However, the new shoes on the scene are the coveted Birkenstocks. I'll admit, I don't currently own a pair due partly to my laziness but mostly because they're all backordered, which means I'd probably get mine just in time to break out my bean boots.
I've decided to make a nifty pro/con list detailing the best (and worst) qualities of the classic Croc and the Arizona two-strap Birkenstock, so slip on your favorite pair of summer sandals and get ready to online shop for one (or both) of these lovely shoes after reading.
Crocs Vs. Birks
Pros
Crocs:
- First things first, crocs are WAY cheaper than birks, which gives them a leg up if you're a money-conscious buyer. $35 isn't bad for shoes that have lasted me three seasons and are still going strong.
- Crocs come in a variety of colors. We're talking everything from black/white to hot pink and neon green. If you can't find a color you like, you're either colorblind or a pessimist, and I feel bad for you either way.
- THEY COVER YOUR TOES. This is important, people. Hiking is fun until your toe hits a rock and you're limping like a three-legged dog the rest of the day. No worries with crocs, because the trusty rubber will stop most small objects from attacking you mid-step.
- They're waterproof, which makes them perfect for a lake (or beach) day.
- Adventure Mode, amirite? These bad boys come with a strap made specifically for the thrill-seeking spirit. You put your crocs in Adventure Mode, and there isn't much stopping you.
Birks:
- They're neutral, which for most people over the age of 13 is a major plus. With names like Taupe, Stone, and Mocha, they exude maturity and sophistication.
- They're most likely higher quality than the crocs. This is up in the air, seeing as my crocs are still in fabulous shape, but rubber < leather in most regards. A sturdy bottom will most likely hold up better in tough terrain than the easily dented rubber of the croc.
- They offer support for walking/hiking. Maybe because they're actually designed to be used.
- You don't have to be slightly embarrassed to wear these in public. Actually, you can feel pretty great about wearing birks out, because they're what the cool kids like to call "trendy" and "in style". Take that as you will, but you get major basic points for owning a pair.
Cons
Crocs:
- They stick out like a freshman at an upperclassmen party. Everyone, and I mean everyone, within a 100 foot radius is going to know you're wearing Crocs, and the reception isn't always great.
- Going along with the first point, they're not exactly high-style footwear. They're fugly. There's no other word for it. You're not wearing these for the looks, you're wearing them for the convenience.
- I'm not actually sure these provide any sort of support for your feet. They're made to be water-friendly, fun shoes, not your every day walking shoes (and let's get real, who in their right mind would wear them every day?).
Birks:
- They're more pricey at $100 - $135, which means you're going to have to wear these more than 5 times to make them worth the wallet punch.
- No toe cover, which means you'll have to consider socks or possibly a rubber covering for your toes if you're thinking of hiking
- Seeing as they're made of leather, you probably shouldn't dive into the water with them on. Not saying you can't, but I'm pretty sure the animals that died for you to have trendy sandals won't appreciate it.
Overall, if you're looking for shoes that you can comfortably wear in public, as well ones that will last for multiple years, I'd say Birkenstocks are the better option. But you can't beat Crocs for their functionality and modest price.
Don't worry guys, you can rock socks with either shoe and you'll look equally as ridiculous.
No comments:
Post a Comment