# Boots for NYC in January



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

My wife and I will be in NYC in late January. I've been several times, but she has never been. As such, we plan on doing the "greatest hits" type vacation so she can see all of the sights. This, of course, means we will be doing plenty of walking. I need a good pair of boots that are both waterproof to brave the snow or slush and also comfortable enough to walk around the city.

I'm heading towards 2 types of shoes:

The 8 inch Bean boot https://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/31179?feat=507870-CL2

Or a wellie type boot: https://usa.hunter-boot.com/2/6/Product-Search/Original-Tall-Men/DARK-OLIVE/HNTORG_DOV.aspx

The wellie also comes in a shorter version if the other one is a bit overkill https://usa.hunter-boot.com/2/6/Product-Search/Mens-Short-Boot/DARK-OLIVE/HNTORGS_DOV.aspx

Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## PMRuby (Jan 13, 2010)

Obviously, either will be fine. It's a matter of personal preference. I've worn duck boots for years. Make sure you order at least a size down. They run HUGE. I'm not big on the traditional hunter boots. Also, for what it's worth, they were wildly popular among women last year and there's virtually no difference in appearance between the men's and women's. So, to my eye, hunters look a bit effeminate walking around NY.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Honestly, I think that both are overkill for walking in the city.

The Hunters you linked are absolute garbage. They haven't been made in the UK in years and the quality is awful. Plus, either they don't use natural rubber anymore, or the adhesives are different, because they smell like an asphalt factory. If you really want a tall rubber boot, I would look at something by Aigle or Le Chameau, but I don't find these very practical for walking long distances on pavement. The all-rubber construction means zero breathability, unless you step up to a higher price point (~$400), they won't be very comfortable or supportive and you have to tuck your pants into them all the way up to your knees. Plus, they do have a very strong association with women's fashion at the moment.

The Bean boots are much more versatile and a better choice than the Wellie, but still not ideal for city use. The rubber bottom gets hot and isn't the most comfortable thing to walk in. Besides, even though it might snow while you're there, you won't have to cross massive drifts or stand in shin-deep water but you will have to contend with ice, salt and maybe some broken pavement.

My recommendation would be some kind of leather boot with a more comfortable sole. The Redwing 877 is a classic style moc-toe boot with a Vibram Christy wedge sole that is very comfortable for being on your feet all day, doesn't pick up debris and doesn't mark up floors. The boot's tongue is gusseted which means if you happen to step in snow or water deep enough to come up over the instep, your socks will stay dry.


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

I agree with Hardline: both of the boots you linked are absolutely not city boots. And you may encounter no slush or snow at all in January, but only cold temperatures. LLBean and Wellies would look absurd in Manhattan in my opinion. A leather boot from C&J, AE, or Alden- properly waterproofed- would be a better choice (although I understand you may be thinking utility for one trip, rather than an expensive investment).

I know it's common, but I can't stand seeing North Face, Gore-tex, LLBean, hiking boots, etc. in an urban city setting.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Those 10" Shearling-Lined LL Beans will be great for durability, comfort and warmth here in New York City during that time of year. They look pretty nice and will last you a long time. In fact I may get myself a pair as well.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

sirchandler said:


> Those 10" Shearling-Lined LL Beans will be great for durability, comfort and warmth here in New York City during that time of year. They look pretty nice and will last you a long time. In fact I may get myself a pair as well.


While they might look the part, the shearling-lined Bean Boots are the least practical. They're more of a fashion boot, honestly. They lack the tongue gusset, which is the key to their being waterproof, so the tongue and collar can be folded down to show off the shearling. Also, the rubber bottom is uninsulated, which is the part that gets cold first, due to its immediate and constant contact with the ground. I would suggest the Thinsulate or the Gore-Tex/Thinsulate model. Even the standard Bean Boot with a would be better suited for the cold, snow and slush than the shearling models. That being said, since none of those features are necessary on the mean streets of NYC, the shearling would probably be just fine.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Yea I was leaning towards the Bean and only considered the Hunter because a local store carries them. I wear loafers sans socks 90% of the time in Mississippi, so I won't have any use for $400 boots. I just want something that will be waterproof but also comfortable for walking.

