/fa/ - Fashion

>>7347500
>aren't red wing, wolverine and ll bean boots all pretty much made by chippewa?
lol no.
They have their own factories.
And in RW's case, their own tannery too.

>Is there any reason why I should get those boots over chippewas besides brand name if I'm looking for a rugged outdoorsy work boot similar to the LL Bean Katahdins?
Red Wing and Wolverine are not a boot, they are brands of bootmakers.
List specific boots if you want comparisons.
However, in general, with wolverine and RW you know what kind of leather you are getting, and there are more options available.

I cannot comment on overall construction differences as I own no LL Bean chips, however I have noticed that with American made boots you get what you pay for. Do you need to pay more than what you can get the katahdins for?
Depends on you and what you want.

>>7347500
they're all good quality
they all have ugly toe boxes
do not buy things with nubs in the sole unless you have a balanced (bulky) silhouette.

>>7347543
>do not buy things with nubs in the sole unless you have a balanced (bulky) silhouette.

winter tho.

>>7347550
true, here are mine
my go to for the snowy days.

>>7347543
I'm sorry I only lurk here most of the time, what is a balanced (bulky) silhouette?

Do you mean like pic related, where meso/endo would be "bulky"

>>7347566
>somatypes

never in history has a lame excuse to photograph naked undergrads gotten so out of hand.

>>7347566
no, imagine wearing big boots, with nubs and heels and a large toe box
and then imagine them being work with skinny jeans
your silhouette is basically how your shadow looks, disregarding fabric and colour, just the shapes alone.
if you have skinny going down into a big clunky boot, it creates a particular silhouette.
if you're new, odds are you should be balancing your silhouette and not looking like a fool. contrasting silhouettes are for people who know what they're doing.

a balanced bulky silhouette, for example, would be wearing those boots with jeans that aren't fit to your leg, roomy enough that the leg opening fits over them without a struggle. along with a jacket that isn't too slim, like a tailored blazer.

>>7347599
I mean not like a tailored blazer.

>>7347599
okay, that all sounds reasonable, I didn't consider that.

How about these? Slimmer toe box, no nubs.

>>7347500
The red wings and wolves have actual leather insoles, whereas the LL Bean Kata's have a fiberboard leather imitation insole. It's common these days, but traditional makers use the proper leather insole.
This alone would sway me to wither RW or Wolv over the Kata's; it's a matter of comfort and longevity. They're not bad, sure, but there's a reason why say the Iron Ranger from Red Wing and the 1000 Mile from Wolverine both cost more than that specific Chippewa boot.

You get what you pay for.

You get what you pay for,

hey /fa/ I'd like some nice leather boots that would look nice with workwear. I really like the Red Wings and Wolverines but I'm from Europe, and have no idea what brands are good, and I'm not gonna pay ridiculous prices for shipping and taxes just to get nice boots from murrica. Any advices on good European leather boots?

>>7349038
the mfa boot guide has british and european brands listed.

>>7349065

I-I don't even know what mfa is... /fa/ always made fun of that place so I avoided it like fire.

>>7349093
http://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/z2quy/mfa_boot_guide_20122013/

>>7347500
RW and Wolverine are totally separate things from Chip, as extensively stated already
However, I'm pretty sure Chippewa makes the katahdin stuff
I've owned 1 pair of similar-grade boots (Thorogoods, which I believe are also made in the Chip factory) and I can say that the weak point is the leather. Construction is good, soles are vibram, but the leather can be total shit quality. Its not consistent tho - some pieces of the boot will be good leather, and others will be shit.
I think mainline Chippewas might have decent leather, but I would just save up for the next price bracket if I were you.

>>7347560
Damn son, never thought I would compliment a pair of Fryes, but those look great!

>>7349120

thank you kind /fa/non

>>7349120

>American boots
Nice looking leather boots. Simple, versatile, affordable price.

>European boots
Brogues, dress shoes, boat shoes, anything nice for 300 GBP or higher.

I'm seriously considering buying classic timberlands right now.

>>7349134
Chippewas have good leather and a way better silhouette than you'd think given the price range

Basically really really handsome work boots that will stay good-looking for years

>>7348064
If this is true I'd be much more inclined to fork out more for the red wings. Like he said it's a matter of durability and comfort.

That fiberboard stuff is a substitute for leather for insoles.

It isn't as good,and will need replacing more often than the leather kind.

Still, it's not as if these'll be the only boots or shoes you ever own, right?

Juggle and alternate them to spread out wear and tear.

I like the cordovan color llbean chips.

>>7349134
wait whats wrong with frye? I was considering buying a leather backpack from them

>>7347629
I have them and they've lasted fine since last year. Get tougher laces though.

>>7347629
If you go with Chipps get their service boots

>>7352764
Are the service boots made with better quality leather than the Apaches? They're 100 dollars more but I don't see a huge difference.

Also on a related note do the Katahdins have a larger toebox than the Chipps because of the cap toe?

>>7352284
FRYE isn't awful just be wary of their cheap stuff

im planning on getting a pair of iron rangers but im stuck on what color im going to get. which color is more versatile?

>>7356648
They're all very versatile colors, get whichever one you like best.

>>7356648
Personally I'd go with copper. All are excellent though

>>7356648
This:
>>7356667
My thoughts:
The Hawthorne roughout suede thing is the softest of the four, and so the break-in period with these would probably be the least painful; it also looks the grottiest after a while, especially if you don't clean them or care for them meticulously.

The Black is kinda boring, to be honest; if you want a black boot, they're everywhere, and there's no need to get the IR's just for that. IMO black IR's are boring. Big, bulky black boots are what security guards wear.

The Amber Harness is the middle of the road IMO; it's a nice brown that'll develop lighter streaks with wear. It's a very safe choice, and in fact I own this kind.

But, if I could do it again, I would go with the Copper Rough and Tough. Why? It gives one more options: it's very close to the Amber straight off, but it is usually lighter - if you want it to look more like the Amber, just use some kind of conditioner or oil - whatever RW recommend for that kind of leather.

But if you want it lighter, just let it wear in and you get this patina that I find very attractive. The Amber can't get as light as this very easily - it would take a lot of wear a long time.

I only got the amber because the store I was fitted in didn't stock the copper.

Light brown one IMO - if you want it darker, that can be arranged. You can't make a dark boot lighter, but you can make a light one darker.

mah options

>>7357948
>the myspace angle of boot photos

>>7357964
I can't remember from where I saved it.

>>7356667
>>7356770
>>7357948
I'll go with copper. Thanks for the inputs.

>>7358043
Good choice. Have you actually tried them on for sizing? I strongly recommend doing so before purchasing; the alternatives, ie. guessing size according to other shoes you own, will probably lead to a poor fit. Trying them on yourself is pretty much necessary with decently made boots and shoes.

Anyone own both Wolverines and Red Wings?
Care to compare them?