Return? Birkies, umm, left?

They’ve been going in and out of style about every twenty years since the Sixties, like many things fashion. Like a faithful Apple user that’s been clinging to Macs through thick and thin since 1985, I can’t tell you how many pair I’ve had since the early 80s.

This is likely an “advertorial” in case you’ve never heard the term. It’s an open secret that editorials are often paid advertising slots masquerading as news. No one likes to talk about it, because the by lines are real, which... means it’s really a product endorsement by the editor.

Just like every talk show host and interviewer is paying their guests to talk about some aside (which you can go out and buy right now!) involving something besides the guest’s direct project. Which is why nearly every interview out there is rehearsed. Not only is the guest promoting their latest movie, but oh look! They have some whimsical meandering tale about that time they were at the store and bought those amazing chocolate chips for some cookeis they baked! Wow!

But it’s not advertising. No one needs to clearly define that no less than 3 segments of their 90 minute podcast interview were staged anecdotes. Or that 40 minute sirius XM broadcast required three mentions of which bottled water they happened to be sipping. It’s just totally natural stuff.

It’s no coincidence that there seem to be these prevailing solar winds that gust in 30 day intervals. The news isn’t exactly the news. And this is a shining example.

In Germany it's a stereotype that all doctors or health work related people have to wear them, but they're not really trendy or anything. In Singapore where I live now, they however are quite visible in malls and people seem to like them here. For myself I think they're too hard, otherwise I'd prefer them over caging my feet in too much plastic. Good reminder to give them a try again.

>In Germany it's a stereotype that all doctors or health work related people have to wear them

that's interesting. where I live, most health professionals wear crocs. they're quite comfortable, light, and super easy to wash since you can just plop them in a sink.

At my local hospital, in rural Oregon, it's all Danskos all the time. It seems that there are lots of local footwear monocultures.

In hospitals in Scandinavia all I see is crocs.

Psychology students seem to get attached to the birkenstocks and keep carrying them throughout their careers.

I've seen very few doctors with Birkenstock here in Germany and several with Crocs. So maybe a local thing?

Also, Birkenstock soak up blood rather well. Would not recommend in such cases.

Not all medical professionals wade around in pools of blood on a daily basis ;)

No but you can encounter all kinds of nasty stains. Crocs are probably easier to wash..

It's even its own category in their online store: https://www.birkenstock.com/us/shoes/professional/medical%2F...

With regards to Crocs and washability: Birkenstock seem to have introduced some moodels made from PU as well. Like OP, I'm more familiar with the white leather ones on health workers.

the general stereotype was that they were out of fashion

like if you were the one kid wearing "Payless Shoes" instead of the latest of the trendy "Nike" brand

but apparently Birkenstock are back in fashion, in Germany, amongst the younger generation

Can confirm (another German in Singapore here)

Any advice on cleaning them? Seems to be a problem from other comments.

From the article I gather Birkenstock makes EVA sandals now? I wonder if that’s a factor. Mine are the “traditional” style, leather straps and footbed. I’ve never had a problem with mine, nor a complaint from my wife, who is more than happy to tell me when my running shoes stink.

In summary, I guess I’m not the person to ask.

Just scrub the footbed with water and marseille soap. It always worked for me with the traditional ones made of leather. A lighter method is to scrub some bicarbonate of soda gently for a couple of minutes, leave for a day and then clean up.

'Return' in this case means 'comes back into style', not that they literally went away. And as you said yourself in the very next sentence, 'they’ve been going in and out of style about every twenty years since the Sixties'. So yes they 'go' and 'return' every twenty years, and they have now reached the 'return' in this cycle again. Make sense?

>So yes they 'go' and 'return' every twenty years, and they have now reached the 'return' in this cycle again. Make sense?

Not in the context of the TFA's title, which is about an "unlikely return".

Going in and out of style describes a totally likely (and even expected) return.

Yeah, I know they never went away because I’ve continually owned at least one pair since about 1982 (implied by my original comment). You man-‘splainin’ me, bro?

Recently my partner had a strap break on her Birks that were only 3 months old. Knowing the age and reputation of the brand, i assumed this would be an easy fix. She emailed them, but got an unexpected response of effectively “bad luck”. They actually suggested we return them to the retailer, but she bought them on vacation, so that’s not possible in this case. Despite explaining that, they didn’t seem to care, in fact, they simply stopped responding to her replies. Needless to say, we are done with the brand now.

