# Maine Hunting Shoe vs. Bean Boot



## waltonj (Nov 8, 2007)

An esoteric inquiry - 

Does anyone know if the heel of the Bean Maine Hunting Shoe reads "Maine Hunting Shoe" these days or "Bean Boots," as the Bean Boots do?


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

waltonj said:


> An esoteric inquiry -
> 
> Does anyone know if the heel of the Bean Maine Hunting Shoe reads "Maine Hunting Shoe" these days or "Bean Boots," as the Bean Boots do?


I bought a pair in fall of 2006 and they say "Maine Hunting Shoe."


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

I thought "Maine Hunting Shoes" and "Bean Boots" were two names for the same thing. If I recall correctly, "Maine Hunting Shoe" was LL's (the man) original nomenclature, and in the old days the catalog lumped all the rubber / leather footwear into the "Maine Hunting Shoe" category whether they were the rubber moccasins or the 16" high tops. Remember when the catalog showed the various heights on two pages from low to high?

Of coure everybody informally called them "Bean Boots", and sometime (in the 90s?) LL Bean (the corporation) started labeling them as such. I think all of the various pairs currently in my house are labeled thus. (Well, maybe not Naval Wife's; they date from our courtship days)

Based on Trip's data perhaps Bean has reverted to the older labeling? I sure hope so. Frankly, of their entire line, they only sell about a half dozen "old timey" products that interest me these days.

Scott


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

Technically, Bean Boots and Maine Hunting Shoes are two different things now, the Hunting Shoes are closer to the original.

Bean Boots:

Maine Hunting Shoes: https://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/s...770&cat4=502767&shop_method=pp&feat=502770-tn

Brian


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

vwguy said:


> Technically, Bean Boots and Maine Hunting Shoes are two different things now, the Hunting Shoes are closer to the original.
> Brian


Closer in what ways? There does seem to be a distinction accounting for a $14.00 price differential. Can anyone comment on real life differences in this:
https://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/s...770&cat4=502767&shop_method=pp&feat=502770-tn

and this?

https://www.llbean.com/webapp/wcs/s...1&catalogId=1&langId=-1&feat=33550-ppxs&dds=y

I guess Bean Boots are the "dumbed down" version with inferior leather? "Main Hunting Shoes" are available in Brown/Brown only? What a stupid idea to tinker with a classic.

Scott


----------



## vwguy (Jul 23, 2004)

The difference is in the details, literally  Look at the "details" info for each and you'll see what I mean.

Brian


----------



## waltonj (Nov 8, 2007)

I've been thinking of adding another pair to the rotation and I would be more inclined to do so if it were somewhat differentiated.


----------



## Speas (Mar 11, 2004)

The MHS is much better - the leather is better and the rubber is softer. Only get the Bean Boot if you must have the tan leather.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

MHS has no shank in it. It feels like a pair of rubber boots on your foot. Takes a while to get used to if you are expecting it to feel like a 'boot' that has arch support.


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

vwguy said:


> The difference is in the details, literally  Look at the "details" info for each and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Brian


Yes, I read that. Besides the "waterproof leather" and "more flexible" comments on MHS, vague to the point of being meaningless. "...better feel the forest floor." Sheesh. Marketing blather.

It says both have a steel shank.

Whatever...

Scott


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

From Customer Service:

"The Bean Boot is a recreational boot with smooth cowhide leather, fiberglass shank and a hard composition rubber bottom. The Maine Hunting Shoe is a softer pebblegrain leather, with a steel shank for better rotational support and a softer composition boot bottom and sole to better feel the ground while hunting."


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I've had the "regular" Bean boots in the past, but recently ordered the 10" MHS just to see how it compared. I actually prefer the darker leather, and it does feel a bit more flexible. Otherwise, I'd be hard-pressed to tell much difference (aside from the price).