Fitting in with the city crowd is irrelevant. I could give a sh*t what a bunch of yankees think about my shoes. :biggrin2:


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

nolan50410 said:


> Fitting in with the city crowd is irrelevant. I could give a sh*t what a bunch of yankees think about my shoes. :biggrin2:


LOL!!


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

nolan50410 said:


> Fitting in with the city crowd is irrelevant. I could give a sh*t what a bunch of yankees think about my shoes. :biggrin2:


The irony is that you'd probably fit right in with the legions of hipsters in NYC in either the Beans or the Hunters. You'll only catch flack from the members on this forum.

If you want the Bean's, I'd suggest getting the regular, unlined version in either the 8" or 10" and adding a wool felt insole and some ragg wool socks while you're in the city.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> The irony is that you'd probably fit right in with the legions of hipsters in NYC in either the Beans or the Hunters. You'll only catch flack from the members on this forum.
> 
> If you want the Bean's, I'd suggest getting the regular, unlined version in either the 8" or 10" and adding a wool felt insole and some ragg wool socks while you're in the city.


Thanks for the suggestion. I wear a 12 dress shoe and a 13 running shoe. If I'm going to add a liner or wear wool socks, should I get a 12 or 13 boot>


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> The irony is that you'd probably fit right in with the legions of hipsters in NYC in either the Beans or the Hunters. You'll only catch flack from the members on this forum.
> 
> If you want the Bean's, I'd suggest getting the regular, unlined version in either the 8" or 10" and adding a wool felt insole and some ragg wool socks while you're in the city.


Well, with the hunters and wellies he'll certainly fit in with the upper eastside highschool girls and their moms.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

sirchandler said:


> Well, with the hunters and wellies he'll certainly fit in with the upper eastside highschool girls and their moms.:icon_smile_big:


I like those rich chicks. I even married one.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

nolan50410 said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. I wear a 12 dress shoe and a 13 running shoe. If I'm going to add a liner or wear wool socks, should I get a 12 or 13 boot>


Probably the 12, if not smaller. There are plenty of threads on Bean Boot sizing that can give you more detailed info.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

nolan50410 said:


> I like those rich chicks. I even married one.


I ain't hatin' brotha!:icon_hailthee:


----------



## jeffdeist (Feb 7, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Fitting in with the city crowd is irrelevant. I could give a sh*t what a bunch of yankees think about my shoes. :biggrin2:


Yes and no. Manhattan is not Bangor or Boulder. Nothing wrong with wearing clothing that is appropriate to the surroundings.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

jeffdeist said:


> Yes and no. Manhattan is not Bangor or Boulder. Nothing wrong with wearing clothing that is appropriate to the surroundings.


How nice of you to correct my personal feelings.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

nolan50410 said:


> How nice of you to correct my personal feelings.


I don't think he meant any harm by it. To be fair, if you really didn't care what a bunch of yanks (myself included) thought about your shoes, you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> I don't think he meant any harm by it. To be fair, if you really didn't care what a bunch of yanks (myself included) thought about your shoes, you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.


To be fair, my original post asked for opinions based on boots being waterproof and comfortable. I very much care what ya'll think about boots being waterproof and comfortable enough for NYC in January. I don't give a sh*t if you think said boots are stylish enough for NYC.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

So I'll go a different route and actually try to be helpful. The Bean boots are great and are comfortable and would serve your purpose. However they wouldn't be my first choice to take to do a ton of city walking in NYC. Honestly, take a look at Red Wing boots, they are very well made, and they have a handful of styles that would be waterproof/waterresistant and would looks good with a pair of khakis or jeans and maybe trousers depending on the style. I have a pair of 8" Red Wing boots that are plain toe bluchers and I wear them frequently for rain, slush and snow and have never had a problem with waterproofness(they have the gusset tongue). A good thing about the Red Wings is you can typically find an appropriate style under $200. I know these are not Aldens or C&J but for a boot that will hold up to bad weather and look pretty good they are a great option especially if you can't fathom wearing a $500 boot in that type of weather.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

^^ Kind of goes along with what I mentioned in post #3. In addition to Red Wing, I think that Chippewa and Thorogood also offer classic boots that fit the bill. Whenever I go into the city, it's usually for work and not leisure, but I'm wearing either Thorogoods or . My brother has a pair of the Chippewa for LL Bean Engineer boots and they're great too.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> Fitting in with the city crowd is irrelevant. I could give a sh*t what a bunch of yankees think about my shoes. :biggrin2:


:icon_smile_big:

Speaking of which, y'all should have seen me tooling around Paris in cowboy boots...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Any good walking shoes should fine. Just make sure you have room for wool socks that are "casual" thickness, ie heavier than dress but lighter than hiking boot socks. Smartwool socks would be perfect.

