Wolverine 1000 Mile Boot

[Anonymous No.8217605]

For those of you who own Wolverine's 1000 Mile boot's was it a purchase that you would consider being worth it?

I own Iron Rangers and love them, but I need more shoes to be able to rotate them. Since I have a shitty ass pair of black Steve Madden boots that I want to replace, I was looking into a pair of black Wolverine's

Let me know thanks!

[Anonymous No.8217632]

>>8217605
They aren't that great unless you can see them before you buy them.

[Anonymous No.8217670]

>>8217632
What do you mean? I have seen them in person at the store, I just didn't try them on. Though I will tomorrow, in order to get my size and possibly purchase them online.

[Anonymous No.8217807]

I'm gonna buy a good pair of boots with my first paycheck from my new job.
I live in Ireland so there's plenty of rain and wet weather.
Does this mean I should avoid leather soled boots? I like the look of the 1000 mile Krause (although I'd prefer if it came in brown) but maybe Iron Rangers would be a better choice.
What other boots should I consider? I'm looking for something brown, toe-capped, classic workboot type design

[Anonymous No.8217864]

>>8217807
Red Wings are always an excellent choice and easily meet all of those criteria.

[Anonymous No.8217867]

>>8217864
yeah, I think they're what I'm gonna get. Just wanted to have my opinion confirmed by 4chan lol

[Anonymous No.8217880]

I think the Wolverines are in a weird position - they're trying to be 'dressy' with a leather sole and no toe cap but are trying to be 'rugged' at the same time - the problem is that it fails at both

If you want a 'dressy' boot, a brogue boot with a leather sole is what you want, and if you want a 'rugged' boot then there are faaar better options out there with a more appropriate sole. The Beckman, Iron Ranger and Ice Cutter Red Wings are all better suited to what a boot is meant to do

[Anonymous No.8217934]

This was a reply to another thread on this a few days ago.

I saved it because I can't be bothered typing this every time it comes up:

>I do agree that the wolverines are probably better quality wise

Definitely not.

This has been discussed to death.
Apart from the vast profusion of documented QC issues all over the net in every country in which 1k miles are sold, here are some other reasons why wolverines suck compared to red wing:

1) the insole

Wolverines cut corners not only in regards to leather quality, but also because instead of using the time test method of using real leather insoles they use fancy cardboard wrapped in leather instead.

The only reason companies do this is to save money, for themselves.

Red wings all use real leather insoles. Top shoemakers like Edward Green, John Lobb and every bespoke maker under the sun use leather insoles.

Only cheapo brands use fibreboard like wolverine.

2) Wolverine doesn't have a recrafting/resoling service.

This is a gripe at the company itself rather than the particular boots. Every reputable bootmaker out there will resole and recraft your boots when it's needed if you send them in. Wolverine, making the vast majority of their shit in china, no longer has or wants to have this service which I regard as mandatory for a reputable bootmaker.

Instead they shove you off and tell you to use the cornerstore cobbler, who doesn't their lasts and can't do relinings and can't replace the shitty fibreboard insole when the time comes.

Bad company.

[Anonymous No.8217941]

>>8217934
cont'd:

3) Red wing has it's own tannery. Wolverine has to buy leather from elsewhere.

For the 1k's, they chose Horween's CXL leather:

>>8197849
>enjoy you shitty QC at the horween company,

This is wrong. It's not Horween's fault that wolverine buys their lower grade leather, which by definition has more shitty parts. Better makers buy higher grades with lower incidences of bad patches.

Regardless, like >>8197671 said wolverine try to scrounge as much usable leather as they can out of a hide they get from horween, whereas better makers will cut out the shitty parts and only use the good parts.

This creates excess wastage, but it's part of good bookmaking QC. Wolverine just wants cash from retards that don't know better and won't educate themselves before purchasing, so they can get away with using inferior pieces of leather rather than discarding them like better makers.

Another part of RW owning their own tannery, they have to manage all leather quality themselves. And you will find far, far fewer leather quality complaints with rw IR's compared to 1k's out there - a simple search will show this.

