's endured over 100 years. I LOVE White's, Nick's, Wesco and all the other great boot makers - and especially some of the Japanese Engineer boot interpretations. I wish they would apply their superior crafting skills to footwear that is lighter, flat - zero drop/no elevated heel - with no arch support or cushioning/padding, and a wider, foot shaped toe box. 

 

 

Biomedical engineer (5 weeks from completing my PhD, well published for a grad student, with 4 pubs and 146 citations) and reasonably fast runner (1:10 half marathon, 2:42 marathon) here. To be completely honest, the research does not generally support that "natural" or "zero drop" is more healthy. In fact, the most well-supported evidence is that the best way to avoid injuries is just to pick the pair of shoes that is most comfortable to you. It's pretty well documented at this point that just picking a shoe based on your instinct when trying them on will do a better job of preventing injury than any other form of choice. Some people choose minimal, zero-drop shoes, while others pick bulky high-drop shoes. I tend to prefer shoes that are light (I'd never consider anything more than, say, 6.5 to 7 ounces) with a low-drop (I like 3mm), but to suggest that others should pick similar shoes is not reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biomedical engineer (5 weeks from completing my PhD, well published for a grad student, with 4 pubs and 146 citations) and reasonably fast runner (1:10 half marathon, 2:42 marathon) here. To be completely honest, the research does not generally support that "natural" or "zero drop" is more healthy. In fact, the most well-supported evidence is that the best way to avoid injuries is just to pick the pair of shoes that is most comfortable to you. It's pretty well documented at this point that just picking a shoe based on your instinct when trying them on will do a better job of preventing injury than any other form of choice. Some people choose minimal, zero-drop shoes, while others pick bulky high-drop shoes. I tend to prefer shoes that are light (I'd never consider anything more than, say, 6.5 to 7 ounces) with a low-drop (I like 3mm), but to suggest that others should pick similar shoes is not reasonable.

 

Thanks for joining the conversation. Some links to to the research/documentation so we could explore further would be appreciated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so far I had all my RW in 10,5 (which is already 1 - 1,5 less than in Sneakers) and in D width. The Chip's I'm getting are 10 - 10,5 E which should fit me better width-wise. I should get them until the Weekend and will share some Information.

i ordered a pair of iron rangers in a 9.  i tried on a pair in a store before ordering.  i am a 9.5 on the brannock device.  the 9 in the iron rangers was in the d width.  it did feel a bit constricted on the side but i know when you wear it for a while your sweat and the softening of the leather should alleviate the sideway constriction, i think.  to some it's not important how they look in their boots but when you buy a pair of boots big and then whey they soften up, you end up wearing clown shoes indeed.  to me, big boots with these skinny jeans look just weird to me.  boots look great when paired up with a looser hem. 

 

@Max - looking forward to your comments/review. 

 

I've found Chippewa and Redwing fit very differently. I need to size up 1/2 to 1 in Redwing whole size over Chippewa. Do know why really, as the outside appearance of Redwing is not any bigger or different. I did get sized in a Redwing store once on double-footed Brannock. The guy had me in a 10, and I normally wear a 9. Iron Rangers looked like clown shoes on me with their bulbous toe. RW sizes their shoes based on where the ball of you foot is, not the overall length. I do find them narrow (even before I got into my current barefoot mental-ness) and they recently came out with a few models/colors in wide, so you might consider that if they're narrow for you. 

i had my feet sized too inside a red wing store and the clerk sold me a pair of boots in a 9 and the other pair in a 10 ee!!!  go figure.  mind you, this was a long time ago.  i recently sized my feet again on the brannock device and i measured a 9.5.  i am getting a pair of iron rangers and i tried on a 9.  the fit was, i think perfect.  not much heel movements, i could wriggle my toes, the toes were not touching the front of the toe cap and i was wearing a wooly pair of socks.  i am still a bit paranoid as to whether i bought the right size but i think with a lot of time and some oil, the leather will give and i think i will be all right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so far I had all my RW in 10,5 (which is already 1 - 1,5 less than in Sneakers) and in D width. The Chip's I'm getting are 10 - 10,5 E which should fit me better width-wise. I should get them until the Weekend and will share some Information.

 

Which Chips did you get exactly? 

 

I just ordered some lightly used Chippewa 97863 (in 10 E, the same that I wear for RW) engineers yesterday, going to give them a resole and maybe a relasting.

