Red Wing Boots - Your Opinion

Originally Posted by alexa17

Click to expand...

does any one know what type of this RW?? i really appreciate it. thx

that is an usual leather ... i havent seen anything like that in years. and is that a lightning bolt on the side of the shoe ... its hard to tell from the photo? do you know for a fact those are rw's?

Originally Posted by hboogz

Click to expand...

I know it's the cool thing to hate on RW these days, but seriously? Frye? Frye has fallen off in quality for quite some time.

It's just plain buffoonery--my guess is the comment is a product of the groupshift away from RW.

Originally Posted by hboogz

Click to expand...

I know it's the cool thing to hate on RW these days, but seriously? Frye? Frye has fallen off in quality for quite some time.

Is Frye really that bad? I was looking at getting a pair of Dakotas, but can't decide between wedge or rugged bottom:

Not sure about the specific one you linked to. I ordered a pair of Frye Arkansas having never seen one in person. Liked the style, the color, general aesthetics from online photos. But upon receipt, I immediately returned it. General balance and construction seems like it's more suited for occasional weekend wear rather than something to be worn everyday. Much lighter than the pair of RW Iron Ranger I have, leather is thinner and it's tumbled leather, looks like might be easy to scratch but hard to buff out. Very slight imperfections here and there where only the wearer would notice, but it bugs. If was discounted around to around $100 or below, might reconsider, but certainly not worth it at the suggested retail.

Judging on the pair my wife purchased, Frye construction & materials are a bit flimsy. I wouldn't purchase for myself.

I just have a question about some new black iron rangers I got. I had a previous pair in brown that I sold because they were too small, but I noticed as soon as I wore these out the store they were much, much more comfortable. When I got home I realized it was because the tongue of the boots was so much softer and maybe even a bit thinner than the brown pair. I mean they seem REALLY flimsy compared to the rest of the leather on the boot. Is that normal? Anyway.. I love the boots, super comfortable and they have much more arch support than my GTs.

Originally Posted by nemo

Click to expand...

Not sure about the specific one you linked to. I ordered a pair of Frye Arkansas having never seen one in person. Liked the style, the color, general aesthetics from online photos. But upon receipt, I immediately returned it. General balance and construction seems like it's more suited for occasional weekend wear rather than something to be worn everyday. Much lighter than the pair of RW Iron Ranger I have, leather is thinner and it's tumbled leather, looks like might be easy to scratch but hard to buff out. Very slight imperfections here and there where only the wearer would notice, but it bugs. If was discounted around to around $100 or below, might reconsider, but certainly not worth it at the suggested retail.

Thanks for your input, I will try to check them out at the store.

Originally Posted by jbharris88

Click to expand...

Is Frye really that bad? I was looking at getting a pair of Dakotas, but can't decide between wedge or rugged bottom:

I'm not going to influence anyone from not buying into an item they personally like for whatever the reason. I was just commenting on the assertion that "Frye>RW", which, to me, isn't accurate. Frye has been around for quite some time and if anyone finds a particular model they like...go for it.

Originally Posted by whatever123

Click to expand...

that is an usual leather ... i havent seen anything like that in years. and is that a lightning bolt on the side of the shoe ... its hard to tell from the photo? do you know for a fact those are rw's?
i just found that on ebay, and noted "marked ANSIZ41 PT 91 SD Type 2" on product description.
so i googled it and found nothing about this shoe.
i just want to make sure thats the original RW shoes..

Originally Posted by hboogz

Click to expand...

I'm not going to influence anyone from not buying into an item they personally like for whatever the reason. I was just commenting on the assertion that "Frye>RW", which, to me, isn't accurate. Frye has been around for quite some time and if anyone finds a particular model they like...go for it.

Hey hboogz, what boot is in your avatar? They look nice, are those the iron rangers?

Anyway, I've been trying to settle on a pair of boots and was torn between 3: the Bean Katahdin, Iron Ranger and Indy Boot. Obviously the last two are in a higher price range and I've been hearing many good things about the Katahdins so I'm torn as to whether I should pay extra.

The quality of the Katahdins doesn't concern me as much as the look of the leather. It seems much more rugged and beat up looking than the other two. Maybe the website photos don't do it justice but it doesn't even look like leather, more nubuck or something. Of course I'm no expert.

So I guess what holds me back is that the Katahdins seem more suited for rugged / utilitarian use while the Rangers and Indys look more dressy. I would be wearing these not really as work boots but more as casual going out boots and on dress down fridays.

Thoughts or suggestions anyone?

go with the indys unless you are going to be wearing them in the snow - if you want to wear them in the snow as winter boots, go with the RW or the katahdins.

The katahdins are not really boots that you can dress up - if you wore them with something dressier than a flannel and denims you wouldn't look right imo. they are definitely work boots.

The RW are a good compromise - they are easier to dress up a bit.

I have owned all three, and love my indys - and have since sold the RW and am about to sell the katahdins.

You aren't going to wear the indys with a suit and look right, but pretty much anything short of that and you will be lookin good.

The katahdins look quite a bit better once you've applied obenauf or snoseal from the pictures people have posted on here. but definitely not a dress boot.

Originally Posted by MichaelPemulis

Click to expand...

go with the indys unless you are going to be wearing them in the snow - if you want to wear them in the snow as winter boots, go with the RW or the katahdins.

The katahdins are not really boots that you can dress up - if you wore them with something dressier than a flannel and denims you wouldn't look right imo. they are definitely work boots.

The RW are a good compromise - they are easier to dress up a bit.

I have owned all three, and love my indys - and have since sold the RW and am about to sell the katahdins.

You aren't going to wear the indys with a suit and look right, but pretty much anything short of that and you will be lookin good.

Thanks for the input Michael.

I did not intend on dressing up with these boots. They would be casual only and probably only worn with denim.

Also, can you comment on the difference in the leather used for the Katahdin and Iron Ranger. From pictures, what I can tell is that the leather on the Ranger looks much better. What explains this?

Originally Posted by mike868y

Click to expand...

The katahdins look quite a bit better once you've applied obenauf or snoseal from the pictures people have posted on here.

but definitely not a dress boot.

I agree, they do look much nicer in this shot than in the website photos.

How quickly does this kind of sole wear down?