Please sign in to post.

Mens shoes, 4 weeks in Italy: Mephisto vs Ecco

Ecco Mens Track 25 Low vs Mephisto ISAK GT

I have no experience with Mephisto shoes, but have owned a dozen plus Ecco shoes over the years, including a pair of Track II Low, which I wore out without replacing. I am now considering either the Ecco Track 25 Low or the Mephisto ISAK GT for a pending four week trip to Italy this October, for which I intend to only bring one pair of shoes. We will be doing the 17-day RS tour, plus travel on our own.

For those who own Mephisto shoes, especially the ISAK GT, with respect to performance (e.g. comfort, durability, etc.), what makes them superior to Ecco shoes such that they can demand a much higher price point? Is the premium price due only to the fact that Mephisto shoes are, per their literature, handmade?

Unfortunately, I live a few hours away from the nearest Mephisto dealer. Should I buy a pair, I will order them from Mephisto directly.

Posted by
20566 posts

The best pair is the pair that fits your feet the best. I have both and prefer the fit of ECCO. My Mephisto was bought in Lyon at summer street sale for less than half of the US price. I would have never paid full price. They are great but not substantial better or even better than the ECCO. My everyday shoe in Europe is the Track 25 low and has been for the past 20+ year. I am on my third pair. If you like them why change?

Personally I think it is mostly marketing. They can command a higher price because everyone thinks they are worth more.

Posted by
6 posts

Thanks for the quick and helpful responses.

No doubt we will encounter some rain spending the month of October in Italy. Therefore, to play it safe, I want to bring waterproof shoes in case it rains while I am hiking in the Dolomites or elsewhere. I have some pretty comfy waterproof trail hiking shoes, but was looking to find a versatile pair of shoes, like the Ecco Track 25s, that can handle both trails and city walking, and still look appropriate for an occasional nice restaurant along the way.

Posted by
20566 posts

ECCO 25 low are waterproof. Not weather resistant. True waterproof and well tested.

Posted by
2278 posts

I would take well broken in shoes that are comfortable for you, brand be damned. I have Ecco’s and Mephisto in my closet. I paid too much for the Mephistos in hindsight. They are worth trying on but do that in Italy where they are cheaper (some). In Sicily this summer I spotted a store with Geox a brand that I can’t easily find. They have a patented ventilation system that works. So I take off my very old Eccos and the sole literally breaks in half-I’m looking at the bottom of the shoe leather. So, I wore the new Geox shoes for the remainder of the trip and still enjoying them.

Posted by
101 posts

I wasn't familiar with the Ecco Track 25 Low. I've got Track II lows and like them very much. I looked up the Track 25 and it appears to be identical to the Track II. Do you know if it's a replacement for the Track II? We just got back from the RS GAS tour with some extra stops at either end. I can reaffirm my preference for this shoe. It does everything from long days in cities and museums to nearly any type of hiking without a heavy backpack. If I needed new shoes I'd buy another pair of these without thinking twice.

Posted by
446 posts

My husband has had great success with some Skechers shoes and he recently bought a pair of Rockports. They are nice looking and offer great foot support.

Posted by
6 posts

Just returned from 3 1/2 weeks in Italy, with days that ranged from hiking up rough terrain to the Schlern peak in the Dolomites (16+ miles, 3,200 ft elevation gain) to walking 7-8 miles around city streets. I knew the Ecco Track 25 Low shoes would work, but opted for something different-- Sorel Chukka Boots

This was the only pair of shoes that I wore for the entire 3 1/2 weeks. They worked out great for all terrain and were easy to dress up when needed.