Edited by Iron Horse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

decided to step my boot game up and placed an order for these less than a month ago. can't wait to put them to work.

white's bounty hunter from baker's

distressed smooth leather

antique garments

vibram 700 sole, natural midsole

23473092191_871f8e3891_b.jpg

Edited by Rob060
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I needed a reasonable price winter boot and tried Chippewa. They're really well made, better looking than RW so far. Of course Wesco, Whites and Viberg have nicer & heavier leather, but for the price they're a great deal. I'll keep the black LTTs, they're super comfy from the start. 10 E fits me perfectly (10,5 in RW and Whites, 10 in Viberg).
DSC_9288.jpg

DSC_9289.jpg

DSC_9293.jpg

DSC_9294.jpg

DSC_9295.jpg

DSC_9298.jpg

DSC_9302.jpg

DSC_9303.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

decided to step my boot game up and placed an order for these less than a month ago. can't wait to put them to work.

white's bounty hunter from baker's

distressed smooth leather

antique garments

vibram 700 sole, natural midsole

23473092191_871f8e3891_b.jpg

And you already received them.. shit. Going on 9 weeks for me, hoping to go's I get them soon as the stitching on the sole has come off and missile and sole starting to seperate.

But those look ducking sweet, was heavily considering the distressted smooth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone have experience with Rancourt shoes, in general, or the Ranger-moc in Chromexcel specifically?  I ordered and received a pair recently and while they seem a little small (slightly short), I'm wondering if the soft and pliable Chromexcel leather will stretch over time.

 

Thanks.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for derailing this excellent thread with my enthusiasm for foot-friendly footwear... 

 

Here's a good video showing the downsides to basketball shoes and the negative effects they have on feet, as well as on the body's overall athletic performance. The problem areas he discusses with basketball shoes can be related to any foot wear, and the impacts on the feet and body are generally the same. 

 

 

 

I've learned a lot from reading and listen to Dr Ray McClanahan. I've even bought his CorrectToes and wear them nearly everyday with Injinji toe socks. I have noticed some positive changes in my own feet/toes, but not sure how much more they will get "corrected". 

 

 

 

Here's another good video demonstrating the transition from running with conventional footwear to running with barefoot shoes. 

If you search YouTube for barefoot running videos, and watch some analysis of the best elite runners, even those athletes that wear shoes with slightly elevated heels are still running with a forefoot strike and a long back leg stride. 

 

This is an extrapolation totally on my part, but the idea about heel striking when running can be applied to walking. We've been programmed to believe (due to wearing shoes with elevated, padded heels) that we're supposed to extend our leading leg forward in front of the hip and land with our heel first and then roll forward onto the ball of the foot. This is not a natural movement pattern. When barefoot running or walking, the the leading leg does not extend past the hip, rather the trailing leg extends farther backwards, and the forward foot lands with more emphasis on the forefoot than the heel. The ankles and knees will flex to about shock and prevent trauma due to impact. Otherwise there's a risk on injuring your heel. 

 

For years and years I bought into the supportive insole and footwear BS, especially White's whole schpeal on the "natural phenomenon" of the foot being at a certain angle when relaxed when one leg is crossed over the other, White's arch to alleviate fatigue, blah blah blah. If your feet hurt when you don't wear supportive footwear, it's because your feet are accustomed to wearing supportive footwear. You feet and body will adapt to what you throw at it, for better or worse. 

 

Now I look at that as complete and utter BS and a marketing scam that's endured over 100 years. I LOVE White's, Nick's, Wesco and all the other great boot makers - and especially some of the Japanese Engineer boot interpretations. I wish they would apply their superior crafting skills to footwear that is lighter, flat - zero drop/no elevated heel - with no arch support or cushioning/padding, and a wider, foot shaped toe box. 

 

One idea might be to wear vivo, chucks or mocassins like the Quoddy Grizzly boots with the rubber sole every second day.

While everybody is different to me the barefoot theory makes sense and I also feel better when I wear no-support shoes or barefoot in summer. I feel that my knees, hips, lower back are more comfortable this way.

However, I also love work boots. Any arch support insoles I always take out.

Have you experimented with taking of heels of a boot? It might mess up the structure of the boot, though, and not really work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: chucks - do you mean Chuck Taylors? While I really do love the look, they are so narrow. I've tried to wear them over the years, but even before I got into barefoot/minimalist footwear I found them far too narrow for me.  

 

...

Have you experimented with taking of heels of a boot? It might mess up the structure of the boot, though, and not really work.