It really doesn't snow that often.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> My wife and I will be in NYC in late January. I've been several times, but she has never been. As such, we plan on doing the "greatest hits" type vacation so she can see all of the sights. This, of course, means we will be doing plenty of walking. I need a good pair of boots that are both waterproof to brave the snow or slush and also comfortable enough to walk around the city.
> 
> I'm heading towards 2 types of shoes:
> 
> ...


I think either would be fine, and stylish.

The last time I spent a few days in Manhattan in the snow and slush I opted for a pair of traditional English walking shoes made by AS and sold by S&H. I was going to provide a link, but can't find them. Perhaps discontinued. Despite not being boots, they worked very well being waterproof and having an aggressive sole. The City gets shoveled out pretty quickly, and what's left to deal with are slushy and icy sidewalks and mounds of compacted snow/slush when you cross the streets. Should you wish to consider something of the sort, this is an alternative that can be worn with anything short of business/fancy dinner attire -

https://www.shipton-usa.com/mens/mens-derby-shoes/cairngorm-grain-calf-derby.html


----------



## NotoriousMarquis (Mar 8, 2011)

Sno-Sealed Clarks Beeswax DB.


----------



## Walter Denton (Sep 11, 2011)

^^ Excellent suggestion and not very expensive.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Suggest you check out Sorel:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> To be fair, my original post asked for opinions based on boots being waterproof and comfortable. I very much care what ya'll think about boots being waterproof and comfortable enough for NYC in January. I don't give a sh*t if you think said boots are stylish enough for NYC.


Interesting post? :icon_scratch: Given that the boot designs referrenced in the OP include a design with a moulded rubber foot and the second is an all rubber wellington that covers ones feet, all the way up the calf and to the base of the knees, with The third referrence, again, an all rubber wellington, but limited to crew sock heighth; seems to me that even you boys from Dixie could figure out that such designs would in all probability keep your feet dry....shouldn't have to depend on a bunch of Cyber-Yankees to tell you that! However, having worn both the LL Bean and all rubber Wellington boot designs, I can tell you with absolute certainty that after you have done all that walking that you talked about, those wellingtons are going to weigh uncomfortably heavily on your feet. You might be too fatigued to enjoy all those plays and other tourist attractions you want to see! Perhaps the best suggestion is to stick with a comfortable pair of walking shoes, paired with overshoes...your feet will stay dry and comfortable and you will feel less fatigued by all that walking effort! Also, the world will look a whole lot brighter, if you ditch some of that attitude.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Interesting post? :icon_scratch: Given that the boot designs referrenced in the OP include a design with a moulded rubber foot and the second is an all rubber wellington that covers ones feet, all the way up the calf and to the base of the knees, with The third referrence, again, an all rubber wellington, but limited to crew sock heighth; seems to me that even you boys from Dixie could figure out that such designs would in all probability keep your feet dry....shouldn't have to depend on a bunch of Cyber-Yankees to tell you that! However, having worn both the LL Bean and all rubber Wellington boot designs, I can tell you with absolute certainty that after you have done all that walking that you talked about, those wellingtons are going to weigh uncomfortably heavily on your feet. You might be too fatigued to enjoy all those plays and other tourist attractions you want to see! Perhaps the best suggestion is to stick with a comfortable pair of walking shoes, paired with overshoes...your feet will stay dry and comfortable and you will feel less fatigued by all that walking effort! Also, the world will look a whole lot brighter, if you ditch some of that attitude.


