Shoes that look better with age...

[tmadd]

Fill me in a bit on horse hide, tmadd and fellas - I get that's it's very expensive because it's rare, limited quantity and very fine, but is it more durable than cow hide? 

 

My opinion of horsehide is evolving.  It's definitely got characteristics of its own...many of which I admire.  While the cost associated with sourcing horsehide keeps all but the highest end boot builders from using it these days, it's comparison to cowhide in terms of durability will still hinge on grade, quality, tanning, thickness etc. which is to say that it's not a marked or across the board difference.  It may wear differently, but horse and cow of equal grade will have a relatively similar lifespan. 

 

The other thing about horsehide is that it was a prevalent leather during the golden era of american flight and motorcycle jackets, and workboots, so there are major associations with ultra accurate replicas from that era.  I feel like sometimes this causes people to draw conclusions that horse was selected as an optimum purpose driven leather instead of what was available.

[itsbenhere]

You'd maybe have to be retarded to buy the bucos at 1750 considering they could be had easily for 1300, which is pretty much the upper bound of what anybody could "reasonably" pay for an engineer.  That said, to me, the bucos are unbeatable in style.  I like that they don't cater to something super-flat (not that the lofgrens do), but that they also don't look clown like.  I'd be interested to see Brian pop his head over here and give us a thought on the construction of boots that he's familiar with... I'm guessing he has to have the ability to discern something from "good" to "better than the rest".

 

I keep going back and forth on getting engineers or a leather jacket... I'm a straight dumbass for not trying on bucos when i was in tokyo.  It's way too hard to throw $1300 down without knowing how it's going to work out.  Erg

[edmond]

the lofgrens are what 800? bucos are 1300

assuming constructions the same ( but not)

why would you pay 800 which for me only cost 500?

id rather just go to wesco 480 than lofgrens

for me lofgrens are a joke untill they bring their prices down. their clothing line is very good though and not so expensive unless they jack the prices up.

bucos are nice but if yoir unsure go with wesco you will love them

[tmadd]

You'd maybe have to be retarded to buy the bucos at 1750 considering they could be had easily for 1300, which is pretty much the upper bound of what anybody could "reasonably" pay for an engineer.  That said, to me, the bucos are unbeatable in style.  I like that they don't cater to something super-flat (not that the lofgrens do), but that they also don't look clown like.  I'd be interested to see Brian pop his head over here and give us a thought on the construction of boots that he's familiar with... I'm guessing he has to have the ability to discern something from "good" to "better than the rest".

 

I keep going back and forth on getting engineers or a leather jacket... I'm a straight dumbass for not trying on bucos when i was in tokyo.  It's way too hard to throw $1300 down without knowing how it's going to work out.  Erg

 

Get a leather jacket…if engineers are something you really need, you'll know it, and it'll be an easy call to make.  Especially living in LA, a leather jacket can be an easy part of your everyday wardrobe, and it'll only get better the longer you own it.  

 

If you can easily get Bucos in the United States for less than the 1750 BiG sells them for, then, yes that would be stupid, but if you're arguing value based on price, you have to consider the price a person is likely to pay for them, and not factor in what super experts on the internet can get something for, if they are willing to buy them from across the globe via proxy or even just a rakuten shop, with all the risk that is entailed in a purchase like that.  

[Maynard Friedman]

Some people wouldn't consider $1300 "reasonable" for an engineer boot either, especially some of those who really need them for work.

[itsbenhere]

Haha, you're right tyler... i would probably fall into the super internet expert category.  I think that I also want a leather jacket more, but considering that it's literally twice the price of engineers and I'd have to get the one I really want commissioned (insanely expensive...) it's a super hard decision to make.  Also, it's so fucking hot here I'm afraid i'll just sweat my ass of wearing it.  Oh well, I'm content with waiting until i find something perfect... and it better be staring in gods eyes perfect

 

Maynard, you're completely right, but to be honest that argument is kind of trite and unsuitable for superfuture.  The reason why I personally spend money isn't to have something last much longer than something of "lesser" quality (although that would be great), it's because my tastes are completely unreasonable and to really get the "look" i like I've gotta spend the big bucks.  red wings would be more than suitable for me, but they ain't bucos.

