Originally Posted by bengal-stripe
That’s exactly what EG has done: initially they said they were unable to do the job and offered a free return of the item. Then they suggested to Philo if he was willing to pay for a reconstructed last, then the job could be done.
I believe, EG has behaved absolutely correct, giving the customer the choice.
Bengal, without tempting any adversarialism between the bloggers in this post, I do not think that we should abandon the enquiry into this issue quite so easily.
I don’t disagree with your logic posed that customised manufacturing can be expected to attract high costs, and we cannot complain at these manufacturing bills.
In this respect I agree with Bengal.
Where we part company is Bengal’s assertion that “probably every firm will charge you” <---- I disagree
I put it to you Bengal that the distinction between those who will charge and those who will not is the very basis upon which we distinguish between firms which offer a prestigious
quality product to the market and those who do not.
Let us examine the terms “quality” and “prestigious”
What is the definition of quality?
Quality is traditionally defined as a product which meets certain minimum specifications including:-
(1) features which render the product aesthetically superior AND
(2) with a superior ability to perform its intended use AND
(3) a superior capacity to endure,
In other words a high expected longevity without loss of the product’s ability to be continually used AND without loss of functionality or superior aesthetic qualities despite use.
The term “Prestigious” in this respect may be defined as that illustrious reputation of a company to consistantly meet these quality requirements in the delivery of their products to their clientele.
So, a “prestigious quality product” does cost money, we agree with Bengal, and it can cost a LOT of money, exactly like Bengal says, but by definition, it should not continue to cost without losing one or more of the essential attributes of the definition of the term “quality” or the term “prestigious”
By way of example, let us assume a shoeless client who walks into John Lobb of St James and asks for a pair of shoes.
Well, one can expect complete clarity concerning prices and one can expect good service and delivery of a superior quality product.
Not only that, but one could expect that the client will be capable fo returning to John Lobb at any time in the future with the request to refurbish and I can guarantee
you, nobody from John Lobb of St James will telephone you with the loser’s attitude of “sorry, we don’t have the right gear to refurbish your shoes, but we will offer to return the junk to you without charge” -
I can GUARANTEE that will not happen.
I can also guarantee that John Lobb would N E V E R N E V E R E V E R ask you to pay for the manufacture of another pair of lasts. Why? Because we are dealiing with a REPUTABLE, PRESTIGIOUS COMPANY used to supplying GENTLEMEN their footwear.
But then, I can also GUARANTEE that 10 years ago you would receive the same service from Edward Green.
What is the difference? John lobb is still managed by people who understand the terms "QUALITY" "PRESTIGE" "HONOUR" "GENTLEMAN" and Edward Green have forgotten these concepts, all of which may be considered tgraditional English concepts which makes the English quality so unique and so pompously identifiable.
Sorry, but Edward Green has lost those qualities.
Now, on the topic of cost, when a shoe costs $2000.00 as opposed to a very good quality $250.00 Allen Edmonds, you would expect, at the very least, to be able to return the shoe for refurb at a future date, that it is ALREADY BUILT INTO THE LUDICROUSLY HIGH PRICE.
This is what I believe Bengal Stripe is not recognising.
I took an Allen Edmonds Boulevard from the 1960’s, a pair of shoes given as a gift to a decorated veteran of the Korean War, and Uncle of mine, and during November of last year Alice Schaut, of Allen Edmonds, contacted me to advise me that “of course we will refurbish your Boulevard” even though this shoe has not been in production I believe since the 1960’s or 1970’s.
And this is Allen Edmonds, you cannot tell me that Allen Edmonds did not have to remanufacture that old last - they would not have had one simply lying around for 50 years now would they?
I am also not expecting a call from them asking for me to pay for a new Boulevard last.
Ironically, the Allen Edmonds probably cost less than $25.oo in the 1960's!!!
So what we have here is a non-prestigious shoe company and a prestigious shoe company, Allen Edmonds and John Lobb of SJ who are both perfectly capable of meeting minimum quality standards while we all rush off and let a third pretender to the title of “prestigious” company off the hook.
The reason we are so easily letting Edward Green off the hook is because we have developed a favourable prejudice toward Edward Green because they USED to be a PRESTIGIOUS company YEARS ago and we are allowing them to take advantage of their PREVIOUS prestige as well as the current ILLUSION of quality to get away with commercial murder.
We go all hard and pompous about protecting Edward Green's product, and then we go all soft and floppy when we analyse their faults and flaws.
Let’s not get screwed by the new Edward Green and let us try, instead, to be a little more objective in the hope that we can help to maintain standards rather than participate in the decline of those standards by accepting any crap Edward Green delivers. We owe it to those on the factory floor who are being let down by those in suits and Prada outfits.