#EC328 EXACT Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 BBG Cactus Cutting

#EC328 EXACT Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 BBG Cactus Cutting

Marsoni

M251S

$102.00

Get it in 3 business days with 1 day shipping. Friday, May 29

#EC328 EXACT Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 BBG Cactus Cutting8" cutting. Full hot sun rigjt now, not as green as winter mobths. Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 from the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden. This is one of those unique specimens that was directly collected by Paul Hutchison in 1957 in tue Huancabampa region of Peru. A must have for you serious collectors of trichs! Handle with CARE and please see our FAQ for basic care info. Cactus FAQ **Cactus are not perfect, they may have small flaws, we try and

Easy Shipping

Quick Dispatch:

Your #EC328 EXACT Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 BBG Cactus Cutting orders ship within 1-2 business days.

Delivery Options:

Standard: 3-7 business days
Fast: 2-3 business days
Express: 1-2 business days

Order Tracking:

You'll receive a tracking link by email once your #EC328 EXACT Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 BBG Cactus Cutting ships.

Need Help?
Questions about #EC328 EXACT Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 BBG Cactus Cutting, sizing, or delivery? We're just an email away.

Live Shipping Estimates:
Enter your location at checkout to see available shipping methods and costs for #EC328 EXACT Trichocereus Pachanoi Hutchison 1597 BBG Cactus Cutting in your area.

Get Shipping Estimates

Country Zip/Postal Code

Exchange/Return Notes

We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy

I wear size 12.5 Wide shoes and have been through numerous "large" socks that shrink after the first wash and then are just too small. Local stores sell very few options in XL. Decided to give these a try and I'm glad I did. I like the height (just over the ankle joint) versus low cut or no-show, which tend to allow junk into the gaps. I like the material. It's thinner on top nd doesn't have compression areas. It's not overly thick, so if you are looking for cushion or extra support, look elsewhere. I have the same sock in a no-show in gray, but they are size L and are just a little too small, so I knew ahead what I was in for construction-wise. Those have been plenty durable, so it checks all the boxes. I'll be ordering some XLs in black and will keep on the lookout for gray.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on June 3, 2021

Verified Purchase

Amazon Customer

Los Angeles, US

★★★★★ 5

Nice fit & holds shape

Size: Large, Color: White

Wear well. Hold up in use. Maintain a shape after multiple uses.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on November 20, 2025

Verified Purchase

techfan

Chelsea, US

★★★★★ 4

Great socks / a bit expensive

Size: Large, Color: Black

These may be the Goldilocks of the socks I've tried. They have nearly the same quality as the MUCH pricier Darn Tough Vertex Ultralight Cushion Cool Max socks (also reviewed). They have better quality, and a higher price, than a similar pair of PUMA socks (also reviewed). Pros: Very well made, with no loose stitching, comfortable forefoot and heel cushioning, good ventilation via top mesh, good arch compression, minimal logos and mostly solid color. Cons: Price is a bit on the high side, but better than the Darn Tough socks. I could honestly have made a good case for any of these three (ASICS, PUMA, or Darn Tough), which explains their collective high ratings. I did the top 3 reviews first. When I get a chance, I'll go back and review the average and terrible :) If money is no object, get the Darn Tough Vertex. If you're price sensitive, and willing to compromise a bit on quality, go with the PUMAs, which is what I did. Otherwise, these ASICS are near the same quality as the Darn Tough, but less expensive. Tough decisions :)

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on May 9, 2017