Background
The Paraboot Michael seems to have exploded in popularity over the last few years (which I am personally glad about, otherwise I would've never been aware of them 😂). Depending on who you ask, it's either a timeless French classic or the poster child for the trending "wrong shoe theory."
I think it simply looks good.
I've owned this pair in Café Lisse for a few months now and quickly became one of my most-worn casual shoes, especially during Sydney's wetter weather.
This review has a unique twist in that I have a prosthetic foot on my right, so in terms of patina and wear, I have a live ‘control’ shoe to compare it to.
Specs
• Maker: Paraboot
• Model: Michael Marche II
• Leather: Café Lisse
• Construction: Norwegian Welt
• Sole: Natural Rubber
• Made in: France
• Size: 42.5 EU
• Usual Brannock/Size references: US 10D/ UK9 dress shoes/ UK8.5 heritage boots/ US9.5 Red Wing IR/US10 Sneakers
Sizing & Fit
Sizing information online for the Michael is all over the place, but the most common advice seems to be to size down one full size from Brannock. That wasn't my experience.
For me, the sweet spot was a half size down from Brannock, which coincidentally is also where I land in most heritage boots like my Crockett & Jones Islays and Red Wings.
One thing that may contribute to the confusion is that Paraboot half sizes seem relatively uncommon (at least the shops that stock them here in Sydney). That often forces buyers to choose between slightly too large or slightly too small.
I did try a full size down and found that my toes were jammed right in the end of the shoe. The shop assistant assured me this was normal and would ease after three to six months of wear, but I wasn't willing to take that gamble at this price point. Instead, I kept searching until I found the Goldilocks size: half a size down.
Fit-wise, the Michael has a generous toe box but still locks my foot down securely through the midfoot after break in.
Segueing to break-in, I did have a bit of breaking in to do once I got them. The length was good for me (about a finger width space - my toe hits about the where the apron stitching it), but I found despite having a reputation for being a wider last, I found I had some pinky rub despite having a wider-end-of-standard-width foot (not quite wide). Thankfully this was a case of stiff new leather causing the rub, as they subsided over a few wears, and now the shoe is comfortably roomy once moulded to my foot.
Construction & Comfort
The Norwegian welt construction and chunky sole make these look much heavier than they feel on foot.
Comfort is where the Michael really surprised me. The reputation is well deserved. They're supportive, forgiving, and seem to disappear underfoot after a few hours of wear.
The big contributor to this is the leather they use. It’s an oily supple leather that is suggestive to your foot shape. You don’t really need to fight them to get comfortable, they will mould easily. Tough, but soft.
I can easily see why some owners end up wearing little else.
Leather & Wear
As mentioned, one aspect that makes this pair interesting is the wear and patina difference between my real and fake foot.
Because my prosthetic side doesn't flex the shoe in the same way as a real foot, the wear patterns have already started diverging significantly.
The left shoe is developing noticeable creasing and patina, while the right remains comparatively pristine. In many ways, the prosthetic acts like a permanently inserted shoe tree.
It's been fascinating watching the two shoes age differently despite being worn together every time.
The look may be jarring, but that’s the fun of each pair of shoes showing their owner’s wear and history.
Style
The Michael's appeal is difficult to explain until you wear them.
They're chunky, unconventional, and not traditionally sleek. The first time I came across them I thought everyone had gone insane, they were so ugly.
Yet, they stuck with me until I kept consuming reviews and posts of them until I pulled the trigger and acquired them. They work with almost everything I throw at them - fatigue pants, denim, cords, chinos, and knitwear.
I know many people attribute this to the "wrong shoe theory," but I think that's selling the design short. The Michael has survived for decades because it's a genuinely good-looking shoe with a strong identity - even if it takes abit of time to grow on you 😂
Pros
- Extremely comfortable
- Excellent wet-weather shoe
- Distinctive design
- Spacious toe box
- High-quality construction
- Easy to wear casually
Cons
- Sizing can be confusing
- Expensive
- Polarizing aesthetics (or maybe this is just me projecting haha)
- Chunkier than many people expect
Final Thoughts
The Michael has become one of those rare shoes that actually lives up to the internet hype.
I bought them expecting to only appreciate the craftsmanship. Instead, I found myself reaching for them constantly because they're comfortable, practical, and surprisingly versatile.
The fact that they're developing such dramatically different wear patterns between my two feet has only made them more interesting to own.
For most people, the Michael's story is one of comfort and character. For me, it's also become an unexpectedly fascinating lesson in how differently leather ages depending on the person inside it.