| User | Post |
|
1:35 pm July 21, 2008
| ArmyKnife
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Found them in black:
http://www.mortonsafety.com/index.aspx?Command=GroupInfo&GroupID=17601
So now we know to look for Buffalo Economy boots, but in white (or black if you want his super-evil costume).
|
|
|
1:38 pm July 21, 2008
| ArmyKnife
| | | |
| Capt.Hammer Groupie | posts 12 |
|
|
Err that should be Onguard Industries, LLC boots.
Correct, found them!!!! http://www.pendergastsafety.com/index.aspx?Command=GroupInfo&GroupID=10729
|
|
|
3:32 pm July 21, 2008
| Trienco
| | | |
| Capt.Hammer Groupie | posts 16 |
|
|
Hm… after a close look at Act II, I think the first link is dead on. Or "onner". Look at the profile when he stomps him.
|
|
|
1:24 am July 22, 2008
| ArmyKnife
| | | |
| Capt.Hammer Groupie | posts 12 |
|
|
|
2:38 am July 23, 2008
| Teknojo
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Hello!
The boots are as indicated "Buffalo Economy boots".
This is the On Gaurd website:
http://www.onguardindustries.com/content/index.cfm?mID=1&mpage=product&prodID=48
There is a 1-800 number on there. Call that number and specify that you are looking for the White boots and they will give you a retailer near you. The model numbers for the white boots are:
no steel toe 81011
Steel toe 81012
Most of the distributers are not stocking these though they can order them it may take a couple weeks for them to arrive.
-Teknojo
|
|
|
3:20 am July 23, 2008
| Admin
| | | |
| Admin
| posts 211 |
|
|
umm…..Teknojo are you by any chance someone that's going to make a profit out of linking that particular website?
|
|
|
3:32 am July 23, 2008
| Teknojo
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
:: Chuckles:: I wish.
Nope no profit. I am not sure how a profit could be gained from that sight as it is the companies catologe.
I am just trying to accurately identify the parts of the costume and share the knowledge. I think I have ID'd the correct goggles to.
I am in no way related to that site or company.
-Teknojo
|
|
|
4:10 am July 23, 2008
| Admin
| | | |
| Admin
| posts 211 |
|
|
Glad to hear it just seemed odd consdiering people have linked to other sites wtih the boots available already, with them in stock, in the right color, and you came in posting a diff source that seemed more difficult for people to acutally order though, and you post as a guest…just looked a little suspicious
|
|
|
7:13 am July 23, 2008
| Teknojo
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
No problem, I can understand the suspicion. I posted that link because I think the boots that the others link to are not quite right. The black ones are the correct shape and style but the white ones that were shown were incorrect. According to the company (I called them today) the correct model numbers are the ones I posted, though I cant find any actual pictures of them. I will update as to weather they are really the correct ones in a day or two when I get mine.
Hope I am right!
-Teknojo
|
|
|
9:37 am July 23, 2008
| ArmyKnife
| | | |
| Capt.Hammer Groupie | posts 12 |
|
|
The first boots I posted are incorrect, they're black. The boots you posted are black as well. Uh, how could you get the model number for the boots on a medium as low-resolution as the internet when there's no super-clear shot of any such number in the series? Anyway, the other link I posted is correct, the white chemical boots – right shape, right footprint, etc.
|
|
|
5:43 am July 24, 2008
| Ioldanach
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Ok, I have two disparate opinions here. I think Teknojo should be correct, in that the boot is a white Buffalo model, not a Polymax. But his model numbers are most certainly wrong. Starting with why I think he's right…
First off, both boots linked to are made by the same company and the link he posted was to the website of the manufacturer, so I see no potential for real conflict there. In fact, the Buffalo (first link) is 1/3rd or less the price of the Polymax (second link)
Next, look at the boot profiles. I don't have an image handy to upload, but at the first one on the LA Times review and compare it to the one in the first and second links in this forum, ignoring for the moment the colors. The original has two 'stripes', each 'stripe' is comprised of two lines, and the top one's lines are more widely spaced than the bottom. This matches the Buffalo rather than the Polymax, which has two stripes but each is comprised of only one line. Next move to the shin, where the profile of the shin embossment appears to match the narrower profile of the Buffalo. Then, move to the ankle, where the embossment line over the ankle dips way down towards the front of the boot, which matches the Buffalo but not the Polymax. Unfortunately, the Dr's boot has an embossment under the ankle as well that is curved that doesn't match either boot well. I'm wondering if this is because it occurs on the white Buffalo but not the Black? And last, look at the sole. I don't have a snapshot of the Dr walking on downtown, but the profile of the Buffalo sole should have 4 pronounced valleys in the foresole and 2 in the rear, the Polymax should have 4 pronounced valleys and 5 or so shallow valleys in the foesole, 1 pronounced valley and 1 slightly less pronounced valley and 3 or 4 shallow valleys in the rear, giving it a more jagged appearance. The photo on the LA Times review shows the former, matching the Buffalo, but again reviewing the walking-on-downtown scene should clear that up.
