Originally Posted by aging in rhythm
Is the Holden Jacket as waterproof/breathable as the Four Square? Although, if you're throwing corked 540's, no one will care what you're wearing.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS. What you are wearing is crucial to maxing out your steeze. Okay I'm being a little sarcastic. But this is not the place to be asking for advice on what to wear on the hill, it's a completely different arena and well out of the range of expertise of this forum. I will say that generally Holden's quality vastly exceeds most foursquare stuff. The majority of mainstream snowboard brands are really pretty low-rent in that respect. But since you live in Vancouver, I'd head down to 4th and Burrard to Pacific Boarder and Comor, and ask Marin what he thinks you should wear.
I'm still in shock that you buy new gear every year. I mean, even if I were to assume that you are referring to new clothing only, that can still easily cost $1000.
I do likewise. It costs nowhere near that much, thanks to "teh mad industry hookups", but retail value is way more than that. Think about it, though, some people are riding upwards of 100 days per season, and a pair of skis or board isn't going to typically last more than 60 days on hill before the core is fucked. Outerwear, waterproofing wears off, shit gets torn by edges. Boots, soles get worn down through walking, and they get bashed up on things. Gloves should be replaced every year even if you ride half that much, they just don't last (aside from Marmot Randonees / Ultimates and the like, which you might get 2 out of). Goggs get scratched and the foam gets wrecked. You get the picture. The only thing that will really last for a while is bindings. If this seems expensive, consider the pros (some go through 8-10 pairs of skis per season) and consider those who have BC/Pow, touring and park specific setups. I know people with 2 sets of the exact same skis mounted at different points for different purposes. Try replacing all that on a regular basis. This shit's expensive... but we may console ourselves with the fact that at least it's still cheaper than mountain biking.
IMO 5,000 mm is fine for jacket, but pants should be 20,000mm or goretex.
I disagree. Your ideal waterproof rating varies depending on where you live. On the east coast, a 10k waterproof rating is more than enough, so long as you can layer to deal with varying temperatures. In Utah, 10k is fine, 20k is excellent. In Quebec and Onterrible, it doesn't even really matter what your waterproofing is, you just need something to deal with the -30 celsius temps at Avila. In the PNW, if you don't have a 20k+ (preferably 3-ply goretex) suit and you ride frequently you're not properly equipped. That being said, the main reason for needing 20k is wet snow or rain, and that stuff falls from the sky last time I checked, so the jacket's rating is actually more important than the pants (you have boots up to your mid calf, so if the bottom gets a little soggy you're still dry). The shoulder seams of the jacket are the point through which most moisture enters.