I’ll bet an equivalent Arc’teryx would be a couple of hundred quid more.

All the premium brands seem around the same price points these days. Luckily you can get most of them half price on Sports Pursuit. I wouldn’t pay £600 for a GTX shell.

Neither are cheap, stop pretending the jottnar stuff is.

The top end stuff is waaaay beyond anything I have a need for or could ever afford anyway, I’m looking at jackets like the Fenrir, which was £200, but I have noticed has gone up £70, the nearest equivalent I’d seen by Rab was nearly £100 more, others were about £160 more. I do agree though that once you get up to the highly technical gear for conditions like a large chunk of the US and Canada are undergoing at the mo’, then prices are inevitably going to be high.
How many people genuinely need a £700-1000 jacket for an average British winter, though…?

Still don’t know that you ‘need’ a £1000 jacket for very cold conditions tbh. Insulation is cheap like I said. And normal goretex works better in very cold weather than it does here.

What’s the actual difference between a £1000 jacket and a £300 one?

If it’s substantially sub zero you don’t need GTX at all, a Pertex shelled down jacket is a better bet – it will breath better and keep the wind out.

30+ years ago when I was sailing and skippering offshore and ocean in a professional capacity, one of the go to brands for weatherproof attire was Musto. I bit the big one and bought myself their Ocean jacket and bottoms for an eye watering £400, or thereabouts – it was a long time ago – and they lasted for the next 8 or so years with pretty much everyday use. I didn’t care about the logo, as a professional wearer with daily use, I cared more about their effectiveness.

I dare say that if I were sailing full time now, my approach would be the same.

Outfit of choice on the grime scene 😆

What’s the actual difference between a £1000 jacket and a £300 one?

Depends on the jacket. High spec fabrics and components like zips etc, more R&D, esoteric manufacturing techniques, in the case of Arc’teryx, sometimes Canadian rather than far eastern manufacture, smaller production runs with decreased economies of scale. You’re effectively buying a sort of limited edition.

Is it worth it? In most cases, not really. If you were off on some extreme, super-alpine mission in appropriate conditions then yes, arguably, but for the vast majority of us, not really, particularly if you assume that a £300 shell should be pretty good to start off with.

My experience of Arc’teryx is the top-end stuff is seriously durable too, but again, for most users, that’s probably not a big factor. I doubt most non-professional hill-users genuinely wear out much kit.

If you were off on some extreme, super-alpine mission in appropriate conditions then yes, arguably,

I’d be interested to know exactly what real actual difference there is in alpine conditions.

I suspect not a fat lot. Out of your list I’d imagine you are paying the most for non-far eastern manufacturing and brand name. You might be able to move a bit more comfortably in a more heavily designed jacket, but a £400 jacket should be pretty good at that too.

molgrips – Member

Still don’t know that you ‘need’ a £1000 jacket for very cold conditions tbh. Insulation is cheap like I said. And normal goretex works better in very cold weather than it does here.

What’s the actual difference between a £1000 jacket and a £300 one?

To put this in perspective someone who doesn’t know anything about bikes might ask ‘What’s the actual difference between a £1000 bike and a £3000 one’? As we know the differences will seem pretty subtle/unimportant to someone who is ignorant of bikes (the cheapest suspension fork and chainset do exactly the same job as ones that cost x20, if you don’t know what you are looking at). I usually try and explain it by using the analogy of a Ferrari Vs a Ford fiesta. Both will get you to the shops, but the Ferrari will do much more and is built to go much faster, should you want to. Just because you are ignorant of the differences doesn’t mean there aren’t any.

As with everything else though, diminishing returns and all that.

Aye, just saw that ad pop up on my instagram too.

I thought only BBC New reporters wore TNF stuff… doing the 10 o’clock live report from somewhere cold-ish?

Much more of a quechua man myself.
I “aspire” to even pay their prices most times! 🙂

What’s the actual difference between a £1000 jacket and a £300 one?

Very little if anything. They’ll both be using GTX-pro fabric from the same mill, so fabric will perform the same. Market segmentation / branding accounts for the £700 difference…

I suspect not a fat lot. Out of your list I’d imagine you are paying the most for non-far eastern manufacturing and brand name. You might be able to move a bit more comfortably in a more heavily designed jacket, but a £400 jacket should be pretty good at that too.

