or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why buy very high quality BLACK dress shoes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why buy very high quality BLACK dress shoes? - Page 3

post #31 of 92

economics of high end shoes

 

most lobb & EG customers couldnt care less about a $700 difference as its completely negligable to a customer base of oil sheiks, city traders, russian oligarchs who frankly dont care what a pair of shoes cost as they are so wealthy .. infact the bigger the price, the better they probably think the product must be (think defined as giffen goods?)

 

actually if you go into lobb or EG for that matter and sit around shooting the sh8t as i do you dont really see any of the real customers but you do see their personal shoppers / valets etc come in and out and order / pick stuff up .. and thats it!

 

ofcourse part of the customer base are the shoe 'enthusiasts' that you find on SF most of whom i think are quite value conscious, but i would think they are in a minority for eg/lobb.

 

lets be honest, EG/lobb costs arent different from C&J .. the manafacturing techniques are the same, the workers are from the same training pool and are paid the same, the factory operating costs are the same .. its just they are pitching for business to different types of people. lobb/EG to ..well the rich (replace if you wish by crooks of various different guises), C&J to the well to do professions it seems .. but lobb/eg sell a fraction of the number of shoes that C&J do .. so i would also guess that C&J revenues are a lot better.

 

on the matter of black shoes, if you work in one of the traditional professions, go to a fair amount of formal events, then a black shoe is going to serve you better than brown as it fits with dark formal suits and an oxford black shoe can also be worn with a dinner jacket too (if you go to these type of events and dont want to wear pumps). 

 

dandy.

 

 

 

 

 

post #32 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivon View Post

I have a pair of those G&G Cambridges on the DG70, they are even sleeker in real life than the pictures show. I also owned AE PAs for many years, the difference is almost night and day held side by side.

AE makes others shoes than the PA, for instance the Clifton, which is much sleeker and more elegant to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandy1 View Post

economics of high end shoes

most lobb & EG customers couldnt care less about a $700 difference as its completely negligable to a customer base of oil sheiks, city traders, russian oligarchs who frankly dont care what a pair of shoes cost as they are so wealthy .. infact the bigger the price, the better they probably think the product must be (think defined as giffen goods?)

actually if you go into lobb or EG for that matter and sit around shooting the sh8t as i do you dont really see any of the real customers but you do see their personal shoppers / valets etc come in and out and order / pick stuff up .. and thats it!

ofcourse part of the customer base are the shoe 'enthusiasts' that you find on SF most of whom i think are quite value conscious, but i would think they are in a minority for eg/lobb.

lets be honest, EG/lobb costs arent different from C&J .. the manafacturing techniques are the same, the workers are from the same training pool and are paid the same, the factory operating costs are the same .. its just they are pitching for business to different types of people. lobb/EG to ..well the rich (replace if you wish by crooks of various different guises), C&J to the well to do professions it seems .. but lobb/eg sell a fraction of the number of shoes that C&J do .. so i would also guess that C&J revenues are a lot better.

on the matter of black shoes, if you work in one of the traditional professions, go to a fair amount of formal events, then a black shoe is going to serve you better than brown as it fits with dark formal suits and an oxford black shoe can also be worn with a dinner jacket too (if you go to these type of events and dont want to wear pumps). 

dandy.

Meh, I agree and disagree. I'm not sure if the average customer of EG or JL is an oil sheik or russian oligarchs. I think you get a lot of people who are really into their shoes and who personally look at, try on, and purchase their shoes.

Lets be real here, this is jewelry for the foot. There is no way that you can justify it on a marginal benefit basis...so people don't. They realize that just like a Patek Phillipe, they are buying something that is high quality and well constructed, but they are buying it for the looks, the prestige, and the experience. The basics of the shoe...as you noted, are not all that different.
post #33 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by dandy1 View Post

economics of high end shoes

most lobb & EG customers couldnt care less about a $700 difference as its completely negligable to a customer base of oil sheiks, city traders, russian oligarchs who frankly dont care what a pair of shoes cost as they are so wealthy .. infact the bigger the price, the better they probably think the product must be (think defined as giffen goods?)

