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!

When it first came out they did offer the 55 last on the 365 stitch down. But shortly after they discontinued it not sure why

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.

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.

I'd say so, yeah.

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

Excellent choice! Glad you found it helpful.

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

Appreciate the kind feedback!

I find it easier to walk in on level ground. The arch support feels a little less pronounced than with the classic logger heel, but still more than the HNW last.

@@CyclingSasquatch Thank you! With all of the rubber, have you felt the boot has shaped to your foot as much as other leather boots? Would you recommend this as a every day boot or more specialized? I'm trying to see specifically if this could be or even should be used as a hiking boot or if more traditional offerings are still better (and cheaper.)

@@zacharyc8615 good question… it’s every bit as comfy to wear with the included removable leather insoles, but I have noticed the footbed hasn’t completely molded like the traditional boots do, where over time you can feel the dimples from your toes and everything. And I wouldn’t expect it to, in all fairness. I would say it makes a perfect everyday boot. It’s noticeably lighter and more flexible without all the stacked leather down below; definitely the comfiest to drive in out of all my Nicks. I think if it weren’t for the steel toe, I’d prefer them to my Hotshots for hiking too. If anything, I’d see the traditional construction as more specialized for extreme duty work, forestry and fire, etc. (or the diehard PNW boot purist) and this design as the more practical option for 75% of people who just want a solid pair of boots to go about their day in.

Great idea! I’ll work on that 👍🏼

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 think it was mostly wet snow that did them in. Got stuck on the boots while I was working, and gradually melted through from my body heat.

Nice! How do you like the Tacticals so far? That's cool you've spent time in CZ. Where all did you go? I'm actually half Czech (mom's side) and was born here and then moved to San Diego when I was 2-3. Long story short, I had some life/family changes come up last year and got the opportunity to come back and live here after 25 years. Figured I'm in the best years of my life to shake things up a little, and I've learned it's the things you *don't* do that you regret the most.

You're gonna love them. They feel super lightweight and flexible compared to a classic configuration Nicks boot.

Awesome.. I got the 55 last because of your video. The heel looks amazing, not too pronounced, but supportive. Thank you for your videos.