It’s quite hard to find a £1,000 technical shell jacket – I’m not even sure one exists, link? The most expensive Arc’teryx shell is £600, so the real world difference in cost you’re talking about is arguably £300 and most top end waterproofs are around £350-£400 for Gore-Tex Pro. Second, £300 is still a shedload of money for a waterproof shell jacket, so you’d expect it to be bloody good, so…

For most of us, a more relevant question would be how does a £400 waterproof shell compare to a £150 one.

It’s like any other manufactured good. You tend to get diminishing returns as the price rises. What extra benefit do you get from a £100,000 sports car compared to a £40,000 one?

I’m not arguing that it’s worth shelling out huge amounts for a very expensive jacket, I’m just trying to explain why top-end jackets cost more. If you want an extreme example, ME used to produce a £600-ish shel, some £200 of which was the cost of the insane waterproof zips. You may not believe it, but mad spec Velcro or 3D flexible zippers or bespoke versions of Gore-Tex wth ultra abrasion-resistant face fabrics do cost more than lower spec equivalents.

High end expensive kit is well worth the money if you’re using it for what it was designed for i.e. Alpine, Himalayan climbing.

I’d be interested to know exactly what real actual difference there is in alpine conditions.

From my perspective it’s things like attention to detail and using different technical fabrics for different areas depending on intended use:

For example:
Harder wearing fabrics in areas such as shoulders and waist where a heavy backpack can rub
Harness compatability
Breathability/venting
Hoods & cuffs
Lightweight materials if weight is relevant.
Well thoughtout pockets

It’s quite hard to find a £1,000 technical shell jacket – I’m not even sure one exists, link? The most expensive Arc’teryx shell is £600

^^^ exactly … not sure where this idea that top end technical jackets retail @£1000 came from …

I bought an Arc’teryx Sabre Jacket 9 years ago. It’s too heavy & bulky for splitboard touring but it has survived multiple mini-seasons featuring numerous close encounters with tree branches, ice, rocks, & burred snowboard edges etc and pretty much every type of weather from high alpine to mud and ice ‘commando exits’ – and it’s still going strong as I will be wearing again this season as I head off to Canada again.

This is the reason I buy the higher end jackets as previous to the Sabre I was buying a new £200ish snowboard jacket almost every season – as they would end up falling apart.

Harder wearing fabrics in areas such as shoulders and waist where a heavy backpack can rub
Harness compatability
Breathability/venting
Hoods & cuff
Lightweight materials if weight is relevant.

But you get those on £3-400 jackets. These are what I am talking about btw – so the difference IN USE between say £350 and £600 is what I’m not sure about. So say you and I half way up a gulley in 50mph winds and it’s -20, what’s the difference?

In jackets, not a lot I reckon.

And anyway I reckon UK conditions are harder for a jacket to cope with than Alpine ones. Although the consequences are less severe.

Hah.. Most expensive item under men’s clothing on Cotswold Outdoor is a Fjallraven Parker for £1500!

Justify that! It’s not even waterproof.

Most expensive waterproofs seem to be £750

I have a TNF Summit Series jacket from 2002. Used it fairly regularly in that time. Still works amazingly well and has been fantastic value at £/year. It’s proven it’s worth the money and has kept me warm and dry from Wales to Norway down to -35.

I also have a triclimate TNF snowboarding jacket I picked up about 7 8 or 9 years ago in a sale. That too has been fantastic – although I’m not sure it would be amazing if i actually used it for its declared purpose, it is very, very warm but probably too bulky.

. So say you and I half way up a gulley in 50mph winds and it’s -20, what’s the difference?

You may well be right and if both jackets were brand new then the difference might be negligible … but what about after 5 years of heavy use? I want a jacket that costs twice as much to last twice as long … otherwise I will be looking elsewhere!

Hah.. Most expensive item under men’s clothing on Cotswold Outdoor is a Fjallraven Parker for £1500!

Justify that! It’s not even waterproof.

Most expensive waterproofs seem to be £750

I can’t justify it … and I wouldn’t pay it as I don’t see it as value for money. However for some folks that isn’t the reason the buy stuff!

Out of interest, I can’t think of many of the Pro or Semi Pro Winter Sports people that I know who use the ‘ultra’ top end gear – whether it’s skis or boards or clothing – with the possible exception of those who get everything for free/are paid to use it or wear it.

molgrips – Member

Hah.. Most expensive item under men’s clothing on Cotswold Outdoor is a Fjallraven Parker for £1500!

