Re: quality gear lists?

Mike Nelton wrote:

> What I mean by 'quality gear' is brand names. For example. I hear many
> people say that North Face has been cutting corners and quality is
> really going down. But if there are non sponsored 'summiting'
> expeditions still using it, that would seem to dispel that. Or, say
> these same expeditions are using Columbia. That would seem to fly in
> the face of Columbia being mainly fashion wear.

Most equipment is over-specified for what it's used for (this is *not* a 
criticism!).  Bear in mind that Everest was conquered 50 years ago in 
cotton smocks, boots we wouldn't be seen dead in etc. etc. and it's 
quite clear that a lot of modern equipment is more than up to the jobs 
it's put to.  So if Ed Hilary and Tenzing Norgay could summit Everest in 
wool and cotton is it really a surprise that today you can summit in a 
*slightly* sub-optimal jacket with another 5 decades of know-how and 
technology added in?

> Of course this is all subjective and there is personal preference
> involved. But if enough of these lists are compiled, one could get a
> general feel for what works and what doesn't. What the 'pros' trust
> their lives with.

The genuine pros are sponsored, but even where they're making a 
completely free choice the general standard really is high enough that 
it doesn't really matter if I wear Berghaus, Lowe, Marmot, ME, MEC, MH 
etc. etc. etc.   They'll all be pretty well up to the job of keeping me 
acceptably warm and dry in most conditions if I choose something 
designed for that job.

When it comes down to it the only significant differences between top 
end jackets are in the fine details, and that is a lot about the person 
wearing it.  Part of this is fit: I wear Scarpa boots because my feet 
are the same shape as Scarpa's lasts, not because I think they have an 
absolute technology advantage over, say, La Sportiva.  And if LS *did* 
have an absolute technoilogy advantage I still wouldn't wear them, 
because they don't fit me very well!  Similarly with jackets: a friend 
of mine wears a Lowe jacket because it's the only one he can find off 
the peg with arms the right length for him, and that really does count 
for a lot.
I like wired hoods, others don't.  Which is better?  Wired for me, "soft 
stiffening" for someone else: it isn't an absolute, but it can determine 
a jacket choice.  I like stretch legwear, others prefer completely 
windproof and waterproof.  Which is better?  Same as above, depends on 
the fit, person and job.

> To sum up, I was hoping to find these lists published somewhere or
> perhaps scattered on different sites. But after much searching I
> haven't turned up much. Has anyone had any better luck or insight?

Lists need to fit contexts.  I can give you mine for skiing round the 
Hardanger last year, but it's only useful if my clothes happen to fit 
you well, you find my personal preferences comfortable and you're doing 
the same job.  Your probably not, so it wouldn't be much use, so I don't 
bother making the list up.

There are brands I don't particularly like, but I think in practice 
you'll get what you pay for as long as you make sure everything you're 
paying for is suited to what *you* want, your body and what you are 
doing.  I regularly use gear from a *lot* of different companies, but 
beyond fine detail it really is largely interchangeable.  There is very 
little which you can point to and say "you'll never manage *that* 
without a Brand X jacket!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch                    University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/