[Tommy]

Nothing will hit the mark compared to the Daescents (I think both you and I are fans of those....? The one's that are basically like a climbing shoe at the front) but I can climb hard than other shoes in them - it doesn't depend on your fit and style I think. The mid sole is really soft, so you can only smear IMO. I'd rank:

Daescent
The one I said from this thread
Original guide tennie
New guide tennie
Camp 4

[galpinos]

There's the new "approach pro" coming this year as well....

http://www.mountainblog.eu/product/five-ten-approach-pro-summer-2017/

http://www.fiveten.com/us/outdoor/approach-pro

[sidewinder]

There's the new "approach pro" coming this year as well....

Launched today I think?

[Johnny Brown]

They look really promising, though still look to have dotty tread on the front.

[dave]

Never liked the Guide tennie. Clumpy, stiff, heavy, and my pair delaminated within weeks. Admittedly they are the best edging trainer I've had.

Five ten's strength for me was always the smedging ability, as exemplified by the Daescents, which means on rough rock you can climb almost as hard as rock boots.

I found a very tight pair of Guide TEnnies (old shape) was far superior to Daescents for soloing on grit and what not. For some reason the edge on my Daescents sticks out compared to the footprint of the foot, so they are imprecise and bulge out, too sloppy. Maybe they were OK when new but they seem to have stretched a lot. They just don't feel confidence inspiring for anything other than pure smearing for me.  On the other hand the Guides felt pretty solid on most stuff. The edge just seemed more precise.

[Johnny Brown]

'Very tight' rather defeats the point of trainers for me. Yes, guides are better for edging, but only that, and way inferior for everything else. If I soloed on slate it might be a consideration. I've got quite wide feet though so maybe a better fit.

[dave]

I wouldn't buy em that tight again, but even my replacement pair a size bigger were more precise than Daescents. Just to do with the basic shape of the toe and edge profile. Also Daescents are almost too lightly built, you'd almost be better off climbing barefoot. Zero support, zero protection. Rather defeats the point of trainers for me.

[Johnny Brown]

Strange then, that my guides lasted a fortnight whilst my Daescents have lasted longer than any other of my sticky trainers. And when, as implied by he name, you're carrying them for the descent off a big route, there's no such thing as too light. If I want support and protection I've got some lightweight walking boots.

[dave]

I wouldn't wear the Daescents on any descent that involved damp grass if I wanted to live. Only marginally better than descending in rockshoes. Again, rather defeats the point of trainers for me.

My Dasecents have lasted well but mainly because they are now relegated to taking the bins out or driving to the School. It's scarcely ever dry enough underfoot to warrant wearing them out and about in the Peak except in high summer.

The weak point of the Guides was the single piece flat sole sheet coming off, mainly because FiveTen rely on the friction of the rubber alone to hold it on. My first pair lasted a month, took back to shop with receipt, second pair lasted 6 months, taken back to shop with receipt, final pair I dropped on some where they had used glue so the sole then outlasted the rest of the shoe.

[Johnny Brown]

Guides being famously good on wet grass, and impervious to damp of course.

[dave]

Guides being famously good on wet grass, and impervious to damp of course.

Compared to Daescents, yes.

[Palomides]

After the discussion above, ordered a pair of Access shoes that arrived today. Went up half a euro size from normal trainers (42.5 instead of 42) and seems to be just right.

It was hard to resist - as they were half price for no apparent reason and I had a load of gift cards to use up : http://www.auvieuxcampeur.fr/access.html

[fatneck]

Got a pair of these just after Christmas and really can't recommend them highly enough...

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/sh-mh500-wtp-m-brown-id_8383667.html

Comfortable, warm, waterproof and built to last!

[Nutty]

Thought I'd flag up that the 5.10 Access Mesh are £45 at Rock+Run at the moment with most sizes available.

https://rockrun.com/collections/approach-shoes

[spidermonkey09]

Thread bump as my old five tens are on the way out.

Anyone bought anything recently which seemed particularly good?

[duncan]

What do you want to use them for?