This is apart from all the build quality issues like sole separation and loose stitches etc.

1k's aren't bad for a boot if you get a pair without faults, but that would require buying them in-person to make sure.

I think that, for really what you're getting (company support, quality of build materials etc.) they're overpriced at their retail price, and RW's trump them (beckmans or IR's) at this point.

If you can get them well under RRP, then they might be worth consideration.

But then all you've done is gotten an inferior boot, made badly with inferior materials at a cheaper price than usual.

Still not a win IMO.

If you want cheap boots buy Chippewa or thorogood.

Slightly better then go Red Wing.

Skip Wolverine and go straight to the better makers (400USD +) instead if you want better.

My 2cents

[Anonymous No.8217970]

OP here,

I appreciate the input from all of you! You guys most definitely changed my mind here lol. It makes me glad that I went with Red Wings before in the past.

[Anonymous No.8217985]

>>8217941
One thing I'll add that someone in that other thread mentioned is that the 1k's have leather soles.

Boots like that don't warrant leather soles IMO because they're not good enough to warrant a resole when they're worn out so you'd want them to last as long as possible before the day.

That would mean getting them topied when you get them (more expense already) or just forgetting about them and getting a boot with composite or longer lasting soles (rubber, cork rubber, dainite etc.)

Leather soles are nice for certain styles and types of boots. On the 1k they're a little out of place IMO.

I'm off leather soles now for all but my dressiest dress shoes I wear with dinner suits and the like (so worn infrequently) because the ordeal of sending stuff around the world to get resoled/rewelted is a goddamn hassle for me.

Best that they last as long as possible before resoles and that means you get losts of pairs and rotate, or you just get rubber/composite soled pairs right off.

IMO cheaper pairs of shoes don't really warrant resoles (doc martens is a prime example - especially the new chinese/thai made ones).

I would rank 1k's along with this because they just don't seem worth the repair for all the reasons I've listed above.

OP you have IR's, either get another pair or RW if you want the same level, chippewa or thorogood if you want cheaper, or go upwards to something like White's if you can stand their arch-ease system. (they're better than all of wolverine and red wing combined and don't cost much more depending on what you order).

Custom White's are next on my list.

[Anonymous No.8218006]

>>8217985
Thanks again for the input,

I'll be honest, their really isn't another Red Wing product that catches my eye. Though I appreciate the Iron Ranger for what it is, a sturdy boot with taste.

Putting into account what you have posted, would you also stay away from Wolverine's Chelsea Boot? It's actually something else that I was considering from them since I was hoping to get charcoal Daytons in the future.

[Anonymous No.8218014]

>>8218006

Brown chelseas are dadcore in the extreme

The only acceptable chelseas are glossy black ones worn with Slimane-esque fits

[Anonymous No.8218022]

>>8218014

Hmmm, seems like I'll have to look around more here in Japan. I noticed that Wolverine only sells them in brown, I was hoping for a black in all honesty.

Well I'll be patient and keep searching

[Anonymous No.8218046]

>>8218014
>Brown chelseas are dadcore in the extreme
>The only acceptable chelseas are glossy black ones worn with Slimane-esque fits

nope

[Anonymous No.8218055]

>>8218046

What makes you think otherwise?

[Anonymous No.8218088]

>>8218022
>Japan
Ah, I remember you. The ecstatic new IR owner in Japan. I think I gave you the rakuten site for cheap 1k's and RW's lol.

>>8218006
>would you also stay away from Wolverine's Chelsea Boot?
Yes.

In fact, they're probably made in China, and considering their price..

Thing is with wolverine, only a few boots (the original 1k mile line, the addisons, the krause and maybe another pair or two) are made in the US. The rest is made in china, irrespective of whether or not it's part of the "1k miles" line up.

Besides, those chelseas aren't particularly attractive IMO.

> I was hoping to get charcoal Daytons in the future.
I toyed with the idea of those charcoal nubuck daytons for a long time but ultimately declined.