Hey eagle,

the op clearly mentioned he will be in NYC around late January. Were you here in NYC last year around late January and the year before that?:icon_scratch:


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Can someone recommend boots for NYC in October?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

sirchandler said:


> Hey eagle,
> 
> the op clearly mentioned he will be in NYC around late January. Were you here in NYC last year around late January and the year before that?:icon_scratch:


The last time I was in NYC in late January was in 2002. However, living within the snowbelt following the curvature of the Great Lakes, I am familiar with the challenges presented by sequential, heavy snowfalls...LOL...Bobcats with scoop loaders and two stage snowblowers on steroids are a way of life out here in Hoosierville! I believe NYC is generally very efficient at clearing the streets, after a snowstorm.


----------



## NotoriousMarquis (Mar 8, 2011)

I still think Clarks DB's are perfect for NYC. they're hard wearing and they are comfortable, look good with just about anything, and if you sno-seal them, they are waterproof.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> I believe NYC is generally very efficient at clearing the streets, after a snowstorm.


Yes, NYC is very efficient at clearing the streets after a snowstorm for automobile traffic. We are not very efficient at clearing sidewalks for pedestrian traffic.


----------



## NotoriousMarquis (Mar 8, 2011)

sirchandler said:


> Yes, NYC is very efficient at clearing the streets after a snowstorm for automobile traffic. We are not very efficient at clearing sidewalks for pedestrian traffic.


+10000


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

I'd be a bit weary of wearing Desert Boots. While I have a pair and like them very much I feel that my feet get much too cold in them during winter time. I'm not a person that gets cold easily but if I wear the DBs outside in the winter for a couple hours my feet are freezing. I also feel the crepe sole is extremely slick and dangerous on snow and ice. That's just my opinion, but it's from my experience with them. A similar boot with a more substantial sole might work pretty well though and it would look great.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

^^ I was wondering how long it would be before someone pointed out that "desert boots" aren't really designed for "urban winters."


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

My reactions:

At that time of year, there's a good chance you' won't need the boots in NYC, but there's also a decent chance you will. I'd be inclined to the "better safe than sorry" approach. Of course, you could also buy boots if you need them. New York has some stores.

I'd go with the Bean boots, though I might upgrade to the insulated version. The 8" boot is pretty versatile, and you might get some use out of it back home, I suppose. I wouldn't feel particularly out-of-place wearing those in New York City if it's snowy (not that you care). Indeed, when I lived in New York, I sometimes did. The Bean boots are likely going to be more comfortable and pleasant than the Wellies, which is a major consideration if you're tourist-ing. If you want to upgrade to a really serious winter boot, one of the Sorel models would do the trick, though at some cost, both in terms of price and in leaving you with a boot that will be of much use to you later on.


----------



## haru182 (Oct 31, 2011)

Alright, 

I actually have lurked here FOREVER but this topic hit so close to home that rather than leech off all you any longer I figured I might as well contribute. 

I live in NYC and used to live in Marquette MI (Upper Peninsula of MI which gets roughly 300" of snow a year). Since I think I properly understand your question, I wholeheartedly recommend the Ecco "Track II" line of boots. I don't have any experience with the low version (though I just ordered a pair on Ebay), but I have years of experience with the high pair. Those boots are absolutely perfect as they are waterproof to the mid-ankle, and are very, very comfortable. I know this wasn't a priority for you but no one will even know you are wearing boots as they tend to look like laced loafers rather than bulky boots. The boots tongue is flanged to help keep it waterproof higher up the foot rather than just letting the moisture in at the start of the laces. 

I have worn those boots all through my years in Michigan and guaranteed every time it snows I have them on in the city (yes, even this last weekend...ugh). 

Just thought I would add my advice.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Maybe I'm missing the point of this but what ever happened to the maxim : its better to look good than to run the slight risk your little piggies might get damp.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Only IMHO, but the 8 inch laceups are a nuisance for NYC weather. I wear low-cut Bean duck shoes with Wigwam hiking socks over the dress socks, and simply step out of them for the switch to dress shoes. Life is too short for 8 inches of tie-and-untie, and deep snow isn't THAT much of an issue. Those particular Wellies are too busy for my taste.


----------



## WalkerTexasRanger (Feb 5, 2009)

haru182 said:


> Alright,
> 
> I actually have lurked here FOREVER but this topic hit so close to home that rather than leech off all you any longer I figured I might as well contribute.
> 
> ...


