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 18

post #256 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by kashmir View Post
For me right now what I can afford is Loake 1880/ Meermin price level.

 

Now, you see this is where it does get more interesting. From what I have seen of complaints about Meermin, their construction (or at least their quality control) doesn't match their design. Whereas some people would argue that Loake shoes are more conservative in design terms, but I've never seen any compaints about quality control for the 1880 range. Here you really do have a choice to make at a similar price point, it isn't only about design (although I fully appreciate what Hendrix is saying in general) and you won't just get the same thing.

post #257 of 416
^Do note that I am referring to the price level, but I have yet to purchase from Meermin- and yes I am keeping tab with the feedbacks.
post #258 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post

 

Now, you see this is where it does get more interesting. From what I have seen of complaints about Meermin, their construction (or at least their quality control) doesn't match their design. Whereas some people would argue that Loake shoes are more conservative in design terms, but I've never seen any compaints about quality control for the 1880 range. Here you really do have a choice to make at a similar price point, it isn't only about design (although I fully appreciate what Hendrix is saying in general) and you won't just get the same thing.

I don't think this is any different than any other discussion about anything else. Everybody has different experiences, and different things they look for when choosing something. For some design might be the most important aspect, for others it might be the craftmanship, and others it might be the quality, and then for others it's a combination of factors. I'm sure I missed something, but with a large group like this I'm sure there is no way everybody would agree anyway.

 

 

But I sure do enjoy hearing the different sides of the debate, especially when the people making their points are doing it in a polite way.

post #259 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

Please don't equate it to quality though, because they're all made pretty much the same way and we don't want to have that discussion...

Then what would be considered an increase in the quality of a shoe?

And if you say handwelting (for a Goodyear-welted shoe), then what would be considered an increase in the quality of a handwelted shoe? Or do you think there's no difference in quality between, say, Meermin Linea Maestro, Vass, Cleverley bespoke, John Lobb St James, Delos etc because they're all made in pretty much the same way?
post #260 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKDKid View Post

Then what would be considered an increase in the quality of a shoe?
And if you say handwelting (for a Goodyear-welted shoe), then what would be considered an increase in the quality of a handwelted shoe? Or do you think there's no difference in quality between, say, Meermin Linea Maestro, Vass, Cleverley bespoke, John Lobb St James, Delos etc because they're all made in pretty much the same way?

That's a fair point - you can definitely say that Delos is higher quality than Meermin LM. I don't think it's because of a bevelled welt though - that's a stylistic choice

But, IMO, if a shoe is constructed with a GY welt and differentiates itself by beveled welts, sleek lasts and burnishing, it's trying to distinguish itself over its competition by stylistic details, not quality.

But I think when people are getting Cleverley, Lobb St James and Delos over Vass I think it's for reasons other than quality. I'm also sure there are plenty of Delos shoes with a square waist and a chunky last.

Noone can say I brought up the handwelted/goodyear welted thing.
Edited by hendrix - 9/5/12 at 3:27pm
post #261 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKDKid View Post

Then what would be considered an increase in the quality of a shoe?
And if you say handwelting (for a Goodyear-welted shoe), then what would be considered an increase in the quality of a handwelted shoe? Or do you think there's no difference in quality between, say, Meermin Linea Maestro, Vass, Cleverley bespoke, John Lobb St James, Delos etc because they're all made in pretty much the same way?

apples to oranges, imo.

hendrix and some others point was, that it is unnecessary to talk your ass off about some gimmicky features of your favorite brand. got it?
post #262 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post


No. Just because they incur higher costs doesn't make them a higher quality shoe.
Of course! But that doesn't mean it's a higher quality product. That's like saying shell cordovan is higher quality than calf, when in reality they're just different, and one happens to cost more because of scarcity.
BUT! It might mean that these are details that you would like to pay for.
The same as some people would like to pay a bit more for a shoe made in England which incurs higher labour costs because they would like to support a local made product, the same as someone might choose a shoe made of shell cordovan because they like the way it looks/wears in... etc etc. It's all good.
Saying that you're willing to pay more because you like these design details is fine.
Please don't equate it to quality though, because they're all made pretty much the same way and we don't want to have that discussion...

 

That's kind of a generalization, no?  Hand clicking and machine clicking, hand closing vs. machine closing, hand lasting vs. machine lasting, etc.  From lasting along there could be some quality improvements (or, less manufacturing variations, whatever you want to call it).  A better process or a better quality control that yields lesser variation of finished good should be considered higher quality, IMO.

