or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread - Page 2425

post #36361 of 46990
^^^ He suggested that I was drawing a general comparison between AE and cheaper shoes - by pointing out in general terms the differences in construction and materials between AE and those cheaper shoes and stating that they could not be be fairly compared.

But I was making no such comparison. By suggesting that I was, he was misrepresenting my statement.

Hope you can follow that.
post #36362 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM79 View Post





I'd like to see someone show other shoe makers where retail is $350+ and this issue is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess you'd struggle to form such a list and I think that's the valid point Roger is driving at.

 



Bingo. And thank you.
post #36363 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post
 

I wasn't directly comparing them.

I was saying that a manufacturing process that does not allow sufficient time for lasting, resulting in shoes that lose their shape in a gentle breeze is unacceptable at the $350 price point. Unacceptable to me, that is - you are more than welcome to your own view on the subject. But kindly allow me to state my own.

The fact that many cheaper shoes do not exhibit this defect just makes it that much more galling coming from AE, in my view. I was not advancing the proposition that said cheaper shoes are equivalent to or better than AE in all aspects of their materials and construction or in any general sense whatsoever.

 

At the risk of having another unintended misunderstanding, I wasn't in any way saying that your view on what qualifies as a defect is wrong, or that you can't state your own viewpoint on the subject.

 

I do read what you are saying as a direct comparison, since it was used as a reason why AE shouldn't produce a product with this type of flaw, even at their price point.  I'm not understanding how you aren't directly comparing them.  If AE isn't allowed to have a potential defect because a cheaper shoe doesn't struggle with the same potential, that sounds like direct comparison to me.  However, when you take into account the reason that a cheaper product doesn't have the same risks for defects (i.e., plastic doesn't sag like leather), the risk for the defect becomes much more understandable.  Leather is considered higher quality (subjectively of course) than plastic.

 

I agree that bowing resulting from insufficient time on the last qualifies as a defect.  I never said otherwise (if implied otherwise, then that's my mistake).  However, allowing for the defect to exist, is completely acceptable (provided they will take corrective action when necessary).  In other words, I don't find it galling, to use your term, that defects like these arise.  I'm sure AE would be more than happy to leave their shoes on the last longer if we were willing to allow them to decrease production output and therefore charge more for their shoes to make their same bottom line.  However, that would remove them from their niche that they fill so well.

 

All I'm saying is that given the production process in place, using the materials being used, defects are going to happen occasionally.  You can't expect otherwise, and you can't use a product that isn't made of materials which are predisposed to other (different) types of defects as the example.  Plastic has it's own issues to deal with, which leather doesn't.

post #36364 of 46990
On a more positve note, my defect-free Bayfields continue to hold up very well in their role as my go-to hard-use boot. By that, I don't mean abuse - but as a hiking / hunting / snow shovelling boot of choice, they see all kinds of wet, mud and dirt. And with good care, they come through all but completely unscathed.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Hosting provided by FotoTime
post #36365 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post
 

 

While you are correct that the shoes which are vastly less expensive than AE manage to avoid some "defects" like this, I presume it is often because of inherent differences in their construction.  For a shoe to be vastly less expensive than AE is it a safe assumption that we are referring to shoes constructed using cement, inferior leathers, etc.?  These shoes are also filled with plastic stiffeners between the leather lining and uppers to maintain the shape of inferior components.  As such, they can't be fairly compared.

 

Good quality leather requires time to conform and shape to the last, when they aren't being helped by synthetic components.

 



I wasn't directly comparing them.

I was saying that a manufacturing process that does not allow sufficient time for lasting, resulting in shoes that lose their shape in a gentle breeze is unacceptable at the $350 price point. Unacceptable to me, that is - you are more than welcome to your own view on the subject. But kindly allow me to state my own.

The fact that many cheaper shoes do not exhibit this defect just makes it that much more galling coming from AE, in my view. I was not advancing the proposition that said cheaper shoes are equivalent to or better than AE in all aspects of their materials and construction or in any general sense whatsoever.

 

You lose credibility when you exaggerate like this.  The bowing issue is a valid gripe against AE, but I don't think it occurs as often as you are indicating.  I also echo MWS's point that Ecco's and similar $200 shoes may not have the same issue, but they have vastly different construction and issues all their own.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TM79 View Post


You sound like a bit of an AE apologist here, to be honest. Then again, it is an AE appreciation thread so shocking this is not. We all have our biases, myself included.

I'd like to see someone show other shoe makers where retail is $350+ and this issue is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess you'd struggle to form such a list and I think that's the valid point Roger is driving at.