I agree. I work in NY and have relied on the Ecco Track II for several winters during snowy/wet conditions. I have had the black ones and they look good enough to leave on in the office. Unfortunately they currently only offer the brown color (which also looks good, but I wished they would make them in black again). Very comfortable and waterproof. A geat walking shoe.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

You might fancy something like these. Under trousers they look quite smart, and they have the weatherproffing and warmth that you might need.
https://www.equestrianclearance.com/ecw_catalogue/lace-front-jodhpur-boots/index.html
https://www.equestrianclearance.com/ecw_catalogue/rachel_lace_up_jodhpur_boots/index.html
Or these:
https://www.pegasustack.co.uk/shop/...s/long-boots/Brogini-Long-Riding-Boots-Laced/
https://www.pegasustack.co.uk/shop/Riding-Wear/Riding-Boots/long-boots/De-Niro-S2602/


----------



## mhj (Oct 27, 2010)

I live in a similar climate and last year I bought a pair of 12" zip up galoshes and a pair of rubbers for less drastic weather. This was the best idea I ever had, wish I had thought of it years ago. Once I'm at work they come off and I'm in my Allen Edmonds plus the galoshes protect my trousers from the ravages of snow and salt.

My philosophy is that foul weather trumps fashion.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I never would have thought I would have gotten so many responses. Thanks a lot guys. I like the Bean boots, but a friend recommended something like this:



Certainly not stylish. Certainly not something I'd wear at home unless it was snowing or raining. But they may be quite a bit more comfortable for walking than the Bean boots.


----------



## Nico01 (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm a bit late to the thread, but I've always found the bean boot to be A. Somewhat popular in NY, and B. Fairly practical for NYC winters.

The problem with winter in NYC is that if it snows more than a few inches, that snow stays around as this disgusting salty dirty slush that fills the street gutters and sidewalks for a month or two. I've found that well waxed (with sno-seal or similar) leather boots work fine, but require frequent cleaning for salt, and need to be rotated to dry out properly. The bean boots don't need as much care and downtime, so I don't mind wearing them almost 5 or 6 days a week for a month at a time.

However, anything beyond the 6-inch model is overkill. The 8-inch model may look more 'balanced', but I'd be hard pressed to believe that it's going to better protect against snow and cold in an urban environment.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

eyedoc2180 said:


> I wear low-cut Bean duck shoes with Wigwam hiking socks over the dress socks, and simply step out of them for the switch to dress shoes.


I do that too (or at least used to), but I think the OP is just going to wear the things, and not switch into dress shoes ... after all, he's in New York to be a tourist, not to apply for a job.

What LL Bean calls the "Gumshoe" is another good alternative, though.


----------



## stmoore1 (Jun 23, 2011)

Why not just go with a solid hiking boot? They're almost always designed to be waterproof and very comfortable. I've found that a good hiking boot can also serve well as a snow boot and a workboot.

I believe that the Merrels and the Eccos mentioned fall into that category.

I'm a fan of North Face:
https://www.thenorthface.com/catalog/sc-gear/mens-footwear-filter-category-boots/mens-ballard-boot_2.html
Or if you want to go with Bean:
https://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/14774?feat=506763-GN2&productId=20674

You mentioned that you don't care what they look like, I think a hiking boot of any kind is the obvious option. Again, their only purpose in life is to keep your feet dry and comfortable while walking long distances through very harsh conditions.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
...a pair of Danner Light Hikers would serve very nicely on the snowy sidewalks of NYC, as well!


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

stmoore1 said:


> Why not just go with a solid hiking boot? They're almost always designed to be waterproof and very comfortable. I've found that a good hiking boot can also serve well as a snow boot and a workboot.
> 
> I believe that the Merrels and the Eccos mentioned fall into that category.
> 
> ...


This is the route I'm looking at right now. Last night I half settled on these, but haven't pulled the trigger. All the reviews on the various sites make them seem like a good choice. Several reviewers mentioned using them for winter slush and walking in NYC.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

I don't even wear stuff like half of what was posted when I'm outside all day running the snow blower in eastern PA. Is NYC in some sort of arctic zone in the lower 48 I'm unaware of? I can say with 100% experience that wearing those all-rubber boots all day (especially if you haven't been wearing them for a month to get used to them) is going to do nothing but make your feet sore and sweaty. I get the impression you will really only be wearing these shoes for a visit to NYC and never again. I say go to Wal-Mart, put on a thick pair of winter socks, and try on a pair of boots that fit over the socks. The socks will cushion your feet, and you can throw the boots out when you get home.

