Shoes that look better with age...

[edmond]

yo tmadd i agree those are fugly liek timberlands. but some russels do a sole like that though

[garden gnomes in space]

wow. your response is so out of line and embarrassing. for a grown man to have so much negativity and be willing to spout it in such a manner in a public discussion about boots.  c'mon.  have a little humanity.  i don't know for a fact, but i'm pretty confident to say that there are actual human beings working hard to create the company and the design the boot, and because of that you might want to tone down your spiel.  it's not like we're talking about thermonuclear warfare or something serious now, and if we were, people might not take you seriously because of your overly aggressive vitriol. maybe some food for thought for the next time you feel like typing something with the same tone.  

TMadd is a very reasonable member of the community here, and while his post was blunt and to the point, I really dont think he meant it in a way to attack the company itself.  Different strokes for different folks.  

[Cucoo]

wow. your response is so out of line and embarrassing. for a grown man to have so much negativity and be willing to spout it in such a manner in a public discussion about boots.  c'mon.  have a little humanity.  i don't know for a fact, but i'm pretty confident to say that there are actual human beings working hard to create the company and the design the boot, and because of that you might want to tone down your spiel.  it's not like we're talking about thermonuclear warfare or something serious now, and if we were, people might not take you seriously because of your overly aggressive vitriol. maybe some food for thought for the next time you feel like typing something with the same tone.  

 

Attacking a boot design is not the same as attacking the people behind it. We're all passionate about certain stuff or we wouldn't be here, so it really should be ok to speak your mind about stuff you don't like. When someone says "fuck pre-distressed denim" or "exposed selvedge lines suck", no one thinks about the poor designers whose work is hated upon either.

 

And most importantly, tone does not invalidate arguments or opinions. For a grown man to be so offended by a little vitriol is embarassing, too

[Segovia]

I thought people might be interested to know that the White's order I placed on August 6th shipped out yesterday. That makes 20 days from order to shipping. I was pretty surprised when I got the shipping notification; Baker's told me it would be 6-8 weeks.

 

I ordered pretty much exactly these :

http://supertalk.superfuture.com/index.php/topic/140583-shoes-that-look-better-with-age-2012/page-115#entry3018196

 

Pretty excited for my first pair of White's. I have several pairs of Red Wing Heritage so I'm curious to check out the differences in construction/materials.

[indigoeagle]

Come for the shoe pics, stay for the excellent rants!

 

Apropos Lone Wolf boots, does anyone know if they got up to 10.5? Looking through Rakuten the biggest size I can find is a 10, but I think I really need a 10.5 at minimum.

 

Specifically the mechanic and/or carpenter boots, if that helps.

Just saw this here.

If our sizes are indeed similar (as you had written in the RS thread) then be careful. The Carpenters at least fit pretty big. I've got them in 9.5 and have to actually wear an insole in them. 9 would have been better for me.

[superfuzz]

Hey Indigo Eagle, I couldn't find pics of your Old Joe engineers on here. Please post some when you get a chance. Thanks!

[tmadd]

it's not like we're talking about thermonuclear warfare or something serious now

 

Bingo!

 

People are welcome to take me as seriously as they like, but I'd caution against taking anyone too seriously.  There's a huge difference between "having negativity" and giving an honest, albeit, totally biased response to someone's question soliciting an opinion. 

 

You're mighty condescending for someone offering "tone check" advice. 

[ur_ugly]

and finally, my current favorites, also a 2013 purchase: german work or service boots in a deep, rich cherry color, between 70 to 60 years old, not unlike the black pair posted above with lining that reads "imprägniert" ("water proof").

 

size is: european 42 / asian 26,5 cm / north american 09

 

this pair is technically really shot, and will need a lot of work and dedication to shine again (literally and figuratively), cobbler's assessment was in the € 300-350 range for a restoration ... but boy, do i love their look. snatched them for € 25 on fleabay.

 

i've made myself some leather insoles for these old shoes, and they're absolutely comfy, no breaking in required.

