Free 2-Day Shipping on Orders Over $50*
Home Page
Allen S.

Allen S.

Allen S.

Allen S.wrote a review of on November 4, 2015

3 5

Familiarity: I returned this product before using it

I have several duffles and have used them for climbs in the US and abroad including Nepal. I always preferred the NF duffel even though the old model of the MH duffel seemed to be on par. Not so much anymore. The newer 2015/16 version of this MH duffle has now been updated. I had a L new one of the original model and several of the L North Face duffels. The original MH one shown in the Outdoor Gear Lab test (black and orange) that I had was unused and you can see by my photo how the coating on the entire bag was simply delaminating and peeling off all over. MH said just a factor of the material. I returned it to MH 10/2015 and they just replaced it with the new model. The material of the new model feels much thinner and much, much, lighter weight (#3-10oz total weight) as it is made with a much thiner and lighter material than either the old MH or the current NF duffels. It just doesn't feel as heavy duty or as tough. The new version also has exterior and interior color changes, pretty plain outside look (mine is all black), no outside obvious MH logos, no aluminum tubes on the end handles which were nice, a new outside daisy chain, 1 outside side pocket, 1 business card holder on the side, a bright orange interior color, 2 interior end zippered end pockets, and the same type of interior compression straps. It also has a different U shaped top zipper which opens with 2 separate zippers instead of one zipper that opened both sides with one pull and the flap is backed by velcro and a new design for the shoulder straps.
I'm hoping that the new material will be an improvement over the old one but I much preferred the color, details and material thickness of the older model. I have had no issues with the NF duffles which seem to be way more heavy duty now.




Allen S.

Allen S.wrote a review of on December 8, 2013

5 5

Familiarity: I've used it several times
Fit: True to size
Height: 5' 10"
Weight: 190 lbs
Size Purchased: 44.5

Just as an update for folks looking for sizing help. I use 44.5 in all of LS running shoes and 10.5 (44.5) in Asics runners. in Asics the 11 (45) are too big. I use a 44 in the Nepal Evo.

I started with the 43, then 43.5 and 44. I ended up going all the way up to a Spantik 45 and having them cooked and fitted by a boot fitter in Redmond's bike and ski shop (forget the name ). I used them on 3 routes on Rainier in a weeks time. They have been to Denali and Nepal. They started off great but by the end of the week they were loose and sloppy so I sold the 45 and went back down to the 44.5 in the Spantik and stayed in the 45 in the Oly Mons. I know many climbers who has gone through this and have ended up back at their "true to their LS sizing" with the Nepal. The Spantik and Oly Mons (they are the same) liner will pack out after the first week and they can also be form fit when molded. Most people buy too big as the initial feeling of this boot is snug and their trying to compare the feel to a typical hiking boot. The feel will be more like a ski boot than a hiking boot. I used one SW liner and 1 SW Mountaineering sock with molded orthotics which add 1/2-1 size. Keep in mind that the Spantic shells only come in full sizes. The liners come in half sizes so a 44.5 & 45 are the same outer boot with different liners. The 45.5 is a larger boot. This is why you see the odd fitting. I can and should have worn a 44. Use the same size as the Nepal EVO. The Spantik liner has a built in vapor barrier liner as well. Because this boot is so warm, most "in the know" are using only one thin sock as this combo is less bunk, less weight, and drys faster. The best liner for this boot is the LS Baruntse liner and it molds much better. For the Rainier folks, this is way too much boot for Rainier for all but the winter or if you have much higher ambitions. Great boot for Aconcagua or Denali. Use a Nepal EVO type boot for Rainer.