Excellent choice! Glad you found it helpful.

Appreciate the kind feedback!

Great idea! I’ll work on that 👍🏼

Feel wise they're pretty comparable, I think. Very pliable, easy to break in. All things equal, I'd say the 1964 may even be a bit softer, although that gets offset by the fact it's 25-30% thicker than the 6oz CXL Nicks uses. The biggest difference is probably in the makeup itself. CXL has that waxy layer of finish on the surface that makes it super water resistant out of the box, but as it scuffs and wears, you start to expose untreated, undyed leather underneath. 1964 is struck-through and doesn't have a finish coat, so the tanning and color treatments goes all the way through the leather. It'll take a bit of deep conditioning to get it as water resistant as CXL initially is, but then it'll hold up to heavy wear and tear on a regular basis with considerably less maintenance. Hope that helps!

Same experience here; we probably have a similar foot shape. VERY snug at the ball, looser at the heel. At the ball, you can see where the vamp leather mushroomed out over the welt stitching by close to 1/4" over time. The heel eventually molded inward to fit a bit better too - it's not officially recommended, but I'm sure getting them completely soaked during wearing a few times helped the molding process. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for the response.

Correct, unstructured/soft on both.

@@CyclingSasquatch, awesome! Thanks for the quick reply. I ordered a pair of Builder Pro's in 1964 Brown with a tall celastic toe. When you talked about toe wear on your boots, it made me think about that.

@@CyclingSasquatch any reason you chose unstructured? Id think youd be concerned about durability/waterproofness with that in a work boot

@@Sturnburn772 Mostly a matter of comfort. I have a pair of safety toe BuilderPros for when the job really calls for max protection, but in general, the soft toes are way easier on the feet for lots of walking, or any amount of kneeling/squatting/crawling type motion. Another thing is, I wanted boots that were approved for wildland fire (only soft toes permitted) because I was eyeing that as a career path for some time, and liked the idea of having a pair of boots already bought and broken in.

@@DrgnRebrn Awesome! Can't go wrong with a BP in 1964.

I know mine did, and I’ve never had a pair of boots do that before. No slip whatsoever.

Most likely the 64. Good question. At the end of the day, I can appreciate the easier break-in and more forgiving fit better than the over-the-top durability.

I have naturally high arches so it's a good anatomical match, but what I probably like most about it is the roomy toe box. If you do a lot of crawling or squatting at work, it gives your toes room to curl and flex without squishing and rubbing. It also buys you a bit more flexibility with socks - thick, warm socks in the winter, or thinner socks cushioned out with a drop-in insole when it's hot.

@@CyclingSasquatch Very interesting. Thank you for the reply. My toes do hurt after crawling through the crawlspace in my BP 55. I like how your boots look, the toe is not too bulbous. Some pics of the 11067 look like safety toes. Do yours have the clastic fabric toe?

​@@TetonAirJH These are 100% soft, unstructured toes. I agree the celastic toe box makes 11067s look really tall and boxy.

100% soft

I'd say so, yeah.