or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Bruno Magli or Allen Edmunds?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bruno Magli or Allen Edmunds? - Page 3

post #31 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambb View Post

People here seem a little snobbish - if you wear brunos or magnanni's you will have better shoes than 95% of the people out there.  Same with AE.  It is splitting hairs...

All are nice.  Some better than others.  Who cares.  It is all top 5%.

These items are common where I live but I'd say that a $300 shoe  is like 1% or less for the entire US pop. And while those really expensive shoes like C&J, Churches, Ferrigamo etc.may be firly common in Manhattan or the wealthier surburbs, they are virtually unheard of  in a very large part of the country. Even those expensive cowboy boots made in Texas are not worn by very many people there. An average priced shoe (or sportshoe) may be like $80 in the US and the average family may spend $1500 or so per year on clothes. There are probably only 1% or less who buy at places like Paul Stuart or Saks  etc or wear C&J or Lobbs.

post #32 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker Man View Post

These items are common where I live but I'd say that a $300 shoe  is like 1% or less for the entire US pop. And while those really expensive shoes like C&J, Churches, Ferrigamo etc.may be firly common in Manhattan or the wealthier surburbs, they are virtually unheard of  in a very large part of the country. Even those expensive cowboy boots made in Texas are not worn by very many people there. An average priced shoe (or sportshoe) may be like $80 in the US and the average family may spend $1500 or so per year on clothes. There are probably only 1% or less who buy at places like Paul Stuart or Saks  etc or wear C&J or Lobbs.

I see AE everywhere. The salespeople in department stores wear them and I doubt they are in the top 5% income bracket.

 

I assumed $300 was the entry point, not the top 5%.

post #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker Man View Post

These items are common where I live but I'd say that a $300 shoe  is like 1% or less for the entire US pop. And while those really expensive shoes like C&J, Churches, Ferrigamo etc.may be firly common in Manhattan or the wealthier surburbs, they are virtually unheard of  in a very large part of the country. Even those expensive cowboy boots made in Texas are not worn by very many people there. An average priced shoe (or sportshoe) may be like $80 in the US and the average family may spend $1500 or so per year on clothes. There are probably only 1% or less who buy at places like Paul Stuart or Saks  etc or wear C&J or Lobbs.

Just so you know, top 1% of the US income bracket = annual household income of at least $350,000.
$300 dollar shoes are chump change at this income level.
post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breedlove View Post
 

That's household income and after taxes are paid it's likely 1/2 of that. A married couple with  decent jobs can make that. Unlike tweens and 20 somethings,  adults have a lot of expenses and at this level of income(say $200k after taxes) they are not spending $20k a year on clothes so a $300 pair of shoes is about right at this level. It's the people in the 1/10 of a % who buy all of the really high priced stuff.  People with an income of $50k a year spend about a $1k a yr. on clothes unless they live in a free apt. in mommy's basement.

post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker Man View Post

That's household income and after taxes are paid it's likely 1/2 of that. A married couple with  decent jobs can make that. Unlike tweens and 20 somethings,  adults have a lot of expenses and at this level of income(say $200k after taxes) they are not spending $20k a year on clothes so a $300 pair of shoes is about right at this level. It's the people in the 1/10 of a % who buy all of the really high priced stuff.  People with an income of $50k a year spend about a $1k a yr. on clothes unless they live in a free apt. in mommy's basement.

That top 1% category is somewhat misleading and needs to be broken down more because it would include 3m people and they could range from the well off to the super rich. If even 1/10 of that 1 % were in the very wealthy category then that would bring the average income way up. If you lived on a street with 10 people where 9 of them made $200k and one made $3m the average would be $400k and it would be misleading. And yes, those numbers I gave would fit into a typical area and range of incomes for that area. If you want to see actual incomes for wealthier areas then just look them up.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Greenwich-Connecticut.html

post #36 of 50

I make much, much less than $50k and I don't see how $300 shoes are out of reach. You just can't have a pair per month or get all your pairs in that price range, that's all. Sometimes I'll just get a $300 pair of shoes and won't spend much more in clothes in 2-3 months. But I'd rather have that pair than some $80 piece of crap.


Edited by RDiaz - 7/22/12 at 6:46am
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant kill da Rooster View Post

But Blake stitched.

and it is not an irrilevant particular.

post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDiaz View Post

I make much, much less than $50k and I don't see how $300 shoes are out of reach. You just can't have a pair per month or get all your pairs in that price range, that's all. Sometimes I'll just get a $300 pair of shoes and won't spend much more in clothes in 2-3 months. But I'd rather have that pair than some $80 piece of crap.

 

I agree.

post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDiaz View Post

I make much, much less than $50k and I don't see how $300 shoes are out of reach. You just can't have a pair per month or get all your pairs in that price range, that's all. Sometimes I'll just get a $300 pair of shoes and won't spend much more in clothes in 2-3 months. But I'd rather have that pair than some $80 piece of crap.

while its all about compromises, at way less than 50k, $300 shoes are certainly an indulgence.
post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiPsi32 View Post

 

I agree.

Same

post #41 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhiPsi32 View Post

 

I agree.

I wasn't recommending them but just stating that this is what an average person would spend in the US. And yes, clothes are one of the cheaper things you would spend your money on so $300  is no big deal, I was just putting things into perspective and the reason is because there are people on here who talk about $1k-$1500 shoes (although I doubt that any of them have even gone into Lobbs and plunked down the money for them)

This is supposed to be a style forum and the people on here are mostly young and not millionaires. If someone says he has $300 to spend on clothes there's always some jerk telling him to spend it on a shoe, and then another jerk says spend a few hundred more for a better shoe  lol

But the guy only had $300 and he wanted more than just shoes.So a lot of the advice on here is asinine and should be ignored.

post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post


while its all about compromises, at way less than 50k, $300 shoes are certainly an indulgence.

 

It all depends on your priorities. For me (and I guess for most people here), clothes are a more a hobby than a necessity, and once basic needs are covered, many people save and spend big bucks on their hobbies. A low income means a nice wardrobe will take a long time to be built from the ground up, but not that you can't build one.

post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDiaz View Post

It all depends on your priorities. For me (and I guess for most people here), clothes are a more a hobby than a necessity, and once basic needs are covered, many people save and spend big bucks on their hobbies. A low income means a nice wardrobe will take a long time to be built from the ground up, but not that you can't build one.

Agreed! I am way below 50k as well, but have been fortunate enough to save for and aquire various things that will stand the test of time. Lower income doesn't necessarily equate to a minuscule range of spendable income. It depends on your salary:necessities ratio; fewer bills means more flexibility. And if your funds are limited, certain things are worth the time saving for.
post #44 of 50
Most people will agree that $300 for a pair of shoes for the "average" American is a lot to spend. However, since quality shoes can last a lifetime if well taken care of, it may not be a bad "investment". When you can get AE shoes on sale for ~$200 at Nordstroms or seconds for $150 or less at the factory, then prices come into a more reasonable level for masses. However there will certainly be AE haters saying they are boring or they are old fashioned, etc. Italians shoes do appear to have more modern designs than American shoes (e.g. AE, Alden), but also seem to come at a higher price premium.
post #45 of 50

Well I guess this brings to mind the following question:

 

Are there any more modern or Italian shoes that have similar quality to AE at a similar price point?  I hesitate to AE, Alden, and other very American brands "boring" or "old fashioned" since I know that's not the way everyone feels about them, but you guys get the gist of what I'm asking, yes?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Bruno Magli or Allen Edmunds?