Let's be honest here.....

[Aaronlowe]

Do we really think that classic/vintage work shoes are as comfortable and better for our feet as modern versions?

I say this because I have multiple pair of classic-style workboots but they simply are not as comfy as a great pair of modern work/hunting/combat boots. Sure, they can be rebuilt and do last longer, but are they really better for our feet? I have sore spots on the bottoms of my feet and my big toes get calluses from the tough, inflexible leather on the vintage style boots. For true all-day comfort, sneakers or even lightweight hikers rule.

I had Corcoran jump boots when I was in the army and wore them through PT and many a mile of marches. I thought they were the bees' knees back them. But maybe I was just young, dumb and a lot tougher back then. Who knows.

Not trying to be a troll, just trying to drum up some MATURE debate.

 

[Saho]

It's really a matter of personal preference. 90% of the vintage goods I own don't see actual use but they make cheap decoration and remind me of a time forever gone with the wind.

 

[Nick D]

I've not worn vintage or vintage style work boots, so I couldn't say on those specifically. I do find that my leather sole dress shoes are as comfortable as my hiking boots when I'm walking, though my legs tend to be sore after a long (two or three mile) walk in the dress shoes.

 

[Creeping Past]

My view is, wear what you like.

A far as shoes are concerned, unless you can afford bespoke you're never going to get ones that fit perfectly. It's a matter of whatever you regard as stylish, comfort, as you say, getting something that stands up to the sort of wear you expect and, for many, a concern with an item's manufacture, including the materials used.

Hand made boots, for instance, will generally have been made by adults doing detailed work and paid a reasonable wage, as opposed to plastic shoes made en masse by children for next to nothing. I exaggerate.

Also, leather's nicer than plastic.

In ideal conditions, the best thing you can do for your feet is to go unshod, especially when running.

Edit: Having thought about it, it kind of is trolling, since this is specifically a forum for vintage clothing and whatnot enthusiasts. lol

 

[mattfink]

Looking good has it's price, but I've never had a problem with comfort on any of my Red Wings. Better than modern looking molded rubber abortions that the civilians wear.

 

[Paisley]

A big part of comfort is fit. It could be that your vintage boots don't fit as well as they could.

I have a pair of vintage high heels that are very comfortable. Modern heels with shallow toeboxes--I can't even wedge my feet in them.

 

[Lou]

Not many of us want vintage dentistry, and it's a valid concern about shoes too. I assume a lot has been learned about the mechanics of the foot since the Golden Era, and some of that is bound to benefit shoe technology. I have no doubt that, in the gym, my feet are much happier in my modern cross-trainers than they'd be in vintage Chucks. In situation that aren't as stressful for the feet, it isn't as important. Across the board, though, I prefer a vintage-inspired look that incorporates modern technology.

 

[anon`]

While I have very little experience with vintage dress shoes, I do wear CTs to the gym on a daily basis, and I find them functionally comfortable. Yes, modern cross trainers would probably be moreso, but I've been using these shoes for about three years now, whereas modern shoes would've been replaced at least once by now. I suppose that's a valid tradeoff? I mean, you get consistent performance pretty much regardless of age, what with not having fancy soles and the like, but without the shaped bits and odd pieces of support.

As far as dressier shoes are concerned, however, I find a good pair of cork-and-leather-soled dress shoes, once well-worn, to be far more comfortable than similarly-worn boots or sneakers. But on this front, I suspect that modern shoes by, say, AE or Alden will be more comfortable than shoes of comparable quality from 70 years ago, if only because they seem to be rather less heavy.

In the grand scheme of things, however, I think that the notion of "shoe technology" is somewhat overblown: I own a pair of boots for re-enactment purposes modeled after the Oseberg boots that, on natural surfaces, are at least as--if not more--comfortable than any modern shoe I own.

 

[Paisley]

I agree about shoe technology being overblown. I've read that the more cushioning your shoes have, the less effort you make to come down softly on your feet. Consider that in beginning ballet--which is more strenuous than it looks--dancers wear shoes that have zero support.

 

[Creeping Past]

I agree about shoe technology being overblown. I've read that the more cushioning your shoes have, the less effort you make to come down softly on your feet.

There's something to that effect in the link I posted earlier.

People get quite excited about what's termed 'performance' clothing, thinking that they're at the cutting edge, when in fact they're hanging on to the coat tails of marketing jargon. The fashion aspect of modern footwear means that the cutting edge is always just that little bit further out of reach. But if you get the next piece of 'performance' clothing you'll definitely perform better and be more comfortable doing it. Perhaps...

 

[Artie]

My experience with vintage dress shoes tells me that were made much better than comparative quality modern dress shoes.

 

[Geronimo]

The biggest improvement of modern shoes versus vintage shoes is the rubber sole. Not exactly high technology, it's just much less damaging to rugs, floors, etc than hobnails.

