or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Thread (including reviews, purchases, pictures, etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Thread (including reviews, purchases, pictures, etc...) - Page 802

post #12016 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Informed...as opposed to deliberately ignorant...choices--that's the key.
 

Amen.

post #12017 of 21772
There is room in my wardrobe for HL and GY shoes alike. My tastes will always guide my choices, but with a cautious second opinion from my logical brain. Enjoy your shoes good sirs...
post #12018 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by JubeiSpiegel View Post

There is room in my wardrobe for HL and GY shoes alike.
icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #12019 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodog View Post

Thanks for taking the time to explain further. I really appreciate it. I can see your point. However, I don't really agree with you that this so called bulge is showing in all or even most of my photos. And in those where it might show, I think it might have to do in part with the MH71 toe shape together with lighting and reflections.

Anyhow, I guess I've somewhat come to the conclusion that I don't think this is a problem, even if the bulges in fact are present.


But...referring back to a previous post in this thread... if such nuances don't bother a person---if the cosmetics don't matter--then what is the justification for paying high dollar for shoes that are technically only marginally better than shoes at one tenth the cost? Again I ask, is it the box? The name, IOW?
 

 

Well thats just the thing, isn't it? What you're saying is basically begging the question. Just because the cosmetics aren't in place for someone like yourself, then it doesn't follow that they aren't in place for everyone else either. Just you stipulating that "such nuances don't bother a person and hence that the cosmetics don't matter", doesn't make it so. Also, that for example G&G are only marginally technically better than shoes at a tenth of the cost (say, Meermin for example) is also not the whole truth. Even if this was true, and G&G were technically marginally better than Meermin (which I don't believe for a second, by the way), then you are forgetting, or make it seem as though you are forgetting, every other variable that makes a shoe cost more than others.

 

Or are you really saying that apart from strictly subjective features of a shoe (last shape, styling, finishing etc) that a G&G shoe is almost as "good" as a shoe from Meermin?

post #12020 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodog View Post
 

 

Well thats just the thing, isn't it? What you're saying is basically begging the question. Just because the cosmetics aren't in place for someone like yourself, then it doesn't follow that they aren't in place for everyone else either. Just you stipulating that "such nuances don't bother a person and hence that the cosmetics don't matter", doesn't make it so. Also, that for example G&G are only marginally technically better than shoes at a tenth of the cost (say, Meermin for example) is also not the whole truth. Even if this was true, and G&G were technically marginally better than Meermin (which I don't believe for a second, by the way), then you are forgetting, or make it seem as though you are forgetting, every other variable that makes a shoe cost more than others.

 

Or are you really saying that apart from strictly subjective features of a shoe (last shape, styling, finishing etc) that a G&G shoe is almost as "good" as a shoe from Meermin?

 

You do realize cosmetics has little to do with the quality of the leather upper, ya?

post #12021 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodog View Post
 

 

Well thats just the thing, isn't it? What you're saying is basically begging the question. Just because the cosmetics aren't in place for someone like yourself, then it doesn't follow that they aren't in place for everyone else either. Just you stipulating that "such nuances don't bother a person and hence that the cosmetics don't matter", doesn't make it so. Also, that for example G&G are only marginally technically better than shoes at a tenth of the cost (say, Meermin for example) is also not the whole truth. Even if this was true, and G&G were technically marginally better than Meermin (which I don't believe for a second, by the way), then you are forgetting, or make it seem as though you are forgetting, every other variable that makes a shoe cost more than others.

 

Or are you really saying that apart from strictly subjective features of a shoe (last shape, styling, finishing etc) that a G&G shoe is almost as "good" as a shoe from Meermin?

 

You do realize cosmetics has little to do with the quality of the leather upper, ya?

 

Of course I do. Oh well, I don't want to get further into this discussion than whats been going on the last few pages. To each his own, I guess. I'll leave it at that.

 

I just think its a shame that so many of this forum's members have crappy G&G shoes in their wardrobes. ;) 

post #12022 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodog View Post
 

 

Of course I do. Oh well, I don't want to get further into this discussion than whats been going on the last few pages. To each his own, I guess. I'll leave it at that.

 

I just think its a shame that so many of this forum's members have crappy G&G shoes in their wardrobes. ;) 

 

One thing that people seems to forget that there's been a large and active aftermarket selling and reselling of G&G shoes.  And John Lobb.  But much smaller market for EG.

 

And some forum members have a fairly high churn rate for their shoe trading inventory.

post #12023 of 21772
In defense of esthetics, it is a shame that the shoe purists / gurus give such little credit to such things. Are we not on SF because we have equal part love for not just quality, but for style as well?

