Submitted by [deleted] t3_z0nvwv in BuyItForLife
regaphysics t1_ix6tqde wrote
Reply to comment by justhereforpics1776 in Anyone have experience with Columbia's winter gear? How are they nowadays? by [deleted]
lol no. Just no. Any clothing you wear and use regularly will deteriorate fairly quickly. There are a few exceptions, but not many. Certainly no shoes. (People stupidly say things like redwings but the reality is they spend more on resoling and maintenance than just buying new pairs would cost. So please don’t say something dumb like that.)
Noteful t1_ix72w0u wrote
Your comment itself is pretty dumb. Plenty of Redwings can last 10+ years with inexpensive monthly maintenance.
My last Redwings I wore for 4 years 300 days a year if not more before I had the sole replaced and they were worn in an extreme and dirty environment and I treated them like shit with no care. I'd wager they can last 10 years when treated properly.
BornAgainSpecial t1_ix7qfo9 wrote
Monthly!?
regaphysics t1_ix8a9nw wrote
Yeah lol let me just oil my boots monthly.
regaphysics t1_ix8a3cf wrote
lol comical. Redwings aren’t bifl. They’re regular expensive shoes with soles you can replace. Get over it.
PoopDeScoopDeWoop t1_ix9dcs2 wrote
Better than replacing the entire shoe/boot.
When people say "BIFL" it's usually within the scope of whatever they're talking about. For shoes and boots, it's assumed that you'll have to replace the soles eventually. But good uppers (not "regular expensive shoes", high quality crafted leather) will easily last you a lifetime.
regaphysics t1_ix9fc54 wrote
Better how? That all depends what metric you want to use.
In any event, the point is: the vast majority of the purchase is not BIFL. The "uppers" might feel/seem like a lot, but it isn't over the long term. Between resoling and insoles, you will fairly quickly overwhelm the cost of the uppers. The upper is just a piece of leather with some holes punched in it.
That isn't to say its a bad shoe. It is fine if it fits your needs. But the notion that the "shoe" is lasting a long time is just dead wrong. A small portion is - yes (if you treat it nicely). But the portion that actually supports your foot and gets wear and tear (the sole and insole) lasts no longer than any other shoe and is the majority of the cost.
In reality, you won't spend less by going with a redwing, but you will get pre-worn uppers when you replace the soles. If you like leather uppers, that's a big advantage.
Edit: this reminds me of people who say their old Toyota land cruiser is BIFL. Sure, some parts maybe? But the vast majority of the cost of a vehicle over long periods is the fuel and maintenance, and if the Toyota is expensive to fuel (it is) and maintain (its not much below average), it may well be costing more (and consuming more) than rebuying a newer vehicle.
PoopDeScoopDeWoop t1_ix9k87x wrote
Better in that there's way less waste (throwing out an entire shoe vs just the part that actually needs to be replaced), it's economical, you keep your comfy worn in uppers, and (if you're comparing it to cheap shoes made overseas which it sounds like you are) they're not made using slave labor in factories that probably have zero emission/pollution regulations or safe working conditions or regulations on the raw materials.
Also saying that the "vast majority of the purchase" is the sole and that the upper is just leather will holes punched in it is ridiculous lmao. Do you have any idea how leather/Goodyear welted shoes are made? A ton of work goes into crafting and stitching the upper, and stitching it to the sole, not to mention the grade and quality of leather used in the first place.
When it comes to boots that use 3rd party soles like Vibram or whatever (which my Red Wings do), footwear companies literally buy those in bulk and just shave them down to size lol. Costs peanuts and is just the final part of the manufacturing process.
regaphysics t1_ix9v4mc wrote
>Better in that there's way less waste (throwing out an entire shoe vs just the part that actually needs to be replaced)
I wouldn't say "way" less: most of the environmental impact of a shoe comes from the soles (and midsole, if they had it). And the overall impact depends on the alternative, how/if it is recycled, and the impacts of producing it to begin with (raising cows and making leather generally has a very high impact).
​
>it's economical
Again, that depends. The cost of resoling and new insoles alone covers the cost of a new pair for me, so that isn't true in my case.
​
>you keep your comfy worn in uppers
If you want uninsulated leather uppers, I entirely agree. This is the chief reason to get a pair of goodyear welted shoes/boots. Personally, I have GY welted for dress shoes but not boots, since I want/need insulated and waterproof / salt proof uppers. Leather doesn't fit the bill for me.
​
>Saying that the "vast majority of the purchase" is the sole and that the upper is just leather will holes punched in it is ridiculous lmao. ... A ton of work goes into crafting and stitching the upper, and stitching it to the sole, not to mention the grade and quality of leather used in the first place.
A decent amount of the labor expense for the initial purchase, agreed. The leather costs about $50 (boots take about 5 sq feet of leather, which is 10% of one hide, which costs about $500 for them).
But that is not the point: on a total cost of ownership basis (over 10+ years) - the cost to resole and cost of insoles is the primary expense. $325 for the original pair (which is higher versus a pair that isn't GY welted and leather) is quickly overtaken by the costs of resoling and insoles. $125 sole every 3-4 years and 40$ insoles every year is a lot more than the initial $50 of leather. That is why the "vast majority" of the purchase is not the leather uppers - which are fairly insignificant in terms of overall cost of footwear.
