Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Net worth before you can "afford" $500 shoes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Net worth before you can "afford" $500 shoes? - Page 12

post #166 of 194
6/11/11 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by westinghouse View Post
"When I see a guy with an expensive watch and cheap shoes, I know I have him nailed"

-George Hamilton

Hell, George once nailed his own stepmother.
Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on Styleforum

Drake's London at Pitti Uomo 83
What is Styleforum Wearing: 5.21.2013
Marketplace: Classic menswear, shoes, and accessories
post #167 of 194
6/11/11 at 5:20pm
..
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 194
6/12/11 at 2:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archivist View Post
Simple question:
In your opinion, what should a guy's liquid net worth be before he can "afford" $5.00 toilet paper? (Your answer is a number)
Conversely, below what level would your natural reaction to his $5.00 toilet paper be: What a jackass!

First, please note the use of quotations above.
This is not a literal question. (eg: When he has $5.01, duh!)
That said, $5.01 certainly is a valid answer.

I am using net worth and not salary because the latter can be a very weak gauge of one's financial solvency.
Free Cash Flow (FCF) paints a more direct picture.

I also deliberately picked the $5.00 threshold, and not $3.00 for Scott's, et al.
$5.00 is a different pricing paradigm entirely, and is probably 3 SD's over the average toilet paper expenditure.
At this level, one has deliberately groomed himself as a "serious toilet paper guy".

So, at what point does a guy have no business wiping with $5.00 toilet paper, and be viewed as a fraud/idiot?

Alternate question: What other criteria would you use in deciding whether a guy can afford $5.00 toilet paper?

If you are still using insanitary "toilet paper" you are still a poor prole too poor to have a bidet.Toilet paper is disgusting and low class. Wiping your arse with dry paper?
Wash it you slobs
Reply
Reply
post #169 of 194
6/12/11 at 3:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

Simple question:In your opinion, what should a guy's liquid net worth be before he can "afford" $500 shoes? (Your answer is a number)
Conversely, below what level would your natural reaction to his $500 shoes be: What a jackass!

First, please note the use of quotations above.
This is not a literal question. (eg: When he has $500.01, duh!)
That said, $500.01 certainly is a valid answer.

I am using net worth and not salary because the latter can be a very weak gauge of one's financial solvency.
Free Cash Flow (FCF) paints a more direct picture.

I also deliberately picked the $500 threshhold, and not $300 for AE's, et al.
$500 is a different pricing paradigm entirely, and is probably 3 SD's over the average shoe expenditure.
At this level, one has deliberately groomed himself as a "serious shoe guy".

So, at what point does a guy have no business wearing $500 shoes, and be viewed as a fraud/idiot?

Alternate question: What other criteria would you use in deciding whether a guy can afford $500 shoes?


Simple answer: Charge the shoes to your credit card.
Reply
Reply
post #170 of 194
6/12/11 at 3:24am
..
Reply
Reply
post #171 of 194
10/8/11 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by viatorView Post
When you can wear them without fear of ruining them.
This is indeed the answer for being able to afford anything. If one worries about ruining something, one can't afford it.

These are good points and probably the best "rules of thumb" to determine whether or not you can afford it. I suppose if you can afford to get in a cab / limo on a very regular basis and not think twice about it, then you can afford nice shoes. I think a lot of nice shoes rarely see ground outside of the carpet on the office floor, the hardwood at home, and the trips between home/office and the car. If you're a dandy about town wearing your shoes into the ground then you either a.) are bankrolled / trust-funded / early retired and you can do as you please, or b.) don't really grasp the concept of responsibilities and probably have more to worry about than spending too much on shoes.

Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCF3ywukQYA
Reply
Reply
post #172 of 194
10/8/11 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel View Post

Reevolving, you are an awful poster.

+10,000,000

You can just look at the retarded titles and tell it's one of his threads. A ban would be nice.
Reply
Reply
post #173 of 194
10/8/11 at 9:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joenobody0 View Post

+10,000,000
You can just look at the retarded titles and tell it's one of his threads. A ban would be nice.

Ahhh yes, yet another joins the small band of merry men to weed out what they percieve as the invalid from the group and then, for self gratification, guffaw as that said person plunges from grace.

I personally consider this rough justice, a perceived innocuous act leading to his condemnation towards the festering bowels of humanity.

It is not as if Reevolving, in a parallel universe, would be known to the Saxons of antiquity as:

Reevolving the molestor,

or

Reevolving the seaside strangler
Reply
Reply
post #174 of 194
10/8/11 at 9:24pm
Why was this thread even bumped? For shame on all your houses...
Reply
Reply
post #175 of 194
10/9/11 at 7:25am
The simple answer to this simple-minded question is that if you can't appreciate the distinctions between a $200.00 shoe and a $500.00 shoe...or between a $1000.00 shoe and a $3000.00 shoe...then you can't afford it at any price.

