/fa/ - Fashion

>>6688024
nothing wrong with moc toe on a well-made pair of boots. but I agree that on cheap boots they look awful

>>6647728
Ugly. I don't hate Clark's; some of their collaborative shoes are nice, and their desert boots are not the worst things ever. But I do hate those ones. The leather looks bad, the buckles look pointless, and the color palette of the whole thing rubs me the wrong way. They look awful IMO.

>>6647735
Again, Thorogood

>>6647749
unless you're hanging out with hunters, who cares? just say you appreciate hunting on an aesthetic level, or you feel the call of the wild or some shit. you don't need to justify your sense of style to anyone.

>>6647769
1) Generally they run bigger to fit thick socks, sizing down half is usually (but not always) right.
2) I haven't.
3) Vibram 2060 doesn't grip well on ice, but I don't slip as much with the vibram christy. I think a lug sole would probably be good but I'm not speaking from experience on this one.

>>6647786
you generally need to buy from the designers who work with that aesthetic. generally rouger textures, shades of black and dark gray, and either very minimally designed boots or sneakers.

>>6647797
awful.

>>6623991
a great example would be the american shoe manufacturers like red wing, oak street bootmakers, russell moccasin.

russell moccasin doesn't even advertise to the fashion market. they advertise to hunters, many of whom swear by the brand. the japanese order cool styles because, you know, made in america is big there.

the key thing with some of the american shoe manufacturers (I'm thinking rancourt, quoddy, russell moccasin, to a much lesser extent oak street) is that they aren't marketing themselves on design; they let the customer or the retailer place custom orders. What you're paying for is the construction and the materials. oak street is more style conscious but they stay competitive price-wise and quality-wise. with brands like yuketen you pay a little more for the design.

but because their role is essentially manufacturing and there is real competition between them, the price to quality ratio is very good.

red wing has made quality the basis of their marketing (well, that and US company town nostalgia). it's the brand's raison d'etre. if they didn't have it they wouldn't be successful. that seems to be keeping their main line of shoes in good shape.

and of course, all of them are taking the old "built to last" philosophy as their aesthetic ideal. So the design process does not necessitate paying designers to make high-concept 'art'.

>>6624077
asking for advice is how people get knowledge. it's not the same as asking to be "spoon fed". don't be a cunt.

>>6536748
relax, it's only the 'fashun' kids who ramble on about the superiority of the 1k mile. there's very little you can achieve by arguing with them. I think some of them aren't even aware that they make boots aside from the iron ranger.

1k miles are not a real work boot, but those on /fa/ who have never done real outdoor work don't understand that.

when someone thinks that the high-end version of red wing is alden, all I can do is laugh. there are upgrades from red wing, but that's not it. that's a different type of boot.