Isn't buying the "luxury" as much a fantasy as buying them for bucolic imagery of cricketeering bootmakers?
For me, luxury (as defined not-so-elegantly as the merchandise feeling and looking nicer) has some tangible benefits. Whether the bootmakers play cricket or play Mah Jong during their time off, in my view, has no bearing on tangible benefits of paying extra at all. It relates to fantasy, an image, something that is utterly disconnected to the actual work and product in question.
That is the same reason why I buy, for example, Japanese cars (albeit "luxury" models) over, say, German cars. Mercedes-Benz can run commercials with Marlene Dietrich singing and images of its race cars from bygone eras, but we all know that such fantasies have zero bearing on what kind of cars M-B factories actually turn out these days.
Let me clarify again. I am not saying that EG shoes are not necessarily worth the money or not good value. They may be. I was merely suggesting that a person who considers products made in Asia to be "guarnateed to be rubbish" merely because they are made in Asia and who evokes images (or stories) of cricketeering English bootmakers as a sign of quality is indulging in fantasy rather than rational explanations of why one might buy high quality English shoes.
High quality is high quality, wherever a product is made. While it is true that certain historical forces favor a particular location for manufacturing certain items, those forces are never static. After all, there was a time when "Japanese electronics" was an oxymoronic term.
We are now living in an era when Hyundai is beginning to turn out vehicles with higher initial build quality than Ford or even BMW.