Viberg Boots - Reviews, appreciation, news - share yours

[meso]



One of the good things about the 310 is that it comes in both D and E widths, the only Viberg last to do so I believe. The D really feels like a D to me, that is not too wide not too narrow. I am planning on getting an E for a bit more room.

The 310 in D is more of a traditional workboot. In E it is more roomy and visually wider (duh) viewed from the top. I have a pic somewhere of D and E viewed from above for comparison. Heck maybe someone here has the pic... my boot pictures seem to float around

Honestly if you're going to do it, get the E width... the 310 in E is more special since there's nothing out there that looks quite like it. Very comfy, too.

 

[NYDRH]



new Viberg makeups from lost&found but goodyearwelt only:
https://www.shoplostfound.com/collections/viberg/products/viberg-black-goat-service-boot
https://www.shoplostfound.com/collections/viberg/products/viberg-midnight-reverse-kudu-service-boot

BTW will half sizes available for 310 last? I see some stocklists don't offer that.

Once the details are finalised, you can choose whatever size you would like including half sizes.

 

[Aviv]

Ok so I want to point something out about the 310 last. The first pair of Vibergs I ever owned were the Iron Heart collab on the the 310, mocha oil tan. They were comfortable as hell, but looked really funny in size 10.5 with my skinny legs. I have a photo to prove it for you guys. I recognize I'm also wearing far to skinny jeans for this boot, but I had few options at the time. Still, I don't believe a different jean cut changes the awkwardness of the proportions. I think 9 and under probably looks ok.

If you can convince me otherwise I'll join the list on this build. (FYI I'm 6'2, 175 lbs)

 

[rydenfan]

@LA Guy

No suedes, rough outs, waxed flesh or chamois (ideal choice) available for the Chelsea variant?

Could we use the black bison for the Chelsea?

 

[patrick_b]

Ok so I want to point something out about the 310 last. The first pair of Vibergs I ever owned were the Iron Heart collab on the the 310, mocha oil tan. They were comfortable as hell, but looked really funny in size 10.5 with my skinny legs. I have a photo to prove it for you guys. I recognize I'm also wearing far to skinny jeans for this boot, but I had few options at the time. Still, I don't believe a different jean cut changes the awkwardness of the proportions. I think 9 and under probably looks ok.

If you can convince me otherwise I'll join the list on this build. (FYI I'm 6'2, 175 lbs)

Hard to tell from your photo but they don't look off at all to me. I'm an 11D brannock and wear 10.5 in my Vibergs as well. I never understood the concern that boots look too big in larger sizes. Maybe if you were at 12-13 but IMO 10.5 looks fine.

With that said, if you don't like the look, you don't like the look. I always thought the IH 310 makeups looked great but I'm not skinny like you. My jeans always end up with a 8.5-9" hem because of the waist size.

 

[linafelt]



Ok so I want to point something out about the 310 last. The first pair of Vibergs I ever owned were the Iron Heart collab on the the 310, mocha oil tan. They were comfortable as hell, but looked really funny in size 10.5 with my skinny legs. I have a photo to prove it for you guys. I recognize I'm also wearing far to skinny jeans for this boot, but I had few options at the time. Still, I don't believe a different jean cut changes the awkwardness of the proportions. I think 9 and under probably looks ok. 

If you can convince me otherwise I'll join the list on this build. (FYI I'm 6'2, 175 lbs)

Actually they look really cool! But yeah, would be even better if the jeans weren't so skinny. I see no problem.

 

[Akeem]



Ok so I want to point something out about the 310 last. The first pair of Vibergs I ever owned were the Iron Heart collab on the the 310, mocha oil tan. They were comfortable as hell, but looked really funny in size 10.5 with my skinny legs. I have a photo to prove it for you guys. I recognize I'm also wearing far to skinny jeans for this boot, but I had few options at the time. Still, I don't believe a different jean cut changes the awkwardness of the proportions. I think 9 and under probably looks ok. If you can convince me otherwise I'll join the list on this build. (FYI I'm 6'2, 175 lbs)

something def off there but not because of the boots

 

[vettemike]

Can someone post a comparison of the D and E widths on the 310 last? Does the E width make it look more proportioned?

 

[patrick_b]

Just some reference/comparison shots. 2040 last in roughout, 110 last in vintage mocha. Both 10.5.

 

[Aviv]



Actually they look really cool! But yeah, would be even better if the jeans weren't so skinny. I see no problem.

I learned to stop wearing such skinny jeans with such skinny legs (though I'm working on them. Squats brah). If it's definitely in the lighter crust cxl then count me in. Don't care about heel height or brogued holes. 5 eyelets though!

