or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Justification prices highend shoes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Justification prices highend shoes - Page 2

post #16 of 52
As you slowly move up the shoe hierarchy you never go back. I started with Loake & Cheaney, then on to makers like C&J, then I tried Tricker's and Church's. Next I bought a pair of EG's, and then a pair of G&G's. I'm now flirting with a pair of GJ Cleverley's Semi-Bespoke. To be honest, it isn't entirely justifiable to have all of your shoes in the ridiculously expensive category. I use Tricker's and C&J for shoes such as country brogues and casual, as well as for occasions when I don't want to care about my shoes in the slightest - I was wearing a pair of Loakes when I fell in the Grand Canal thank god. EG & G&G are for formal wear, and they would be the brands I'd choose for my next black calf oxford.
post #17 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ich_Dien View Post
I was wearing a pair of Loakes when I fell in the Grand Canal thank god.

I would suggest Crocs with no socks and high water trousers in your situation. A style you often see in The Sartorialist. Bicycles are out though, for obvious reasons.
post #18 of 52
Yes.
post #19 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by usctrojans31 View Post

If you look at it rationally, the justification explains itself. Your foot contains 25% of the bones in your body, supports your entire frame and is what essentially allows you to move.

If you do not properly support it, and that includes wearing shoes that are the proper width, proper length, and the proper shape, the following occur: foot problems, back problems, and knee problems.

This is a crock of shit. If your primary concern is the well-being of your foot, you's be wearing Rockports or Cole-Haan's with Nike Air soles. No need to justify liking better shoes.
post #20 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
This is a crock of shit. If your primary concern is the well-being of your foot, you's be wearing Rockports or Cole-Haan's with Nike Air soles. No need to justify liking better shoes.
My Aldens fit FAR better than the shoes you mention. If Rockports or Cole-Haan's fit your feet and your aesthetic sense, go for it.
post #21 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
This is a crock of shit. If your primary concern is the well-being of your foot, you's be wearing Rockports or Cole-Haan's with Nike Air soles. No need to justify liking better shoes.
If soft underfoot equated to fit you could wear your crock of shit and call it supportive.
post #22 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
If soft underfoot equated to fit you could wear your crock of shit and call it supportive.

I'm no fan of the rubber sole, but I wear nice shoes because I like nice shoes, not because they're better for my feet. Let's not kid ourselves to believing that our soles are better for our feet than those designed for playing basketball or pulling nursing shifts. It's patently absurd.
post #23 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
I'm no fan of the rubber sole, but I wear nice shoes because I like nice shoes, not because they're better for my feet. Let's not kid ourselves to believing that our soles are better for our feet than those designed for playing basketball or pulling nursing shifts. It's patently absurd.
With all due respect, you are kidding yourself if you think that cushioned insoles and soft crepe or rubber outsoles equate to "good for the foot." A leather outsole may or may not be good for the foot (it is good/better for the shoe, however). In many cases, depending on the conditions, it might not be significantly better or worse regardless of intended use. Perhaps...and only perhaps...a case could be made for rubber in situations where high impact is expected. Even there, however, a good fit using high quality materials--leather, IOW--can duplicate or even exceed the benefits that a poor fitting shoe with rubber outsoles would confer. On the other hand, a leather insole is, in the long run, almost certainly better for the foot simply because it forms a footbed...similar to a foot print in the sand. The whole issue is not about softness or cushioning, however. It is about fit. A cushioned insole can hide a lot of misfits...and more often than not does, especially if we are talking about even high end athletic shoe worn by teenagers and wanna-be-teenagers. Beyond that, synthetic materials such as foam cushioning are notorious breeding grounds for bacteria and other foot diseases. Combine materials that do not breath with a structure that only fits the foot by virtue of compression and displacement rather than actual similarity to girth or shape characteristics and I believe a case could be made with some assurance that, as a general rule, well made leather shoes are better for the foot...both in terms of general foot health and long term anatomical support.
post #24 of 52
^ That is a very interesting point. I wish there was an undertaking to provide us with an empirical determination, one way or the other.
post #25 of 52
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butter View Post
It's actually more than 30-40% better for many cases.
- Soles: Rubber vs. leather, glued vs. stitched. Depending on how the sole is made and attached, the shoe's longevity can be stretched must longer if made with quality.
- Leather: Quality of the leather also makes a huge difference. Shoes make from cheaper corrected grain leather will look just as nice as good leather when new but after 6 months of daily use, the difference will be apparent.

Just the combination of these two factors can be the difference between a shoe that falls apart in 1-2 years versus one that lasts for 10-15. And I have worn many shoes where soles start to fall apart after a year.

Also, not to say you should buy shoes because of their resale value, but the fact that some brands of shoes have high resale value is an indicator of generally how well the shoe stood the test of time.

I have learned allot from your post, also allot of things I suspected in regards to the difference in quality where confirmed by your post. Thanks for the information.
post #26 of 52
Thread Starter 
Thanks, to all others that posted advice and brand recommendations. I shall take my time to checkout all the recommended brands online to see if there is anything that fits my style and quality standards. I shall be in NYC later this month and shall certainly checkout the better shoe stores and try some of the recommended brands on while I am there.

Cheers,
Michael.
post #27 of 52
paying 700 euros for a shoe is enough justification people wouldt be asking about the quality nor method of contruction instead they will ask how much you paid for it. when you tell them to their face "its 700 euros" regardless of brand or quality the price itself enough to impress most people then when they ask "wow most people dont pay this much for a shoe " then your most appropriate respond would be "i am not most people"
post #28 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
I'm no fan of the rubber sole, but I wear nice shoes because I like nice shoes, not because they're better for my feet. Let's not kid ourselves to believing that our soles are better for our feet than those designed for playing basketball or pulling nursing shifts. It's patently absurd.

You're logical assumptions are incorrect... witness barefoot running. There are countless studies showing that, for the average user, many running shoes etc "designed" to be better for your feet actually increase risk to your feet and legs. They allow you to strike too hard for your knees, created lateral flexibility that stresses your ankles etc.

A very well-fitted shoe is one that most accurately fits the natural design of your foot and doesn't create or mask bad habits.
post #29 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by usctrojans31 View Post
I actually had this conversation with a coworker yesterday.

If you look at it rationally, the justification explains itself. Your foot contains 25% of the bones in your body, supports your entire frame and is what essentially allows you to move.

If you do not properly support it, and that includes wearing shoes that are the proper width, proper length, and the proper shape, the following occur: foot problems, back problems, and knee problems.

This of course is not even taking into account the style, quality, etc. I'm of the opinion if you're building a wardrobe, the first thing you purchase for yourself is a legit pair of shoes. The difference between an average suit and a great suit is significantly less than the difference between an average pair of shoes and a great pair of shoes.

The most important thing for you to do is to get properly measured and wearing a proper fitting last. Alden has approximately 9 popular lasts, I can only wear the Aberdeen. You may be similar or the complete opposite and not be able to wear the Aberdeen.

How do you go about doing this? Is it just that metal contraption with the the sliding measuring bars? Or is there a better way?
post #30 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cary Grant;
You're logical assumptions are incorrect... witness barefoot running. There are countless studies showing that, for the average user, many running shoes etc "designed" to be better for your feet actually increase risk to your feet and legs. They allow you to strike too hard for your knees, created lateral flexibility that stresses your ankles etc.

A very well-fitted shoe is one that most accurately fits the natural design of your foot and doesn't create or mask bad habits.

How many runners do you see wearing $1,000 bespoke dress shoes?

I like expensive shoes as much as the next guy who hangs out on a style forum, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that more $$ equals better for your foot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Justification prices highend shoes