If you really want to know what to wear walking around NYC, ask upr_crust, he lives there.

andy b.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

I'm starting to think I might get something a little less practical and little more stylish. It seems I only have to worry if there is a blizzard coming through the week before or during my trip. In that case I will just buy whatever ugly ass snow boot I can find here or in NYC. What about these options?

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...Id=1444463&Parent_Id=1032&default_color=Brown

https://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/49464?page=katahdin-iron-works-engineer-boots


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

nolan50410 said:


> I'm starting to think I might get something a little less practical and little more stylish. It seems I only have to worry if there is a blizzard coming through the week before or during my trip. In that case I will just buy whatever ugly ass snow boot I can find here or in NYC. What about these options?
> 
> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...Id=1444463&Parent_Id=1032&default_color=Brown
> 
> https://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/49464?page=katahdin-iron-works-engineer-boots


Suede is not the best choice for a winter boot, even if there isn't much snow on the ground. NYC sidewalks and streets will be covered in a salty, oily, grimy sludge and I wouldn't want any of that kicked up onto my nice Peal chukkas.

I can definitely vouch for the Katahdin Engineer boots. They are very well made (in the USA by Chippewa) and an excellent value. Keep in mind that they are much darker than they appear on line, and a healthy coating of Sno-Seal will darken them even more. The Chippewa Apache Lacers that I posted earlier in the thread are the same boot with a few differences (improvements, IMO). It has a plain toe, full 360* welt (the LL Beans have a 270* welt and an orange plastic heel piece) and a Vibram #1752 Gumlite sole (which is lighter than the cork sole and has a more aggressive tread). Both have gusseted tongues to keep debris away from your socks. You can't go wrong with either one, IMO.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> Suede is not the best choice for a winter boot, even if there isn't much snow on the ground. NYC sidewalks and streets will be covered in a salty, oily, grimy sludge and I wouldn't want any of that kicked up onto my nice Peal chukkas.
> 
> I can definitely vouch for the Katahdin Engineer boots. They are very well made (in the USA by Chippewa) and an excellent value. Keep in mind that they are much darker than they appear on line, and a healthy coating of Sno-Seal will darken them even more. The Chippewa Apache Lacers that I posted earlier in the thread are the same boot with a few differences (improvements, IMO). It has a plain toe, full 360* welt (the LL Beans have a 270* welt and an orange plastic heel piece) and a Vibram #1752 Gumlite sole (which is lighter than the cork sole and has a more aggressive tread). Both have gusseted tongues to keep debris away from your socks. You can't go wrong with either one, IMO.


So are the Katahdin's good for touristy walking or should I look more towards a lug sole work boot?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Good for touristy walking. I wear them when I'm on construction sites in the city and they're perfectly comfortable for walking, climbing, crawling and being on my feet all day. Chippewa does make a plain-toe, lug-soled, waterproof version of the Katahdin boot for LL Bean, but I think it's less attractive (I don't like padded collars) and the lug sole is overkill for pavement.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

Starch said:


> I do that too (or at least used to), but I think the OP is just going to wear the things, and not switch into dress shoes ... after all, he's in New York to be a tourist, not to apply for a job.
> 
> What LL Bean calls the "Gumshoe" is another good alternative, though.


Yes, "Gumshoe" is the word I sought. C'mon, now, even the accidental tourist appreciates the need for a switch to a decent dress shoe.(Are you suggesting that our tourists don't switch out of their snowboots, in addition to stumbling around, slack-jawed and drooling, whilst admiring the tall buildings?) Those gumshoes tuck nicely into a small satchel.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

eyedoc2180 said:


> Yes, "Gumshoe" is the word I sought. C'mon, now, even the accidental tourist appreciates the need for a switch to a decent dress shoe. (Are you suggesting that our tourists don't switch out of their snowboots, in addition to stumbling around, slack-jawed and drooling, whilst admiring the tall buildings?) Those gumshoes tuck nicely into a small satchel.