Justify that! It’s not even waterproof.

You know this is the same as some non-biker going into a bike shop looking at the £5K bike and saying, ‘you could buy a car for that’, right?

Not really. I’m not a non-climber. I’ve climbed a few mountains and been out in a variety of cold conditions. And I’m wearing £350 jackets which I would say are the equivalent of a £3k bike. So we are discussing ‘needing’ a £7k bike over a £3k one…

Although I was just thinking – insulation is cheap, but down is not, and I can see benefits to down, so in terms of insulation then yes, money does buy you good down. But I still think that £1500 is way too much.

Justify that! It’s not even waterproof.

It wasn’t designed to be waterproof. Like a fat bike wasn’t designed for time trialing :D.

It wasn’t designed to be waterproof.

Of course not. But point is that the most expensive jacket doesn’t have every possible feature, so you can’t use that to justify the cost.

And anyway I reckon UK conditions are harder for a jacket to cope with than Alpine ones. Although the consequences are less severe.

Not ‘harder’ just different. We tend towards humid but cold conditions with added wind, but generally on smaller hills which you can bail from more easily. We also have a hardcore outdoor culture where people are prepared to go out in quite bad conditions. It’s why the Swiss army has been known to train in Scotland in winter.

High mountain conditions tend to be significantly and consistently colder, but drier. When things go bad, they do really, really bad. And while these days you can often be choppered out fast in the Alps, distances are greater and – in bad conditions – it’s harder to chip out. If you’re in the Andes, Himalaya or similar, the chances of outside rescue are low.

It’s the reason some Brits still use Bulffalo-type pile-Pertex and Paramo which other nationalities just laugh at – dealing with damp cold is more difficult than dry cold. It’s also the reason that my lightweight expedition bag which feels cosy at -25?C in the Andes, works significantly less well at -10?C in Scotland. Damp air transmits heat faster, so insulation, which is really trapped, warmed air, is less efficient.

That Fjällräven parka? Niche, generally expensive Scandinavian brand with limited technical credentials. Really high loft down is rare and expensive – just ask PHD who use 1000+ fill power in their K-Series kit – put lots of it in a polar-friendly jacket also made from expensive fabrics and add a fashionista premium and you end up with a super expensive jacket.

Going back to where this started, the North Face L6 Belay Parka costs £440 and is – I’ve tried one – like wearing an expedition sleeping bag. It is ridiculously warm, stupidly heavy for a down jacket, and actually well designed for what’s it’s designed for. In most UK conditions it would be a ridiculous slice of overkill pie, but it’s very good at what it’s designed for, which is sitting about belaying climbers in extremely cold environments.

I’m not sure what the point of all this is. It’s like everything in our consumerist world. Some expensive things are very good. Some expensive things are very good but not that much better than slightly less expensive things. Some expensive things work well only in certain conditions. Some expensive things exist mostly to be expensive.

The sadness of it all is that the outdoors industry and the media seem hell-bent on convincing us all that you need really expensive kit just to go for a common or garden hill walk. And the Duke of Edinburgh scheme seems determined to show young people that the outdoors is some sort of SAS-style endurance ordeal carrying huge packs.

It’s like the mentality that tells you it’s essential to have a 6″-travel full susser to go for a ride in the Peak District when all kit and gear and clothing is, is a facilitator that makes it easier and safer to get out and do things. And getting out and doing stuff is what it’s actually all about.

And the Duke of Edinburgh scheme seems determined to show young people that the outdoors is some sort of SAS-style endurance ordeal carrying huge packs.

Not much to add to everything else, but I couldn’t believe the size of the pack my nephew was expected to carry. He could barely stand up!

dealing with damp cold is more difficult than dry cold

That’s what I said.

And the Duke of Edinburgh scheme seems determined to show young people that the outdoors is some sort of SAS-style endurance ordeal carrying huge packs.

Not much to add to everything else, but I couldn’t believe the size of the pack my nephew was expected to carry. He could barely stand up!

Been vaguely following this thread and this is the most-interesting point raised. Now I really wanna know: Why do DoE students have such massive **** backpacks?

Been vaguely following this thread and this is the most-interesting point raised. Now I really wanna know: Why do DoE students have such massive **** backpacks?

They have a colossal and often unnecessary list of mandatory kit that they have to carry with them. Add in the fact that mostly they’ll be using budget gear, which is bulkier and less effective than top-end expensive stuff and you end up with those huge packs.