 

This is a flawed argument due to the fact AE firsts are frequently bought in the $200-250 range.  I have never bought a pair of AE's at the $345 price point ($380 with tax) when I could pay virtually the exact same amount or a few dollars more to get a pair of shoes that are significantly higher in quality (e.g. Carmina, C&J).  A more apt comparison would be shoes in the $200-250 range.

post #36366 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

On a more positve note, my defect-free Bayfields continue to hold up very well in their role as my go-to hard-use boot. By that, I don't mean abuse - but as a hiking / hunting / snow shovelling boot of choice, they see all kinds of wet, mud and dirt. And with good care, they come through all but completely unscathed.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Hosting provided by FotoTime

That is very awesome Roger. Glad that you are getting good use out of them and that they are still looking superb.

-Mike
post #36367 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Shoes1 View Post

 

You lose credibility when you exaggerate like this.  .

 



I don't think it is exaggerating when they lose shape just sitting on a store shelf - not even subject to as much as a gentle breeze.

And where did I state how frequently it is occuring? I know I have seen many examples myself and have read of a great many more here on the forum. Beyond that, I have no idea how frequent the problem is relative to total production.

But since you seem to acknowledge that it is a 'valid gripe' perhaps the better question is why you picked this particular nit?

Mike - cheers.
post #36368 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM79 View Post


You sound like a bit of an AE apologist here, to be honest. Then again, it is an AE appreciation thread so shocking this is not. We all have our biases, myself included.

I'd like to see someone show other shoe makers where retail is $350+ and this issue is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess you'd struggle to form such a list and I think that's the valid point Roger is driving at.


There are a few problems with your assertions here. One is that it is quite clear that AE is tops in quality compared to other shoe brands who's average shoe sells for $350. It's unfair to compare AE quality at their $350 price point to shoe makers that charge $500+.

 

The other problem I have with your assertion is that AE produces a much larger number of shoes (as MWS clearly stated) than the higher price ranged shoes you are alluding to. They don't keep every pair of shoes they make on the last for several weeks. If they did that, they wouldn't be able to produce the shoes as fast as they do, and they would not be making nearly as much money because the number of shoes they would produce each year would decrease significantly. They would then have to increase their price to that of the $500+ range and we would be having an entirely different conversation.

 

AE, per their CEO does not compete with the Aldens and Alfred Sargents. Their purpose is to get the $80 shoe guy to realize that if they spend $350 on a better pair of shoes, they can save money in the long run, and look better doing it. They serve as the middle ground between kenneth cole rubber soled shoes and the higher-end $500+ brands

 

I respect your opinion (it's perfectly ok to wish that AEs didn't have the bowing issue)... while it is ok to wish for that, it is COMPLETELY unreasonable to compare AE with other shoe brands that have a significantly higher price point, and thus have the luxury to take their sweet time keeping shoes on their lasts for much longer periods of time. You having your opinion is fine, just know that comparing apples to oranges (as you did) is a logical fallacy.

post #36369 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM79 View Post


You sound like a bit of an AE apologist here, to be honest. Then again, it is an AE appreciation thread so shocking this is not. We all have our biases, myself included.

I'd like to see someone show other shoe makers where retail is $350+ and this issue is a common occurrence. I would venture to guess you'd struggle to form such a list and I think that's the valid point Roger is driving at.

 

Unless you are talking shell or boots, you are already starting just above AE's price point with your perspective.  Especially given the prevalence of factory seconds purchasers here.  You also have to take into account the output difference between other companies compared to AE.  The other companies that directly compete anywhere near to AE's price point, also put out significantly fewer shoes (Meermin, Loake, who else do you have in mind?).

 

If it is a defect, they will take it back and give you a non-defective replacement.

 

There is a serious difference between apologizing and having a different set of expectations that are brought to the table.  You are confusing my position with the former, when I really fall with the latter.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

^^^ He suggested that I was drawing a general comparison between AE and cheaper shoes - by pointing out in general terms the differences in construction and materials between AE and those cheaper shoes and stating that they could not be be fairly compared.

But I was making no such comparison. By suggesting that I was, he was misrepresenting my statement.

Hope you can follow that.

 

There isn't any apologizing going on here.  I said it the other day in a separate discussion.  AE isn't my company.  I buy their products when the cost to benefit ratio is spot on for me.  I think that their niche (which they pretty much stand alone in) is an important one to fill.  I think people need to approach that niche with certain expectations, and they shouldn't be surprised when those expectations aren't met if they are set too high.  I'm not apologizing for AE's defects, I'm saying that those defects should be expected to arise occasionally at their price point.  You can look at any shoe company short of the most expensive (EG, G & G, JL) and point to specific reasons why that company has certain flaws (or defects depending on your perspective).  Above a certain price point, they become aesthetic differences, generally speaking.  Below a certain price point, however, you open yourself up to greater problems that aren't just aesthetics.

