Nicks Boots

[Crit_Obs]

I wear 8.5E in both, 8.5EE works as well.

 

[Crit_Obs]

Just a quick heads up, lots of new customization options available in Nick's own webstore: new choices of leathers, hardware, models that can be made to order (eg. the Manito) etc.

 

[Mathfish]

Just a quick heads up, lots of new customization options available in Nick's own webstore: new choices of leathers, hardware, models that can be made to order (eg. the Manito) etc.

I am glad you told us. I am going to sight now.

 

[hoppy_IPA]

Got the Dress false tongues for my Roberts yesterday. I wasn’t digging the super long mustaches

 

[Crit_Obs]

As the thread has gone dormant again I figured I'd raise a question I have been wondering about as of late:

How does Nick's 1067 last (Hot Shots etc.) differ from White's "standard" 4811 last; we know their respective 55 lasts are similar to the point of being almost-but-not-quite identical, is it a similar situation between 1067 and 4811? On the site 1067 is described as having the highest arch, while 55 is the second tier; technically, 4811 is also supposed to sport more aggressive arch support compared to 55 but I've found this to be not so straightforward. Is the 1067 obviously different from 55 in this respect?

The reason why I started wondering about this was (I think), that I like the idea of having more arch than what 4811 gives me, seemingly leading me towards White's Packers and their 690C last. The problem is, I also greatly prefer the roomy toe box, something the Packers patently cannot offer. So could Nick's Builder Pro built with 1067 last work? https://nicksboots.com/builderpro-custom/ The huge minus point here is that Nick's don't allow their fancier leathers to be used for "workboot" builds; a Builder Pro in their horsehide could potentially solve many problems at once, seeing how White's are very stingy in regards to what their hh can and cannot be used for.

Sorry for the long-winding and admittedly rather mundane musings. Paging @andy b. as the resident Hot Shot -user.

tl;dr Does Nick's 1067 last sport higher arch compared to White's 4811?

 

[motojobobo]

^^ Good question Crit_Obs. I share the same doubts and similar interest in boots with more arch support. Hope we get some insights from more experienced members.
So far I only have one White's, a Farmer Rancher on a 4811 last; and as I move forward on future Nicks (or White's) purchases I hope to get at least as much arch support as the 4811 gives me. I would love to give it a shot at even more arch support if feasible. That is the main reason I don't pay much attention to SDs, BH nor MPs.

 

[chicken1616]

As the thread has gone dormant again I figured I'd raise a question I have been wondering about as of late:

How does Nick's 1067 last (Hot Shots etc.) differ from White's "standard" 4811 last; we know their respective 55 lasts are similar to the point of being almost-but-not-quite identical, is it a similar situation between 1067 and 4811? On the site 1067 is described as having the highest arch, while 55 is the second tier; technically, 4811 is also supposed to sport more aggressive arch support compared to 55 but I've found this to be not so straightforward. Is the 1067 obviously different from 55 in this respect?

The reason why I started wondering about this was (I think), that I like the idea of having more arch than what 4811 gives me, seemingly leading me towards White's Packers and their 690C last. The problem is, I also greatly prefer the roomy toe box, something the Packers patently cannot offer. So could Nick's Builder Pro built with 1067 last work? https://nicksboots.com/builderpro-custom/ The huge minus point here is that Nick's don't allow their fancier leathers to be used for "workboot" builds; a Builder Pro in their horsehide could potentially solve many problems at once, seeing how White's are very stingy in regards to what their hh can and cannot be used for.

Sorry for the long-winding and admittedly rather mundane musings. Paging @andy b. as the resident Hot Shot -user.

tl;dr Does Nick's 1067 last sport higher arch compared to White's 4811?

I would just call Nicks up. You could also get a lineman's shank in your boot.

 

[hoppy_IPA]

Confession time.

