or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Advantages of a $1000 Pair of Shoes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advantages of a $1000 Pair of Shoes - Page 8

post #106 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzl View Post

no. completely wrong.
most important rule: fit, fit, fit and fit again. nothing else matters.

Agree. FIT is # one criteria. After that, it is a personal style and desire to own the best.
post #107 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaseousclay View Post

you get to sneer at individuals who don't give a rat's arse that you're wearing a pair of $1000 shoes
but seriously, I see no additional benefits to owning higher end shoes. if you can afford them then great, but I see nothing wrong with the mid-tier shoes you've listed.

Nothing wrong with the mid tier shoes at all. Particularly if you don't find yourself in places where people know the difference anyway. Which is the vast majority of the world.

However, there is a noticable difference between many $500 shoes and many $1000+ shoe. And if you happen to frequent places where people of means and sophistication are the norm you will soon realize that $500 shoes often wont 'hold their own' in such company.

In my work environment I rarely receive commentary on my shoes - but of the few times that I have it has always been regarding one of my pairs of G&G. There simply is no escaping the fact that they look expensive and worldly in real life.
post #108 of 415
Quality shoes. It is a fact that you should go for fit first. However, normal retail store brands or pedestrian quality shoes are approaching $500 - $1,000 these days like Ferragamo, Gucci and sSantoni. Most quality shoes whether MTO or RTW from G&G, JL, EG, and many others are beyond the $1,000 mark. Shoes are personal, but you should by the best you can afford.

It is amazing how many people I see wearing $4,000 suits while at the same time wear a $100 piece of crap form Cole Haan or AE. There is complete ignorance on the part of most men of what quality shoes should feel like. Most of the stuff discusses above is glued or at best blake stitched. Quality shoes are a black and white issue, either you get it or not. Unfortunately, most men are clueless. Quality MTO shoes from G&G exceed $1,000 and in most cases are close to $2,000 for Deco styles. Same for EG and JL. Other fine European makers like Riccardo Bestetti and the late Stefano Bemer would start at over $2,500.

Again, not everyone should go out and buy shoes at these prices, but quality isn’t cheap. It takes weeks and sometimes months to make a quality shoes. Look at this way, wouldn’t you want to get paid for a good job. Well, these shoes makers put a lot of effort, time, and technique into these shoes. And that is after selecting the best materials and accessories.

Wear good quality shoes, if you can.
post #109 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

Nothing wrong with the mid tier shoes at all. Particularly if you don't find yourself in places where people know the difference anyway. Which is the vast majority of the world.
However, there is a noticable difference between many $500 shoes and many $1000+ shoe. And if you happen to frequent places where people of means and sophistication are the norm you will soon realize that $500 shoes often wont 'hold their own' in such company.
In my work environment I rarely receive commentary on my shoes - but of the few times that I have it has always been regarding one of my pairs of G&G. There simply is no escaping the fact that they look expensive and worldly in real life.

Ok, hold on. Lets be clear...C&J, Carmina, etc are really not mid-tier shoes. They are mid-tier to about 25% of SF. They are absolutely top tier to probably 95% of the population. We are talking about maybe the top 2or 3% of all shoes made here when looking at C&J benchgrade.

There are plenty of people with means and sophistication that couldn't care less about whether you have on $200 shoes or $2000 shoes. You cannot tell me that a pair of C&J handgrade or even benchgrades would not be looked upon perfectly well in even the most sophisticated of company.

