or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Contrary to popular SF belief, shoes with glued-on soles don't disintegrate immediately
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Contrary to popular SF belief, shoes with glued-on soles don't disintegrate immediately

post #1 of 70
Thread Starter 

For most of my life, I have only owned one pair of black dress shoes.  They all had corrected grain uppers glued on to rubber soles, and each lasted me for years and years.  I wore them to school on most weekdays -- in all weather, without shoe trees, and not in a rotation of shoes.  It's hard to estimate, but I must have worn each pair easily 500 times.  When I replaced them, it was either due to my feet growing out of them or the upper becoming irreparably marred (from salt etc.), not because they ripped or became unglued.

 

I now wear only Allen Edmonds dress shoes -- I'm up to six pairs, bought over the last two years or so -- and although they look much nicer than the cheapos, it's clear to me that buying $200+ shoes is not a money-saving investment.  These shoes would have to last a LONG time (read:fifteen years) to be in the ballpark -- and who knows how long my adhesive construction shoes would have lasted if I had treated them with the same care that I now treat my shoes with.

 

 

TL;DR: In my experience, expensive shoes aren't an "investment" in the sense that they save you money in the long-run.

post #2 of 70
you just realized this?
post #3 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post

For most of my life, I have only owned one pair of black dress shoes.  They all had corrected grain uppers glued on to rubber soles, and each lasted me for years and years.  I wore them to school on most weekdays -- in all weather, without shoe trees, and not in a rotation of shoes.  It's hard to estimate, but I must have worn each pair easily 500 times.  When I replaced them, it was either due to my feet growing out of them or the upper becoming irreparably marred (from salt etc.), not because they ripped or became unglued.

I now wear only Allen Edmonds dress shoes -- I'm up to six pairs, bought over the last two years or so -- and although they look much nicer than the cheapos, it's clear to me that buying $200+ shoes is not a money-saving investment.  These shoes would have to last a LONG time (read:fifteen years) to be in the ballpark -- and who knows how long my adhesive construction shoes would have lasted if I had treated them with the same care that I now treat my shoes with.


TL;DR: In my experience, expensive shoes aren't an "investment" in the sense that they save you money in the long-run.

You may have worn them for years but I suspect they looked like $hit from day one and certainly after 100 wears.
post #4 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxgenius View Post


You may have worn them for years but I suspect they looked like $hit from day one and certainly after 100 wears.

 

Maybe to you, but I'd bet that 99% of people couldn't tell the difference between $70 shoes and $700 shoes if they saw them on another's feet.  

 

The visible difference between sewed or glued soles is ~very~ subtle, and I doubt any more than 1% of the population knows the difference between corrected grain and full grain, let alone how to spot it at a distance of a few yards.

post #5 of 70
Fwiw, my black cap toes are pushing 15 years and I they still look amazing. My only pair of black shoes, worn roughly 45/ year. A few soles and maticulous maintenance.... Money wasn't the reason, but in retrospect I saved a ton.
post #6 of 70
That "investment" bullshit is just what you use at first to convince yourself to buy nice stuff.
Once you reach Styleforum enlightenment you will realize you just like nice stuff.
post #7 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post

Maybe to you, but I'd bet that 99% of people couldn't tell the difference between $70 shoes and $700 shoes if they saw them on another's feet.  

The visible difference between sewed or glued soles is ~very~ subtle, and I doubt any more than 1% of the population knows the difference between corrected grain and full grain, let alone how to spot it at a distance of a few yards.

So? The masses are morons. That's not anything to crow about, mate.
post #8 of 70
Newsflash-- I doubt many people here buy shoes for (1) long-term "investment" purposes or (2) to impress the masses. People on this site buy high end shoes because they LIKE them.
post #9 of 70
Thread Starter 

Many people do try to justify buying higher-end shoes as a long-term investment.

 

There are certainly reasons to buy nice shoes -- I have and will continue to do so -- but the investment argument doesn't seem to me to be valid.  Nor the "they look like shit to the very-few in-the-know" argument.

post #10 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post
 

 

Maybe to you, but I'd bet that 99% of people couldn't tell the difference between $70 shoes and $700 shoes if they saw them on another's feet.  

 

The visible difference between sewed or glued soles is ~very~ subtle, and I doubt any more than 1% of the population knows the difference between corrected grain and full grain, let alone how to spot it at a distance of a few yards.

Inaccuracies like this (which I am hoping is hyperbole) undermine any legitimate point you were trying to make, and just come off like a troll. Clearly far more than 1% of the population, at least in the U.S., could determine the difference between shoes at those price points. 

post #11 of 70
The first pair of better, handgrade UK made shoes that I bought in London outlasted all the other shoes I had in my closet. I still have them. I bought them in 1984. Black cap toes. They have been resoled 3x.
post #12 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiCcolocV View Post
 

Inaccuracies like this (which I am hoping is hyperbole) undermine any legitimate point you were trying to make, and just come off like a troll. Clearly far more than 1% of the population, at least in the U.S., could determine the difference between shoes at those price points. 

 

 

I didn't try to pass the 99% figure as fact; obviously I haven't conducted a study and the number is an estimate based off of my experience.  

 

Still: If I could bet money on an over-under with even odds, I'd say fewer than 1% of Americans would be able to tell the difference between the following three shoes if they were able to hold them in their hand, let alone tell the difference by glancing at them on someone else's feet.

 

 

(One of these shoes retails for more than twice that of another, which retails for twice that of the third.)

post #13 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post
 

 

 

I didn't try to pass the 99% figure as fact; obviously I haven't conducted a study and the number is an estimate based off of my experience.  

 

Still: If I could bet money on an over-under with even odds, I'd say fewer than 1% of Americans would be able to tell the difference between the following three shoes if they were able to hold them in their hand, let alone tell the difference by glancing at them on someone else's feet.

 

 

(One of these shoes retails for more than twice that of another, which retails for twice that of the third.)

Come on, it's a piece of cake:

 

The first pair are some example of ugly shoes from Johnston&Murphy which must retail at around $375.

The second pair are some well known and (IMHO) quite ugly Allen Edmonds. Retail $345.

The third pair are Gucci's Kyoto Cap Toe Oxfords priced at $660. You're paying the Gucci tag here.

 

Choose wisely, choose John Lobb.

post #14 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxgenius View Post

You may have worn them for years but I suspect they looked like $hit from day one and certainly after 100 wears.

Exactly so.

Surely one pays more for decent shoes precisely they do look better and not like shit. That said, better shoes can be resoled and with proper care can last a very long time and remain looking good until the end.
post #15 of 70

I do not see the investment point. Really.

Some of us just like owning high quality items. But I am pretty sure most of my friends will not spend during the rest of their lives the money I have spent last two years on shoes. Mine may look better, but I  wouldn't dare to say I made a good investment in terms of long-lasting-good-looking shoes. I made a good investment in happiness as I'm happy with my shoes. Obviously, I never talk about my shoes with them and if I'm ever asked the price I just lie. They would never understand it if they ever got to believe it. But I'm happy wearing shoes none out of SF knows (well, my wife does).

We cannot forget about people who show their nice shoes here to get lots of compliments and get back to their wives: "see what i told you? people who really know about shoes, love them". They are quite happy too, I guess.

Invest in happiness not in shoes, life's too short.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Contrary to popular SF belief, shoes with glued-on soles don't disintegrate immediately