 

 

the old resoling took place sometime in the former german democratic republic -- veb inselsberg was one of the huge state-owned enterprises from the footwear industry.

These r stunning. Lovely! Consider "Brian the bootmaker" for restoration/resole... He makes great things!!!

[tmadd]

Anyways, you should have been taking me to task for my terrible proofreading on that.

 

I've got no apologies for that rant, nor for my vitriol in the direction of a specific design from New England Outerwear, which may be construed as vitriol for the company as a whole.  I don't know if that's accurate because I don't have enough personal interest in that style of shoe to warrant researching it, but I'm inclined to think I'm probably not down with that their doing.  Since the vitriol was real, even though the rhetoric of the whole post was trumped up a bit (I don't think any shoes look better with vomit on them...when that happens someone is usually confronted with the sticky situation of deciding whether or not to wash their vomit covered jeans that only have 9 months of wear on them), I think this is as good a place as any for me to explain in long form where that vitriol comes from.

 

It bums me out that Heritage has become to clothing what Indie has to music.  It's an aesthetic genre instead of what it was originally coined to mean or at least imply about the products that were signified by the label.  Before "Heritage" broke into the mainstream, the use of the world heritage to describe a company or design tended to imply that the company had been in the business of producing the same things or types of things, the same ways, for decades.  In addition to that, most, though not all American heritage companies owned and maintained their own production factories.  Furthermore, most of these companies had an identity, a reputation, or one or more designs that had been forged over the years and that had created a demand for their products that had worked in service of keeping the brand afloat without changing or shifting with trends.  An example of this would be Whites Boots...they've been making boots in the same way for decades, and while they've phased different things in and out, the predominant construction method has remained the same, they've owned their own factory, and they've produced many of the same designs, virtually unchanged for years and years because between linemen, loggers, and firefighters, their has been a relatively inelastic demand for their boots over the years. 

 

Now, whether or not having cracked the design code for firefighting boots translates into suitable footwear for someone who lives a more sedentary daily life, predominantly in an urban environment is a question unto itself.  Regardless of the answer to that question though, the very nature that White's have been successful in that market does give some strong indicators about their products and designs.  One can reasonably, and correctly, assume that Whites designs and craftsmanship tends to result in a boot that is comfortable (relatively at least...in this example pertains more to ergonomic comfort than feeling soft on the foot), hard wearing, functional in work situations, and from pictures of worn examples...that they utilize materials that tend to look better with use and age.  I also find a value in designs that are highly specific...yes they might have drawbacks for general use, but they are highly evolved forms of specific design.  Sometimes versatility, or general, contemporary use is a more desirable thing that the sometimes highly specified designs of heritage  companies, but in those instances, I tend to appreciate products and objects that were intentionally designed with those uses in mind, as opposed to being designed to appear to be similar to, or the same as products from a heritage company.

 

I tend to be more impressed with and interested by the products from companies that came in to being as a solution to a very practical problem (having the right kind of shoes for a specific task, having the right kind of bags for certain types of hunting, having a smartly cut motorcycle jacket made from leather that will actually protect you), than I am in those of companies (or sublines within a company) that spring up in reaction to a trend in how people are dressing.  I think that through clever marketing, positioning, and by virtue of customers that aren't highly critical, many of these companies often succeed in establishing a false equivalency...that they are the same as, or even fundamentally similar to the companies that have been doing it, the same way, unchanged, with their own production facilities, for decades.  That's not to say that these companies don't turn out a fine product...plenty of people are happy enough with their Wolverine 1000 mile boots, but that doesn't mean they should ever be a part of the same conversation as a pair of Whites or Wescos. 

[Coolguyzack]

Your whole second paragraph totally gets me going. I cannot stand seeing stuff like "Americana style Inspiration" fashion albums. Every now and then I come across people here in SoCal drop mad money on heavy wools, 2-3 layers, and big expensive boots when they work like a 9-5 desk job lol. And what's the point? Practically cooking yourself to look "old timey pacific northwestern lumberjack?" What's the point of identifying AS an aesthetic? Who wants to identify as some genre over themselves?

