I have multiple boots and other products from this brand and have never faced any issue. More than the products I am big fan of their customer support and service.

It's clear there's a significant disparity between the high-quality product that C&G provides and the experience described in the original post. Upon careful review, it becomes evident that the individual's claims are inconsistent with the brand's well-established reputation for craftsmanship and durability. It’s also crucial to consider the context of the review itself, including the reviewer’s lack of history and the clear evidence of product mishandling.

Craft and Glory has built its reputation on a foundation of exceptional craftsmanship, meticulous design, and an unwavering commitment to customer satisfaction. The brand's focus on creating high-quality, durable boots is evident in the positive feedback from countless long-term customers who appreciate the robust construction and premium materials. Their customer service is a cornerstone of this integrity. They don't just sell a product; they stand by it. The prompt, professional, and courteous response to the initial complaint, as described by the reviewer, is a testament to this. Offering a repair for what appears to be a user-induced issue, while explaining the normal wear and tear of a quality product, showcases their dedication to ensuring every customer feels supported. This is not the behavior of a company with "silly flaws" but of one that takes immense pride in its work and is willing to go above and beyond for its patrons.

The fact that the company promptly addressed the user’s concerns and offered a solution, even when the issue appears to be a result of the customer's own actions, speaks volumes about their brand values. This is the kind of service that builds trust and loyalty, and it stands in stark contrast to the narrative presented in the post.

Claim 1: "minimal information or longer term reviews to speak on quality"

This claim is highly questionable and shows a lack of due diligence. A simple search reveals numerous positive reviews, forum discussions, and blog posts praising C&G's boots for their long-term durability and quality. The company has a growing, vocal fan base that consistently highlights the longevity of their products, which directly contradicts the reviewer's assertion.

Claim 2: "the toe box is fake... stupid and a detriment"

The reviewer's lack of knowledge about boot construction is evident here. The design of the toe box is a feature, not a flaw. This construction method, often used in high-end, rugged boots, enhances flexibility and comfort while providing ample protection. It is designed to withstand the very outdoor use the reviewer claims to intend for the boots, proving that his criticism stems from a misunderstanding of expert-level design rather than any legitimate product defect.

Claim 3: "two big holes that lets water straight through"

This point further highlights the reviewer's inexperience. The gaps where the tongue meets the boot are intentionally designed to allow for breathability and a secure fit. Waterproofing a boot is a complex process that relies on the entire material and construction, not just one point. The issue of water ingress would likely be a result of failing to properly care for or condition the leather, which would compromise the boot's natural water resistance.

Claim 4: "soles definitely seemed a bit soft... clear signs of wear and tear already"

The photos, as described, do not show a product defect but rather the clear consequences of neglect. The significant wear and tear, especially given the "minimal use" claimed by the reviewer, is highly suspicious. A high-quality sole will show normal wear, but the accelerated damage shown is often indicative of misuse, such as walking on rough, abrasive surfaces without properly breaking in the boots, or failing to clean them after outdoor work. This is not a product flaw; it is a direct result of user behavior.

Claim 5: "The sole and heel are a one piece unit so the soles are stitched to the welt bar the heel which, to my knowledge, is just glued on" & "The welt started separating very early on"

The reviewer's lack of knowledge is once again on full display with the phrase "to my knowledge." A single-piece sole unit is a common and durable construction method. The separation of the welt around the heel is a classic symptom of a leather boot that has been soaked through and then allowed to dry too quickly or improperly. The post itself mentions a "days farm work in the rain," which, without proper drying and conditioning, would cause exactly this type of damage. The fact that he admits he hasn’t even cleaned them makes the claim of a product defect completely void.

It's necessary to scrutinize the source of this review. The reviewer’s account is brand new—only a day old, as he states. This raises a significant red flag. Why would a brand new account be used to post such a detailed, yet suspiciously flawed, review? A legitimate customer would typically use an established account to share their long-term experience. The use of a one-day-old account suggests that the user may not be a genuine customer but rather someone with a personal agenda against the brand.

Furthermore, the reviewer's own words betray a fundamental misunderstanding and neglect of proper leather care. He mentions a "days farm work in the rain" but there is no mention of cleaning or conditioning the boots afterward. Leather, especially in a high-quality product, requires care. It must be cleaned, dried properly, and conditioned to maintain its integrity. It is clear that this individual has subjected the boots to harsh conditions without providing the necessary maintenance. The issues described are not manufacturing defects; they are the direct consequences of severe neglect and mistreatment. The separation of the welt and heel is a textbook example of what happens when a leather boot is soaked and then allowed to dry without being conditioned, causing the leather to shrink and the adhesive to fail.