Nothing says NYC like a man carrying a "small satchel" with shoes in it.


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> Nothing says NYC like a man carrying a "small satchel" with shoes in it.


LOL, and thank you. You made my day. Perhaps I will switch to a plastic "Shop Rite" bag. I think I can pull it off.


----------



## stmoore1 (Jun 23, 2011)

I'll add that the Katahdins are an excellent choice, I've found them to be very comfortable so far. The only comment I'd add is that they're not insulated (easily remedied by wool or other thick socks) and you might want a pair of yaktrax on hand if it gets icy.

It's also hard to beat L.L. Bean's customer service; mine were missing one of the lacing loops and they said I could go ahead and wear them until my replacements came. Of course I had no need to wear them, but the gesture was appreciated.

One thing, as hardline_42 also noted, is that the welt on the Katahdins isn't 360 degrees, it stops at the heel. You can, however, get a 360 welt on the plain-toe Chippewa-branded versions:
https://www.chippewaboots.com/boots/classics/20065https://www.chippewaboots.com/boots/classics/20067

Here a few pictures of mine to let you know what they really look like (with no sno-seal or obenauf's). The first was taken in sunlight, the second wasn't.


----------



## LawSuits (Nov 1, 2011)

Sno-seal has been mentioned several times in this thread. I got introduced to it in college by a roommate who used to climb mountains in Colorado. We would slather up our leather boots (mine were Herman's, his were Vasque) and then put the boots in the oven on low. The aroma was pungent and priceless, but the method was extremely effective - my feet stayed warm and dry in slush and snow in upstate NY. Sno-seal will darken and discolor leather, but the leather seems to breathe and I firmly believe (no scientific basis, just opinion) that it helps prolong the life to the leather. 
Those Katadhins look like no -nonsense boots. Anybody wear redwings? I have always felt they were a good sturdy boot. 
I miss my Herman's. I rarely wore them once I got out of school, but eventually they gave up the ghost.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Feb 23, 2009)

I have the Ecco Track 4 high and the Merrell Moab high and lo. I've never been to New York, but I went to San Fran last December after Christmas. I wore the Moab lo most of the week, including in a little rain, and it worked fine. A little casual, but they'll work with everything from shorts (probably not applicable) to jeans to chinos. The Ecco Track (high or lo) would work as well and be just a little more dressy -- but still good with jeans and anything north.

I wouldn't worry about boots. They'll be inconvenient getting through the airport and harder to pack. The lo version of the shoes above will be fine.


----------



## tower10 (Nov 10, 2011)

Thorogoods!


----------



## arm61 (Nov 20, 2011)

I agree with Hardline also. The Red Wing 877 is a classic boot dating back to the 50's. For all you AE fans, the Red Wing 877 shares alot of the same construction methods as the welted styles from AE (360 degree welt, leather insole, and cork footbed). If you want to check out some other fine Red Wing styles, go to there website and look at there Heritage collection. I wear the Red Wing 875 daily and I am a fan of AE also.


----------



## BBQ King (Nov 4, 2011)

I second the Chippewa approach.

I have a similar pair (Wolverine) although a less useful sole (leahter) and they have been fine for walking around Philly and warm enough. The ones described seem even better. A soon as I destroy the soles on mine i'll add some sort of thin rubber sole.
Also, when you return to God's country, you could find a reason to wear these out on a casual night in Jackson, Memphis, or maybe even huntin'.

Now if you could just fix college football in MS......



hardline_42 said:


> Suede is not the best choice for a winter boot, even if there isn't much snow on the ground. NYC sidewalks and streets will be covered in a salty, oily, grimy sludge and I wouldn't want any of that kicked up onto my nice Peal chukkas.
> 
> I can definitely vouch for the Katahdin Engineer boots. They are very well made (in the USA by Chippewa) and an excellent value. Keep in mind that they are much darker than they appear on line, and a healthy coating of Sno-Seal will darken them even more. The Chippewa Apache Lacers that I posted earlier in the thread are the same boot with a few differences (improvements, IMO). It has a plain toe, full 360* welt (the LL Beans have a 270* welt and an orange plastic heel piece) and a Vibram #1752 Gumlite sole (which is lighter than the cork sole and has a more aggressive tread). Both have gusseted tongues to keep debris away from your socks. You can't go wrong with either one, IMO.