1) I'm still not convinced that they are competent enough today and that the fuckups of the past are well and truly over (have to wait till the leddit group buyers get theirs to decide upon a verdict)

2) 3-4 months for a fucking pair of boots from them and I'm too damn impatient.

I saw a pair of viberg service boots in my sizing and got those so my canadian boot quota is used up for the moment.

Now I'm looking at whites in the US or trickers from the UK. 4 week wait or instant. Not sure yet.

[Daniel de Nimes No.8218141]

>>8217605
I've worn my pretty much nonstop every day for a year and a half.

They're still in good shape, the scuffs buff out easily and all they needed was some topys.

You take care of them, and they'll last.


Clean them and wax them now and then and they'll look good enough for office casual.


They're a solid, understated, wear-em-everywhere boot.


There's more rugged shit, there's more dressy shit, there's cheaper shit, and there's more expensive shit.


The wolverines strike me as a very decent medium all around.

[Anonymous No.8218249]

>>8218088

Well you're quite the informative one indeed! And you're quite correct I am the same individual lol. It's almost 5 AM here in Japan and i'm still up and about.

I'm fairly new to everything /fa/ related so I appreciate any advice. Thanks to /fa/ I have been getting noticed a bit more lol.

At the moment, I'm interested in those Daytons, and I have read quite a bit about their poor past. Though, it's not something I will be purchasing anytime soon. At the moment, I have a pair of Nisolo shoes coming in from Tennessee, and I'll be heading out to purchase either Nike Frees (Due to the fact that feet have gone to shit out here in Japan from excessive walking) or some nippon made sneakers by Onitsuka. With that said, I'm still interested in Chelsea boots, though I haven't the slightest idea on how to distinguish a proper pair from a shit tier one.

Sorry for the elongated sentences, my sleeping cycle has been thrown off due to partying a bit too much.

Allow me to put a face to anonymity

[Anonymous No.8218288]

>>8218249
You look creepy as fuck

[Anonymous No.8218341]

>>8218288
i'm starting to think that being at least partially creepy is /fa/ but only if it's done right

[Anonymous No.8218386]

>>8218288

Ever since I came to Japan I haven't slept well one bit. I live in a share house and I will be finally moving out on the 20th.

I just want to have a good nights sleep for one night........ this city and its populace never seems to fuckin sleep.

[Anonymous No.8218453]

>>8218249
>At the moment, I'm interested in those Daytons, and I have read quite a bit about their poor past.

I'm still sorta semi-interested in them as I can't find another pair of grey/black boots that look nice.

Still, I'll wait to see how an upcoming batch turns out (3 or 4 months per order!)

>some nippon made sneakers by Onitsuka

I wanted a pair of Japan made Onitsuka tigers but I missed out on them when the japanese department store near where I lived ran out instantly. Maybe some day. I'd rather not bother with the vietnam made ones or whatever they are.

>With that said, I'm still interested in Chelsea boots, though I haven't the slightest idea on how to distinguish a proper pair from a shit tier one.

Apart from just looking at brands (you can tell I don't hold wolverine in high regard) construction materials like leather quality and build quality are good indicators.

General rule of them with shoes/boots:

Look to the more reputable names out there - not fashion labels and brand names like designer stuff (they all get their stuff made by actual makers, eg. thom browne or whoever the fuck).

Look to actual bootmakers and shoemakers first.

With chelseas many people here parrot the notion that the Saint Laurent Paris chelseas in black are the be all and end all.

The are probably the only "designer name" chelseas that are worth a look if you're into that style. Everything else like that is junk made in chinitaly or made by someone else and therefore cheaper to buy directly from that someone else.

I don't know who makes SLP's chelseas, but I trust more the shoe/bootmakers that make their own stuff.

An inexpensive pair of chelseas that you can get for about 340USD+/- is from an australian company called RM Williams.

What's notable is that their method of construction is relatively rare today (the only other brands that utilise cost 4 to 8 times the price).