As an artist, if i painted something, and the majority of the consideration was given to the quality of my materials and the canvas used, i would be saddened. It means my skill, and the emotion / message i was trying to convey in the content, had little impact. It is something i see all the time, people do not value the visuals. They are usually taken for granted, even though so few people can do them well.

I'm not saying it's a completely comparable example, but there is something to be said at the disregard for the pre-production work on a shoe. I would expect that plenty of work goes into shoe designing and last making. There is skill & talent involved in those processes as well i would also assume.

I can look at a GG shoe and enjoy it simply for it's lines / shape, it's design, and the emotion it is trying to convey. There is nothing wrong with that, not everyone can make a good looking shoe, and it should be acceptable to enjoy these things as well i think...
Edited by JubeiSpiegel - 5/16/14 at 12:31pm
post #12024 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by JubeiSpiegel View Post

In defense of esthetics, it is a shame that the shoe purists / gurus give such little credit to such things. Are we not on SF because we have equal part love for not just quality, but for style as well?

As an artist, if i painted something, and the majority of the consideration was given to the quality of my materials and the canvas used, i would be saddened. It means my skill, and the emotion / message i was trying to convey in the content, had little impact. It is something i see all the time, people do not value the visuals. They are usually taken for granted, even though so few people can do them well.

I'm not saying it's a completely comparable example, but there is something to be said at the disregard for the pre-production work on a shoe. I would expect that plenty of work goes into shoe designing and last making. There is skill & talent involved in those processes as well i would also assume.

I can look at a GG shoe and enjoy it simply for it's lines / shape, it's design, and the emotion it is trying to convey. There is nothing wrong with that, not everyone can make a good looking shoe, and it should be acceptable to enjoy these things as well i think...

I think any facility of expression is almost entirely dependent on media/materials....as well as technique. At the very least, materials and technique weigh heavily in the outcome and the clarity of expression and must be taken into consideration at all levels of aesthetics--art, craft, or style.

If it is lightness and aethereality that you wish to convey, water colours are probably a better choice than oils. And a soft brush preferable to a palate knife.

The trouble with all this is that it's all so subjective. Ones man's brilliant antiquing is another man's messy dye job. And one man's smart, stylish design is another man's clunky. One man's fair curves or "lines" is another man's indiscernible.

At that point it's all down to 'he said, she said." which is...as I more or less suggested in my response to mimo...all fine and dandy but tells us nothing about quality or value. Of course, the upside is that if it's not quantifiable it's not subject to analysis or judgement or criticism. It's politically correct, for sure but beyond reproach--even excess acrylic becomes "not a problem."

But it leaves us with emotion/ignorance/uninformed opinion as an equal opportunity basis for judgement...and that in turns leaves us very vulnerable to sales pitches, PR hype and outright deceit.

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/16/14 at 1:57pm
post #12025 of 21772


A couple more midnight blue Deco Mitchell pics.
post #12026 of 21772
Those Decos look very nice... not as aggressive as other photos I've seen.
post #12027 of 21772

^^ Interesting observation.  I always thought the Deco was a bit silly (sue me!), but when I saw them in person in the shop, they don't seem so crazy.  G&G's lasts really are something to behold, toe puff irregularities notwithstanding...

post #12028 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

^^ Interesting observation.  I always thought the Deco was a bit silly (sue me!), but when I saw them in person in the shop, they don't seem so crazy.  G&G's lasts really are something to behold, toe puff irregularities notwithstanding...

Just a point of clarity...I like G&G's. If I didn't make shoes, G&G's...bespoke, mind you...would be high on my list.

As it is, a lot of my influences come from G&G. I think the design work is particularly fine. I admire the heck out of the bottom work and the finishing. I incorporated some of what I absorbed just from looking at G&G's into my own lasts and patterns.

But it's like being attracted to a beautiful woman--if you're so beguiled by outward appearances that you cannot see the reality underneath...well, how many of us have gotten into trouble following that path?!

I'm at an age when I won't lie to myself, there's no percentage in it.

--
Edited by DWFII - 5/17/14 at 8:46am
post #12029 of 21772

Understood!  And as I said earlier, for all the prettiness, I personally decided not to pay that premium.  Though I will likely be suckered by some future sale item...

post #12030 of 21772
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post
 

 

One thing that people seems to forget that there's been a large and active aftermarket selling and reselling of G&G shoes.  And John Lobb.  But much smaller market for EG.

 

And some forum members have a fairly high churn rate for their shoe trading inventory.

 

Ok, sure. But I don't really see your point. Care to elaborate?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Gaziano & Girling Appreciation & Shoe Appreciation Thread (including reviews, purchases, pictures, etc...)