or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › What SF approved item is your vote for the biggest waste of money ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What SF approved item is your vote for the biggest waste of money ? - Page 9

post #121 of 225
I would say a waste of money is some sort of bone or horn for polishing cordovan. Sounds like bologna to me.
post #122 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I would say a waste of money is some sort of bone or horn for polishing cordovan. Sounds like bologna to me.

I have been debating on one for a while, just to try it out. While it's not that expensive it's more the idea of being completely taken by hype/being fooled into thinking it will or should work that scares me. In the meantime I fear my cordovan will never know what it's like to be truly polished...
post #123 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by VRaivio View Post

-silver/gilt collar stays

That is one that I really have never understood. MOP stays too. No one, including the wearer, sees them while in use. There's no functional difference.
post #124 of 225
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS View Post

I'm surprised no one mentioned this yet:

350

Can you elaborate on what aspects of the book you object to ?
post #125 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd2010 View Post

1k+ shoes...

 

You can get 95% of the craftsmanship/look/quality in a 200 dollar AE shoe.

 

New professional here, took that 1k and shopped around and now have an entire wardrobe of brown/black balmorals, loafers, etc from "lesser brands" which are still nicer than 99% of shoes made, that will likely stand up almost as well and that look nearly identical.

 

not trolling

 

Edit:  If you roll in NYC i-banking or big law I mean yea you might need to step up your game because youre around people who are more likely to notice the tiny differences in quality, but lets be honest, for 90% of the forum, this isn't the case.  No one knows the difference between 300 dollar and 1000 dollar shoes but you.

 

This forum is so far out there on the bell curve of this stuff.  I am still probably in the top 10% of people in America in willingness to spend to look nice, yet on this forum I am the cheapass trash wearing clown.  Just trying to bring some balance to this forum.


JD2010 - if u still here in a couple months u should be able to flip those used AE over in the AAAC Trad Forum
post #126 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by VRaivio View Post

-silver/gilt collar stays
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


That is one that I really have never understood. MOP stays too. No one, including the wearer, sees them while in use. There's no functional difference.


+2.

I actually prefer plastic collar stays as they give the collar some firmness, whilst still allowing it to flex and to have a nice roll. Collar stays made from silver or other metal, or MoP, are too stiff and make the collar leaves too straight for my taste.
post #127 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post


I actually prefer plastic collar stays as they give the collar some firmness, whilst still allowing it to flex and to have a nice roll. Collar stays made from silver or other metal, or MoP, are too stiff and make the collar leaves too straight for my taste.

They also mean a sliver of metal is rubbing against the cloth of your collar all day. I've had some I've stopped using because they seemed alarmingly sharp.
post #128 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post


Can you elaborate on what aspects of the book you object to ?

He's just giving the author a little grief. I wouldn't think there are any real objections.
post #129 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by curzon View Post


And any slipper or garment w/ a skull and crossbones embroidered on it.

I have a handkerchief covered in brightly colored skulls and crossbones on a black background. I think it was a great use of the dollar I spent on it.

Of course, I'm not sure if a functional item one uses to blow their nose counts as a garment, but still.


My serious nomination would be those preppy pants with the stupid little repeating figures in the fabric.
post #130 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguis Mortuum View Post


Amount of creasing is more likely to be related to the fit and last than to the leather quality; I have a heard time believing that C&J use 'very poor quality leather', especially when compared to Hugo Boss. Even you have said that you have a second pair of C&J which don't exhibit this bad creasing, which suggests it is more a result of the particular style in relation to your foot shape than to anything related to the quality of the leather. Most likely it is a result of the elongated last, the Drummond being on the 348; I have a pair of C&J Edgwares which are also on the 348 and also crease quite badly, but several other C&J pairs which are on less elongated lasts do not.

I do not know for certain what the technical reason is why my Drummond's look as bad as they do after about only about 35-40 wears, but judging by my experience with them I do find them to be poor quality shoes. After only two and a half months (on top of the wide creases in mentioned in my initial post) a tear of about 1 1/2 mm appeared in one of the creases and the leather showed and a faint tile like crack pattern on the both sides of both shoes.

After one month of purchasing my Drummond's I ordered my second pair of C&J.'s Wigmore's in black calf (which still look great to date). To my untrained eye the general model of both the Drummond and Wigmore look very similar (both elongated models), yet the kind of leather kind/structure seems different. The leather of the Drummond's seems allot shinier and plastic like compared to that of the Wigmore's, this is why I assumed that the creasing, cracking issues with the Drummond’s uppers where due to poorly quality leather.

Taken into consideration that I followed the advice given by the C&J. salesman on the correct shoe size, and purchased the correct OEM shoetrees for the shoes, I am very underwhelmed with the quality of the Drummond’s. Weather it is a last fit issue or leather quality issue seems beside the point to me.

My opinion is that a pair of 500$ C.J. shoes purchased at the C&J store in NYC, with advice regarding the correct size and trees, that already started to show creases very soon after purchase and tears and cracks after only two and a half months, is a poor pair of shoes that certainly is not worth 500US$.

Because of logistic reasons (shoes where bought in NYC while I was on vacation, I live in The Netherlands) and that I did no know what to expect from my first pair of "high quality" shoes I did not take them back to the store.
post #131 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

To me, some clothing items are totally worth spending a lot of money on. They are unique, stylish, fit perfectly, or are just bulletproof. I have GLADLY spent a lot of money of things such as: Grenadine ties, Shatung ties, slim fit pants, linen jackets, slim fit shirts, belts with stylish patterns, whiskey shell wingtips, pebble grain wingtip boots, etc.