----------



## dawgvet (Mar 15, 2009)

I think you would do best to determine your primary concern. If comfort and waterproofness are tops, then a good Gore-Tex hiking boot like the L L Bean Crestas or the all-time classic from Vasque, the Sundowner https://www.vasque.com/vasque-shoe/7132-vasque/7132-vasque-mens-sundowner-gtx-brown.
The engineer boots are durable and look okay but don't have the shock absorption that a good hiking/backpacking boot does. It sure makes a difference at the end of a long day pounding asphalt!
Good Luck,
Jedidiah


----------



## ColdIron (Jun 19, 2009)

LawSuits said:


> Sno-seal has been mentioned several times in this thread. I got introduced to it in college by a roommate who used to climb mountains in Colorado. We would slather up our leather boots (mine were Herman's, his were Vasque) and then put the boots in the oven on low. The aroma was pungent and priceless, but the method was extremely effective - my feet stayed warm and dry in slush and snow in upstate NY. Sno-seal will darken and discolor leather, but the leather seems to breathe and I firmly believe (no scientific basis, just opinion) that it helps prolong the life to the leather.
> Those Katadhins look like no -nonsense boots. Anybody wear redwings? I have always felt they were a good sturdy boot.
> I miss my Herman's. I rarely wore them once I got out of school, but eventually they gave up the ghost.


I used to treat my Herman boots in the oven but with Mink Oil. In upstate NY back in the early-mid 70's. Some say Mink Oil and Sno Seal will cause the leather to break down prematurely but I just gave away my Herman's summer before last and they looked brand new more than 30 years later. They weren't my favorite boot with the heel being so high and narrow, it lacked stability for me so didn't wear them much. They were white Vibram lug soles and the rubber was hard as a rock and slippery when on wet surfaces. Read some where awhile ago that Walmart sells them now.

Bought my first pair of Vasque Sundowners in Ca. and wore them for years all over the West Coast from the desert in the SW to a couple of years in the Olympic Mountains in Washington State. Heck of a boot. When I went to replace them, more than a few years ago, the soles delaminated on the new ones. I was in a Red Wing store a few months ago and when I saw a pair the salesman came over and we discussed them. He said after Red Wing bought out Vasque they moved production to China and they had some QA issues but they are now ironed out. In looking for the perfect boot I also have and still have a pair of Bean Cresta Hikers. Despite many hikers loving them they didn't work for me. They are great for load bearing activities like packing an elk or mulie out of the mountains in Co. but the soles are too hard and slippery on wet rocks. And the fit just wasn't right for me. I like most all things from LL Bean but don't care for the Bean rubber bottom boot either, narrow heel and the chain link soles have no traction if there is any slope at all. Which for most cities is a non issue.

The knee high solid rubber boots actually work well with wicking liner socks. Many woodcock and grouse hunters wear them along both sides of the Canadian border walking a lot of miles in a day. Also archery hunters for scent control. I had my Russell boots built using some of the features of the LaCrosse Burly rubber boot. Boots are almost more personal than shoes in fit and usage in my experience. I have 7" and 10" meindl perfekt boots which I like as much or more than my custom Russell boots.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Texas Aggie said:


> I have the Ecco Track 4 high and the Merrell Moab high and lo. I've never been to New York, but I went to San Fran last December after Christmas. I wore the Moab lo most of the week, including in a little rain, and it worked fine. A little casual, but they'll work with everything from shorts (probably not applicable) to jeans to chinos. The Ecco Track (high or lo) would work as well and be just a little more dressy -- but still good with jeans and anything north.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about boots. They'll be inconvenient getting through the airport and harder to pack. The lo version of the shoes above will be fine.


I ended up going with the Merrell Moab Mid

https://www.zappos.com/merrell-moab-mid-gore-tex-reg-xcr-reg-dark-earth

I just need something comfortable and waterproof. I don't wear boots, not even when it is cold. It's currently 36 with 2 inches of snow on the ground here in North Mississippi and I'm wearing penny loafers without socks. I just don't need to spend much and put comfort ahead of style. I've worn them on several long walks and they do the trick. The mid height will be useful in the slush and snow.


----------

