7 ms·

There’s definitely a point of diminishing returns, but boots from Ross can cost about $45, while a $300 pair of red wings would last a lifetime, if maintained p

There’s definitely a point of diminishing returns, but boots from Ross can cost about $45, while a $300 pair of red wings would last a lifetime, if maintained properly. A pair of $1000 boots are definitely beyond that line and will also last a lifetime, while costing 3.3x more

swalling 3y ago
There are several brands of boots like this. I have a pair of Red Wing boots that I purchased new in 2013 (I don’t remember the price but today they are $350). Unlike most other modern sneakers or boots, they are made so that the soles be replaced, which I have done once for $100. Other than this, the only consumable part is shoelaces. With maintenance of the leather, it is completely expected for these boots to outlive me.
- searealist 3y ago
  $350/3.3 is $106. Do you expect these boots to last 5x longer than $106 boots?
  - CobaltFire 3y ago
    Mine did; I'm still wearing them (I bought mine in 2016, and they haven't needed resoled yet) and the $100 boots I was wearing (US Navy authorized) would barely last a year. So for the $300 or so I paid then I got 6 years hard use out of them, and I'm still using them for stuff now that I don't wear them for work. I have other pairs of dress shoes from Red Wing that are similar; I doubt I'll EVER need to replace them. Note: the boots are style 2412, the shoes are a variety but the oldest are called MIL-1 Congress boots (Chelsea). I have a few pairs of a different style dress shoe from the heritage line as well.
    - searealist 3y ago
      What were the $100 boots? Do you wear your current boots an equal amount?
      - CobaltFire 3y ago
        Bates and Belleville, and at least as much. I understand your point, but realize some of us really do live in these boots and have found some that make a huge difference. The only (and big) negative for the Red Wings was the break in process. It was protracted and brutal. Once broken in they've been wonderful though. Also, I'm giving the boots too much credit. Just looked them up and the Bellevilles I wore (800 ST) just before the Red Wings are $230 today. I replaced them yearly because they were coming apart. For hiking and climbing I wear La Sportiva and they have been excellent as well, as another brand to look at.
        searealist 3y ago
        Google search for that brand reveals: > Our boot regulations and contracts severely limit our options to only a few very expensive-and often ineffective-models. So these are just overpriced boots. My main point is that OP is pushing a narrative about how rich people somehow save money with their expensive purchases, which is complete nonsense. They buy luxury products which are more expensive in the long run.
  - bigbinary 3y ago
    $106 would put someone at some okayish timberlands, which definitely degrade quick. Maybe not a year, but definitely 3 years max
  - swalling 3y ago
    Given that the $100 Timberlands only last a year or two, the Red Wings already have lasted 5X longer.
searealist 3y ago
$300/3.3 is $90. Do you think those boots will last 5x longer than $90 boots?
- Gud 3y ago
  I can't speak for his boots, but my Loake Sedbergh still look brand new after 2 years continuous use and with minimal care. I give them a 10 second clean before use and 30 second clean + some polish after. https://www.loake.com/product/sedbergh-black-grain/ https://www.loake.com/product/sedbergh-black-grain/
searealist 3y ago
What boots cost 3.3x these and will last 5x as long: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brahma-Men-s-Combustion-6-Steel-Toe-Work-Boots/409627442 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brahma-Men-s-Combustion-6-Steel-T...
- 3np 3y ago
  Looking at the reviews: Most of them in that range.
  - searealist 3y ago
    The top review literally says it's better to buy these over and over when they wear out vs more expensive boots.
    - 3np 3y ago
      Finding $99.99 boots that last over a year isn't hard. And yet, yes, some people would apparently rather buy $30 ones every couple of months. Scale accordingly for variance in usage and quality for the ones claiming 2w vs 1y.
  - MaxLindelof 3y ago
    [dead]

swalling 3y ago

There are several brands of boots like this. I have a pair of Red Wing boots that I purchased new in 2013 (I don’t remember the price but today they are $350). Unlike most other modern sneakers or boots, they are made so that the soles be replaced, which I have done once for $100. Other than this, the only consumable part is shoelaces. With maintenance of the leather, it is completely expected for these boots to outlive me.

searealist 3y ago
$350/3.3 is $106. Do you expect these boots to last 5x longer than $106 boots?
- CobaltFire 3y ago
  Mine did; I'm still wearing them (I bought mine in 2016, and they haven't needed resoled yet) and the $100 boots I was wearing (US Navy authorized) would barely last a year. So for the $300 or so I paid then I got 6 years hard use out of them, and I'm still using them for stuff now that I don't wear them for work. I have other pairs of dress shoes from Red Wing that are similar; I doubt I'll EVER need to replace them. Note: the boots are style 2412, the shoes are a variety but the oldest are called MIL-1 Congress boots (Chelsea). I have a few pairs of a different style dress shoe from the heritage line as well.
  - searealist 3y ago
    What were the $100 boots? Do you wear your current boots an equal amount?
    - CobaltFire 3y ago
      Bates and Belleville, and at least as much. I understand your point, but realize some of us really do live in these boots and have found some that make a huge difference. The only (and big) negative for the Red Wings was the break in process. It was protracted and brutal. Once broken in they've been wonderful though. Also, I'm giving the boots too much credit. Just looked them up and the Bellevilles I wore (800 ST) just before the Red Wings are $230 today. I replaced them yearly because they were coming apart. For hiking and climbing I wear La Sportiva and they have been excellent as well, as another brand to look at.
      - searealist 3y ago
        Google search for that brand reveals: > Our boot regulations and contracts severely limit our options to only a few very expensive-and often ineffective-models. So these are just overpriced boots. My main point is that OP is pushing a narrative about how rich people somehow save money with their expensive purchases, which is complete nonsense. They buy luxury products which are more expensive in the long run.
- bigbinary 3y ago
  $106 would put someone at some okayish timberlands, which definitely degrade quick. Maybe not a year, but definitely 3 years max
- swalling 3y ago
  Given that the $100 Timberlands only last a year or two, the Red Wings already have lasted 5X longer.

searealist 3y ago

$300/3.3 is $90. Do you think those boots will last 5x longer than $90 boots?

Gud 3y ago
I can't speak for his boots, but my Loake Sedbergh still look brand new after 2 years continuous use and with minimal care. I give them a 10 second clean before use and 30 second clean + some polish after. https://www.loake.com/product/sedbergh-black-grain/ https://www.loake.com/product/sedbergh-black-grain/

searealist 3y ago

What boots cost 3.3x these and will last 5x as long: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brahma-Men-s-Combustion-6-Steel-Toe-Work-Boots/409627442 https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brahma-Men-s-Combustion-6-Steel-T...

3np 3y ago
Looking at the reviews: Most of them in that range.
- searealist 3y ago
  The top review literally says it's better to buy these over and over when they wear out vs more expensive boots.
  - 3np 3y ago
    Finding $99.99 boots that last over a year isn't hard. And yet, yes, some people would apparently rather buy $30 ones every couple of months. Scale accordingly for variance in usage and quality for the ones claiming 2w vs 1y.
- MaxLindelof 3y ago
  [dead]