They only don't "hold their own" only for people who are self conscious about such things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratorial_Splender View Post

Quality shoes. It is a fact that you should go for fit first. However, normal retail store brands or pedestrian quality shoes are approaching $500 - $1,000 these days like Ferragamo, Gucci and sSantoni. Most quality shoes whether MTO or RTW from G&G, JL, EG, and many others are beyond the $1,000 mark. Shoes are personal, but you should by the best you can afford.
It is amazing how many people I see wearing $4,000 suits while at the same time wear a $100 piece of crap form Cole Haan or AE. There is complete ignorance on the part of most men of what quality shoes should feel like. Most of the stuff discusses above is glued or at best blake stitched. Quality shoes are a black and white issue, either you get it or not. Unfortunately, most men are clueless. Quality MTO shoes from G&G exceed $1,000 and in most cases are close to $2,000 for Deco styles. Same for EG and JL. Other fine European makers like Riccardo Bestetti and the late Stefano Bemer would start at over $2,500.
Again, not everyone should go out and buy shoes at these prices, but quality isn’t cheap. It takes weeks and sometimes months to make a quality shoes. Look at this way, wouldn’t you want to get paid for a good job. Well, these shoes makers put a lot of effort, time, and technique into these shoes. And that is after selecting the best materials and accessories.
Wear good quality shoes, if you can.

I've seen your collection and can understand why your perspectives are out of whack, but lets get real here.

Normal retail store brands and "pedestrian quality" shoes are johnston and murphy, florsheim, cole haan, etc.

The vast majority of men, even those with high paying jobs, are not dropping even $500 on a pair of shoes. They just aren't.

Also, to compare AE to Cole Haan is wrong. AE makes a solid, non-CG goodyear welted shoe. You may not like their style, but they are far from pieces of crap or $100. To suggest otherwise is ignorant.

Quality shoes are not so black and white.

Many people, including those on these forums, struggle to see the marginal benefit of shoes over $500-$700. And until someone can prove to me that there is a huge difference between a $700 pair of C&J handgrades and $1200 Edward Greens, I'm calling bs. To suggest even benchgrade c&js are not quality shoes is just nonsense. Not to mention, G&G decos look absolutely ridiculous.
post #110 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Ok, hold on. Lets be clear...C&J, Carmina, etc are really not mid-tier shoes. They are mid-tier to about 25% of SF. They are absolutely top tier to probably 95% of the population. We are talking about maybe the top 2or 3% of all shoes made here when looking at C&J benchgrade.
There are plenty of people with means and sophistication that couldn't care less about whether you have on $200 shoes or $2000 shoes. You cannot tell me that a pair of C&J handgrade or even benchgrades would not be looked upon perfectly well in even the most sophisticated of company.
They only don't "hold their own" only for people who are self conscious about such things.
I've seen your collection and can understand why your perspectives are out of whack, but lets get real here.
Normal retail store brands and "pedestrian quality" shoes are johnston and murphy, florsheim, cole haan, etc.
The vast majority of men, even those with high paying jobs, are not dropping even $500 on a pair of shoes. They just aren't.
Also, to compare AE to Cole Haan is wrong. AE makes a solid, non-CG goodyear welted shoe. You may not like their style, but they are far from pieces of crap or $100. To suggest otherwise is ignorant.
Quality shoes are not so black and white.
Many people, including those on these forums, struggle to see the marginal benefit of shoes over $500-$700. And until someone can prove to me that there is a huge difference between a $700 pair of C&J handgrades and $1200 Edward Greens, I'm calling bs. To suggest even benchgrade c&js are not quality shoes is just nonsense. Not to mention, G&G decos look absolutely ridiculous.

 

 

I'm with the quad on this. Love your collection, even if your name is all sorts of typo's, but I tend to side with quadcammer on the rationale here. And if we want to get ultra high end bias, go Glenn O'Brien and have your feet lasted and sent to the makers... that's the ultimate if we're talking about high quality, pure fit.

post #111 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post

Ok, hold on. Lets be clear...C&J, Carmina, etc are really not mid-tier shoes. They are mid-tier to about 25% of SF. They are absolutely top tier to probably 95% of the population. We are talking about maybe the top 2or 3% of all shoes made here when looking at C&J benchgrade.
There are plenty of people with means and sophistication that couldn't care less about whether you have on $200 shoes or $2000 shoes. You cannot tell me that a pair of C&J handgrade or even benchgrades would not be looked upon perfectly well in even the most sophisticated of company.
They only don't "hold their own" only for people who are self conscious about such things.