On the other hand, some things just don't seem like they are worth spending big bucks on. I'll start: Black belts. They all look the same to me. Do I need one to last 10 years? Not really. I can just buy a new one every few years, if need be. I just don't feel like I'm getting much for my money, so I personally would never spend $100 on a black belt. (Plain black shoes come in a close second)

I'd rather direct my funds elsewhere,and get more "impact" for the buck.
In your opinion and experience, what items are simply not worth paying extra for ?

Your posts always deliver. I think the best thing you have ever done was buy a digital camera and take a picture of your manly chest and post it on the interwebs.
post #132 of 225
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joenobody0 View Post

Your posts always deliver. I think the best thing you have ever done was buy a digital camera and take a picture of your manly chest and post it on the interwebs.

Do you even understand why that was done?
post #133 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd2010 View Post

1k+ shoes...

 

You can get 95% of the craftsmanship/look/quality in a 200 dollar AE shoe.

 

New professional here, took that 1k and shopped around and now have an entire wardrobe of brown/black balmorals, loafers, etc from "lesser brands" which are still nicer than 99% of shoes made, that will likely stand up almost as well and that look nearly identical.

 

not trolling

 

Edit:  If you roll in NYC i-banking or big law I mean yea you might need to step up your game because youre around people who are more likely to notice the tiny differences in quality, but lets be honest, for 90% of the forum, this isn't the case.  No one knows the difference between 300 dollar and 1000 dollar shoes but you.

 

This forum is so far out there on the bell curve of this stuff.  I am still probably in the top 10% of people in America in willingness to spend to look nice, yet on this forum I am the cheapass trash wearing clown.  Just trying to bring some balance to this forum.


Not to take this thread too far off topic, but…

I have to give credit to edmorel for how tactfully he addressed your statement. I would like to leave it at that, but I just can’t. Your statement is so shamefully unsubstantiated that it warrants a response.

First, I would ask which pair of your 1K+ shoes are you comparing your AE shoes to that are only 5% better? Clearly you own at least 1 pair of 1K+ shoes for comparison or you could not ethically state your opinion as the fact you believe it to be. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but stating it as fact with no basis is just wrong.

I have actually dedicated a fair amount of my time and energy in researching shoe design, construction, history and brands, and I still express my opinion as opinion. I have also owned shoes ranging from Bostonians to Berluits (and a few pair of Allen Edmonds) and I can talk from a position of experience.

In my experience, AE makes a very good $200 to $300 shoe, as does Alden and a handful of European manufactures. I don’t believe that they are better than 99% of shoes made, and I have no idea of what “lesser brands” you are referring to as also better than 99% of shoes made.

I can tell you, from experience, that while a John Lobb shoe may not have 5 times the craftsmanship/look/quality of an AE shoe, it does seem to me at least to have 2 to 3 times the craftsmanship/look/quality of a $200 shoe.

As with most things in life, price and quality are not on parallel linear lines, and monetary value becomes the delta between the two. Fortunately, for those that can afford 1K+ shoes, monetary value is not the only value they consider when buying a shoe.

Each person has to find where all of the various value aspects come together in their life and in their budget and act accordingly. Throwing out wild, unsubstantiated, ratios is a help to no one.

Using your mentality I could say that I can get 95% of the craftsmanship/look/quality of an AE in a Bostonian. They both make shoes on lasts in a similar process. They both use similar materials. They both make similar styles (oxford, blucher, etc…). And, I can buy a Bostonian cap toe blucher (Dennison model) at Zappos for $95. A similar style shoe from AE costs $325. That’s over 3 times as much.

If there is only a 5% difference in craftsmanship/look/quality then the Bostonian is clearly the better value. Even if the AE has twice the craftsmanship/look/quality of the Bostonian, the Bostonian is still the better monetary value. Even at a 3 fold increase in craftsmanship/look/quality the Bostonian is still the better monetary value.

So why buy an AE when you can buy a Bostonian [please nobody quote me on this]? I will tell you why: because AE makes a shoe that is 2 to 3 times better than a Bostonian in craftsmanship/look/quality, and that is worth more than just the cost of the shoe. However, to some it is not, and that is why the Bostonian brand is such a success for Clarks.

There is certainly a vocal minority in this forum that can afford 1K+ shoes that are in an even smaller minority outside this forum, that that does not magically make AE shoes 95% as good as John Lobb, Edward Green, Berluti, etc…

You will find that the forum members that own 1K+ shoes do not judge other members on the price/cost of their shoes, but rather on the style (and in some cases, substantially poor quality). Members that own 1K+ shoes typically know shoes pretty well (among other things) and offer sound advice.

So far the only person calling you a “cheapass trash wearing clown” is you. I would suggest reading more, and when you desire to state your opinion in the forum please state it as an opinion, while considering how you are going to substantiate your opinion.
post #134 of 225
^ pwnage!
post #135 of 225
For me the answer is that most SF approved clothes are a big waste of money. It's not because they aren't quality garments/shoes/etc.. but rather that people need to be aware of their personal means. I make 21 grand a year and and saving for a wedding, gradschool and the like. What is a waste of money for me isn't necessarily a waste of money for PTwilliams. I mostly use what I learn here to try to get the most out of the cheap crap I can afford in terms of fit/arrangement/etc...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › What SF approved item is your vote for the biggest waste of money ?