 

I don't think it is fair to mistaken the quality of the process for the quality of manufacturing.  There are and will always be manufacturing quality differences between all gy welted shoes, such as AE vs. JL or C&J bench vs handgrade.  There are and will always be as much as manufacturing quality differences between hand welted shoes, say Vass vs. G&G bespoke or Chinese handwelted shoes vs. Spigola bespoke.

post #263 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
That's kind of a generalization, no?  Hand clicking and machine clicking, hand closing vs. machine closing, hand lasting vs. machine lasting, etc.  From lasting along there could be some quality improvements (or, less manufacturing variations, whatever you want to call it).  A better process or a better quality control that yields lesser variation of finished good should be considered higher quality, IMO.

I don't think it is fair to mistaken the quality of the process for the quality of manufacturing.  There are and will always be manufacturing quality differences between all gy welted shoes, such as AE vs. JL or C&J bench vs handgrade.
  There are and will always be as much as manufacturing quality differences between hand welted shoes, say Vass vs. G&G bespoke or Chinese handwelted shoes vs. Spigola bespoke.

imo, nobody denied that.
post #264 of 416
Aren't many supposedly "mid-tier" shoes (C&J handgrade and Carmina?) handclicked and handlasted too?

Hand clicking and hand lasting will result in a marginally better quality shoe but those marginal improvements seem more marketing gimmicks to me when the internal construction is ignored.

It's more likely to me that they've decided that handlasted shoes are going to be their marketing point that allows them to sell at the price they do over their competition.

Actually I think Lobb Paris are machine lasted anyway. And I know $250 shoes that are handlasted.

To me it's more likely that someone would buy JL City IIs because the 7000 is amazing, than that they're handlasted. If they were using quality as a justification, there are more important things to think about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

That's kind of a generalization, no?

You're right though it is a generalisation, doing things marginally better is nonetheless marginally better. These are certainly differences it quality.



My original comments were reactionary to the "beveled waists" and "Look at these shoes, no $500 shoes look like these". Not everyone wants pointy shoes. and people shouldn't be told their shoes are lower quality because they don't feature a particular design.
Edited by hendrix - 9/6/12 at 1:36pm
post #265 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

Does anyone really think "I'm going to pay twice the price for this pair of shoes because they're hand clicked?" Interesting.

from the prescott & mackay blog

From the artisan shoemaker to the factories in China everything begins with the human hand: from designing a shoe, modeling a last, cutting a pattern, lasting an upper or molding a sole unit. Mass manufacture is only a larger scale artisan: in the way the artisan uses a tool a factory might use a machine, machines can help us, but they still need to be calibrated and operated by the human hand. And it is in this sense that shoemaking is an art not a science.
post #266 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

Aren't many supposedly "mid-tier" shoes (C&J handgrade and Carmina?) handclicked and handlasted too?
Hand clicking and hand lasting will result in a marginally better quality shoe but those marginal improvements seem more marketing gimmicks to me when the internal construction is ignored.
It's more likely to me that they've decided that handlasted shoes are going to be their marketing point that allows them to sell at the price they do over their competition.
Does anyone really think "I'm going to pay twice the price for this pair of shoes because they're hand clicked?" Interesting.
Actually I think Lobb Paris are machine lasted anyway.
To me it's more likely that someone would buy JL City IIs because the 7000 is amazing.
You're right though it is a generalisation, doing things marginally better is nonetheless marginally better.
It was the "beveled waists" and "Look at these shoes, no $500 shoes look like these" comments that were what compelled me to make the points I did. Not everyone wants pointy shoes.

 

Incremental details, such as sole tapering, edge shaping, complex patterns, etc create a lot more manufacturing complexities, and tackling those problems could be deemed as a 'quality' improvement despite the fact that they do not change the functional aspect of the shoes.

 

Besides, as with most of other tangible or intangible goods in the world, people are willing to pay through the roof for those marginal improvements before perfection.

post #267 of 416


Those are 2 advantages.
post #268 of 416
My $1600 St. Crispins are the shit.
post #269 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

My $1600 St. Crispins are the shit.

No real relevance to the thread whatsoever but he's not wrong !!!!
post #270 of 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev777 View Post

No real relevance to the thread whatsoever but he's not wrong !!!!

who?
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