 

Take a look at John Doe Shoe company (and Put This On's review of them).   http://putthison.com/post/55518396542/135-goodyear-welted-shoes-sometime-last-week-a

 

These are able to be made at their low prices for real reasons.  It isn't because they just want to make them cheaper, and therefore they are.    You are getting what you pay for.  Plain and simple.

post #36370 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

^^^ He suggested that I was drawing a general comparison between AE and cheaper shoes - by pointing out in general terms the differences in construction and materials between AE and those cheaper shoes and stating that they could not be be fairly compared.

But I was making no such comparison. By suggesting that I was, he was misrepresenting my statement.

Hope you can follow that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Not leaving shoes on their lasts long enough for them to properly take and keep their shape meets my general definition of a manufacturing defect. Paritucularly on a $350 shoe.

Lots of shoes - even some vastly less expensive than AE - manage to sit on display shelves and not visibly wilt while under no more stress than atmospheric pressure.

Please explain to me how this doesn't qualify as comparing AE with cheaper brands.

post #36371 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Shoes1 View Post
 

This is a flawed argument due to the fact AE firsts are frequently bought in the $200-250 range.  I have never bought a pair of AE's at the $345 price point ($380 with tax) when I could pay virtually the exact same amount or a few dollars more to get a pair of shoes that are significantly higher in quality (e.g. Carmina, C&J).  A more apt comparison would be shoes in the $200-250 range.

 

I agree with this.  I've never paid full price either.  They are far to easy to acquire at significantly lower prices with only a few weeks/months of patience.

post #36372 of 46990
Some feel that improperly (insufficently?) lasted shoes which consequently don't hold their shape are acceptable at the $350 price point - that you are indeed getting what you pay for. They are entitled to their opinion. Others feel they should be getting more for their $350. They are entitled to their opinion, too.

We all ultimately get to vote with our wallets.
post #36373 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinngiskhaan View Post
 


There are a few problems with your assertions here. One is that it is quite clear that AE is tops in quality compared to other shoe brands who's average shoe sells for $350. It's unfair to compare AE quality at their $350 price point to shoe makers that charge $500+.

 

The other problem I have with your assertion is that AE produces a much larger number of shoes (as MWS clearly stated) than the higher price ranged shoes you are alluding to. They don't keep every pair of shoes they make on the last for several weeks. If they did that, they wouldn't be able to produce the shoes as fast as they do, and they would not be making nearly as much money because the number of shoes they would produce each year would decrease significantly. They would then have to increase their price to that of the $500+ range and we would be having an entirely different conversation.

 

AE, per their CEO does not compete with the Aldens and Alfred Sargents. Their purpose is to get the $80 shoe guy to realize that if they spend $350 on a better pair of shoes, they can save money in the long run, and look better doing it. They serve as the middle ground between kenneth cole rubber soled shoes and the higher-end $500+ brands

 

I respect your opinion (it's perfectly ok to wish that AEs didn't have the bowing issue)... while it is ok to wish for that, it is COMPLETELY unreasonable to compare AE with other shoe brands that have a significantly higher price point, and thus have the luxury to take their sweet time keeping shoes on their lasts for much longer periods of time. You having your opinion is fine, just know that comparing apples to oranges (as you did) is a logical fallacy.

 

I think all this is well stated also, and important points to remember when bringing your expectations to the table.

post #36374 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by chinngiskhaan View Post

 

 

Please explain to me how this doesn't qualify as comparing AE with cheaper brands.

 



I already did. if you didn't understand it the first time, you won't undersatnd it now.
post #36375 of 46990
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Some feel that improperly (insufficently?) lasted shoes which consequently don't hold their shape are acceptable at the $350 price point - that you are indeed getting what you pay for. They are entitled to their opinion. Others feel they should be getting more for their $350. They are entitled to their opinion, too.

We all ultimately get to vote with our wallets.

 

I may be mistaken, but I would think we would all agree 100% with this statement.  I don't think it's acceptable either, and I don't think the others are saying they do.  We are simply saying that there is a difference in expectations and the subsequent language used towards AE as a company.

 

Again, I don't make apologies for AE as a company.  I would expect every company at their price point to struggle with the same issues (unless they are making significantly fewer shoes).  Which generally turns out to be exactly the case.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Allen Edmonds Appreciation Thread