actually if you go into lobb or EG for that matter and sit around shooting the sh8t as i do you dont really see any of the real customers but you do see their personal shoppers / valets etc come in and out and order / pick stuff up .. and thats it!

ofcourse part of the customer base are the shoe 'enthusiasts' that you find on SF most of whom i think are quite value conscious, but i would think they are in a minority for eg/lobb.

lets be honest, EG/lobb costs arent different from C&J .. the manafacturing techniques are the same, the workers are from the same training pool and are paid the same, the factory operating costs are the same .. its just they are pitching for business to different types of people. lobb/EG to ..well the rich (replace if you wish by crooks of various different guises), C&J to the well to do professions it seems .. but lobb/eg sell a fraction of the number of shoes that C&J do .. so i would also guess that C&J revenues are a lot better.

on the matter of black shoes, if you work in one of the traditional professions, go to a fair amount of formal events, then a black shoe is going to serve you better than brown as it fits with dark formal suits and an oxford black shoe can also be worn with a dinner jacket too (if you go to these type of events and dont want to wear pumps). 

dandy.





I call BS on the bolded part, finish to be exact. C&J comes nowhere near to EG in terms of finishing. I'd wager that EG seconds are superior to C&J firsts.

Either that or C&J has major QC problems. Where do you find EG shoes on a retail site or from a B&M retailer for less than EG direct? C&J? Hmmmm.
post #34 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post

meh, the comfort and longevity difference from a $300 AE to these GGs at $1000 no where near justify the price.
Looks and assembly quality, sure.
But is assembly quality all that important when either shoe will last at least 7-10 years. Is being better for the sake of being better important?
To you, maybe...to me, maybe, but not $700 important.

I do agree with you. There is not enough difference in terms of durability to justify the $700 upcharge. Yes there is a difference. But a $1000 pair of G&Gs is not going to outlast 3 pairs of $300 AEs. And I think this is what makes so many people crazy in regards to the topic of 'shoe value'.

For me it comes down to aesthetics.
post #35 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORE View Post

I call BS on the bolded part, finish to be exact. C&J comes nowhere near to EG in terms of finishing. I'd wager that EG seconds are superior to C&J firsts.

I'm with you on this one.

If it were possible to produce a G&G/Lobb/EG quality shoe and retail it for $500 I promise you someone in Northhampton would be doing it. And they would be getting rich off the volume of business.

The Northhampton shoe making industry is highly competitive with itself. With each maker selling their product side by side of each other. The stiff competition assures a reasonable markup. I'm sure that there is some premium associated with name brand cachet. But I bet it's far less than most would think.
post #36 of 92
The AE Clifton is a captoe derby, not as formal as a captoe balmoral, which is the de facto formal dress shoe, the Clifton is not that sleek as the G&G in comparison. I don't disagree with the economics, but the choice to move up the shoe hierarchy is personal and varied. G&G is not $700 worth of better shoe, but to say they are equal is absurd. C & J or the new Sargents might be the new sweet spot for price/quality.

Over the years, I've owned numerous AE models like the PA, Kenilworth, Byron and Sanford, nothing I've seen from AE would qualify as sleek with my current definition. My sleek is DG70 or EG 82 shoes and some Italian models. I'm not slamming AE, but my tastes have moved on from their aesthetic. I wish I could go back to wearing them, I'd save a pile of cash.
post #37 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

For me it comes down to aesthetics.
This certainly reflects my point of view.
post #38 of 92

ok let me clarify .. i should have said ..'EG/lobb costs arent THAT different from C&J'. the comparison i was making was to C&J 'handgrade' as well (ive only got their handgrade shoes so cant comment on benchmade shoes from them). 

 

i would agree with you NORE the finish is generally better on EG than C&J handgrade, hides used are slightly better, some more hand work is done which costs time and money. i would like to just say though that although i think the finish is better it is only generally better, some of the sh8t EG and lobb get away with is unbelievable, good simple example is for example putting a half sock lining in RTW shoes .. i mean WTF? C&J puts a full sock lining in all their handgrade models .. when youre charging over a thousand bucks for a shoe, why would you scrimp on details like this which are basic?!