I have two pairs of Birkenstocks, a cheap foam pair and another cork leather one that I just got. I've been wearing them for the past year, even in the winter or in the rain.

My conversion followed from the thought of having sock-less shoes, mainly from the cathartic feeling of removing them after a long day. A cousin recommended me to get a pair of Allbirds; initially, I liked the material of the shoe but it still didn't feel "breathable" (especially on a hot day in summer) and the wool began to rub my feet in a wrong way. This is in addition to the issue of build quality: the glue at the head of the shoe was visible, and also began to deteriorate; I've also had a friend whose Allbirds ripped during a session of basketball -- it lasted only a couple of months.

I'm not sure about how other people feel about this, but if a shoe or a sandal costs over $100, it should last at least for a year or two; I sincerely doubt that the difference between retail price and manufacturing cost is small enough to not cover a replacement 3 times over.

My issues with Allbirds stirred me to find a long-lasting, breathable pair of footwear. I don't remember if it was seeing people on campus wear sandals, or hearing about the longevity about Birkenstocks on reddit that drove me to buying a cheap, "test" pair.

After test-driving a foam version, I decided to invest the mid-tier Arizona sandal (which I'm still wearing today).

Back to the main question, is the "return" of Birkenstocks unlikely. I don't think so: the culture of the company seems to fit well with the demographics of millennials, who aren't afraid to splurge on items with great story / quality behind it.

And anecdotally, the first time I wore them outside, my friends jestingly compared my sense of fashion to a "white, sorority girl" (which I take to be an implication of their popular amongst college students).

I've yet to try any sandal that can last over a year or two. These included. Now, the absolute crap shoes that are only a dollar last a week or so. So, I agree that the higher quality ones last longer. However, I think simple math would show that no shoe actually lasts a long time. That said, I don't have the numbers to back this. Would love to be shown wrong.

They're flip-flops instead of sandals (so rather used for leisure instead of hard work), but I can whole-heartedly recommend Havaianas. I just recently replaced a pair that lasted from 2011 up 'till a month ago, and I put them through some pretty strenuous activity at times.

> I think simple math would show that no shoe actually lasts a long time.

I've always worn Vans skate shoes (yes, even before they were "cool", believe it or not) and a pair typically lasts 2-3 years. That's wearing them all day every day.

And if you put aggressive insoles in them (I like superfeet greens) then you pretty much have something like a birkenstock!

I swear by Rainbow sandals. I just replaced a pair that I had for nearly 10 years.

I grew up down the street from their original socal factory/store, been wearing rainbows for decades. I've got a ratty 12+ year old pair I wear to go surfing, a pair I bought in the last year that I can get away with wearing to work, and a couple other pairs in-between. If you get a chance check out the factory store in San Clemente, they've got pairs up on the walls with all sorts of super awesome stories.

Yeah they’re amazing! My wife balked at me buying sandals for $50-60 (she’s used to $10 sandals that wear out in a year), but they’re so damn comfortable after you break them in and last what seems like forever. The only reason I got rid of my last pair was because the color was fading pretty badly, but other than that they’re still totally wearable.

I also love them because they aren’t huge and bulky like Reef brand and others. They actually look somewhat “classy” as far as sandals go.

I will not claim that there are not people with shoes that have lasted a long time. I do assert that is more a property of the person than it is of the shoe.

I fully cede I may just be trying to explain why it is that my shoes don't last for more than a couple of seasons. (Excepting, of course, my biking shoes, which have some obvious reasons for lasting longer...)

I don't see why well-designed shoes shouldn't last for years. My most-worn pair currently is a set of VivoBarefoots that I've conservatively worn for something in the range of a thousand days, during which I've walked pretty extensively. Replaced the insoles with some spares I had when the originals started to disintegrate. I expect I'll wear through the sole (originally 4mm) within the next year or so.

I have some Adidas turf shoes with probably upwards of three thousand soccer/ultimate games played in them that are still going. (Though one of the studs is threatening to rip off, so I've got a newer pair that I wear for out-of-town games and that I keep in my car as backup.)

