PDA

View Full Version : Columbia boots



Lifersol
11-28-2015, 12:41
This is my first post on here really. I've noticed that when people ask about shoes or boots or trail runners, that no one mentions the Columbia brand. I'm really just curious as to why?

Mtsman
11-29-2015, 03:01
Grats on what you consider your first post.

IMO I dont consider columbia a primary shoe source. Not that they aren't, just in my own mind I consider them more an upper body apparel source. Jackets, sweaters, some pants and shirts etc.

I don't buy based on brand though. I typically go to a few of my favorite reviewers and narrow my top 5 choices to things they have tried out and liked. Then I try / buy what makes sense to me and my goals from those collective lists. Sometimes that fails me and sometimes it works well for me.


YMMV

MuddyWaters
11-29-2015, 09:47
Name one product, that when you want the best.....you think of columbia brand.

They arent a leader in anything. They dont make total crap, but they dont make good stuff either. They make price-point items to be mass marketed in big box stores with just enough tags hanging on them to bamboozle uneducated buyers. But..its all most of the weekend warriors need, and all they want to pay for as well. Sucess.

Columbia is to clothing what coleman is to camping. Suitable for the masses to use a few days a year in moderate conditions.

You can surely thru hike in columbia shoes, just as you can carry a coleman tent. Most people dont because there are higher performance alternatives available.

I have a pair of 8" Magellan (Academy store brand) boots that are cheap, light, comfortable, waterproof. I wear them in snow primarily. They are well made, and holding up great after years of moderate winter use. There are some decent cheap items out there, but its expensive to find them by trial and error. Going with names better recognized for quality for the item you want is a surer thing. They didnt get their reputations for nothing.

Once you do get a reputation, if poor, its hard to shake. No matterr what Columbia makes they will always be viewed as low tier based on their past. This works in reverse, North Face gear is 90% crap today, mass marketed, people buy it based on their past. This was intentional to make as much money off the TNF brand as possible after they were bought out.

egilbe
11-29-2015, 10:59
I like TNF's zip off hiking pants I got a couple years ago. I find that they are kinda pricey to have their logo on my clothing. Marmot became the same thing as TNF. Disappointing.

4eyedbuzzard
11-29-2015, 14:39
This is my first post on here really. I've noticed that when people ask about shoes or boots or trail runners, that no one mentions the Columbia brand. I'm really just curious as to why?They just aren't generally recognized as a footwear company. I don't see them marketing themselves as such either to a great degree. They seem more to market more towards outerwear to mass market targets like skiers than to hiking oriented folks. Likely just due to market size - hiking crowd is a very small market relatively. I own one of their ski parkas, it's a good winter/ski coat, but it's way too heavy for hiking.

I took a gamble on a steeply discounted pair of low trail shoes from Columbia through Sierra Trading Post a few years back. They actually turned out to be pretty good shoes - they wound up as daily wear shoes for over a year including hiking mostly in the Whites. I also have a pair of casual dress loafers with their brand, but with lug pattern soles. I needed a pair of dress shoes for the office and they were more comfortable than a lot of the dress shoe company shoes plus they had the lug pattern sole which worked out great in NH where even when working in an office you had to navigate the typical north country landscape. I still wear them when needed. I'd consider buying their shoes again.

Footwear I've had for comparison (within last 8 years):
Asolo FSN 95 GTX (mid height)- good ankle support, good winter/cold weather boots, but traction/sole not as good as some others. I honestly don't wear these all that often except in winter.
Merrill Moab low hikers - good traction, comfortable, but wore out pretty quickly, not particularly durable.
LL Bean low hikers - absolutely great traction but as expected with great traction sole wear was only okay. Uppers okay, stretched out a bit. Shank okay but would prefer something stiffer if hiking on lots of rocks (like in NH). Wore quickly compared to others. Took a long time to dry when wet.
Columbia low-hikers - the ones referenced above - good traction. good support. Uppers stretched out a bit. Stayed pretty dry even in wet conditions. Dried out okay for a goretex lined shoe.
Oboz low hikers (Bridger? not sure of exact model) - okay sole traction, very good support/shank. Currently wearing these so no long term comments yet.

TheRecluse
12-08-2015, 11:55
I bought a pair of Columbia Logger Ridge boots a few years ago when i first got interested in hiking. They fit nice and snug but the toes were too tight. after every outing the cramped toes were sore for a few days. those were just short day hikes. In preparation for my 2017 thru-hike these will be replaced. I think these brand of apparel are designed to make people look good but have no practical use.

donthaveoneyet
12-08-2015, 21:01
I wonder if the company has changed in recent years? I have three Columbia shirts I bought over 20 years ago. They were not cheap (I think maybe $80 each?). They have held up all this time, and I still wear them hiking (they are a little discolored by now, used to be fine for regular casual wear also). Granted, I have not put them to Skurka-like tests (or even very long hikes), but I don't have much clothing that has held up that long.

Lone Wolf
12-08-2015, 21:09
This is my first post on here really. I've noticed that when people ask about shoes or boots or trail runners, that no one mentions the Columbia brand. I'm really just curious as to why?

marketing. most hikers buy high dollar chinese crap. i walked the LT in columbia low tops. they were fine