Originally Posted by illumin8em
put these shoe pansies to bed fellas. for some reason it seams folks cannot differentiate between someone who is worried about the boots macroscopic appearance, and someone who is not and then try and compare their usage to another. For the most part no one is gonna have any trouble with these boots, and Crane's usage exemplifies the 1000 mile sturdiness.
For me personally- it wasn't about the boot- the leather- standing up to his usage...it was the simple fact that the smooth, leather sole is/was - to me- impractical for his intended use.
I am no city boy, lived in Montana for several years...spend a lot of time outdoors, bought a lot of boots...
...and have had the misfortune of wearing smooth leather soled boots at times where I wished I hadn't as they just didn't provide the traction needed- on rocks, snow, mud- gumbo and hardpan...any incline with a wet surface- grass, leaves, mud...smooth soles just ain't practical- in my most humble opinion...Try crossing a creek with wet and moss-covered rocks on smooth soled boots and you will learn the hard way.
call me a cynic- but spending $900 on a pair of smooth soled cordovan boots circa 1914 and claiming you were not motivated by aesthetics just doesn't seem likely.
Don't get me wrong- they are nice looking boots- and I hope he gets years of enjoyment and more power to him if the soles are not a problem...
But when I hunt I wear a pair of Whites packers- just as well made for 1/3 the price- had the same pair for 15yrs...with nice beefy lugs to keep my pansy ass off the ground
and yes, if you take care of your leather it will last...