regaphysics t1_ix9v4mc wrote on November 21, 2022 at 9:14 PM

Reply to comment by PoopDeScoopDeWoop in Anyone have experience with Columbia's winter gear? How are they nowadays? by [deleted]

>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 on November 21, 2022 at 11:32 PM

>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 on November 22, 2022 at 12:04 AM

>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.