or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoe math--I think we might all be wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shoe math--I think we might all be wrong. - Page 4

post #46 of 59
I built a pair of shoes out of steel that didn't cost much and will last a lifetime. Problem is, they're heavy as shit.
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equus Leather View Post

Even accepting that comparing 1 cheap shoe with 3 good shoes is valid, and I don't think it is,..

Charlie

Charlie, I think that you're on to something by being suspicious of comparisons involving odd numbers of shoes.
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotoriousMarquis View Post

I was thinking about this, and I think our vanity has clouded our fact assessing abilities. We say that in the long run a pair of shoes --base quality of AE--is a better investment than a crap shoe that will last 8 months if you wear it every day, and which costs 80-110 dollars. Well...

You need three pairs of AE shoes to alternate (if this isn't actually true then this whole math may be wrong)

lets say you get 2 as seconds, one at full retail, thats roughly 700 dollars. let's also assume they are going to last ten years. They will each need a resole every 2 years just about, which means 5 resoles each (what AE says is the upper limit of recrafts they do), amounting to 15 resoles over ten years for all the shoes together. Each resole costs 125 now. 15 x 125 = 1875, 1875 + 700 = 2575 is your total investment for AE shoes over 10 years.


Now lets say a crap shoe at 100 bucks a piece is going to last 8 months. you will need 15 shoes over the course of ten years then, and then at an average of 100 (price of rockports at zappos), then you pay 1500 dollars over 10 years.

Our luxury shoe method costs over 1k more.

Not that I will ever stop buying nice shoes, but I would actually like to know for my own curiosity how long 3 pairs of AE shoes if worn every day can last, and if my math is right.

Anyway, food for thought. Sorry, its late at night.

I've studied your post and conducted my own set of calculations.

Is $100 a year over a decade worth the sheer joy and pleasure of wearing Allen Edmonds, to feel that 360 degree welt wrap your feet like the Great Wall of China, to ponder which belt matches best to the Allen Edmonds "chili" color, and to engage in the titillation of re-crafting?

Hell, I bet some guys would pay $135...maybe even $145...a year just for those things alone.
post #49 of 59
My question is which shoes would you prefer your surgeon to wear?
a) comfy, springy Rockports, ECCO's or Clarke's, where he / she will be more comfortable and perform better while you are under their knife.
b) Allen Edmonds or higher, where they will look better while they tell your loved ones, 'there were complications'.
Edited by MyOtherLife - 4/16/12 at 10:55pm
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post

My question is which shoes would you prefer your surgeon to wear?
a) comfy, springy Rockports, ECCO's or Clarke's, where he / she will be more comfortable and perform better while you are under their knife.
b) Allen Edmonds or higher, where they will look better while they tell your loved ones, 'there were complications'.

Neither. Both are likely to be covered in bacteria. I haven't seen any hospital staff wearing anything but clogs for years now.
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post

My question is which shoes would you prefer your surgeon to wear?
a) comfy, springy Rockports, ECCO's or Clarke's, where he / she will be more comfortable and perform better while you are under their knife.
b) Allen Edmonds or higher, where they will look better while they tell your loved ones, 'there were complications'.

Most surgeons I've seen wear running shoes.
post #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Charlie, I think that you're on to something by being suspicious of comparisons involving odd numbers of shoes.

Indeed, never trust a man selling odd numbers of shoes wink.gif
post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by viator View Post

It's clear that the cost of the re-sole on the nicer shoes is what makes them inefficient, cost-wise. Heck, the re-sole alone is probably more than many cheap pairs of shoes. What I'd be curious to know is whether there was a time in the past when the relative cost of a re-sole was much lower, such that the higher initial cost of a nice pair of shoes actually was jusitified by a lower total cost of ownership compared with buying garbage.



Yes, when labour costs were relatively much cheaper and shoe repair places were common. Even 30 years ago many people who purchased expensive shoes never bothered to have them resoled when they wore out and it's really only on SF that this is a concern. I think that I've only had about 3 pairs of shoes resoled and even then only once and that was only because I liked the shoe and couldn't find a replacement and the uppers still looked new.

Another thing. A lot of people who say they're going to keep a shoe a long time never do. The problem is that is it worth it to spend a $100 on a 10yo shoe that cost $300? Or even a 5yo shoe.  Most people buy expensive items simply because they have the money to buy the best and are not thinking about actual absolute practical value. A $1k shoe means less to them that a $50 shoe to a poor guy.

Is a new Bentley going to last longer that a new Volvo at 1/4 the price? You can buy an excellent bottle of wine for $30, is a $300 bottle really that much better? Probably a bit but if you have the money you likely don't even care much about the cost difference. It's the same with all items. In terms of value though I'd suggest buying high quality items because they are generally only 50% higher in cost than average similar items and usually will last 2-3x as long.

 

post #54 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trompe le Monde View Post

using shoes and investment in the same sentence is where you veered wrong

+1, I cannot say it any better.
post #55 of 59
You want a real comparison? This is how you do it.

Go out and buy 2 pairs of resolable shoes. One pair being store bought for $100 to $200 dollars. Then go out and get a 3000 dollar pair of shoes from your shoemaker of choice. The only caveat is the uppers must be made of the same material. No shell to suede type of comparison allowed. That skews results by changing the materials factor. Might as well make the soles the same as well for the same reason. These are the only two pair of shoes in your rotation and you will wear each pair every other day no matter the conditions or where you will be. This equalizes the use part of the game. As far as maintenance is concerned each pair is cleaned conditioned waxed or whatever at the same time. That equalizes the maintenance part of the equation. You resole as necessary and the test ends when the upper splits or falls apart. This takes out the they look like shit factor.



When it's all said and done you will find out how much bs all of this really is.

IMO this cost per use comparison might be valid when you talk about shoes with a price below 100 bucks or so.

Ever hear of the theory of diminishing returns? At a certain price point with shoes it kicks in hard.
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equus Leather View Post

Indeed, never trust a man selling odd numbers of shoes wink.gif

Helpful, though, to all those mothers who wake to discover their teenage sons have grown another foot.
post #57 of 59
Cost per pair,
And cost per wear,
Is oft within a hair.
If you care.
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

You want a real comparison? This is how you do it.
Go out and buy 2 pairs of resolable shoes. One pair being store bought for $100 to $200 dollars. Then go out and get a 3000 dollar pair of shoes from your shoemaker of choice. The only caveat is the uppers must be made of the same material. No shell to suede type of comparison allowed. That skews results by changing the materials factor. Might as well make the soles the same as well for the same reason. These are the only two pair of shoes in your rotation and you will wear each pair every other day no matter the conditions or where you will be. This equalizes the use part of the game. As far as maintenance is concerned each pair is cleaned conditioned waxed or whatever at the same time. That equalizes the maintenance part of the equation. You resole as necessary and the test ends when the upper splits or falls apart. This takes out the they look like shit factor.
When it's all said and done you will find out how much bs all of this really is.
IMO this cost per use comparison might be valid when you talk about shoes with a price below 100 bucks or so.
Ever hear of the theory of diminishing returns? At a certain price point with shoes it kicks in hard.

This model could be improved on if the OP bought a pair of $100 dress shoes, then had the style duplicated by a bespoke shoe maker of his choice (but of course made to higher standards and with better materials). Then, each day, he could wear one cheap shoe on one foot, one expensive shoe on the other, and see how each hold up over a 10 year period.

This is worthwhile, I think, in the name of StyFo Science. I'm willing to pitch in for a research grant.
post #59 of 59
70
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Cost per pair,
And cost per wear,
Is oft within a hair.
If you care.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Shoe math--I think we might all be wrong.