Unfortunately, I’ve had not had the same ‘luck’ with Dr Martens customer services, nor Amazon, whom the original boots were purchased from.
Sounds reasonable – I’d be interested to know how good it it in practice Reply The FOR LIFE guarantee excludes any failure of laces and footbeds or product which, in Our reasonable opinion, has been used for industrial wear or subjected to unreasonable wear and tear.” “The FOR LIFE guarantee covers the failure of any component which has been subjected to normal wear and tear (such as upper leather, stitched seams, eyelets, soles, welt, linings and reinforcements) and not unreasonably abused. I’m thinking for my next pair I might invest in the For Life scheme – you buy the same shoes for a slightly higher price (1460s are £165, 1461s are £145) but they come with a lifetime guarantee to be replaced or repaired. I love DMs for the name and the iconic style, and my 1460s have lasted well, so I’d hate to give up on them. I’ve been wearing them every day, but if my memory is correct I only bought them in May. I noticed that EXACT same split the other day in one of my 1461s. Do you know of anyone who’d put new soles on shoes like these? Reply
Nobody is asking for perfection or immortality of products, but since so many of these pseudo heritage brands like Sebago trade heavily on some implied notion of lasting, classic, timeless quality, it seems shocking that their products last no longer than cheap piece of tat from the high street.īut, I still love the Sebago shoes and having found no similar alternative, I’d settle for getting them repaired. They split too.Ĭonsumer legislation seems to out to lunch on shoes and fashion and anything short of it falling apart in the shop is assumed to be ‘ware and tear’. I’d given up at that point, but came across some more (the black sole is hard to find) on sale in the Sebago store on Regent St. They refused to replace them (or repair them) but after a lot of arguing, all I could get from them was a 50% discount on some replacements, which when I ordered them came with the hideous white sole. I took them back to the retailer, who basically shrugged their shoulders and suggested I contact Sebago, who were only mildly less indifferent. I had a similar experience with some Sebago Fairhavens, which I really like, but which split across the sole within a few months of infrequent ware. Hence why I decided to see what Dr Martens customer service would say about the matter. While 95 pounds might not be a very large sum of money to pay for a pair of shoes, I would still expect to get a couple of years use out of them, with allowance for wearing something different during the winter and summer. Is there any noticeable difference other than the printed country of origin? Can it be inferred that the cheaper pair must be of inferior quality, hence the need to market a premium version? I’m very curious about the actual differences between the two. And 165 pounds for a pair of the Made in Britain version that came a little later. Dr Martens charge 95 pounds for a pair of the Thai 1461 shoes. Not that Thailand is a problem per se, as I’ve seen lovely and well made things from there, but low cost production can be. There is a certain ruggedness to them that to me is the essence of the British working shoe. The uppers are shiny and unharmed, the soles are undamaged and still have plenty of wear left in them. These have seen lots and lots of use, yet still look almost new. In comparison, WDG has a pair of Dr Martens she bought way back in 93-94. Hers and his, about 16 years difference in production.