Teva Men's Mush II Flip-Flop

When I contacted the manufacturer to inquire about why I couldn't find the original version, they replied by telling me the product had been discontinued. We are working on identifying what made the Mush so great for our product team. Probably not going to last as long as the new version since it is thinner, harder, and thinner. There's no doubt that they are looking for a cheaper product to cut corners on. Personally, I'd rather spend $10 more to get a shoe that prevents my chronic heel and foot Bringing back the original version will make all the difference!.

Malaysia Fuller

| Aug 15, 2020

Since I have been wearing Teva Mush flip flops for almost 20 years (and its sandals for longer), this definitely dates me, but I feel confident knowing that the quality of these flip flops has definitely declined since I purchased them twenty years ago. When I was younger, a pair of glasses would last years. Now if I'm lucky, they last one year or one year and a half. I think it might be the material used that wears these down quicker even though fluctuations in weight or gait may result in accelerated deterioration. The break-in process of a new pair of Teva flip flops, which I used to take a while (maybe as much as a month), sometimes took me around a week. We now only need about a week to complete it. There is no longer as good of foam being used in these as there The "mush" is not nearly as cushiony as it used to be. There are still people who like it, but fewer and fewer seem to like walking on it. In terms of tread wear and the quality and variety of the strap/thong, both have been good over time. To make a flip flop more profitable, it's reasonable to reduce production costs, switch suppliers, and possibly change manufacturing methods. In spite of their price, I will continue to wear these because I like their style, fit, and comfort - just wish they were more reasonably priced so I don't have to replace them nearly as.

Paxton Wilcox

| Nov 24, 2020

As for my foot, I have a B heel and a C toe. As a result, I have tried about 20 sandal styles in order to find a pair that fits reasonably well. Therefore, this may serve as a guide for people for the purpose of comparison. Ideally, I want much arch support in my flip flops, but I do not want a lot of flop. It doesn't have to be a negative heel for me. To begin, here is what I have to say I am playing the role of Teva Mush LL. (9), weighing an astonishing 92g each, these are the lightest of the bunch. They have a relatively narrow footbed and a snug thong that makes them very comfortable. That is why I love them. In addition, at $25, they are a bargain, even if they won't last as long as some of the more expensive sandals we have. Between the heel and the toe- I have not been bothered by the strike in my short time in the area. Some people have complained about it, though I haven't noticed it in my brief time there. Men's Leather Fanning ll - Reef sandals weigh 219 grams each, which makes them the heaviest of all the sandals on the market. There is some firmness to the footbed, though it is more comfortable than some It's a nice looking web site. Like the Reef Draftsman, these will last a very long time. I did not feel the opening under my arch like I did with the Reef Draftsman. They are comfortable, but they are also heavy and expensive. I think this is the Reef Leather Slap LL I got for Christmas. In this comparison, they weighed 205 grams each, which made them the second heaviest. If their dimensions had been the same as the Fanning ll's they would have been the heaviest. However, they generally fit well. Among the sandals in this line, these are among the most comfortable. The heel has a very soft feel. A review of the Reef weighs 142g, making it lighter than previous styles. An average fit, but a bit snugger I like the elegance and comfort of this hotel. It is reasonably priced as well. Phantom Prints of the Reef - *BR> (9). Weighing in at 113 grams, these sandals were the second lightest of the group. It has a relatively soft heel - I've seen them for $20 on up, depending on color and size. They have an average width footbed and just the right amount of arch support. They won't likely last quite as long as some of the more expensive sandals, but they will cost half the price. They are different from the two Phantom sandals above (mens 10) in that they are made of synthetic material. There is a big difference in the fit. They are made for feet with wide toes. I got these a full size up from the other two due to the reported tendency for them to run small. They are very lightweight, weighing 134 g. Draftsman for Reef Technologies (8) This sandal has a leather sole with no additional heel support. It also features a bottle opener. The sandal is nice to look at, quite snug fitting, and quite lightweight (about 156g), but there is one issue with it. You can feel the bottle opener under your arch, as others have stated. The way these look, I don't think anyone would be comfortable wearing them They were sent back to me. This is a list of the Reef Crew members (8) Each sandal weighs 138g, which is fairly light for a leather sandal. The soles are thin, and the heels do not have an additional support, yet the prices go up to Twinpin - Reef Twinpin Although these basic synthetic leather sandals are relatively light at 137g each and have a narrow footbed, they are very loose in the thong and have no additional heel. Sanuk Fraid So - Strike (11) I loved these sandals because they were so lightweight, and they were really comfy and very attractive. There are two drawbacks They have a very wide footbed and a very loose The thick soles will suit a person with fat feet. SFRIDAY, SANUK M FRIDAY With a sloppy thong and a narrow cushioned footbed (a full half inch thinner than the Fraid So) they are a bit of a disappointment. The footbed on these shoes is very cushy and comfortable. Comfort is one of the main reasons people rave about them. If you don't have fat or wide feet, this may not work for you. I'm in shock! This is the Tevas Men's Classic shoe. (9). This sandal has a very basic, uninspiring footbed with a ruffled, textured design typical of an old school sandal. I found them uncomfortable, but they might be perfect for someone else. The Mush ll's are lighter than this one, but not as light as this one. We thought the Mush ll thong was a little looser and it runs a bit more expensive. Teva Mush ll (Canvas) (9) I listed these as well, since the canvas thong is more loosely fitted and weighs a little more than the regular Mush ll. In terms of the footbed, they are the same.

Dior Crosby

| Feb 19, 2021

Recent reviews have pointed out that the Teva foam quality used to make the Mush and Mush II so great has declined significantly to the point it is now just a total throwaway (despite being quite expensive as throwaway shoes). As it turns out, it took me a whole week - a week - to leave permanent impressions in the foam because not only is it no longer "like walking on a cloud," but it also left permanent marks in the sand. It used to take a long time to fulfill that request. Also, I'm not one of those heavy dudes or stompy walkers. With no spring and no recovery, it's just garbage now, with a life expectancy that I am sure will be very short. (If you're a long-distance cyclist, that's fine, just take it easy on the foam. As a Mush fan, it will be apparent the moment you wear it I now find that a brand new sandal is uncomfortably stiff and awkward. ) After two months of wearing them, parts of the sandal are already worn away to the soles. As well, the arch has been updated to a bizarre three-dimensional configuration There is no trim on this piece design because the factory didn't bother trimming it to fit. The quality of the previous "lower quality" pairs did not deteriorate over the years, but I still had two years of wear from the previous low-quality pairs. If this couple makes it to six months, I will be amazed.

Lainey Gallegos

| Sep 17, 2020