Determining boot quality

[Jackal7]

I have the world's pickiest and hard to fit feet found on earth. And they love Crispis. So much so that I bought a second pair of Wild Rock GTX before my first pair wore out. With regular care and waterproofing of the leather, the first pair is four years old and looks great, even after about 30 days per year of hunting in wet and snow.

 

[hunterdanman]

From everything I have been reading here and learning elsewhere I have been leaning towards a full leather 6-8 in boot with a full rand as some of the main focus points. I just ordered a pair of kenetrek hardscrabble hiker on a great sale from midway and got a pair of Crispi Nevada for comparison sake. I'm excited to get to finally try some on and see how they feel later this week.

I'm still a bit torn on if I need this level of a boot for a hunt every other year when much cheaper boots work for around home. I also would hate to use up a bunch of their life on conditions that don't require the higher quality but also don't want them to just sit in the closet most of the time. It's a hard balancing act but I guess that's part of the fun.

 

[Jimss]

If you do much hiking you will likely find that it's nice to have another pair of lighter boots. I don't like tall, stiff boots except in deep snow. They are extremely tough to stalk quietly in. For archery hunting a light boot is a lot easier to stalk quietly in. Take a look at the new model of Crispi Thors if you want a fantastic, light boot.

 

[mooretitan]

I like a leather boot on the taller side. Now with that I has a pair of Solomans I wore for a year that felt like tennis shoes. Great feel but trashed less than a year. They did send out a new pair under warranty that I have yet to break in .