How does Crispi Colorado compare to Lowa Tibet???

[WyoHuntr]

I've run Tibets for five seasons (cult classic status lives up to the hype). I have the unforgivable curse (in the eyes of European boot manufacturers) of a Wide foot. Until Crispi offers what I really want= a 200g Briksdal GTX in Wide, I figured I would at least shoot for a lighter version of what I am running.

Seeking opinions specifically from people that have used BOTH the Crispi Colorado and the Lowa Tibet. How do they compare? (Especially on stiffness / flex and ankle support). Looking for differences and similarities.

(**With respect: I am not seeking input or speculation from guys with one or the other, people just reading descriptions, or dudes with the same brand in a different style...... I already have one, have read plenty about the other, and don't care about the other styles**)

 

[Firehawk]

I don't have the Colorado, but I do have the Nevada. And I have an older Tibet. The Tibets are stiffer and heavier, but awesome as you know. Mine are still in really good shape after 10+ years. My foot has flattened a bit and now the Tibets are a tiny bit too short. The Nevadas are definitely a good boot, and luckily for me, the right size. But I have a narrowish foot. Seems the Crispis are definitely more genrous in the toe box. I like the Nevadas but I have been looking at the Colorado as a lighter option still.

I wish my Lowas still fit, as they were perfect for off camber, no trail, sidehilling type of hunting. They weren't awesome on ice though. That Vibram sole was too hard and I have taken multiple spells. Much prefer the traction on the Crispis. But...as my TIbets are as old as they are, I am sure that they are using a better sole material now.

I really like the Crispi ABSS around my ankles. It is a noticeable help to my ankles.

Hope this adds a little help to your question.

 

[Jimss]

I have Lowa Tibets but only use them in deep snow. They are super waterproof, a bit taller to keep snow out, but are heavier weight and stiffer. I don't need extra ankle support....even hunting sheep and mtn goat in Alaska and Colorado. Tibets are super tough to stalk quietly in with stiff, tall uppers. If you need extra ankle support they are great but not the type of boot I prefer for everyday hunting. They sit on my boot rack until the snow flies.

I have used and abused Crispi Wyo's and Nevada's with great results. They are less stiff, a little shorter, and a little lighter than Tibets. I'm likely going to buy a pair of Colorado's or Summits to try out another pair that is a little lighter weight and less stiff. The synthetic material also has the advantage of breathing better in hot conditions or when active than all leather boots.

All leather usually out lasts synthetic boots but my Wyo's have taken a lot of a abuse and are holding up very well.....even in snow and wet conditions.

Similar to you I prefer a wider box and have always liked the wide box of Tibets.....Crispis are also pretty good.

 

[Mudd Foot]

In my first-hand experience, the Tibet’s are more robust and stiffer from every standpoint. Quality of construction and workmanship are virtually the same. How the Colorado is a 4 in stiffness is beyond my understanding. In my experience, they are a 3 at best. Nice boot, but vastly over-rated in stiffness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ynothunt41]

I only have the Lowa Tibet and love them. They fit my feet perfect and I have no need to look for another brand. This is my first pair of high end boots and I can't believe how much of a difference they make. I do have to condition the leather more than I thought I would but that's no big deal. Mine are in very good condition because I condition them a lot. I think some people have issues with them because they don't take care of them. I am lucky because I don't have a wide foot but I could see how that would make a big difference.

 

[Red Letters]

Billy Molls has a good boot review on this forum somewhere, its been awhile since I read it so I'm not sure if he compared them to Lowa

 

[Doc89]

I have used and currently own both the Lowa Tibet & the Crispi Colorado. They are a couple of my favorite boots, here are some notable differences I have noticed over the past couple years. For context I have owned the Lowa's since 2018 and the Crispi's since January 2020, had both on several hunts. I wear size 12 on both and in most boots and have a wider profile foot.

Fit - Both are wide enough for a wider profile foot, If I ever buy a Colorado again I would go up half size (12 to 12.5). Not sure if i shrunk them drying out by a stove or what... but my toes touch occasionally on the Colorado's. Both are comfortable but the Lowa hands down is more comfortable on the foot, I really like all the padding in the upper and has significantly more ankle support. The Colorado has a more contoured heel cup. You may consider sizing up half size in general if you want to add an aftermarket insole. Comparing the stiffness between the two, they are both pretty close to the same stiffness. Tibet has far more ankle support.

Weight - Tibet: 4.85 lbs, Colorado: 3.79 lbs

Waterproofness - Tibet, great. Has held up to late season deer hunts & Moose hunts in Alaska. Colorado, its not waterproof...

Features - The Tibet's hardware and overall durability are my favorite in a boot. The roller bearing lace loops, locking hardware and that thing on the tongue of the boot (forgive my verbage..) are my favorite. The Colorado has durable features but not on the same level as the Tibet.

Overall they are both really good boots for a wider profile foot and I think if you bought the Colorado it would diversify your choices. I actually took both on a late deer hunt last year where I had to snow shoe in deep snow and hunt in single digits. Surprisingly they were both awesome! The Lowa warmer, but I actually liked the Colorado with snowshoes better. I think that's just the weight difference speaking with snowshoes in the mix. If you NEED a waterproof boot, stick to the Tibet or maybe even consider a different Crispi like the Nevada/Guide or even a Wildrock. Those fit a wider foot as well. If you are looking for an early season lightweight boot with "enough" support then the Colorado would be a good choice. I have loved and hated both on hunts but they still live on my boot rack and will for some time!