[tmadd]

the lofgrens are what 800? bucos are 1300

 

 

 

It horsehide, not unicorn hide.  

 

I can't quote horsehide prices per square yard vs CXL, but I'm willing to wager that for a pair of boots…if the price bump is $150, it'd be a very very profitable upgrade for the maker.  CXL might be relatively cheaper than horsehide, but it's not $100's per square foot cheaper.  Also, horsehide is more expensive because of scarcity, not because it's exponentially better at being boot leather.

 

I don't know enough about the construction of the Buco's to talk about them versus the Lofgrens, but after handling the Lofgren's it's hard to imagine the build quality being clearly superlative.  This is where the argument becomes academic, and a matter of taste.  While nothing about the Buco's (or any RMC footwear for that matter) draw me towards paying what they are priced at, I am a big believer in the idea of paying whatever the premium is to have precisely what you want instead of a 95% approximation, and would encourage anyone thusly captivated with Buco's to pull the trigger.  But to be an advocate of Buco's and insinuate that someone enamored with Lofgren's is getting had, is stupid.  It is similarly stupid to draw an equivalency between Lofgrens and Wesco…there are similarities, but the build quality, or the focus of the build is about as different as can be for similar styled boots.  I have nothing but admiration for Wescos, don't get me wrong, but to differentiate Bucos from Lofgrens, but not Lofgrens from Wesco is either an act of bias, or not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

 

And, as probably everyone reading this and not taking time to comment already knows, the best boots any of us has ever seen in person were more likely than not red wings, chippewas, or carolinas, worn by a guy who maybe actually bought them because he thought they looked cool, but didn't think much more about them, and then he just wore them, and wore them, and took care of them when they needed it etc.  I have fun splitting hairs on this stuff 'til I'm blue in the face, but no build quality, hide quality, or story and background is any match for years of good honest wear.  

[Maynard Friedman]

If my argument that $1300 is unreasonable for a pair of engineer boots is trite and unreasonable for this forum, then how can the idea of $1300 as a limit be more valid. Who's setting that limit, on what basis? Why not $2000, $5000 - someone else may think that's 'reasonable'? This is Superfuture after all.

[tmadd]

If my argument that $1300 is unreasonable for a pair of engineer boots is trite and unreasonable for this forum, then how can the idea of $1300 as a limit be more valid. Who's setting that limit, on what basis? Why not $2000, $5000 - someone else may think that's 'reasonable'? This is Superfuture after all.

 

You're either misreading me or, more likely, I'm articulating poorly.  I'm glad when people spend as much or as little as they please, and get the thing that makes them the happiest, all else considered.  

 

My only issue is that Ed is claiming that an $800 boot is too expensive based largely on a material used, but a $1300 boot is properly priced because it uses his preferred material.  Everyone is entitled to like one, and hate the other or love both, or hate both, or think "gee, those are both nice, but I wouldn't spend half that on a pair of boots."  

 

My point is that we are discussing things in a tier where it's hard to argue that there is an equivalent return per extra dollar spent in any sort of objective utility or quality.  It's not to say that some things aren't in this price range, that perhaps aren't lacking in some respects compared to other things in this price range, but at a certain point, it's about getting the specifics you want.  If the Bucos turn you on so much that you can't think about any other boots, then what other boots with similar reputations cost shouldn't really matter.  It's: "Are the Bucos worth $1300 to you?  Yes or no?"  Not: "Are the Bucos worth $1300 to you in a world where you can get Lofgrens for $800 and Wesco for $600?".  

 

Start looking at hand built cowboy boots, add some exotic leathers into the equation and your $2000, $5000 are easy to reach!  ;-) 

 

Edit: Turns out I was the one doing all the misreading, and poor articulating!  Nothing new.

Edited October 10, 2014 by tmadd

[itsbenhere]

I think mf is probably referring to my comment.  Sorry about that, I was a little harsh...