Depending on the configuration they're the best in that price range.

[Anonymous No.8218462]

>>8218453
>Look to the more reputable names out there - not fashion labels and brand names like designer stuff (they all get their stuff made by actual makers, eg. thom browne or whoever the fuck).

Sorry this is unclear - I'm tired too -

what I mean is that forgo the designer labels and look to real shoemakers in the US, UK, Australia and Europe (Japan has them too but they're hyper expensive).

What I mean by this is that, say you like a pair of shoes under that designer label Thom Browne.

TB isn't a shoemaker. It's a brand name attached to articles made by actual makers of goods, and say in his case those boots and shoes are made (currently) by and English shoemaker called Sanders. So, for you I'd suggest looking to the Sanders's instead of the TB's to get an idea of quality rather than the brand names (because some of the expensive stuff out there - who the hell knows where it's been made and who makes it?).

Fuck this ramble I'm going to have a lie down.

[Anonymous No.8218518]

>>8217807
wouldn't a cork sole be just as absorbent and bad in really wet weather as leather soles? i'd go rubber sole if i were you

[Anonymous No.8218557]

>>8217670
they have bad quality control. they are not very selective with their leather cuts.

[Anonymous No.8218559]

>>8217880
beckmans are just as much of a hybrid but even worse because of its bulbous toebox

[Anonymous No.8218567]

>>8218559
Beckmans look weird I agree.
Even when you have the IR's and becks side by side the becks look silly with that upturned toe bulb.

I think it has to do with the fact that the IR has a captoe and that really helps to mitigate the effect.

[Anonymous No.8218573]

>>8218518
>wouldn't a cork sole
there's no such thing as a straight "cork sole"

whatever it is you probably mean a corkrubber sole, which is an entirely different thing.

just treat it as a rubber sole
cork's added to it so that it doesn't dry out and crack like ordinary rubber getting them wet won't be a problem.

[Anonymous No.8218585]

>>8218573
ah, thanks mate

[Anonymous No.8218587]

>>8217807
>I like the look of the 1000 mile Krause
ripoff considering overall quality and how they're made
seriously ripoff
only an idiot would buy

[Anonymous No.8218600]

>>8217807
I live in belfast and have been wearing Iron rangers since september, I can tell you that my feet haven't gotten wet once and the soles haven't suffered at all, the cork is very dense and is labelled as "oil proof"

[Anonymous No.8218620]

>>8217605
Very much so. They're my first boots and I can't beilive how versatile they are. One day I'm just wearing it to my job wearing the boots, a shirt, and jeans and another day i'm wearing it to my friends graduation, jeans, shirt, and tie. I love them.

[Anonymous No.8218837]

>>8217605
Wolverines are cool because they are timeless and the quality is fantastic

[Anonymous No.8219146]

>>8218462
I think this is easier said than done. Shoemakers as a trade is non-existent. People rely on brands now, they won't go out and seek shoemakers/

[Anonymous No.8220375]

>>8219146
what are you talking about?
all the uk makers and most likely alden from the us are readily available in japan

in fact it's probable that most of what's produced by the northamptonshire makers goes to japan these days
nips are crazy about traditional english made footwear

any cosmopolitan city in the world should at least have one shop selling john lobb, crockett and jones, edward green

i've seen shitty loakes, grenson and barkers at the very least in some places

are you referring to BESPOKE shoemakers?
because that's a completely different thing and I'm not talking about them

I'm referring to actual established makers of shoes rather than brands that buy things from makers and put their own label on it and sell at unjustifiably inflated pricing, or brands that put their labels on shoes of unknown or dubious origin (though to be fair you'd hope that a more established brand name or fashion house would commission shoes/boots from an established and reputable maker - eg. RL gets C&J for their better lines of shoes.)

[Anonymous No.8220395]

Call me a fanboy, but I love Wolverines. I've had my 1000 miles & Chelseas for around six months, & my Claptons for about a year. No complaints.

