Talk to me about leather vs neoprene boots for muddy walks (Dubarry vs Muck Boots or similar)

[ParentOfOne]

I'm in the market for some short(ish) boots, to be used mostly for muddy walks. I don't mean technical hikes in the Cotswold, just taking the kids to local parks, on paths with plenty of mud.

I am basically undecided between:

1. boots like the Muck Boots, with a combination of rubber at the bottom, neoprene on the leg, and an airmesh lining inside www.outdoorgearlab.com/reviews/shoes-and-boots/rain-boots/the-original-muck-boot-company-wetland, and

2. leather boots like the Chameau or the Dubarry www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/dubarry-kildare-boots - but ideally something cheaper :)

Thoughts / impressions / experiences?

It seems to me that:

• the Muck boots are cheaper, much easier to clean and get mud off
• leather boots are more expensive but they obviously look much nicer and I suspect will be more breathable
• If I were to use them ONLY for muddy walks, I'd get the cheaper, easier-to-clean Muck Boots. However, the hope is that with something like the Dubarry I can, say, meet a friend for lunch and go elsewhere without looking like a fisherman, then pick up the kid from school and take him to the park even if it's muddy

I am ruling out ordinary rubber wellies because I sweat too much in them and they always gave me blisters, no matter the socks.

Military / tabbing / mountaineering boots with laces are probably better for long hikes on difficult terrain, but that's not what I do, plus they'd probably be harder to clean from the mud than boots with no laces. And I don't want to look like some kind of special force soldier!

Thanks!

Have you seen Hunter Killing Eve boots. Or Ecco Soft 7 Goretex. Or Tretorn Garpa Hybrid. These are all boots I'd be happy to go to a cafe in.

One last question: obviously it is subjective and we are all different, but, approximately, how long a walk can you bear in laceless leather boots like the Dubarry? And for what kind of walk, ie how longer, would you prefer lace-ups?

Some people say lace-ups offer better ankle support, but then I see plenty of locals preferring shorter shoes to high military boots when hiking in the Cotswolds etc.

Some say lace-ups offer a tighter fit so should be preferred for longer walks, some hate the tighter fit.

Not sure what to think!

@ParentOfOne i personally prefer lace ups if the walk is steep, or there is uneven ground. Disclaimer: I have had several grade 2 sprains, so some tearing of ligaments which means my ankles are much weaker and unstable than most. I can still do a long walk in dubarries if the ground is good/flat.

@ParentOfOne I am similar to @goosebuster as I have ligament damage in one of my ankles so I roll it really easily.
I can easily walk 5km in my ariat boots if the ground is relatively smooth i.e round a park, well maintained footpaths etc. but for longer or really uneven proper hiking type ground i'd go for a proper walking boot.
The boots are perfectly comfortable to wear all day though so if its a day out type situation where hours of walking and standing are involved (usually horse shows for me) they're fine I just wouldn't risk my ankles doing anything to adventurous in them.

I went to a Dubarry store.

The Roscommon (the shortish ones) were comfy but the wrong width for jeans: too wide to wear jeans over them (unless you have Abba-style jeans) but too tight to wear the jeans in - they bunch up and look really ugly.

The Galway were too high for my liking.

The Kildare were a nice compromise in terms of height between the other two, and jeans fit perfectly in. The store had only one colour, which I didn't like. I'll think it through a little bit before deciding whether to order them or not - they are very nice but oh so pricey!

Anyway, thanks a lot for all your help, really appreciated.

@Yayyayitsaholiholiday

would you mind saying what website you used? I am looking for wide calf good mud proof boots and it is a mission..