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

What I wonder is, what benefit "feeling" the ground while you are hunting is? Are the marketing guys at LLB leading us to believe you can feel the vibration from the prey you are stalking? I have to call BS on this one guys, sorry.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

CrescentCityConnection said:


> What I wonder is, what benefit "feeling" the ground while you are hunting is? Are the marketing guys at LLB leading us to believe you can feel the vibration from the prey you are stalking? I have to call BS on this one guys, sorry.


No, it'd be to feel twigs and leaves to make sure you don't break one and scare away an animal.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

CrescentCityConnection said:


> What I wonder is, what benefit "feeling" the ground while you are hunting is? Are the marketing guys at LLB leading us to believe you can feel the vibration from the prey you are stalking? I have to call BS on this one guys, sorry.


Maybe it's just to make it less likely to trip and fall?


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

Danny said:


> No, it'd be to feel twigs and leaves to make sure you don't break one and scare away an animal.


I see. The stuff I see at the gun stores are huge scopes, high powered rifles, etc..I can't imagine a hunter would get close enough, with equipment like that, to actually spook an animal with a snapping twig. I am obviously no hunter, other than ducks (which is what I thought these boots were designed for or upland hunting) so what do I know? Still just sounds like clever marketing to me.


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

Topsider said:


> Maybe it's just to make it less likely to trip and fall?


LOL!! Maybe that is it. I guess we now need "special" boots to keep us from tripping and falling all over the place.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Maybe so...it might be the thing about falling down.

I am not a hunter so I was just proposing the understanding I have always had about that


----------



## PorterSq (Apr 17, 2008)

I've never owned either, but I don't picture either option being particularly comfortable to walk around in for any length of time. Am I off base?


----------



## CrescentCityConnection (Sep 24, 2007)

They would definitely not be my first choice for a long hike!


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

No, neither is really a piece of performance gear...just a warm and fuzzy sartorial page out of yesteryear and perfectly functional for tooling around town in rain or snow.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

CrescentCityConnection said:


> They would definitely not be my first choice for a long hike!


These are my bean boots; perfect for a long hike:


----------



## Naval Gent (May 12, 2007)

CrescentCityConnection said:


> I have to call BS on this one guys, sorry.


Yep. I threw the BS flag on this back in March. Bean's copy is obviously not written by hunters these days.



Danny said:


> No, it'd be to feel twigs and leaves to make sure you don't break one and scare away an animal.


If you could make boots that wouldn't crunch leaves, you'd be supernatural. When it's quiet in the woods a chipmunk sounds like a horse trotting through , and two squirrels chasing each other sounds like a squadron of cavalry.



Topsider said:


> Maybe it's just to make it less likely to trip and fall?


The perfect boots to wear drinking!



PorterSq said:


> I've never owned either, but I don't picture either option being particularly comfortable to walk around in for any length of time. Am I off base?





Danny said:


> No, neither is really a piece of performance gear...just a warm and fuzzy sartorial page out of yesteryear and perfectly functional for tooling around town in rain or snow.


^^Despite my comments above, I disagree enthusiastically with these last two opinions. I've worn mine comfortably all day long many, many times. For intermittent muddy or boggy ground (not prolonged wading), there's still nothing better. You do need to keep the stitching coated with waterproofing, though.

Bean boots do get clammy after all day wear. Take the insoles out and air overnight if you need to wear two days in a row. (Clean and dry wool socks, of course.)

Scott


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

Right, the fact that the rubber bottom can't breath, and therefore gets hot and moist inside...that's always kept me from wearing them for long rigorous endevours.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

On a side-note, if you fill your boots with newspaper and leave them at the bottom of the refrigerator, they will dry out nicely without cracking. If you leave them by the fire or the heater they dry out too quickly and are more prone to cracking. 

(Still oil them often of course.)


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

Naval Gent said:


> The perfect boots to wear drinking!


I suspect more of 'em are worn for that sport than for hunting nowadays. Plus, they're water...er, beerproof!


----------



## maestrom (Nov 29, 2008)

Topsider said:


> I suspect more of 'em are worn for that sport than for hunting nowadays. Plus, they're water...er, beerproof!


Exactly! I love to wear mine out!


----------

