which Crispi?

[mtwarden]

My La Sportiva boots are now discontinued and getting very close to the end of the line, soooo.... looking at the Crispi lineup

I'm looking at the Thor, Summit and Nevada (others?)- fitment is my biggest concern- I need a wider toe box, but regular fit in the midfoot and heel- I don't have wide feet (not narrow either), but have to have a wider foot box

Light to midweight, GTX, uninsulated- a fair bit of rocky, steep terrain- occasionally the need to wear strap on crampons

Thoughts?

TIA

 

[waitforit]

I have a pair of Nevadas as my main mountain hunting boot. I had same requiremenets as you, narrow tight heel and wide toebox but not in a wide format. Love them. Never a leak, super supportive and I've put probably 300 miles on them including carrying out some big loads of elk. Recommend them to everyone.

I have a pair of Thors coming this week to replace a beat up old pair of uninsulated boots. I know some use the Thor as a mountain boot but I don't think you can expect the same level of rigidity in the ankle. I am buying these mainly as a lightweight boot to use for minnesota spring/summer/fall or on hiking trips. I don't plan on them being 100% waterproof with the cordura panels but should be good for what I'm intending them for, with the usual Crispi comfort.

 

[skotydontno]

Im in the same spot, looking at thors and summits. my problem is a narrow heel.

 

[WesternHunter]

I own the Nevada insulated, Wild Rock 400 gram insulated, and the Lapponia. By far the Lapponia has the widest toe box but it's also not as supportive through the midsole. I think the Uninsulated Nevada would fit the bill really well for you.
No experience with the Thor or Summits as I prefer an all leather boot.

 

[mtwarden]

thanks Gents

I have a pair of Nevadas as my main mountain hunting boot. I had same requiremenets as you, narrow tight heel and wide toebox but not in a wide format. Love them. Never a leak, super supportive and I've put probably 300 miles on them including carrying out some big loads of elk. Recommend them to everyone.

I have a pair of Thors coming this week to replace a beat up old pair of uninsulated boots. I know some use the Thor as a mountain boot but I don't think you can expect the same level of rigidity in the ankle. I am buying these mainly as a lightweight boot to use for minnesota spring/summer/fall or on hiking trips. I don't plan on them being 100% waterproof with the cordura panels but should be good for what I'm intending them for, with the usual Crispi comfort.

if you could let me know how they compare fit wise, I'd be much appreciative

 

[handwerk]

for the guys that have the nevadas by chance do you also own salomon quest GTX's ? if so how does thesizing/ fit compare?

 

[Catahoula]

I have the Nevada and Crossover Pro Lite GTX.

 

[Kotaman]

I own about every boot they make with a similar foot shape to you. My favorite: Colorado, followed by the Nevada.

 

[TBHasler]

I’m a Thor fan. Mine fit exactly as you describe...normal in rear heal area and bigger toe box. Mine are not wides but they feel that way. A bit more room than I need but it hasn’t been an issue and when it’s colder with a thicker sock, it’s been good.
I use these for hiking often and they are light and rigid (4/5) which I like. I would not consider them bomb proof and when I need a heavier duty all arounder I go with some other models.
They just released the II’s and I’ve seen the originals marked to $193-$213, which is a steal.
Good luck with decision

 

[TheCougar]

I have the Nevada. They just feel so much more comfortable and higher quality than all the other Crispi boots I tried on. Light, they are not. Supportive, durable, and waterproof - absolutely.

 

[wildbill]

I own the guides,Colorado’s and the Thor’s .Thors have the widest foot box of any boot I’ve owned followed by the Colorado’s .after suffering with gout for years and going through thousands of dollars of boots I’m a crispy fan now.

 

[mtwarden]

thanks guys- sounds like I'm on the right track

 

[Jsn_leonard]

Thor’s sounds like what you’re looking for. One of the comfiest boots I’ve ever worn.

 

[TheCougar]

thanks guys- sounds like I'm on the right track

Summits fit the closest to the Nevada’s to my foot, and were lighter. The Laponia were the largest in the toe box. Never tried the Thors.

 

[jhim]

I love my Thor's. I can't speak to the other models and I won't be needing to try the others anytime soon.

 

[Jimss]

I wear boots all day and every day at work in the field. I've found that all leather boots outlast synthetic boots. Obviously synthetic boots will likely be lighter weight and breath better. If you are around water and snow a lot I'd likely pick all leather. Seams are usually the first to wear out if wet or warn. Synthetic boots generally have more seams.

There are several Crispi models that are leather. I tried on the Nevadas and my feet melted in them. I found bargain prices on Wyo's and Dakotas so are currently using them. They are a tad lighter weight than the Nevadas. The Brikstals also look like they would be a great option. If you can find the right size in their older models you can likely save around $100.

I never have problems with cold feet unless my feet sweat and then I sit for long periods when it's super cold. I never buy insulated boots here in Colo. I buy my boots one size larger so I can add thicker, padded insoles. Plus I can adjust my shoe laces depending upon whether I want to wear thin or a little thicker socks.

 

[handwerk]

With regards to Thors do you guys think the improvements on the new model make them worth the extra $90 over the now discontinued model?

 

[Drenalin]

I have the wide Summits because I have wide feet. For me, the boot narrows up a touch and gets just a bit snug right behind the toe box. They work great on my feet, but if that area of the boot got even a little more narrow I wouldn't be able to hack it.

 

[waitforit]

Ok, just got the Thors yesterday. Initial thoughts:

• Very lightweight, much less than the nevadas
• Stiff sole, feels a little like ski boots when brand new
• Very comfortable out of the box - wide deep toebox and snug in the right places. Good padding where its needed.
• Lacing system is a pain. There are no locks and the laces slip as you reposition your hands. Would be nice to upgrade to wax coated laces.

I have no expectation that these will be anywhere close to the nevadas for water resistance. So far ive just walked around the house but will be doing a loaded pack hike this weekend.

 

[Desk Jockey]

I own Thor’s and Idaho’s. Have a EEE forefoot with an average width heel. Love both.

The Thor’s have become my “go to” boot for both hunting and hiking. They are a midweight hiker with pretty good ankle support and a stiff sole. Very comfy out of the box. Uppers are holding up well after 2 years and well over 100 miles, probably closing in on 200. Soles are wearing a bit. Still good but they look like they will be the limiter on boot life. They aren’t a burly stiff mountain boot but they also don’t have the weight or cost.

I will probably buy another pair or two when the wides drop on the 2.0 version.