When failure methods are fabric tearing, glue or stitches coming apart, excess localized wear, etc. I blame poor design.

I have yet to have a pair of shoes that can take continuous wear from me for more than a couple of seasons. Yes, I can get a ton more wear from shoes if I do not wear them every single hour of every day. However, I don't care to deal with the storage to rotate what shoe I wear day to day.

That said, now that I bike every day to work, my biking shoes get worn pretty much every morning and last for some obvious reasons. This leaves my day to day shoe much less stress than what they used to get, such that my crappy shoes that I only wear in the office have lasted a few seasons at this point.

But I have come to view the idea of a shoe that can last years as a myth that just isn't worth chasing. Back when I walked upwards of 5 miles a day at a minimum, I was happy to get 2 season's wear of my shoes. And that was splurging for some rather expensive shoes.

Chacos -- well, at least the made in U.S.A. versions.

Maybe not anymore, but good shoes used to last a lifetime given proper maintenance and access to a skilled cobbler.

That’s more like how an axe can last a lifetime with 7 heads and 12 handles.

Shoes are not quite Theseus ship. If you consider soles as parts that wear out (like tyres) and need to be replaced, and the shoe is constructed to allow proper replacement soles with, say, goodyear welting, there is no reason apart from poor maintenance why the rest can't last for decades.

For modern office shoes that’s not far from the truth.

But, cobbler’s where repairing shoes for farmers working in often wet conditions. Even craftsman used to walk far longer distances regularly putting a lot more mechanical strain on foot ware. Together that’s a tough environment for most organic materials so leather/cloth/wood would generally not last that long.

PS: Ultra Marathoners can go through a pair of shoes in days that would last most people months. Which shows the difference between how far people can move and how far they actually do. Averaging 10+ miles a day on foot when that’s what most people had was likely the norm.

> My conversion followed from the thought of having sock-less shoes

But you're supposed to wear Birkenstocks with socks!

Says who?

Says the numerous folks that do just that, though I believe there was a touch of facetiousness to parent’s comment. I’d wear socks at work if my wife would let me. If my feet get just the slightest bit sweaty, they squeak as I’m walking down the hall.

I did find my Birkenstocks to be some of the most comfortable sandals I had owned, after breaking them in of course. What was interesting was that if you didn't wear them pretty much non-stop for a couple of months in warm weather, the soles wouldn't do the whole re-mold themselves to the shape of your foot thing.

These days I've replaced them with a pair of Chacos which are just as comfortable and I can throw them in the washing machine if they get too dirty.

> I can throw them in the washing machine if they get too dirty.

I bought my first pair of Birkenstocks in March and this is basically the issue I'm running into; with everyday wear, rain or shine, they get very funky very quickly and cleaning them is tedious and time-consuming.

The heel wore away quickly too and now the cork is rapidly disintegrating... I'm not too eager to buy another pair.

You can take them to the shop and repair / replace the heel and cork. Cost-wise I think my Bostons were $150 new and to fully replace the cork and sole was about $90. Much cheaper than a new pair. Just the sole wouldn't be nearly that much.

Mine were $50 new at Costco, so it doesn't really sound like much of a savings.

Usually if the heel wears too quickly the shoe size was chosen one size too small.

In this case, they were a bit too large (I have wide feet and need to size up), but the other issue is that I walk around 12-15 km/day and that plus my weight tends to add up to destroy shoe soles fairly quickly. :)

There's a lot of other wear, especially under the balls of my feet, but the heel is the most noticeable bit.

Dr. Martens will always be cool. Birkenstocks, not so much.

Doc Martens don't actually exist anymore, however. It is just a brand that was outsourced to China and Vietnam, so unless you have an authentic vintage pair, you don't actually have a pair at all.

Doc Martens used to be made by a factory in the UK, and the company dropped them. Solovair still operates the old UK factory, using the same employees and the same machines and the same techniques (such as the Goodyear welt stitching technique), since it was theirs to begin with.

Literally, those classic Doc Martens were just a Solovair sole combined with a Greggs upper (the company that owned the Doc Marten brand), stitched together at the Solovair factory.

