The biggest PPE mistakes I see aren't caused by buying cheap. They're caused by buying 'good enough' when good enough is the wrong protection class for the hazard: a Type 1 hard hat for a job with lateral-impact risk, Z87 safety glasses for work that needs Z87+, or a lace up work boot with no ASTM marking inside the shaft. I've seen one of those errors cost a company over $20,000 once you add replacement product, freight, downtime, and auditor follow-up. It's preventable.
I'm a quality and brand compliance manager at Jackson Safety. I review roughly 200+ unique PPE items a year—hard hats, safety glasses, face shields, welding helmets, gloves, and work boots—before they ship with our name on them. In 2024 I rejected about 6% of first-article samples from new suppliers. The frustrating part: few of those rejects were visibly broken. They carried the wrong label, the wrong marking, or a test report that didn't match the physical product.
Here's what you need to know: identify the hazard first, verify the standard second, and compare brands third. It sounds simple, but most purchasing decisions I see run in the opposite order.
Type 1 vs Type 2 hard hat: ask this before you order
In early 2024 I was on a call with Dan Jackson, a safety manager in Georgia. No, he is not related to Jackson Safety, and yes, he hears that joke a lot. He was ordering hard hats for a new fabrication crew. When I asked whether he wanted Type 1 or Type 2, he laughed. Nobody had framed it that way before.
If the hazard is limited to things falling from above, Type 1 hard hats meet a vertical-impact test to the top of the head. Type 2 hard hats go further: they're tested for top impact plus lateral impact to the front, back, and sides. In a fabrication shop with overhead cranes, you get falling-object risk. But you also get tight spaces, racks, beams, and forklift traffic—places where a worker can hit the side of the head. That's a case where Type 2 earns its keep.
I don't want to overstate it, though. If your team is on a site with no lateral or side-impact hazard, Type 1 is adequate and usually lighter. Type 2 is not automatically better; it's a different tested geometry. The right answer follows the risk assessment.
The label tells the story. A compliant hard hat shell is marked with the ANSI/ISEA Z89.1 standard, a type, and a class. Class G is tested to 2,200 volts. Class E is tested to 20,000 volts. Class C is conductive and not rated for electrical work. OSHA's head protection rule points to ANSI/ISEA Z89.1, so if the shell doesn't carry that marking, your compliance argument is weak. I still check osha.gov before I quote the exact incorporated edition, because those references update.
Trust me on the notation part: back in 2022, I made the rookie mistake of relying on a supplier's certificate that said Type 2 without physically reading the shells in the warehouse. The shells said Type 1. The rep argued it was 'basically the same impact rating.' No. Type 1 and Type 2 are different tests. That whole batch had to be re-inspected before any of it could ship.
Safety glasses: the Z87+ mark is the spec, not the slogan
What are Jackson Safety Nemesis glasses like? I get that question a lot. They're a comfortable wraparound frame, and I'm biased because I review them before every production run. But the part I care about is not the curved lens or the temple grip. It's the Z87+ marking.
In the US, eye protection is evaluated against ANSI/ISEA Z87.1. A marking of Z87 means the product meets the basic-impact criteria. The plus sign means it meets high-impact criteria—lenses and frames are tested against much faster, higher-energy particles. For grinding, chipping, cutting, or working under someone else who is doing those things, high-impact protection is what I would specify.
That tiny plus sign causes more confusion than any other marking on the shelf. I've rejected safety glasses where the frame said Z87+ but the lens didn't, because the lens is the part that has to stop whatever is flying at the eye. I've also rejected sunglasses-style eyewear with no marking at all. Even if it feels solid, an unmarked product has no certified performance story. If a pair is marked Z87+ and fits the person wearing it, that is a solid starting point.
Lace up work boots: check the shaft label before you fall in love with a brand
Lace up work boots are the most common style in our work-footwear reviews because they tend to hold the heel and give more support on uneven ground. But I'm careful not to let the laces distract from the compliance marking.
If you've been looking at Brunt work boots, you're probably comparing price, style, and maybe the sole. Brunt markets directly and has grown fast, and that's fine. In my QC role, I'd apply the same checklist to Brunt, Jackson, Thorogood, or any other lace up work boot: look for an ASTM F2413 marking on the inside shaft. The marking includes a revision year, and the letters tell you what the boot can do. Common ones include I for impact-resistant toe, C for compression-resistant toe, MT for metatarsal protection, EH for electrical hazard, and SD for static dissipative.
If a boot has a reinforced toe but no ASTM marking, I do not treat it as a certified safety shoe. If the electrical safety program requires EH-rated footwear, a great tread pattern and a leather upper won't satisfy the audit—the EH marking will. That's not pedantic. The boot can fail in exactly the moment it's supposed to protect someone.
Fit is still the human part I won't compromise: have workers try on the actual model with the socks they'll wear. A compliant boot that gets left in the locker is worth less than a slightly less featured boot that actually stays on the worker's feet.
The honest limits of this advice
Specialization matters. Jackson Safety carries head-to-toe PPE, and I believe we do it well. But a supplier that claims to answer every specialty question—from arc flash analysis to hearing-conservation programs—is promising more than a product catalog should promise. Those disciplines have their own standards, engineering controls, and certified professionals.
If your hazard requires an arc flash study, hire someone who does arc flash studies. If you have noise exposure, work with an industrial hygienist. If you need respirators, verify medical clearance and fit testing according to OSHA. The product is a component, not the whole program.
A good supplier says that out loud. When I don't know an application, I say so and tell you who does. Standards and product revisions change, and this is current as of January 2025. Verify the latest edition at osha.gov, isea.org, or astm.org before writing a spec that relies on it.