[Anonymous No.8221759]

>>8220395
If you got a good pair and like them then that's good.

My hang ups with them are on principle.

[Anonymous No.8222756]

>>8218141
Same here, pretty much in the same situation.

I don't think them having a leather sole is an issue, you just have to protect the leather sole like you would on pretty much any other shoe. I don't think it fails at being dressy either, not dress shoes dressy, but a lot more than Red Wings that's for sure.

They're just quite different from the RW, and they are very expensive for most people compared to RW. Ive had no issues with mine, but I would recommend making sure the very pair you're getting is free from major defects, just in case.

And don't bother with their China Made stuff, despite the lower price point.

[Anonymous No.8223631]

I have a pair of Quoddy blucher mocs that are the most comfortable shoes I've ever worn. If I was interested in a set of leather boots, I'd look here first:

http://www.quoddy.com/grizzly-boot-rugged-vibram-sole/

Personally, I've had to many shoes ruined by rain and mud, so I'll be getting Le Chameau's next.

[Anonymous No.8223751]

>>8217941
here's a pastebin i threw together for ya

http://pastebin.com/8AzZsq0k

[Anonymous No.8223773]

>>8218014
w2c minimal black chelseas for <500? i really like the SLP ones but i lack shekels

[Anonymous No.8223776]

>>8223773
RM Williams

just, uh, not directly from their site.

[Anonymous No.8223932]

What about Chippewa? Thinking of copping this. I hear good quality like Red Wing.

[Anonymous No.8224005]

>>8223773
http://www.sunspel.com/us/mens/accessories/joseph-cheaney-son-chelsea-boot-black.html

Good luck ordering though; I always have trouble processing payment on their site.

[Anonymous No.8224213]

re: RW

IR vs moc toe, which is better?
and what's the difference between Beckmans and round toes

[Anonymous No.8225333]

>>8224213
neither is better, it's personal preference

but of you want to advertise the fact that you get shafted nightly by a gang of asian wiggers then go moc

[Anonymous No.8225335]

>>8224213
neither
go beckmans in cherry/brown or go home

[Anonymous No.8225336]

>>8223932
it's a step down but yeah you still get what you pay for

[Anonymous No.8225804]

>>8223932
Chippewa make good boots. They're just not as good as RW, but that's reflected in the price.

I'd say they are price correctly.

[Anonymous No.8225838]

Is their a reason as to why some boots have different soles?

I saw two different 1000 Mile W05300 Boots with two different logo positions along with different stitching so it seemed. Is their a reason to this? Is one better than the other?

[Anonymous No.8225857]

I got a pair of the Filson x 1000 Mile Emerson boots.

They're p dope. I like the wedge sole and subdued moc toe despite /fa/ shitting on both of these things constantly.

It was either these or a pair of RW Heritage moc toes.

[Anonymous No.8225862]

>>8225838
Wolverine has notoriously lax QC

[Anonymous No.8226789]

Should I bother buying boots if I have short legs? I'm pretty average height (5'11) but my proportions are little fucked up.

[Anonymous No.8226864]

>>8226789
the only boots you should stay away from are high riding boots. Like the equestrian ones that go up to near knee.

Avoid those and it's fine.

[Anonymous No.8226888]

>>8226864
cool thanks

[Anonymous No.8226889]

>>8226789
why would this be a problem?
unless you're wearing shorts or cuff like one of those fashion forum faggots no one will know you're wearing boots as opposed to shoes anyway

and on that no one's going to notice what you wear anyway, so wear whatever the fuck you want stumpy

[Anonymous No.8226894]

>>8226889
Well that's the thing, what's the point of wearing boots if people can't see them? I would just wear my derbys then.

[Anonymous No.8226902]

>>8226894
>what's the point of wearing boots if people can't see them?
Excluding the numerous practical reasons (lol).

[Anonymous No.8226989]

>>8226902
lol he's a fucking retard
>>8226894
>what's the point of wearing boots if people can't see them? I would just wear my derbys then.
you do that fuccboi