PoopDeScoopDeWoop t1_ixae5li wrote
>I wouldn't say "way" less: most of the environmental impact of a shoe comes from the soles (and midsole, if they had it). And the overall impact depends on the alternative, how/if it is recycled, and the impacts of producing it to begin with (raising cows and making leather generally has a very high impact).
You're gonna need to drop a source on that cause I don't know if that's true. But regardless, the point is that no matter what shoe ($800 GYW boot or $10 Walmart sneaker) the sole is going to wear out and need to be thrown away. You can either throw away the entire thing or just the sole. So technically speaking it's actually 100% less waste at the end of the day (you're preventing everything that doesn't need to be thrown away from being thrown away). True about raising cows but that gets muddy because those cows are usually being raised for meat/dairy anyway.
> since I want/need insulated and waterproof / salt proof uppers. Leather doesn't fit the bill for me
You do you but I've worn my Red wings every winter for the past 5 years shoveling 2+ feet of snow (often completely burying my feet) for hours and hours at a time, sometimes day after day. I went for a 3 hour long hike last year during one of the worst blizzards we've had and was fine, warm and 100% waterproof (you just need good socks for the 'warm' part lol).
> That is why the "vast majority" of the purchase is not the leather uppers - which are fairly insignificant in terms of overall cost of footwear.
I get what you're saying about relative cost to the original purchase, but I don't really see why that matters. What matters is how much money is coming out of your pocket while also factoring in the other important aspects like country of origin, waste, comfort, etc.
regaphysics t1_ixaid6n wrote
>I've worn my Red wings every winter for the past 5 years shoveling 2+ feet of snow (often completely burying my feet) for hours and hours at a time, sometimes day after day. I went for a 3 hour long hike last year during one of the worst blizzards we've had and was fine, warm and 100% waterproof
That hasn't been my experience, especially with wet/muddy/salty slush. But whatever, as you say its up to each person.
>I get what you're saying about relative cost to the original purchase, but I don't really see why that matters. What matters is how much money is coming out of your pocket while also factoring in the other important aspects like country of origin, waste, comfort, etc.
Yes, how much money coming out matters. So if I buy $150 boots every 3-4 years, I am not saving money versus a $350 boot that I resole for $125 every 3-4 years. (I am technically out more money with the redwings for 42 years, lol).
In terms of county of origin, personally I don't see that as an advantage since I don't see buying US-made products as being a plus - but again I leave that to your personal politics/values.
In terms of waste, I would have to see a more detailed lifecycle analysis: I do think redwings would eventually come out on top but I don't think its by as much as you think. Like I said, most of the impact is the consumable portions. Like you said, you are saving the part that isnt consumable. But the impact of raising cattle and making leather is high, and it isn't recycled. Synthetics generally are less intensive to make and can be recycled. Personally, I just go with what works best for my use case.
Noteful t1_ix8knfr wrote
Read again. I never said they were BIFL. My argument is that they can last a decade when we'll taken care of.
regaphysics t1_ix8la05 wrote
I mean, the soles (or insoles) won’t. Leather upper sure, but that’s not what wears out on shoes. I have 10 year old synthetic material shoes that are perfectly fine in the upper…
So yeah $300 boots + resoling + maintenance + insoles will last 10 years? That’s not really saying anything.
Noteful t1_ix8r3uj wrote
I don't think that's as unreasonable as you make it out to be. Resole through Redwings and it's $125. You can also resole through your local cobbler with a heavy duty sole for around the same price I bet. That's $550~ for 10 years of use including the price of the shoes, 2 resoles, and leather conditioner.
No shoe is going to be BIFL, but that option is just as good.
regaphysics t1_ix8srzy wrote
Not going to argue other than to say that’s more than I spend in the same time for my footwear and in no way do I consider it anything close to bifl. It certainly doesn’t “last” 10 years if you spend more than 50% of the original purchase price (really more like 100%) to replace pieces of it.
Noteful t1_ix90ww1 wrote
The Redwings I wear for work are $325 + tax. I'm not going to spend $325 after 4-5 years when I can spend $125 on a re-sole. So again, you're vastly exaggerating costs, and you're wrong there, at least in that specific case.
regaphysics t1_ix92cjn wrote
Huh? You just said $325 to buy and 2x $125 soles over 10 years. That is 325 + $250 (77% of the original purchase price) + leather conditioner = ~$600 over 10 years.
>I don't think that's as unreasonable as you make it out to be. Resole through Redwings and it's $125. You can also resole through your local cobbler with a heavy duty sole for around the same price I bet. That's $550~ for 10 years of use including the price of the shoes, 2 resoles, and leather conditioner.
Nobody is vastly exaggerating anything. I am taking your numbers you just posted. You are spending $600 for boots over 10 years on the original $325 purchase. That also doesn't include the insole which you should be replacing every 6 months or so and is $40 or so, but lets say you only do it yearly. That alone adds in $400 over 10 years.
The reality is the majority of the costs are - shockingly - in the sole and insole which are what wear out in shoes. Including insoles yearly, that is $650 over 10 years for soles and insoles, whereas the original purchase was $325.
Noteful t1_ix93lqp wrote
Leather conditioner is not that expensive. I'm done here.
regaphysics t1_ix9718d wrote
$25 for 10 years worth of leather conditioner? Are you being for real right now? That is the point you want to contest? LOL what a joke. Yes, you are done. Put a fork in ya.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments