or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Viberg Boots
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Viberg Boots - Page 980

post #14686 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dugafola View Post
 

 

i wear the same size in TB vs. 2030 vs. 110.  Not a problem.  for my foot though, the TB Indy's have a lot more volume in the heel area.  length and width are good for me though.

 

Thanks! IRL, is there much of a difference in the aesthetics of the 110 and the 2030?

post #14687 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLVol View Post
 

 

Thanks! IRL, is there much of a difference in the aesthetics of the 110 and the 2030?

 

This post should help.

post #14688 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Clemson View Post
 

You guys like that 2045 icy mocha? I've never tried a 2045. Should I take the same size as my 2030 if I have medium/slightly narrow feet in width? (I'm pretty much a Brannock 8d spot on.)

I liked them enough to bite, partly because I've never had a 2045. I ordered my 2030 size (10.5), also narrow feet. Then I called (smart, right?) and asked if I should take the same size. They said yes. I'm willing to roll the dice and return if necessary.

 

I think the burlap sole is a nice touch that sets them apart. I am a coffee romantic, so I admit my bias. I don't know what it will look like after being walked on for miles. That's why I plan to use these:

 

Next Level (Click to show)
SCTVKSRSL.jpg
post #14689 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post


I think JR Magat is mostly correct, that it's the aesthetic difference that most pepole in this forum care about.

That said, there is a massive difference in the strength of the boot between the two constructions.

I'm fine with Goodyear-welting from a dress shoe standpoint, where the shoes simply don't get worn that hard. If your Viberg see similar wear, then the construction probably won't matter most of the time. I'd love a stable full of hand-welted dress shoes, and I fully believe they are worth their money, but my footwear budget simply isn't high enough priority to have a good rotation of shoes in that quality. Goodyear-welted dress shoes will survive the concrete/carpet jungle long enough to make them worth the cost on a per dollar basis.

That said, Viberg boots were originally meant to be worn in environments that Goodyear-welt construction just isn't robust enough for (logging, war, etc.). In these cases, the leather on leather stitching, and brass nails will be dependable for the long haul.

In Goodyear, once the interior of the shoe or boot starts getting exposed to any level of wet, dirt, grit, etc., then the glued canvas gemming that is the source for holding everything together simply won't be as dependable. I can't say how long it'll last. There are way too many variables, and it's not worth arguing over. But, take smoking as an example.. sometimes people live to a ripe old age, being lifelong smokers, but that doesn't nullify the rest of the data.

I'm a hunter in my past time, and I won't wear Goodyear-welted boots in the environments I trek through. For that, it's either a stitchdown, or something similar (White's, Nick's, or possibly Viberg style constructions) with Gore-tex, or a fused rubber sole like those found on modern hiking/hunting boots.

If the construction is fundamentally relying on glue (as Goodyear-welting does) for the central attachment point, it simply won't ever be as robust as straight stitched leather on leather.

 

The recent post on Brett Viberg's Instagram (here: https://www.instagram.com/p/-uq3vfigir/?taken-by=brett_viberg ) showing a machine cut channel in the insole of a Goodyear-welted shoe led me to find this informative post above regarding Goodyear-welting in Viberg shoes, which presumes they are using glued gemming.  What say the experts about the machine channeled GYW construction Viberg plans to (is?) use?  I understand it probably doesn't matter to 98% of the use-cases, but setting that relevant point aside it seems to me the in the case of Viberg's offerings which use a very thick high quality insole anyway, this is a very good solution: the extent insole is weakened by cutting a channel is irrelevant and the groove created in lieu of gemming provides a quite strong attachment point.

 

And does anyone know whether Viberg is currently using the machine channeled technique on its GYW shoes already?

post #14690 of 19291
Too bad tobacco chamois of notre is not in stitchdown or I will instant kop
post #14691 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeinabox View Post

Folks like the burlap sole?

I doubt the traction of burlap sole
post #14692 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akeem View Post


so much goodness and so little funds

The way I figured it: I made $1800 by not bidding on the one-off shell MTO for charity and now I'm still $1050 ahead! 

 

I was a finance major in college. Seriously.

 

Edit: Oh wow, it ended at $2000. I just made another $200.


Edited by oynag - 12/11/15 at 4:31pm
post #14693 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLVol View Post
 

 

Thanks! IRL, is there much of a difference in the aesthetics of the 110 and the 2030?


Notre's website currently shows boots built on all four Viberg lasts, shot from multiple angles.  This should give you a good idea of the differences.  In order of progression, imo, from higher volume workboot vibe to sleek lower volume dressier vibe: 2045, 110, 2035, 2030.  I've not seen the 2045 live, however.  And that all said, none are really true workboots, nor true dress boots -- I think they are all in between.

post #14694 of 19291

Anybody have any pics of the Tobacco Chamois in real life? Much lighter/orangey in color vs the same named leather by Alden.