My Roberts have not been working out. The width is much too narrow & they are unbearable. I wanted to love the boots as they are gorgeous but I just can't wear them. I called into Nicks today to speak with them about it & was given what felt like an interrogation about the ordering process & how they fit. Grant, their GM ultimately stated that the leather they sent for the try on boot is much softer & due to the cap toe combined with celastic toe box they don't fit the same. He also stated the guy who did my remote fitting is has been recently barred from doing that job due to overwhelming negative customer feedback.
His solution is to send the boots in & have them soaked in a solution & stretched multiple times. After paying for $66 extra for the remote fitting (try on boot + phone call) I am not really content about that. I've been very patient & followed all their instructions to the letter for fitting. It seems that their product is quite inconsistent & their staff does not make adjustments for things like different leather, celastic toe & toe cap. After spending nearly $600 for a boot, I am very disappointed in all this.
I think they make great boots but I would be very cautious about ordering. The two boots I have fit poorly despite my best efforts to advise that B width was very surprising to me since I wear D/E in Whites. I was told that the boots would eventually break in. Grant even stated that his Roberts took 2-3 months before they were comfortable!

 

[Crit_Obs]

I would just call Nicks up.

I sent them message instead. I'm rather skeptical of my chances of receiving an opaque answer regarding the differences between 1067/4811, but you never know and I'll be sure to report back here once they reply.

Confession time.

My Roberts have not been working out. The width is much too narrow & they are unbearable. I wanted to love the boots as they are gorgeous but I just can't wear them. I called into Nicks today to speak with them about it & was given what felt like an interrogation about the ordering process & how they fit. Grant, their GM ultimately stated that the leather they sent for the try on boot is much softer & due to the cap toe combined with celastic toe box they don't fit the same. He also stated the guy who did my remote fitting is has been recently barred from doing that job due to overwhelming negative customer feedback.
His solution is to send the boots in & have them soaked in a solution & stretched multiple times. After paying for $66 extra for the remote fitting (try on boot + phone call) I am not really content about that. I've been very patient & followed all their instructions to the letter for fitting. It seems that their product is quite inconsistent & their staff does not make adjustments for things like different leather, celastic toe & toe cap. After spending nearly $600 for a boot, I am very disappointed in all this.
I think they make great boots but I would be very cautious about ordering. The two boots I have fit poorly despite my best efforts to advise that B width was very surprising to me since I wear D/E in Whites. I was told that the boots would eventually break in. Grant even stated that his Roberts took 2-3 months before they were comfortable!

That doesn't sound good mate, the part about being advised to pick B when you are D/E on another very similar last made me gringe. I also call BS on the claim that any properly fitting boot would take "2-3 months" of wear before being comfortable.

Your story works as a sobering reminder that this really is a small margins game. Having said that, do keep us updated, there's hoping you'll reach an agreeable solution.

 

[chicken1616]

One thing to keep in mind, also, is that a fair amount of their experienced people went and started Frank's Boots. I am not sure what that left, experience wise, at Nicks.

 

[Peter1]

One thing to keep in mind, also, is that a fair amount of their experienced people went and started Frank's Boots. I am not sure what that left, experience wise, at Nicks.

Those Frank's are some hardcore boots. Not for the faint of heart. Regarding the width issue above -- something seems to have gone seriously wrong if you were advised to take a B width having worn D/E in another brand. Hope it works out somehow.

 

[hoppy_IPA]

The most disappointing part of the width issue is that I stated this multiple times during the process but was strongly advised that their sizing is different & that I cannot compare other brand’s sizing to theirs. I could not argue with that and had to trust them.

 

[Crit_Obs]

Nick's CS got back to me and they squarely claim their 11067 last has more arch compared to White's 4811; further, they say their 55 is very comparable to White's 4811 arch-wise, and from my experience they are indeed in the same ballpark.

This is all good news, I can see a pair of Builder Pros in my future... But the sizing is an issue, I don't think their fitting process with try-on boots etc. is feasible for an overseas customer like me (not to mention said process apparently has its problems, as per hoppy_IPA's experience). Their 11067 fits a bit different, possibly half a size bigger than e.g. their 55... But ymmv and there's always a risk when yoloing it.

 

[tallyho]

I wonder what Nick's last is similar to Whites #55( semi-dress?

 

[Crit_Obs]

I wonder what Nick's last is similar to Whites #55( semi-dress?

Nick’s use the #55 as well, it’s almost the same as White’s but I think they build the arch-ease a bit differently so they don’t feel exactly the same.