I agree and yet respectfully disagree. I can promise you that if you frequented the world's finest hotels and spent your time in meetings with the people that frequent them, that you would very quickly see that amongst that crowd those who wear top tier RTW and bespoke shoes represent perhaps 50% or more of the upper echelon. Of course this is a very rarified environment, I do admit that. That is actually all I was attempting to say. That it's all a matter of environment.

Of course, out there in the 'real world' C&J benchgrades are indeed a perfectly high end shoe. If you know my personal collection you will note that they are the mainstay of my daily wear shoes. I would happily wear them to meetings with many of my clients. But not to others. I should mention that I work in a very image related industry. Being 'self conscious' as you suggest has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that in many circumstances fitting a client's picture of who you should be is almost as important as doing the best possible work.

I look at it this way. I work in a business climate in which you must do 'world class' work to even exist. When I compete for a project my competition is, by default, among a relatively rarified group of about a dozen firms from around the world who might qualify to produce the project. Thus I intend to compete at EVERY level when meeting a client. Everything from how I look, to what I say, and how I say it, must be top tier in addition to the business side of things.

Getting back to 'the norm' In the US of A I would say that most CEOs etc. etc. probably buy EGs from Ralph Lauren or whatever the most upper end shoes that are currently available from Brooks Brothers happen to be. And that's only amongst those who care.

The top floors of my building are occupied by Invesco. Every day in the elevators I see plenty of such shoes on the management guys. Not just one or two of them - but perhaps at least 20% or more of all the men coming and going daily. Those who don't care probably buy Cole Haan or whatever happens to be available at Saks, etc. etc.
Edited by Gdot - 9/2/12 at 10:32am
post #112 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I agree and yet respectfully disagree. I can promise you that if you frequented the world's finest hotels and spent your time in meetings with the people that frequent them, that you would very quickly see that amongst that crowd those who wear top tier RTW and bespoke shoes represent perhaps 50% or more of the upper echelon. Of course this is a very rarified environment, I do admit that. That is actually all I was attempting to say. That it's all a matter of environment.
Of course, out there in the 'real world' C&J benchgrades are indeed a perfectly high end shoe. If you know my personal collection you will note that they are the mainstay of my daily wear shoes. I would happily wear them to meetings with many of my clients. But not to others. I should mention that I work in a very image related industry. Being 'self conscious' as you suggest has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that in many circumstances fitting a client's picture of who you should be is almost as important as doing the best possible work.
I look at it this way. I work in a business climate in which you must do 'world class' work to even exist. When I compete for a project my competition is, by default, among a relatively rarified group of about a dozen firms from around the world who might qualify to produce the project. Thus I intend to compete at EVERY level when meeting a client. Everything from how I look, to what I say, and how I say it, must be top tier in addition to the business side of things.
Getting back to 'the norm' In the US of A I would say that most CEOs etc. etc. probably buy EGs from Ralph Lauren or whatever the most upper end shoes that are currently available from Brooks Brothers happen to be. And that's only amongst those who care. The top floors of my building are occupied by Invesco.
Every day in the elevators I see plenty of such shoes on the management guys. Not just one or two of them - but perhaps at least 20% or more of all the men coming and going daily. Those who don't care probably buy Cole Haan or whatever happens to be available at Saks, etc. etc.

 

 

On the personal level, environment is everything. And, fwiw, in case you ready my comment, I was talking about sarAtorial_splendErs collection. I'm unfamiliar with yours. Carry on.

post #113 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdot View Post

I agree and yet respectfully disagree. I can promise you that if you frequented the world's finest hotels and spent your time in meetings with the people that frequent them, that you would very quickly see that amongst that crowd those who wear top tier RTW and bespoke shoes represent perhaps 50% or more of the upper echelon. Of course this is a very rarified environment, I do admit that. That is actually all I was attempting to say. That it's all a matter of environment.