[aho]

@Segovia, welcome to the club, there's no turning back

 

New Wesco Jobmasters, Packer upper with swapped out White's leather laces:

Edited August 29, 2014 by aho

[oceansand]

tmadd thanks for your explanation. nicely said. i however believe that there is some place in commerce for even the things that i consider to be the worst and ugliest and most pointless because i respect that it takes all types to make the world go round and in a way all the bullshit adds to my sense of appreciation for the things and people i love. if there was no darkness how would we possibly value light? just my $.02.

[Aries]

^^^^ The problem becomes at what point the darkness begins to overwhelm, and blot out the light oceansand.

 

Your whole second paragraph totally gets me going. I cannot stand seeing stuff like "Americana style Inspiration" fashion albums. Every now and then I come across people here in SoCal drop mad money on heavy wools, 2-3 layers, and big expensive boots when they work like a 9-5 desk job lol. And what's the point? Practically cooking yourself to look "old timey pacific northwestern lumberjack?" What's the point of identifying AS an aesthetic? Who wants to identify as some genre over themselves?

 

Whilst I sympathise with your general point Zack, I do think you need to throw away this essentialist argument of the 'self' in regards to fashion, as if we have some kind of unchanging substance that defines who we are, and therefore how we should dress ourselves, somehow present from birth.

 

If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, you advocate that factory workers should behave (of which one component is dress) as factory workers, and always must be factory workers as that is their 'self'; office workers as office workers, and so on: it's a quite oppressive view really if taken to its extreme.

 

This misses the point that, firstly, there is no essential 'self' to which we should all conform. To give a very small, obvious example, think of the multiple hats you wear every day: employee, customer, boyfriend, dad, friend, the list goes on.

 

Think on how each of these identities requires a different performance: I doubt you can dress, speak, and generally behave around your boss as you can around your girlfriend (unless they are one and the same...!).

 

In other words you're a different 'self' depending upon the situation you find yourself in.

 

Following this (for lack of a better term) controlled schizophrenia, perhaps fashion is a way of exploring identity for many people, figuring out who they are, and who they want to be (which again, may change in the future).

 

It's probably no coincidence that many men are drawn to 'work clothes', regardless of their actual work, since to be a man is now more fluid and uncertain in our society than ever before.

 

In buying and wearing these clothes, many guys are simply attempting to come to an identity they feel comfortable inhabiting at this moment in time.

 

Who are we to tell them to get back into their box?

[Sugar Mountain]

You make good points Aries, although I like where Coolguyzack is coming from in the sense that it would be way cooler to see those in SoCal identifying with a more regionally-appropriate aesthetic like rayon shirts and washed-out light denim rather than taking on the logger image. I say this as someone who eagerly awaits the two months of the year in Hong Kong when I can wear a flannel shirt but the internet and associated social media makes it harder and harder to find geographically unique styles (same goes for a lot of music if you think back to the 80s and 90s). 

 

Anyway, a thumbs-up for TMadd's essay. I somehow side-step all of this American Heritage guff by only focusing on the output of a handful of Japanese companies who, while not possessing the lineage of an old time company like White's, do adhere to the quality of production and the old way of doing things as a means of making the finest product.

[Coolguyzack]

Very well put, Aries. I'm pretty bad at making any sense usually so I'm glad you understood my sentiment. lol 

 

What I meant by "self" though isn't exactly identifying by any given set of titles. I'm thinking more like the distancing of yourself from being seen as JUST those, and instead letting your personality, interests, and interactions with others say more about you than YOU can say for yourself.

 

And I like your point about the performances and altering of behavior depending on the situation. I suppose one does assume various different identities.

 

Are you a professor? Because I feel like I'm in the lecture hall lol. Thanks for your response. I enjoy reading yours around here

[Aries]

Caught red-handed Zack - professor by day... Shoe/denim-obsessive by night...!

 

Fair point Sugar, but I can never see that happening. As we all know in our affluent, first world lives, clothing isn't about functionality any more, it's about symbolism.

