Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I agree. Some didn't mind this and some did. I personally did and disliked this.
I wouldn't mind entirely if I got a shoe that was tried on. But once again, to reiterate my point, I'm almost sure these were not a returned tried-on pair but a shoddy quality pair that was just shipped without even opening the box. I have no clue how this could have passed the quality of that of thr 100+ year old group of craftsman. These looked to have been passed around like a hooker from backer to backer or something. Don't sell or send a pair of shoes with many (IMO) flaws that was not listed used/seconds. Go ahead and sell a tried-on shoe that looks new with no non-ig orable/noticeable flaws. I'd buy it without hesitation. But please don't send me shoddy shoes that were (presumably) advertised as new.
These little flaws add up and when seen from a wider perspective, you go from "okay, not much of a problem" to "man, this is just too much". Holes are somewhat of a nitpick.
Lastly, leather quality and creasing. correct me if I'm wrong but the huge area of creasing shown will never occur naturally. The noticeable parts that will crease are the toe box, ankle, front lacing area, and a few spots here and there on the side of the shoes. Had there been fine minor creasing replacing the actual creasing area shown, I wouldn't have bothered to say anything. Personally I would get annoyed looking down every time and seeing this permanent from-day-one creased area that was not formed by my own daily walking.
I backed the Okayama jeans and these will be my second pair of raw denim jeans. Had to get a 31 slim as that was the closest measurements(thanks Blue Owl) to my UB201 in size 30. Slightly slimmer in the knee and thigh but they should stretch out a tiny bit. Decided to back this buy rather than a future one because I'd like to wear these all the time in the fall and winter.
Edited by geogga - 5/29/16 at 10:10am