 

Anyway, what I meant was for me 1300 is like the very upper limit of what I'm willing to pay.  I come up with that arbitrary number from my rock-solid justification that a decent number of engineer boots are 1k (lofgren, viberg, clinch) and that 300 more is just barely in the same ballpark imo.

 

If i was mad ballin i'd be thinking about them cordovan bucos, but those are even beyond ridiculously unnecessary.  and yes i realize ridiculously unnecessary is in the equation way before superfuture.

[edmond]

tnadd my man you are selling lofgrens right?

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 9, 2015 by hoggreaser

[tmadd]

tnadd my man you are selling lofgrens right?

 

Wow!  You really tripped me up there you sly dog!  And here I thought I was about to get away with fleecing the whole internet!

[tod]

Fill me in a bit on horse hide, tmadd and fellas - I get that's it's very expensive because it's rare, limited quantity and very fine, but is it more durable than cow hide? 

 

it does seem to be relatively rare these days, and it also seems to vary in quality quite a bit.  I briefly owned two pairs of Vibergs in black and in brown HH, and both were among the most beautiful boot leather I had ever seen -- thick and apparently durable, but with a nice rich tone.  Not quite as shiny as CXL but far more durable.  The browns I sold to Rafa and you can see pics of his that show their very nice evolution.  The blacks I wore for a few months before finally admitting they didn't fit right and I sold them.  But in those months of wear they never creased at all, and began to sort of smooth out develop a nice early patina with none of the CXL show-through.  Really a great leather to my mind.

 

But then you can see pics of White's horsehide, and it wears very differently, getting pretty severe creasing right away and the color wearing away like CXL; same thing with the cheaper Thorogood HH.  I have heard about differences between horse "butt" and horse "strip," and perhaps that is part of the wear issue, though as tmadd says there are all sorts of processing steps that can make a difference.

 

Bottom line seems to be, if you get really good high quality HH it can't be beat for workboot leather, but lesser quality is out there for sure.

[tod]

/\ agree with under use of the Munson last, it is a shame it isn't utilised more outside of the military repro and reenactors markets. ..

 

I've yet to see a Viberg last yet that doesn't make my feet hurt just looking at them.  

 

Here is Viberg's 2045, which they describe as being Munson-inspired at least:

 

 

To me, that's a classic boot shape...

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 9, 2015 by hoggreaser

[tod]

Well well, so it is.

 

 

Never bothered to follow Viberg, so I was really only aware of the 110, 310, 2030 and 2040. 

 

Hard to tell without seeing the last bottom paper or better the last itself how they have modified the Munson - and it would be interesting to know whether they had in fact actually truly modified a Munson (built up / trimmed etc) at all or simply had a new last turned based on measurements, in other words just approximated.

 

Not a fan of the snub nose on that 2045 boot though. 

 

edit - the danger in modifying the Munson is losing the qualities, as in the correct anatomical fit, with which it was designed. Most Viberg lasts - and in fact EVERY last I've seen in English shoes, are just too tapered and exhibit outflare in the toe box. That said, one of the less desirable features of the Munson in my opinion is the high inside cone, makes lasting the vamp by anything but by hand a bit hit or miss. Then again, the last is intended for boots worn with thick socks so that would take up some of the vamp volume I guess. A dress shoe last, it isn't...

 

Here's a shot of the bottom of a 2045 Viberg, with some nice Cat's Paws as a bonus:

 

 

And here is, I think, an unstructured toe on the 2045.  I actually like the rounder, snubby toe, but this might work for those who don't:

 

[volvo240thebest]

i really like this oxford model by william lennon boots

 

 

anyone know which model it is? Can't find it on their website.

[Maynard Friedman]

It looks like a shoe version of their Dundas boot, which I have. Email them for further information, Libby is really helpful. You can attach the picture for reference as they make a lot of models that aren't on the website,

Edited October 10, 2014 by Maynard Friedman

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 9, 2015 by hoggreaser

[exaptavist]

.

Edited October 9, 2015 by hoggreaser

[Maynard Friedman]

Lining is £10 extra for the pair - it was on mine last year anyway.

