Show me the boots that are 3.3x more expensive but last 5x as long. When buying new, it's very rare that buying expensive actually saves you money.
I have other pairs of dress shoes from Red Wing that are similar; I doubt I'll EVER need to replace them.
Note: the boots are style 2412, the shoes are a variety but the oldest are called MIL-1 Congress boots (Chelsea). I have a few pairs of a different style dress shoe from the heritage line as well.
I understand your point, but realize some of us really do live in these boots and have found some that make a huge difference.
The only (and big) negative for the Red Wings was the break in process. It was protracted and brutal. Once broken in they've been wonderful though.
Also, I'm giving the boots too much credit. Just looked them up and the Bellevilles I wore (800 ST) just before the Red Wings are $230 today. I replaced them yearly because they were coming apart.
For hiking and climbing I wear La Sportiva and they have been excellent as well, as another brand to look at.
> Our boot regulations and contracts severely limit our options to only a few very expensive-and often ineffective-models.
So these are just overpriced boots. My main point is that OP is pushing a narrative about how rich people somehow save money with their expensive purchases, which is complete nonsense. They buy luxury products which are more expensive in the long run.
I give them a 10 second clean before use and 30 second clean + some polish after.
Scale accordingly for variance in usage and quality for the ones claiming 2w vs 1y.
I purchased a pair of Chelsea Boots from Churches of London in the late 90s and they still look great today!
I’ve had new soles a few times, and recent had a partial reconstruction; liners, pull tags and so on.
But I’ve had them 25 years and the actual boot leather is still fantastic!
I hope they're still in business.