 

[Lou]

The term shoe technology wasn't meant in the overblown marketing hype sense. I'm talking more about development of different footbed materials in response to a more precise understanding of how the body deals with the stress of walking, running, or climbing in hard use environments. Again, this is focused on performance footwear. If I were to climb Everest, I'd want the benefit of the extra decades of R&D. I'm sure I could do it in vintage boots too, but I'm sure I'd be better off in the best modern offering.

As far as dressier shoes are concerned, however, I find a good pair of cork-and-leather-soled dress shoes, once well-worn, to be far more comfortable than similarly-worn boots or sneakers. But on this front, I suspect that modern shoes by, say, AE or Alden will be more comfortable than shoes of comparable quality from 70 years ago, if only because they seem to be rather less heavy.

I agree.

 

[vitanola]

The biggest improvement of modern shoes versus vintage shoes is the rubber sole. Not exactly high technology, it's just much less damaging to rugs, floors, etc than hobnails.

Actually, rubber soles are terribly damaging to good rugs. A leather sole slides across the pile, whereas a rubber sole pulls at the nap, wearing it much more rapidly than would a leather sole. In our modern world good carpets seldom last a generation when placed in a room with heavy traffic. In our Grandmother's rooms the wear-life of a similar floor covering would be much longer.

The ingrain (flat woven) carpets of the 1890's wear especially quickly when trod upon by rubber-soled shoes.

As recently as the 1970's, quality shoes had leather soles. I refuse to wear rubber soles except in deep snow or heavy rain. Rubber soles have indeed largely eliminated the (perceived) necessity of gumshoes.

 

[Geesie]

Do we really think that classic/vintage work shoes are as comfortable and better for our feet as modern versions?

I say this because I have multiple pair of classic-style workboots but they simply are not as comfy as a great pair of modern work/hunting/combat boots. Sure, they can be rebuilt and do last longer, but are they really better for our feet? I have sore spots on the bottoms of my feet and my big toes get calluses from the tough, inflexible leather on the vintage style boots. For true all-day comfort, sneakers or even lightweight hikers rule.

I had Corcoran jump boots when I was in the army and wore them through PT and many a mile of marches. I thought they were the bees' knees back them. But maybe I was just young, dumb and a lot tougher back then. Who knows.

Not trying to be a troll, just trying to drum up some MATURE debate.

I haven't worn any real vintage shoes or boots (not gonna try to find size 13 in a style I like AND vintage AND affordable) but in the Navy, I wore older-style flight deck boots, not these but very similar

And I liked them a lot better than the new style, like these

They're not as cushioned or orthopedically sculpted or whatever, but I prefer the older ones. I can't even say why, they just felt "right".

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

I was told that it is better for our feet to run barefoot than to wear shoes.

 

[Geesie]

I was told that it is better for our feet to run barefoot than to wear shoes.

That's what people without flat feet say.

 

[dakotanorth]

shoes!

I personally never touch vintage shoes- if they are used, you tend to take on the imprints left in the footbed. Try putting on another person's shoes sometime, you'll be amazed that this person can even walk. That's how different each person's feet are!

I usually look for QUALITY over era- a lot of times, the modern stuff is a gimmick, a way to sell you something that you already own, but there are a few things that are better.
I hate to say it, but the new Bass nubucks are synthetic now, and I prefer it. They don't stain, they repel water naturally, and they don't seem to yellow as quickly.
In terms of the soles, well, I have yet to wear dress shoes that don't make my knees throb about 15 minutes. In short I haven't tried enough of them to compare them.

 

[Geronimo]

Actually, rubber soles are terribly damaging to good rugs. A leather sole slides across the pile, whereas a rubber sole pulls at the nap, wearing it much more rapidly than would a leather sole. In our modern world good carpets seldom last a generation when placed in a room with heavy traffic. In our Grandmother's rooms the wear-life of a similar floor covering would be much longer.

The ingrain (flat woven) carpets of the 1890's wear especially quickly when trod upon by rubber-soled shoes.

As recently as the 1970's, quality shoes had leather soles. I refuse to wear rubber soles except in deep snow or heavy rain. Rubber soles have indeed largely eliminated the (perceived) necessity of gumshoes.

Did not know that about rugs. Leather-soled shoes work infinitely better for dance shoes for just that reason. Rubber helps to keep you from slipping on wet surfaces, which I value greatly after slipping down a few steps and knocking a nickel-sized hole in my ankle. lol

 

[Johnnynotoes]

Hi Folks...I find that with any smooth leather insole, [seemingly standard on vintage or 'classic' styled shoes/boots] a long walk tended to get uncomfortable. Achey calfs sometimes and grumbley feet always. My solution was to add a thin insole of a material with some bite. [cheap $ store insole for example as long as it isn't slippery] This enables the ol' hosiery to grip better when ones toes are trying to get purchase on an otherwise slick surface. Toes seem to scrunch during the power movement and sliding about too much for too long may overwork the mechanics. It solved my problem...I can walk forever iffen me toes have something to grab aholt of! My RW casuals benefit from this...Dress shoes too. Sorry for the run on para...burning my supper here...