 

We don't treat clothes like tools (as we used to), but as symbolic of our idealised selves; so we invest all our irrational imagination and emotion into these clothes, and they become more than leather, cloth and stitching.

 

Basically we're all a bit nuts. But personally I love the heterogeneity this brings when I walk down the street, people dressed in a whole host of eclectic styles, from metalhead to formal businessman, and everything in between. I'd be sad to see this diminish based on regional aesthetics.

 

So in this way I guess I'm championing the democratisation of fashion the Internet has brought.

 

This leads well into your point Zack: personality and interests are not separate from one's fashion, they are in the best instances used as shorthand for conveying it.

 

Admittedly, depending on the person and their situation, this works either for or against them...!

[Cucoo]

But personally I love the heterogeneity this brings when I walk down the street, people dressed in a whole host of eclectic styles, from metalhead to formal businessman, and everything in between. I'd be sad to see this diminish based on regional aesthetics.

 

^This, but more importantly, everyone being dressed in really noice heritage stuff would also take away from the style and unique-ness we all try to achieve by wearing that stuff. I know that I'm into raw selvedge denim and work shirts and huge leather wallets not just because it's nicely made and all that, but for a big part also exactly because it's not something everyone else wears. The aesthetics and many of the associations (biker shit, cowboy shit, rockabilly shit) just happen to appeal to me, so I incorporate it into my style.

 

The nerding out about fades and aging is just the icing on the cake.

[Aries]

Indeed Cucoo, I like Edward Sapir's famous discussion on that issue:

 

"Fashion is custom in the guise of departure from custom. Most normal individuals consciously or unconsciously have the itch to break away in some measure from a too literal loyalty to accepted custom. They are not fundamentally in revolt from custom but they wish somehow to legitimize their personal deviation without laying themselves open to the charge of insensitiveness to good taste or good manners... The personal note which is at the hidden core of fashion becomes superpersonalized."

[Aries]

To get things back on track:

Just saw this here.

If our sizes are indeed similar (as you had written in the RS thread) then be careful. The Carpenters at least fit pretty big. I've got them in 9.5 and have to actually wear an insole in them. 9 would have been better for me.

 

Indigoeagle, I've been in contact with Lone Wolf and it looks like they only have 9.5s in stock.

 

The measurements seem a bit over the place, so would you mind if I asked a favour?

 

All my boots that fit almost uniformly have the measurement of 32cm when measuring the outer sole.

 

Could you whip out the measuring tape and let me know what length the 9.5s measure as? I would appreciate it enormously!

[Sugar Mountain]

It's times like this when I wish a bunch of us could burn the midnight oil over a few glasses of single malt whiskey chatting about all this stuff (both boots and the impressive tangent that the last two pages have gone on), rather than on an internet forum!

[Maynard Friedman]

Think on how each of these identities requires a different performance: I doubt you can dress, speak, and generally behave around your boss as you can around your girlfriend (unless they are one and the same...!.

This reminds me that it's been 10 years this week since I married my lover and best friend. I really should have chosen one of them...

[indigoeagle]

Sure: 31.8cm.

I have a pair of RW Beckmans that have the same length and are also a bit too big (they're size 10). 

The 9.5 in the Carpenters and the 10 in the RW Beckmans actually fit pretty much the same, for me that is. I think that can be quite non-transitional (is that the term? You know what I mean :-)).

[Aries]

Thanks Indigo, you're awesome, and that's pretty much set my mind on ordering them... Suppose I can always find a buyer if they don't fit...!

 

Congrats Maynard!!! Hope you're celebrating in style!

Edited August 29, 2014 by Aries

[indigoeagle]

You're welcome. Glad to help.

You'll love the boots. And I think they'll fit you well. Your feet seem to be a bit bigger than mine.

[bradl]

Your whole second paragraph totally gets me going. I cannot stand seeing stuff like "Americana style Inspiration" fashion albums. Every now and then I come across people here in SoCal drop mad money on heavy wools, 2-3 layers, and big expensive boots when they work like a 9-5 desk job lol. And what's the point? Practically cooking yourself to look "old timey pacific northwestern lumberjack?" What's the point of identifying AS an aesthetic? Who wants to identify as some genre over themselves?