It is one thing to say "I choose not to spend my money because I don't see value or appreciate the nuances that this product embodies." It is another to claim that coarser sensibilities should, or do, trump more exacting preferences.
Reply
Reply
post #176 of 194
10/9/11 at 7:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

The simple answer to this simple-minded question is that if you can't appreciate the distinctions between a $200.00 shoe and a $500.00 shoe...or between a $1000.00 shoe and a $3000.00 shoe...then you can't afford it at any price.
It is one thing to say "I choose not to spend my money because I don't see value or appreciate the nuances that this product embodies." It is another to claim that coarser sensibilities should, or do, trump more exacting preferences.

Doesn't this shtick get old?
Reply
Reply
post #177 of 194
10/9/11 at 8:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS View Post

Was it not Diana Vreeland who said, "If you want to know if someone is well dressed, look at the shoes." That being so, shouldn't we be discussing a pair of shoes that might actually be deemed of quality?

This was my parent's rule of thumb. They always checked out shoes and fingernails as a 'shorthand' for evaluating who a stranger might be. If nothing else you can tell in a flash if the man pays attention to details. It's still something I do as well.
Reply
Reply
post #178 of 194
10/9/11 at 9:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post

Doesn't this shtick get old?

What shtick is that?

Is that the one where you spend $1000.00 on a pair of shoe just so that you can make all your colleagues feel like losers or women swoon because you've recklessly dropped a bundle on something you probably don't understand at any relevant level? ?

Or is it the one where you buy a pair of shoes made by "XYZ" so you can name drop just as surely as if it were movie stars you deserved to be associated with? And never because you have enough perspicacity to see the off-center toe medallion before you buy. Or the intelligence to ask how things are made and how they work together? The inquisitiveness, if nothing else, to wonder if that blue layer inside your shoe is fiberboard or leather.

Shtick or substance?

Where is the substance?

It begs the question: doesn't premeditated ignorance get old?
Reply
Reply
post #179 of 194
10/9/11 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

What shtick is that?
Is that the one where you spend $1000.00 on a pair of shoe just so that you can make all your colleagues feel like losers or women swoon because you've recklessly dropped a bundle on something you probably don't understand at any relevant level? ?
Or is it the one where you buy a pair of shoes made by "XYZ" so you can name drop just as surely as if it were movie stars you deserved to be associated with? And never because you have enough perspicacity to see the off-center toe medallion before you buy. Or the intelligence to ask how things are made and how they work together? The inquisitiveness, if nothing else, to wonder if that blue layer inside your shoe is fiberboard or leather.
Shtick or substance?
Where is the substance?
It begs the question: doesn't premeditated ignorance get old?

we get it, many shoes, even with high end labels, are assembled like total dogshit in your opinion. There is a difference between understanding the benefit of something and appreciating it. I can understand why LPs are more enjoyable to listen to, but I don't appreciate the difference because I'm not an audiophile. Same thing with shoes. I like shoes that look nice first, then fit well, followed by how well they last. If a fiberboard insole is making my shoes awful, I haven't noticed.

Now then, I don't think I've ever met anyone who is impressed, or even gives a shit, about the shoes I'm wearing beyond that they look nice. Furthermore, 95 people out of 100% probably couldn't tell the difference between EG, C&J, or AE, which according to you are all garbage. Finally, even if I told someone I was wearing Edward Green, they'd probably stare at me in utter confusion and ask what that is.
Edited by Quadcammer - 10/9/11 at 11:17am
Reply
Reply
post #180 of 194
10/9/11 at 11:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post

we get it, many shoes, even with high end labels, are assembled like total dogshit in your opinion. There is a difference between understanding the benefit of something and appreciating it. I can understand why LPs are more enjoyable to listen to, but I don't appreciate the difference because I'm not an audiophile. Same thing with shoes. I like shoes that look nice first, followed by how well they last. If a fiberboard insole is making my shoes awful, I haven't noticed.
Now then, I don't think I've ever met anyone who is impressed, or even gives a shit, about the shoes I'm wearing beyond that they look nice. Furthermore, 95 people out of 100% probably couldn't tell the difference between EG, C&J, or AE, which according to you are all garbage. Finally, even if I told someone I was wearing Edward Green, they'd probably stare at me in utter confusion and ask what that is.

Yeah and your fingerpainting is every bit as good as the Mona Lisa, because it's all subjective and/or only an educated art critic can explain what the difference is.

This is a stupid line of reasoning.

P.S. lots of people say they notice shoes first, and lots of people know what different levels of shoe quality look like. Lots.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear

Featured Stories on Styleforum

Drake's London at Pitti Uomo 83
What is Styleforum Wearing: 5.21.2013
Marketplace: Classic menswear, shoes, and accessories
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Net worth before you can "afford" $500 shoes?