 

the 700 buck difference is huge and cant be explained by the slightly nicer finishing in general (im sticking to this my friend as the finish on lobb/EG isnt flawless at all if you start deconstructing manafacture and with lobb in some cases is cr8p now). it in my opinion isnt because of costs, EG/Lobb have been forced into the uber high end market as the market is v competitive lower down the scale now. remember, most men these days dont wear northamton welted leather shoes because of globalisation, cheap manafacturing techniques and a modern disposable culture with shoes as with clothes. therefore the english shoemakers are all operating in a small niche market. if you think back pre hermes takeover of lobb, lobb wasnt all that more expensive that crocketts, but when hermes came in they made a decision to push it to their high net worth coterie to make it fit with the rest of hermes business. EG has tacked prices up along with lobb. now the discepency in price between their and C&J shoes for example  is huge (2/3 times a C&J handgrade model) and doesnt make sense. when lobb started ramping its prices up many old loyal buyers couldnt believe it if you remember and stopped buying them but the hermes machine has rumbled on and picked up new younger buyer which is why theyve changed designs in a 180 u turn and created their pointy lightweight italian/french fashionable shoes. dont get me wrong i like EG and Lobb shoes as well as C&J (and have been wearing all for 20 yrs plus) but actually there isnt a huge difference between them.

 

dandy /

 

ps not trying to get anyones backs up but just thinking out aloud .. correct me if you think anything ive said is BS by all means :)

 

  

 

post #39 of 92
For all this talk of "sleekness" isn't this as much a function of shoe size than anything else? A shoe in 13A is going to look a lot "sleeker" than the same style and last in 7EEE. Frankly, those G&G DG70 shoes that were posted to show their superiority over A-Es look so elongated that they're almost like clown shoes! But maybe this is just my crass, lowbrow nature asserting itself!
post #40 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

For all this talk of "sleekness" isn't this as much a function of shoe size than anything else? A shoe in 13A is going to look a lot "sleeker" than the same style and last in 7EEE. Frankly, those G&G DG70 shoes that were posted to show their superiority over A-Es look so elongated that they're almost like clown shoes! ut maybe this is just my crass, lowbrow nature asserting itself![/quote]

You said it.....not me.

peepwall[1].gif

one man's trash.........another man's treasure and all that stuff.
post #41 of 92
_IGP9643.jpg

_IGP9650.jpg

_IGP9875.jpg
post #42 of 92
I see you bro's like debating inconsequential stuff.


I am going to buy a new pair of black shoes... more of a staple shoe I can wear with suits, tux's (even though I never have to wear them), and occasionally to the office... maybe one or two times a month. I dont really want your standard cap toe, I'd like something that stands out a little classier. No EG here, im not really ballin out that hard like this nigga NORE over here. That being said, some C&J's like this is what I am thinking. Some opinions from this who enjoy giving them would be nice.

http://www.crockettandjones.com/Product/Rosemoor-Black

http://www.crockettandjones.com/Product/Grenville-Black

http://www.crockettandjones.com/Product/Edgware-Black
post #43 of 92
You couldn't go 'wrong' with any of those three.

You really shouldn't wear either of those three with a tux however. No brouging on tux shoes allowed. A plain cap toe would do ok though.

Tuxes aside - the three you posted are all classic, elegant shoes that will serve your black shoe needs for years to come.

Personally I'd do the Rosemore. But that's just me.

And BTW - no need to apologize for C&J Handgrades - they are fine shoes.
post #44 of 92
My best shoe advice in order:

1. Buy what you can try on.
2. Buy what you can afford.
3. Buy what you want.
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

You couldn't go 'wrong' with any of those three.
You really shouldn't wear either of those three with a tux however. No brouging on tux shoes allowed. A plain cap toe would do ok though.
Tuxes aside - the three you posted are all classic, elegant shoes that will serve your black shoe needs for years to come.
Personally I'd do the Rosemore. But that's just me.
And BTW - no need to apologize for C&J Handgrades - they are fine shoes.



Yeah, I was scared someone would say that was some sort of rule. Standard black cap toes annoy me though. So plain. And since I am stuck up, I wont want to wear cheap shoes the 1 time every 2 years I wear a tux.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why buy very high quality BLACK dress shoes?