 

[NYDRH]

Hard to tell from your photo but they don't look off at all to me. I'm an 11D brannock and wear 10.5 in my Vibergs as well. I never understood the concern that boots look too big in larger sizes. Maybe if you were at 12-13 but IMO 10.5 looks fine.

With that said, if you don't like the look, you don't like the look. I always thought the IH 310 makeups looked great but I'm not skinny like you. My jeans always end up with a 8.5-9" hem because of the waist size.

I think these are two very good points.

You have to be happy with it and some things are just not for everyone. I dont think the 310 adds anything visually to make your feet look disproportionate and Im assuming when these guys make the lasts and patterns the relative proportions are the same as the sizes increase.

Old man get off my lawn rant: I wear my jeans hemmed over the point where they reach my shoes, boots and sneakers with alot more break than say a pair of suit pants. This used to be impossible because few places could do a proper chainstitch but now many places offer this service particularly if you are buying many of the brands I suspect people here own. This Jcrew/blogger/GQ push over the past 5 to 8 years to "show your selvedge ID brah" is still relatively new, this wasn't a thing until marketing departments decided selvedge meant "we can charge more for jeans." It's just bizarre to me and I think it would and does make any pair of boots look strange to have your hem rolled to the top of your boots regardless of what style of boot you are wearing. It is not the same thing as the rolled upturned cuffs of the 1950s(which i suspect might not have happened if they had had access or the extra few bucks for the hem), the modern upturn is very effete from my perspective. Visually this creates the same situation that super skinny hems do where they cant physically go over the top of a boot or the inverse where the guy who has wide leg dress pants wearing super slim loafers that basically make it look like he has no feet(Ive seen this alot in the office. its like a magic trick). I think its that visual disparity that exaggerates any boot or shoe. I dont mean to single you out @Aviv as I have seen many pictures like this all over the board and internet, this one just happens to be on the page. As I walk around NYC, people like me are probably more the minority as this "phenomenon" has been quite successful, and Im sure I will be inviting vehement disagreement with my comments but I think these things have more of an impact than the shape of the 310.

 

[LA Guy]



@LA Guy

No suedes, rough outs, waxed flesh or chamois (ideal choice) available for the Chelsea variant?

Could we use the black bison for the Chelsea?

I think that they don't have chamois, but maybe some Suede or roughout. That I can ask about.

 

[NYDRH]

Slightly iffy on the upturned toe but the broguing would make that boot.

Not sure I can get with the 310 last myself.
I have big feet and I fear they'll be too clown shoe looking for my liking.
Wish this workboot was going to be on a different last.

Ive seen a bunch of these comments lately and I wanted to try to dispel some misconceptions or at least what I believe to be misconceptions. If any one is on the fence or just curious about the 310s upturned(sprung) toe perhaps the below will help. This is Aged Bark GMTO Engineer that I got the other day(Thx @LA Guy ) vs . Aged Bark 310. The shape of the sole of the shoe is about the same, the visual differences are mainly in the toe box rather than the spring of the toe. I could try another comparison with a more conventional 2030 or 2045 during another break in Giants action but I suspect its quite similar.

 

[Akeem]



Ive seen a bunch of these comments lately and I wanted to try to dispel some misconceptions or at least what I believe to be misconceptions. If any one is on the fence or just curious about the 310s upturned(sprung) toe perhaps the below will help. This is Aged Bark GMTO Engineer that I got the other day(Thx @LA Guy ) vs . Aged Bark 310. The shape of the sole of the shoe is about the same, the visual differences are mainly in the toe box rather than the spring of the toe. I could try another comparison with a more conventional 2030 or 2045 during another break in Giants action but I suspect its quite similar.

I don't mind the sprung toe or a fully structured munster toebox, but the combination makes it a bit too much for the average joe like me. Yo Joe!

 

[Raneleigh]

Ok so I want to point something out about the 310 last. The first pair of Vibergs I ever owned were the Iron Heart collab on the the 310, mocha oil tan. They were comfortable as hell, but looked really funny in size 10.5 with my skinny legs. I have a photo to prove it for you guys. I recognize I'm also wearing far to skinny jeans for this boot, but I had few options at the time. Still, I don't believe a different jean cut changes the awkwardness of the proportions. I think 9 and under probably looks ok.

If you can convince me otherwise I'll join the list on this build. (FYI I'm 6'2, 175 lbs)

Well, the DV helmet makes it hard to see anything else in that photo, lol! But seriously, I see what you mean. Not because of the shoe size, but because of the 310 in general. I've always felt that the exaggerated upturn in the toe looks a little like clown shoes to me. I've seen a million photos of the 310 and I want to like it, but I just think it looks silly (no offense to those who like it). I think maybe you have to be "that" person to pull it off. But even when I see that person, I still think it looks ridiculous to me. Which probably explains why it's the least popular last - at least here in the USA.