What Greggs really provided was patents owned by an actual guy named Doctor Marten, who tried to make more ergonomic boots; all of those patents involved the soles, of which the technology was licensed to Solovair and is now part of their product line as the patents have long since expired; even though it was a Greggs upper, there wasn't anything magic about the upper in a Doc Marten, it was all in the sole.

It isn't often HN and /r/BuyItForLife/ intersect.

Surely by this logic even the "authentic vintage" Doc Martens weren't all that authentic either. If it's just a case of sticking a brand on someone else's shoe what does it matter where they're manufactured. ;)

I wonder if that’s a common theme in shoe/boot making?

I’ve got more boots than Imelda Marcos had shoes

Vibrant soles matched to Meindl boot uppers for example.

Interesting story about Doc Martens.

Unlikely? Overdue. - Seattle reader

My wife loves Birkenstock and owns multiple of them, spread throughout our house.

I kept wearing my Adidas Adilette for years until they finally broke apart. It was a sad day. I was looking for a replacement but my wife convinced me of trying out Birkenstock being more healthy and all. She bought me a pair and they are the right size, but... oh dear... after a few seconds my feet really start to hurt like walking on fire!

I have a bit of a flat foot but otherwise no pain at all. Should i keep wearing them for health's sake? Will my feet eventually adapt to them and stop hurting?

I miss my Adilettes...

> I have a bit of a flat foot but otherwise no pain at all. Should i keep wearing them for health's sake? Will my feet eventually adapt to them and stop hurting?

Also experienced this (also flat footed) but the pain passed after a couple of days - stick it out.

The great thing about Birkenstocks are the versatility. Good for walking long distances in the city; light hiking in the countryside or getting your feet wet at the beach.

I have really flat feet and as you know the arch on birks is vey aggressive. so it just rubs on my foot super hard. If I know I'll be walking far I'll put athletic tape on my non-arch or else a blister will form. Now I have visible calluses build up, but I persist... :(

Never heard of anyone having that issue. However, as a life long Birkenstock customer I can tell you that they get vastly more comfortable with age as they get broken in more.

I used to wear Birkenstocks in the 90s (in my 20s) but I started getting knee pain. I switched to flat sneakers and haven't had a problem since.

I've had many Birkenstocks but these have lasted me since 1998 (20 years!) with just a single sole replacement.

The most comfortable shoes I've ever owned.

https://www.zappos.com/p/birkenstock-memphis-dark-brown-leat...

Birkenstock has an actual distinctive product.

I'm more curious about the efforts to revive/remarket Champion and Fila as the streetwear brands they are today.

I smell marketing repositioning and public relations relaunch. Good luck to them though, I like what the brand stands for

This seems like a "submarine" article:

http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

I have (and I wear them at the moment) a single pair, while my wife has several pairs, so it might be we're biassed, but... here in Berlin, pretty much you can see them everywhere. In public transport, stores, on a street, in summer and in winter. They are _everywhere_, it's incredible.

The same here in Denmark. During the hottest days of the summer I wouldn't be exaggerating to say every other person was wearing them.

I see Birkenstocks as orthopedic shoes that shouldn't be worn on a healthy foot. Think what happens if you push a brick in an arch from below. Huaraches, Luna sandals etc. are a better option healthwise, people run ultramarathons in them and the design has thousands of years of history.

I am apparently ergonomically blessed in that despite running up to ultra marathon distances, I rarely get injured. Nothing unusual about my feet, average size 10 foot with a normal arch, average pronation. I’ve worn Birkies for thirty years without complaint.

And people will run ultras in/on anything. I would not be shocked to find out someone ran Western States 100 (miles) in a pair of Birkies.

Threw me for a minute before I remembered that Huarache isn’t just a Nike sub-brand.

It was interesting to read about industry in Gorlitz. It's a quaint town that was divided between Poland (Zgorzelec) and Germany following World War II along the river which became the border. I once visited there in the early 2000s. From what I recall, the bridge between them was destroyed in the middle, with both ends left standing. After the fall of Communism, it was converted to an art installation.

Unlikely? It's fashion: it's cyclical.

I prefer Teva, because of the sturdiness, longevity, and the relatively large "bumper" area protecting the toes.

I saw a dude wearing them at the gym a few days ago. I didn't know what to think.

this article headline and article itself strongly reminded me of Paul Grahams 'submarine' [0] article

[0] http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html