I have not done that yet, but have been thinking about it. I talked to Kyle at Baker's and he said they could give it a try. I just haven't been willing to drop the coin on a new pair of boots and then spend equally as much or probably more to have Baker's rebuild them. I was thinking of trying it with some cheap WWII repro russets or rough-outs - cheap, but looks like they are made on the Munson last. 

 

It would be a fairly involved job, not just removing the heel. It would  basically be rebuilding nearly the entire bottom half of the boot. Almost ALL conventional boots and shoes are made with some sort of a curved shank under the arch, either metal, plastic, composite, leather, etc. This would have to be removed to get the foot bed to be completely flat. The shank is usually placed between the insole and the midsole. 

 

I do have plans to to have Russell Moccasin make me some boots. I'm going to get some buffalo leather, and I have a couple of different builds in mind. They can use the Munson last (they used to make boots for soldiers on the Munson last) and they can make a boot that is completely flat with no heel or arch support. They already have a small line of minimalist boots and shoes, and they can customize any boot in their catalog to be flat, no arch or shank, and built on the Munson last. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Converse Chuck Taylors. They're flat. But, right, like you said quite narrow, squeezing the foot.

 

Ah, the shank. Yes, it's often made from steel (imagine that- it's a sign of high quality apparentrly, but how is that for a soft, flexible ground beneath your foot :) ) and thus at airports I nearly always have to take off my boots and pass them through the xray.

 

Hmm, yes, that is a very complex process.

Inspired by you bringing up this topic (it immediately made sense to me after I read Born to Run a few years ago), I'll probably put some flat boots like my Yuketen or Quoddy moccassins into rotation to counter the effect of the orthopedically 'improved' boots, which I  cannot give up wearing.

Edited by indigoeagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Converse Chuck Taylors. They're flat. But, right, like you said quite narrow, squeezing the foot.

 

Ah, the shank. Yes, it's often made from steel (imagine that- it's a sign of high quality apparentrly, but how is that for a soft, flexible ground beneath your foot :) ) and thus at airports I nearly always have to take off my boots and pass them through the xray.

 

Hmm, yes, that is a very complex process.

Inspired by you bringing up this topic (it immediately made sense to me after I read Born to Run a few years ago), I'll probably put some flat boots like my Yuketen or Quoddy moccassins into rotation to counter the effect of the orthopedically 'improved' boots, which I  cannot give up wearing.

 

Steel shanks for steel shovels. Other than that, steel shanks are just unnecessarily heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they're in your Aldens, Oak Street, Viberg probably, too.

Same with high quality Engineer Boots like Lofgren, MF, etc., I suppose.

There are probably also many good reasons for them. It depends on your perspective, which theory you believe in (see Cander's post above).

I'm no expert. I can't claim to understand these things in detail. But interesting to experiment and see how different boots feel to walk in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

decided to step my boot game up and placed an order for these less than a month ago. can't wait to put them to work.

white's bounty hunter from baker's

distressed smooth leather

antique garments

vibram 700 sole, natural midsole

23473092191_871f8e3891_b.jpg

since the distressed smooth looked a little dry, a bit of chelsea leather food turned these into a nice chocolate brown. really, the color i was hoping they'd turn into.

23041544774_df8342d1be_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A year or two ago I posted a pair in pretty much the exact same configuration from a japanese guy that polished his and they came out to the richest dark whiskey brown that made me crave a pair for the longest time. I've no doubts they'll turn out even better with more age and wear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really hope I just had a new person stitching these boots up, and it's not things to come with Whites, but my current ones are hanging on, barely, till my new ones arrive. But wonder how this happened, poor work? Bad QC? Or me not getting a resole and wearing down the stitching? 

 

eJUUMuz.jpg?13ZB4N1a.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really hope I just had a new person stitching these boots up, and it's not things to come with Whites, but my current ones are hanging on, barely, till my new ones arrive. But wonder how this happened, poor work? Bad QC? Or me not getting a resole and wearing down the stitching? 

 

 

cUQiE9B.jpgIqaePop.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems like they've been due for a resole for a while by how worn down the outsole looks and the conditions you work in caused the glue to break down. can't see why baker's or white's wouldn't be able to take care of it if you show them. might want to try a sole that protects the stitching more, like the 100 or commando.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah they will take care of it for me no problem, but Ned to get my hands on my new boss before I do anything. Also no point in getting them to fix then if I am going to just need a re sole, so will just do it together.

But good to know, I did get the 430 again as I am not working in as harsh places, but if I see it break down fast will just do 100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • sufu1 changed the title to Shoes that look better with age...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...