Customer Reviews Columbia Redmond™ Waterproof

For me, this shoe is all looks and no comfort. The exterior/visual design and manufacture of the shoe is high quality. The ergonomic design of the shoe was extremely poor. The upper materials provides absolutely no ventilation - if you get these, I guarantee your feet will get extremely hot and sweaty which will create one level of major discomfort. Another level of discomfort comes from the poor design of the inside arch and sole support - your feet will actually become painful after about 45 minutes. As with most new shoes, stiffness exists. With these, definitely don't immediately set out on a lengthy trek with these straight out of the box - heels will get raw and blistered after only about 30 minutes; because of the hot feet which sweat, the ball of your foot and flat of the heel also get raw and painful rom the rubbing. When you remove these after a day of hiking, your feet will be sore and stiff for a few hours and your calves will feel like you have shin splints. Bottom line: Look for another option.

I actually like the shoes, but the ones I received were not waterproof. I bought them for golf and general walking. The first pair had a leaky right shoe after one round...wet sock. Zappos graciously replaced that pair with new ones...I highly recommend Zappos. The second pair had a leaky left shoe after three rounds. The use was in heavy dew only, no wading through puddles. As I said, I like the shoes and am keeping the second pair for general use, just not on wet ground.

Like the above review, these felt super comfortable and I liked the style. Then I wore them for a while after purchase and it was so hot! Like, I could not wear them for more than an hour. I have never had this complaint about another pair of shoes (so it is not like my feet "run hot" or anything like that).

Run very small and narrow.

I am returning these because they aren't actually wide. They are way too tight. I know outside measurement is not inside, but the sole of this Columbia size 10 is 4-1/8 inch wide at its widest, when the soles of my actually wide shoes (other brands) are at least a half-inch wider. Plus, the arch support is barely noticeable; I'm rating it moderate but it's not good enough; I wouldn't want to walk a long distance in these.

I've owned this Redmond for 2 years now (though wear it rarely as I live in Florida where water may be encountered). Fit and size are fine. It's comfortable and has held up well. Style, meh. But I wouldn't buy this shoe again because the description is untrue. Day one the shoe was waterproof ONLY if there's no dew on the grass (heaven forbid there is actual standing water 1/4" deep or more)! The Columbia Newton Ridge Low was waterproof but is no longer available. Based on false claims about the Redmond, I would never purchase a Columbia shoe again! Nor do I trust ANY waterproof claim on Zappos - seems you have a 50/50 chance of getting what you pay for.

Said wide. It wasn’t. Said size 12. It wasn’t. Bad form on this one.

Wide? Seriously? This is what Columbia calls Wide? With the laces out it was still too tight. No way this is a wide shoe.

TOTALLY NOT WATERPROOF I I step in 1 1/2 inch, my socks get wet. To me, waterproof means your socks don't get wet. If you walk on dry turf only, they're great

This shoe IS NOT waterproof as advertised. They were tight and narrow and took water on the second I stepped into a puddle that went over my toe. Don't buy these shoes you will be wet and disappointed.