[CobaltFire]

Mine did; I'm still wearing them (I bought mine in 2016, and they haven't needed resoled yet) and the $100 boots I was wearing (US Navy authorized) would barely last a year. So for the $300 or so I paid then I got 6 years hard use out of them, and I'm still using them for stuff now that I don't wear them for work.

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.

[searealist]

What were the $100 boots? Do you wear your current boots an equal amount?

[CobaltFire]

Bates and Belleville, and at least as much.

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.

[searealist]

Google search for that brand reveals:

> 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.