I feel like a lot of people go out of their way to dress a certain way, it just comes off as costumey to me. But not much more I can add to this that tmadd or aries hasn't already said.

[Aries]

Thanks Indigo, order placed...!

[tmadd]

We don't treat clothes like tools (as we used to), but as symbolic of our idealised selves; so we invest all our irrational imagination and emotion into these clothes, and they become more than leather, cloth and stitching.

 

Basically we're all a bit nuts. But personally I love the heterogeneity this brings when I walk down the street, people dressed in a whole host of eclectic styles, from metalhead to formal businessman, and everything in between. I'd be sad to see this diminish based on regional aesthetics.

 

So in this way I guess I'm championing the democratisation of fashion the Internet has brought.

 

In a way, I feel like there is an argument that we do still treat clothes as tools, but that is and can mean has broadened over time.  Simply put, our clothes are tools that amongst other things, help us to communicate, or attempt to convey the image which is our idealised selves.  If you're willing to accept that broad definition as "used like tools" then we certainly do treat clothes like tools.  I tend to look at my clothes as tools, but perhaps you would argue that's because I fancy myself so genuine and authentic in my interest in clothes that I am only seeking to use them as tools.  Of course, I fully acknowledge that part of my use of clothing as tools entails the sales of those very same garments, in a retail setting.  However, I also continue to experiment a good deal with different articles of clothing, and ways of wearing it in the service of having it be purely more functional.

 

My interpretation of Sugar Mountain's "regional aesthetics" (and correct me if I'm wrong) has more to do with dressing in your own unique, and heterogenous style, but not in a way that runs perpendicular to your life and circumstances.  If your idealised self is best conveyed through the laid back but hyper-masculine and functional aesthetics of NW Lumberjacks, but you find yourself in Southern California, it may be worth remembering that that aesthetic came from a reaction to the climate, and those same guys would be in a henley or a t-shirt if they were in LA.  That's not to say there's anything wrong with layering up in flannel, if it's comfortable for you, or if you don't mind the lack of comfort…but in terms of what you're communicating to the outside world, you are missing the nonchalant aspect of that style of dress which has made it so cool in the past.

 

You would still have your metalhead and your business man, but you'd hope that both of them are dressed appropriately on a personal scale, and also in response to their circumstances at a particular time and place.  It's hard to look cool when you're uncomfortable.  And I guess that's the whole thing I'm trying to get at in these three paragraphs: One thing that is sometimes dissonant in this attempt we all make to convey our idealised selves via our clothing choices is that clothing of any type always looks better when it's doing things for the people wearing it…by providing actual utility by having pockets the right places, or being of the appropriate weight and breathability for the weather that day, or simply by fitting the person in a flattering, comfortable manner.  No garments are cool enough, or embedded with enough identity shaping information to change the fact that you are the uncomfortable sweaty dude, wearing something a size too small.  

 

 

You make good points Aries, although I like where Coolguyzack is coming from in the sense that it would be way cooler to see those in SoCal identifying with a more regionally-appropriate aesthetic like rayon shirts and washed-out light denim rather than taking on the logger image. I say this as someone who eagerly awaits the two months of the year in Hong Kong when I can wear a flannel shirt but the internet and associated social media makes it harder and harder to find geographically unique styles (same goes for a lot of music if you think back to the 80s and 90s). 

 

Anyway, a thumbs-up for TMadd's essay. I somehow side-step all of this American Heritage guff by only focusing on the output of a handful of Japanese companies who, while not possessing the lineage of an old time company like White's, do adhere to the quality of production and the old way of doing things as a means of making the finest product.

 

Thanks for mentioning the answer key to not having to think about any of this stuff.  Of course my interests in most clothing have nothing to do with American made stuff of any ilk…I am in love with a handful of Japanese brands, none of whom are selling the country of manufacture before the actual quality of the product.  If the Japanese brands claim any authenticity, it has to do with the accuracy of their reproductions, but, for obvious reasons, they don't get to lean on American sentimentality in the same way. 

