/fa/ - Fashion

>>14048115
They get a lot of shit for being bad QC, but in reality they're a pretty decent boot brand if you want something goodyear welted (I think they're GYW... might be another stitched construction but I think you get the point) that is decent and doesn't cost all of your shekels

Save up for a pair of White’s MP service boots

>>14048186
Dang those are nice.

for their price.

>>14048180
whats the point in having GYW construction when literally everything else - apart from the design, fair enough - is shit? they're mexican shitters larping as vibergs with awful QC, worse leather and plastic footbed.

do not cop. save up for something better:

whites mp service boots
grant stone diesel
allen edmonds higgins mill
viberg service boots
oak street service boots

and dozens of others, use your brain & google

>>14048115
They are very good for their price. Well worth getting if you're not in a position to afford a better pair.

Consider John Doe Boots, instead. They're similarly priced.

>>14048460
Mine came in two weeks ago... little to known break in. Fucking fits like a glove and looks great.

Kinda bummed I didn’t wait for their MP-M1s collab with Huckberry, it has more of that archease support common to the bounty hunters

1000 mile boot.

>>14048460
fair enough. I guess price is a moot point on a fashion forum (despite all the poorfags). that being said, not everybody is willing to drop half a grand or more on shoes

Thursdays are shilled pretty heavily, I'd take what you read/watch about them with a heavy dose of cynicism.

>>14048460
White's MPs and Viberg service boots are on an entire different level than the other brands you posted.

>>14048186
I own two pairs and haven't touched any other boot I own since getting them. I look at my Red Wings and have no desire to wear them.

>>14048933
This is bait. Wolverine is probably the last boot you would ever want. I'm not a Thursday fan at all and wouldn't recommend them to anyone, but I would get Thursdays over Wolverines

>>14049311
You're the anon with the Cinnamon Waxed Flesh and Color 8 CXL right?

The MP-M1s look much sleeker

https://huckberry.com/store/white-s-boots/category/p/56660-mp-m1-boot-exclusive

and have a much more prominent arch-ease

>>14049325
Nope, my pairs are black chromexcel and brown oiled smooth.

Something about those boots just doesn't appeal to me the way the originals do. And I'm not a fan of waxed flesh. I'll stick to my smooth leathered originals.

As for the arch ease though, I don't know what White's did to invent it but it is the comfiest shit I have ever worn. I have worn my boots for 12+ hours in a day and my feet feel completely fine. Nothing else even comes close to the level of comfort their arch ease system provides.

>>14049337
It's orgasm inducing. But, the new arch ease on the M1s from what sambam had said is much closer the BHs which are the traditional arch ease. The arch ease on the current MPs is modified to be much lower.

To add... I want a pair of British Tan, Cordovan, or smooth oiled MP next. I love them

>>14048933
more like wolverine 1000 meters before the heel falls off

>>14049659
kek

>>14048115
Get similarly-styled Chippewas or White's or Red Wings instead.

https://www.chippewaboots.com/footwear/footwear/original/general-utility/1901M26

My Chippewas are fucking indestructible. Barely cleaned and not at all conditioned during the first few years of ownership, cleaned right up and looked great once I got my shit together. Would highly recommend.

I had a pair of the chukkas and they were pretty dope, lightweight and durable, not too expensive. IMHO the heels hold up better than red wings and they look better because RW's are bulky as shit (muh clown shoes meme). But each to their own. TL;DR i can confirm theyre p solid. I had the suede boots though, idk about the leather ones

Good for the money.

I’d say it’s not worth saving up for whites/vibergs/etc when you’ll probably want to wear something else in two years anyway

>>14048115
They are excellent for the price. If you are going to wear them every day, then the insoles will wear out quickly and you would probably benefit spending more, otherwise it's a good entry level fashion boot.

>>14050906
>not getting a rebuild/resole for $120
>Basically a new shoe
>White's offers both

I'd say long term, White's is cheaper. Especially with rebuilds/resoles to change up the style (got a rebuild to add a different tone of CXL as well as a resole of a ridgeway on my MPs)

>>14050929
Leather still gets worn as fuck, so you’re not getting a new boot. Thursday is half the price so you can literally get a brand new pair for less than whites.

Feel free to buy what you want, but it’s objectively not a better purchase if money is a concern.

>>14050938
>only the upper

They replace the toecap and heel. I like the worn ankle upper since its molded to my heel and I have zero break-in issues. You can have a complete rebuild (replace everything) for $250.

>>14050948
*woops meant molded to my ankle

>>14048180
>>14048268
>>14048481
>>14050890
>>14050906
go away, thursday shills

>>14050938
you in particular. what's the point if thursdays look like shit after 20 wears?

if you rotate, tree and occasionally condition them, said higher quality boots will look immaculate. even the heels are likely going look better than the shitty uppers of thursdays.

>>14051235
>if you rotate, tree and occasionally condition them, said higher quality boots will look immaculate.
but i dont do any of that, so buying inexpensive boots that can be ran into the ground for 2 years works perfectly fine.

>>14051235
You forget that most people on here are plebs looking for instant gratification and putting forward the appearance of being effay. They are completely unwilling or too cheap to properly care for a pair of shoes.

>>14052288
C&J... scottish pebble is so sexy.

Im just worried about their width sizing (Brannock 7E

>>14048115
Their customer service is terrible. I ordered a pair of their boots, found that they didn't fit, and started the return process. Sent the boots back the next day, and they arrived at the warehouse within two days. It took 3 weeks for them to say that the boots had even been returned, and only when I inquired about it. Then they say said that because the boots were "worn" (meaning tried on to determine if they fit), they could only give me a 50% refund, and in two weeks. Even though I did everything properly, I still got jipped $100.

The boots themselves weren't bad, they just didn't feel comfortable and I didn't like how they looked on my feet.

>>14052987
And you didn't dispute the charge? If the boots look new and you have evidence (pics before sending them back) you will get your money back. Just contact your bank. Wearing them once don't count as 'worn' that's retarded.
I've disputed a lot of payments and most of the time you will get your money back if you have evidence.