[volvo240thebest]

tis all sound good for a man with big hobbit feet like myself!

I won't write them right now as I will risk to buy them! I'll wait til december at least, otherwise my wife will kill me.

I really love that shape and the possibility of a little customization, but most of all, I like to buy some shoes from a European company, for a change!

[Maynard Friedman]

They often have a turnaround time of 6-8 weeks, so bear that in mind, you won't regret them!

[cameosis]

With regard to Alden vs Red Wing [...]

 

Of course the perennial question of whether certain boots are "worth it' is very subjective.  To my mind, if I like the boots and they feel good on my feet and I know I will get 8 or 10 years of regular wear out of them (or more) then I will pay 5 or 6 hundred dollars for them and not feel too bad about it.  There has to be a limit though, and to me Viberg is starting to go beyond that limit by hitting the 7 to 9 hundred dollar range.  (Though like everyone else, I love the Viberg...)

 

agree with everything, but the last sentence -- i'm possibly the odd guy out: viberg's all fluff and little substance to me. i can get the same or better quality for a fraction of the price buying old/deadstock boots -- and the vintage bonus is included for free.

 

i tip my hat to them for successfully milking their target group, however. that's some business acumen!

Edited October 10, 2014 by cameosis

[Megatron1505]

I just find Viberg a little soul less after reading the interview with Brett where he talked about increasing the prices even further. His dad seems like a good guy, but that interview was pretty much a blueprint for alienating a section of custom.

 

The caveat I should add is that I do think a lot of their boots look great, and I would definitely buy some for the right price (I have in fact almost bought some recently), I just don't love the brand in comparison to White's, Wesco, Alden or some of the English shoe makers.

[cameosis]

It horsehide, not unicorn hide.  

 

I can't quote horsehide prices per square yard vs CXL, but I'm willing to wager that for a pair of boots…if the price bump is $150, it'd be a very very profitable upgrade for the maker.  CXL might be relatively cheaper than horsehide, but it's not $100's per square foot cheaper.  Also, horsehide is more expensive because of scarcity, not because it's exponentially better at being boot leather. 

 

in germany, horse hide costs € 40 - € 50 per square meter, up to € 60 maybe, depending on which tannery you talk to, but not more.

[garden gnomes in space]

Well well, so it is.

 

 

Never bothered to follow Viberg, so I was really only aware of the 110, 310, 2030 and 2040. 

 

Hard to tell without seeing the last bottom paper or better the last itself how they have modified the Munson - and it would be interesting to know whether they had in fact actually truly modified a Munson (built up / trimmed etc) at all or simply had a new last turned based on measurements, in other words just approximated.

 

Not a fan of the snub nose on that 2045 boot though. 

 

edit - the danger in modifying the Munson is losing the qualities, as in the correct anatomical fit, with which it was designed. Most Viberg lasts - and in fact EVERY last I've seen in English shoes, are just too tapered and exhibit outflare in the toe box. That said, one of the less desirable features of the Munson in my opinion is the high inside cone, makes lasting the vamp by anything but by hand a bit hit or miss. Then again, the last is intended for boots worn with thick socks so that would take up some of the vamp volume I guess. A dress shoe last, it isn't...

neither am I .  In fact I cant really stand it.  

[garden gnomes in space]

I just find Viberg a little soul less after reading the interview with Brett where he talked about increasing the prices even further. His dad seems like a good guy, but that interview was pretty much a blueprint for alienating a section of custom.

 

The caveat I should add is that I do think a lot of their boots look great, and I would definitely buy some for the right price (I have in fact almost bought some recently), I just don't love the brand in comparison to White's, Wesco, Alden or some of the English shoe makers.

This chapped my hide as well.  Too many good makers out there to entertain a brat and his fantasy.  

 

And like you, I find their boots fairly attractive for the most part.  However, the lack of arch support pretty much makes it a no go for me.  

Edited October 10, 2014 by garden gnomes in space

[Maynard Friedman]

I just find Viberg a little sole less

That marks their high prices all the more remarkable!