[indigoeagle]

Hey Indigo Eagle, I couldn't find pics of your Old Joe engineers on here. Please post some when you get a chance. Thanks!

Weird that you couldn't find. Google gave the result quickly.

http://supertalk.superfuture.com/index.php/topic/140583-shoes-that-look-better-with-age-2012/?p=2922009

[jake431]

In a way, I feel like there is an argument that we do still treat clothes as tools, but that is and can mean has broadened over time.  Simply put, our clothes are tools that amongst other things, help us to communicate, or attempt to convey the image which is our idealised selves.  If you're willing to accept that broad definition as "used like tools" then we certainly do treat clothes like tools.  I tend to look at my clothes as tools, but perhaps you would argue that's because I fancy myself so genuine and authentic in my interest in clothes that I am only seeking to use them as tools.  Of course, I fully acknowledge that part of my use of clothing as tools entails the sales of those very same garments, in a retail setting.  However, I also continue to experiment a good deal with different articles of clothing, and ways of wearing it in the service of having it be purely more functional.

 

My interpretation of Sugar Mountain's "regional aesthetics" (and correct me if I'm wrong) has more to do with dressing in your own unique, and heterogenous style, but not in a way that runs perpendicular to your life and circumstances.  If your idealised self is best conveyed through the laid back but hyper-masculine and functional aesthetics of NW Lumberjacks, but you find yourself in Southern California, it may be worth remembering that that aesthetic came from a reaction to the climate, and those same guys would be in a henley or a t-shirt if they were in LA.  That's not to say there's anything wrong with layering up in flannel, if it's comfortable for you, or if you don't mind the lack of comfort…but in terms of what you're communicating to the outside world, you are missing the nonchalant aspect of that style of dress which has made it so cool in the past.

 

You would still have your metalhead and your business man, but you'd hope that both of them are dressed appropriately on a personal scale, and also in response to their circumstances at a particular time and place.  It's hard to look cool when you're uncomfortable.  And I guess that's the whole thing I'm trying to get at in these three paragraphs: One thing that is sometimes dissonant in this attempt we all make to convey our idealised selves via our clothing choices is that clothing of any type always looks better when it's doing things for the people wearing it…by providing actual utility by having pockets the right places, or being of the appropriate weight and breathability for the weather that day, or simply by fitting the person in a flattering, comfortable manner.  No garments are cool enough, or embedded with enough identity shaping information to change the fact that you are the uncomfortable sweaty dude, wearing something a size too small.  

 

 

 

Thanks for mentioning the answer key to not having to think about any of this stuff.  Of course my interests in most clothing have nothing to do with American made stuff of any ilk…I am in love with a handful of Japanese brands, none of whom are selling the country of manufacture before the actual quality of the product.  If the Japanese brands claim any authenticity, it has to do with the accuracy of their reproductions, but, for obvious reasons, they don't get to lean on American sentimentality in the same way. 

 

I've been thinking about this a lot lately - within any of us nutty enough to obsess over these details there are many factors at work, sometimes antagonistically.

 

1) heritage to mean history - i.e. a company has been around a long time, and people beyond the users of their garments as tools are hip to it. This happens to music all the time.

 

2) heritage as fashion - people who like the looks and have none of the need a garment provides.

 

Somewhere in between is the knowledge that to some extent all clothing is costume - a uniform that expresses who you think you are to the world. You may dress in American heritage because to you it's important to source clothing that is made in the US (if you are American), you may want to signify that you don't follow fast fashion, because heritage clothing is expensive. Or you may dress like a lumberjack because you work in a forest cutting down trees.

 

Where I personally draw the line is trying to sepearate the companies who are making a cash grab from the companies that have a real love for the crafting of items, be they boots, jeans, jackets etc. Once I've pruned that list down to my (totally subjective) satisfaction, then I can apply other criteria (where it's from, history, etc).

[devilish]

Thanks Aho for actually posting some footwear up in here. Yawn at all the ranting and pontificating going on.