I get that it’s well intentioned and the people behind it are thinking about safety, but the whole thing seems calculated to put young people off going into the outdoors for the rest of their lives… Why not get them out mountain biking and scrambling and trail running and doing shorter, more fun walks with a pre-prepared evening campsite with a barbecue and beer, oh, maybe not beer, but make it enjoyable and memorable.

Take them bothying. And wild camping. And bivvying. Get them out wild swimming and pack-rafting. Use their tech saviness to let them navigate with apps and GPS units. Teach them the rudiments of outdoor photography. Make it fun. Make it something that they’ll fall in love with. Something that’ll inspire them.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that older folk are out walking and enjoying the hills, but as it is, the DofE feels like a huge missed opportunity.

And it’d be nice not to feel sorry for them…

In my youth I worked in an outdoor shop and The North Face Mountain jacket was the aspirational GoreTex jacket at the time. It oozed cool and was one of the “go to” jackets for keeping the rain at bay for climbers/mountaineers. That was back in the early 90s, in my more impressionable teenage years 🙂 . It wasn’t long after that that The North Face logo became a fashion “must have”.

They stopped being an aspirational brand (for me) a long time ago.

I get that it’s well intentioned and the people behind it are thinking about safety, but the whole thing seems calculated to put young people off going into the outdoors for the rest of their lives…

I’ve met plenty of DoE groups on their expedition camp and they never seem overly burdened by their packs. Always seem to be enjoying themselves…..

Been vaguely following this thread and this is the most-interesting point raised. Now I really wanna know: Why do DoE students have such massive **** backpacks?

Budget kit or borrowed kit is bulky and heavy.
Try separating teenagers from lynx, hairbrush, towel etc. You can tell them, but most don’t listen.
Many carry huge amounts of prepack food – eg bottles of coke, mars bars etc.
Mandatory gear has a couple of OTT elements in some local authorities/organisations. Best example – why carry bivvi bags, group shelter AND tent, when you’re not really up mountain tops or that remote.
Finally, poor packing.

Best one I had was a group who hid from me the fact they had portable DVD player with them…

I’ve met plenty of DoE groups on their expedition camp and they never seem overly burdened by their packs. Always seem to be enjoying themselves…..

I’m sure. I did on mine, and the massive pack was part of the fun. Give your mates a gentle shove and watch them pile into the hedge 2 or three paces later, unable to stop themselves! 😀

They have a colossal and often unnecessary list of mandatory kit that they have to carry with them.

I’ll add myself to the list of people finding this the most interesting part of the thread. So what’s on the list? Are all of them effectively self-sufficient even though they’re walking in groups (to a campsite)

We see them out on the Surrey Hills regularly

Just, well, because…

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb31CYGQj8k[/video]

I doubt most non-professional hill-users genuinely wear out much kit.

Kinda, except we’re now buying into the ‘fast and light’ thing, thinking we’re some kind of Kilian Jornet aspirant. I use 2 shells in the hills – an old, bulky-ish Berghaus Gore-Tex, that refuses to wear out. Plus a Montane superlight thing that stuffs into a race bumbag and packs down like a small citrus fruit. That one’s starting to delaminate in the wear areas, despite a heck of a lot less wear.

As regards the wrong/excessive equipment, I believe the Expedition module of the MBLA still mandates the use of a trailer 😆

molgrips – Member

Hah.. Most expensive item under men’s clothing on Cotswold Outdoor is a Fjallraven Parker for £1500!

Justify that! It’s not even waterproof.

You know this is the same as some non-biker going into a bike shop looking at the £5K bike and saying, ‘you could buy a car for that’, right?

Or someone going into an Audi dealership, looking at the price of a new A4, and saying I could run an old Passat for 1/20th the cost of that…

molgrips – Member

It wasn’t designed to be waterproof.

Of course not. But point is that the most expensive jacket doesn’t have every possible feature, so you can’t use that to justify the cost.

That’s okay, because I wasn’t. 🙄
😉 😕

Or someone going into an Audi dealership, looking at the price of a new A4, and saying I could run an old Passat for 1/20th the cost of that…

Or a really old Prius.

Just going to leave this here:

http://www.selfridges.com/GB/en/cat/junya-watanabe-junya-watanabe-x-the-north-face-shell-jacket_423-2000022-WTJ111051/?previewAttribute=Yellow