Wondering if these would be most similar to the aged barks?

post #14695 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemononame View Post
 


Notre's website currently shows boots built on all four Viberg lasts, shot from multiple angles.  This should give you a good idea of the differences.  In order of progression, imo, from higher volume workboot vibe to sleek lower volume dressier vibe: 2045, 110, 2035, 2030.  I've not seen the 2045 live, however.  And that all said, none are really true workboots, nor true dress boots -- I think they are all in between.

It's more like 110, 2045, 1035, 2030.  And the 110 is a traditional workboot last.  Sometimes people get traditional workboots and traditional outdoors boots mixed up.  The uses, and therefore, form and features, are quite different.  

post #14696 of 19291

Looks like Notre also has the waxed flesh in 110 on commando. Wonder if those are the ones that were originally slated for Standard and Strange?

post #14697 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
 

It's more like 110, 2045, 1035, 2030.  And the 110 is a traditional workboot last.  Sometimes people get traditional workboots and traditional outdoors boots mixed up.  The uses, and therefore, form and features, are quite different.  


Yah, a could see that -- I'm not really sure of the history of the lasts and what makes a workboot last or not.  I guess I was really thinking that none really appear like workboots, given how pretty they are compared to the "real" workboots on the viberg work boot site.  Though I do think the Ironworker boot listed there ( http://workboot.com/products/viberg-146xi ) and called out in a post above is nice.  I'd be tempted if it didn't come with a full steel insole plate and toe.
 

post #14698 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by melquiad View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engineer05 View Post

 
I thought I'd share some evo pics of my frequently-worn WF Derby Boots.  I wear these to job-sites, in the rain, in the mud, etc.  They're my shit-kickers and perform admirably in that role.  They're my 2nd favorite boots, after some Wesco LTT Jobmasters.  Overall, I'm really pleased with these boots.  I'm thinking about re-waxing them and starting the process over. 





Interestingly, today I received mine, in black.
I feel they are too small (the toe area in my left foot feels really tight, not just snug!), but I'm wondering if they will break in and get better.
What's your experience in breaking these in?

By the way, while the toe shape is much rounder than the 2030 last, I was surprised as to how much shorter they are at the same size. The 2040 is almost like they took the 2030 and chopped the tip off!

How exactly is it tight? If it's on the top, that may be relieved in time. If it's on the ends or sides of the toes, return.
post #14699 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsgleason View Post


How exactly is it tight? If it's on the top, that may be relieved in time. If it's on the ends or sides of the toes, return.


Yeah, the top feels VERY tight, but I can also feel my toes being crunched (pushed down AND back) quite a bit, especially when I walk.

This is, almost always, a clear sign of poor fit, but I wanted to be sure.

 

How would you compare the fit of the 110 last to the 2040? I saw in the photos that the 110 looks almost as long and roomy as the 2040 in a full size larger!

 

Thanks for the info (and the photos)!

post #14700 of 19291
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemononame View Post

The recent post on Brett Viberg's Instagram (here: https://www.instagram.com/p/-uq3vfigir/?taken-by=brett_viberg ) showing a machine cut channel in the insole of a Goodyear-welted shoe led me to find this informative post above regarding Goodyear-welting in Viberg shoes, which presumes they are using glued gemming.  What say the experts about the machine channeled GYW construction Viberg plans to (is?) use?  I understand it probably doesn't matter to 98% of the use-cases, but setting that relevant point aside it seems to me the in the case of Viberg's offerings which use a very thick high quality insole anyway, this is a very good solution: the extent insole is weakened by cutting a channel is irrelevant and the groove created in lieu of gemming provides a quite strong attachment point.

And does anyone know whether Viberg is currently using the machine channeled technique on its GYW shoes already?

That looks to me like it is the "original" method of Goodyear-welting. Glued gemming didn't come along until sometime around the second world war. Before that, they used a machine to cut and turn a thin leather "feather" up perpendicular to the insole bottom for use as the attachment point for the inseaming.

In some respects, that is better than gemming, because it is a thicker and possibly higher quality insole.

But, that method fell out of favor, and was replaced by gemming ribs for a reason, and I don't think it was necessarily just for cost cutting. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd think gemming would cost more in the long run. More machines, more hands, more material to keep in stock, etc. The only added cost for doing it the original way is the thicker leather insoles. I'm not an expert in shoe factory costs, but that would make sense to me.

I've read sources that say that the original method fell out of favor due to how thin the upturned leather feather is. Over time, it can become brittle and break at the flex points. Once that happens, it is far more difficult to repair than a shoe using gemming instead. Initially, they tried to solve that problem by gluing an entire sheet of canvas to the bottom of the insole for reinforcement of the leather feather. That is how Goodyear-welted shoes were made for the first half of the 20th century or so. That was the original definition of "gemming" in fact. Only later did it get completely replaced with the adhesive rib that most makers use now.

I like the original method, in theory, because it removes all glue from the scenario. But, only a couple of makers still use that method. The rest have moved on to the current canvas rib gemming. The real question is why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Viberg Boots