[spidermonkey09]

Basically walking to the crag; the 5 Tennies I've had the past few years have done the job. Before that I had some Salewa Wildfire which were great but are now very expensive. Basically nothing out of the ordinary which makes the £120 Scarpa ones seem a bit excessive!

[remus]

If you can find a pair the five ten access are good and kinda similar to the tennies (light-ish, good sole etc.) I've had a couple of pairs and they've lasted about a year each.

[Lopez]

If you can find your size in the sales/clearances, the Sportiva TX4's are excellent. Feel soft and comfy like slippers or skate shoes when you put them on, but perform like beefed up boots when out in the hills.

I gave a pair a run for the money through the summer in Switzerlamd and the Dolomites for a couple of months of daily use valley-to-summit so to speak and they held up awesomely and are still going strong, and the grip is spot on in anything but snow (doh). Tarmac does noticeably kill the soles but not as bad as with the tennies.

[cheque]

If you can find a pair the five ten access are good and kinda similar to the tennies (light-ish, good sole etc.) I've had a couple of pairs and they've lasted about a year each.

Far bendier though and completely porous.

[M1V0]

For whatever it's worth, I've had a pair of Scarpa Cruxs for about three years now which have gotten regular use, twice a week minimum. The raised rubber on the sides aids in stopping water flowing in from puddles, which is always appreciated.

[crzylgs]

lasted about a year each.

Wearing just as approach shoes? Or really thrashing them?

Am I showing my age/frugality or is this a sign of how much of a throwaway society we live in? For a pair of supposedly high quality approach shoes to last 'only' a year seems terrible to me.

On that note... Absolutely do NOT buy anything from North Ridge I bought a pair of their 'Blazer Trail Running shoes'. These were not mega cheap £70 after reduction from £100ish, but also not top price range but were awful. After 3 months of very light use (the odd dog walk, but mostly had been in my hiking boots as its been so wet and wearing as approach shoes which for me is a once a week affair) then 1 week in Font the soles had completely separated from the shoe. Luckily Go Outdoors took them back and refunded without a single question asked when the lad on the counter took one look at them.

So following that failed purchase I'm also in the market for a 'decent' (my definition hopes to include a lifespan of more than a year...) pair of approach shoes. Would also be used for fair weather dog walks / hikes.

Was tempted by-

These Salomon trail running shoes, but the tread looks fairly extreme so don't think they'd be compfy on hard surfaces. Also not sure how robust they'd be:

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/speedcross-4-id_8366265.html?opeco=Block3-Product4&type=Sales

Also numerous times recently at the crag I've seen people with a pair of the Decathlon own brand 'Quechua' shoes that look like a rip off / copy of the Scarpa Crux (https://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/15898253/scarpa-crux-men-s-approach-shoe-15898253), a couple of people spoke fairly highly of them but they appear to be sold out. I might just go for the legit Scarpa version as they look a very nice shoe to me, but are the upper end of my budget. Also traditionally Scarpa don't fit my narrow feet very well but will probably be fine with socks on.

[SA Chris]

I'd avoid the speedcross for general use. They are designed for mud / grass/ loose wet surfaces (and snow?), so have deep lugs and a hard rubber and are not great on wet hard surfaces, and don't have a lot in the way of comfort. I use them for mountain running, and at that price, tempted to get another pair, as mine are nearly trashed.

[dunnyg]

I use the speed cross as approach shoes, they are built definitely for mud though, wet rock can be like skating sometimes. Bonus points is they are super light compared to tennies etc.. My pair get used for everything now they are a bit knackered and tarmac has seemed to have a fairly negative effect on them. I have some old tennies that i used for big-walling, and much prefer the speedcross in the UK due to weight, grip on mud (which is most approaches this winter) and they seem better suited for what I do. Unless you are going to do easy climbs in them I would get speedcross.

[Duma]

If I know remus (and I do) that'll be a year of absolutely trashing them! He climbs >150 days a year, and prob wears them the rest of the time too...

That said, my five ten aescents have been worn pretty much every day for the past 2 years and are only now giving up the ghost.