And, finally, Teknojo didn't say he saw the model number on the boot, he said he called to find out if there was a white Buffalo that looked like the black one and found that there was, and reported its model number.
However, why I think he's wrong is in the catalog itself, as found on the website he linked to. On page 15 I see the White PVC boots are product 81011 and 81012, and have the 'Safety-Lok Outsole', which not a deep-grip sole like the Buffalo on page 14. I called the manufacturer, and they do not carry the Buffalo in white. It strikes me that at one time they probably did, or the Dr's boot was a predecessor to the current black Buffalo boot, and it was simply pulled from the costume warehouse.
So, you're left with a choice, you can choose the cheaper 81011/81012 'White PVC' boot or the more expensive 84075/84076 'Polymax' boot. The latter is closer, in terms of tread depth, but otherwise I think the choice will come down to the individual's preference.
|
|
|
12:53 am July 26, 2008
| Ioldanach
| | | |
| New Member | posts 2 |
|
|
Following up (I'd just edit but I became a member and now it doesn't recognize the other post as mine)…
In the 'stomping on the Hammer' scene we can see that the tread is the Buffalo's tread. (their catalog calls this the "Lug Outsole")
 
I think I can safely say that the boot is a discontinued white Buffalo Economy, pulled from some costume warehouse.
|
|
|
2:55 am July 26, 2008
| Ioldanach
| | | |
| New Member | posts 2 |
|
|
The tread pattern isn't that uncommon, the problem is finding it in white. Tingley Rubber makes a boot with the same pattern on the foretread but different heel, it also has the wrong pattern of lines.
Radnor  
Lacrosse (0087-8010)  
Onguard (as already noted)  
Interestingly, all the boots look so identical that I think they came out of the same mold. Unfortunately, none have the organic swoop under the ankle that the Dr's have, so I don't think any of these are the right ones. Besides, none of the manufacturers of these carry any in white.
|
|
|
4:05 am July 30, 2008
| Boots 4 us
| | | |
| New Member | posts 1 |
|
|
|
8:46 am August 1, 2008
| syntaxic
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
If you're not terribly picky about the tread of the boot and don't want to pay $66, I'll suggest this site (assuming it hasn't already been linked):
http://www.safetycompany.com/product_info.php?products_id=3538{3}9{89}3107
I just got mine in today and they will work well enough.
|
|
|
8:21 am August 22, 2008
| Psychophilia
| | | |
| Capt.Hammer Groupie | posts 5 |
|
|
so, anbody know where, or even if, you can get these in the UK?
|
|
|
2:35 am August 23, 2008
| Melee
| | Chicagoland | |
| Capt.Hammer Groupie | posts 9 |
|
|
We got our boots at the Home Depot. They were in the building materials section kinda by the concrete. They only had black ones, but they seem to be exactly the same as the white ones, complete with the circles on the side and the cutoff lines at the top. Not sure about tread accuracy tho. The best part… they were only $14.
|
|
|
9:02 am September 6, 2008
| Gungagin
| | | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
I found some that are pretty close on the Ace Hardware website. Not horribly expensive, either.
|
|
|
10:23 am September 6, 2008
| krdshrk
| | | |
| New Member | posts 2 |
|
|
I found these boots:b
Tingley Rubber White PVC Boot
Not exactly the same but close… and in white already.
|
|
|
4:11 pm October 9, 2008
| ReginaldHornstein
| | Shiny New Austrilia | |
| Capt.Hammer Groupie | posts 8 |
|
|
I found the perfect ones, at least, in my opinion. I don't know if you have seen these or not, but they work very well.
http://www.acehardwareoutlet.com/(r5wdzj454efg31emtb3vbo45)/productDetails.aspx?SKU=80793
 
Very close methinks. And stylish. I found a size 10 and a size 12 on their site. Should cover the majority of people.
Hope it helps.
- Reggie
|
|