Do I frequent the worlds finest hotels? On occasion. Do I meet with high level executives and others who frequent high end hotels? of course.

Do they wear nice shoes...yes for the most part.

If you were to show up to a meeting there in a pair of audleys...absolutely nothing would happen. Nobody would make disparaging comments, no one would really give it another thought. I think your own particular biases are causing you to think people care more than they do. Its simply a non issue.

While i agree that the crowd you hang with has a lot to do with it, I'm certain that even the snobbiest of folks are not talking shit about C&J handgrades.

Not to mention, I really hope you aren't wearing your ridiculous looking G&G decos to meetings
post #114 of 415
Quad is on the money here. Especially his comments on what constitutes quality for the majority of people. For a lot of people JM are quality shoes, and AE's are luxury shoes. It seems the rarified air we breathe on this forum sometimes causes us to have a disconnect with the population at large.
post #115 of 415
Great feedback. Now go out and buy a real quality pair of shoes. Albeit AE.
post #116 of 415
OP was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCanavan6 View Post

What are the additional benefits of paying over $1000 a pair for EG, JL, or Vass (hopefully I can get some sort of deal) over a $500-$600 pair like Aldens, Churchs, or C&J? Obviously the leather is better quality and stitching/construction is better but in the end will I notice that large of a difference or should I save that $1000 ($500/pair) and spend it on something else? Any advice is appreciated.


Besides impressing your collegues and clients at the hotel, is the quality of these shoes that much better to deserve paying the extra money? Will the $1000 shoes last longer than the $500 shoes?
post #117 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrizzleCizzle View Post

I'm with the quad on this. Love your collection, even if your name is all sorts of typo's, but I tend to side with quadcammer on the rationale here. And if we want to get ultra high end bias, go Glenn O'Brien and have your feet lasted and sent to the makers... that's the ultimate if we're talking about high quality, pure fit.

Really. Ypur best argument is attacking my name.
post #118 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratorial_Splender View Post


Really. Ypur best argument is attacking my name.

I'm sorry, but you're finding an argument where there was just tongue-in-cheek humor. I'm actually paying you a compliment while quite politely stating that I agree with the opposite side.

post #119 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post

Do I frequent the worlds finest hotels? On occasion. Do I meet with high level executives and others who frequent high end hotels? of course.
Do they wear nice shoes...yes for the most part.
If you were to show up to a meeting there in a pair of audleys...absolutely nothing would happen. Nobody would make disparaging comments, no one would really give it another thought. I think your own particular biases are causing you to think people care more than they do. Its simply a non issue.
While i agree that the crowd you hang with has a lot to do with it, I'm certain that even the snobbiest of folks are not talking shit about C&J handgrades.
Not to mention, I really hope you aren't wearing your ridiculous looking G&G decos to meetings

Like I said, It is a matter of style, not fashion. You have all the fashion and pedestrian looks you want. I'll stick with timeless style and elegance. I do wear all my shoes everywhere.

Honestly, your best argument is attacking my specific pair of shoes.

My taste spans many brands from CJ, AS, JL, GG, Betsetti and more. I just don’t buy crap because it is only made locally. No quality whatsoever.
post #120 of 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratorial_Splender View Post


Like I said, It is a matter of style, not fashion. You have all the fashion and pedestrian looks you want. I'll stick with timeless style and elegance. I do wear all my shoes everywhere.
Honestly, your best argument is attacking my specific pair of shoes.
My taste spans many brands from CJ, AS, JL, GG, Betsetti and more. I just don’t buy crap because it is only made locally. No quality whatsoever.

So, just to make sure I understand you right: Alden and Allen Edmonds = no quality whatsoever?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Advantages of a $1000 Pair of Shoes