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 - Page 2

post #16 of 70
I don't know why people throw the word "Investment" around. Just simply state that you are buying a luxury product just like people buy Aston Martins as opposed to Toyota Camrys.
post #17 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.


You're entirely correct that buying nice shoes isn't an "investment" in the sense that you're saving significant sums in the long run. Just like a Savile Row suit won't save you a lot of money instead of buying a cheap $150 suit every two years but the idea is that the product will look good and feel better for the life of it versus a cheaper substitute.

 

We're here because clothes/shoes etc are what we care about and dressing is about doing so to your own standard. I quite like that 99% of people can't pick out my sport coat apart from a Lauren Ralph Lauren one sold at Macy's, I don't want to be ostentatious, but I do think that people can subconsciously tell quality. I do think that wearing a finer garment is communicated through how it moves and how it looks with age and people could pick out the better dressed individual in John Lobbs and a Kiton suit vs a standard Kohls department store ensemble. They might not be able to articulate why they think one man is better dressed but I think it shows.

post #18 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MZhammer View Post
 


You're entirely correct that buying nice shoes isn't an "investment" in the sense that you're saving significant sums in the long run. Just like a Savile Row suit won't save you a lot of money instead of buying a cheap $150 suit every two years but the idea is that the product will look good and feel better for the life of it versus a cheaper substitute.

 

We're here because clothes/shoes etc are what we care about and dressing is about doing so to your own standard. I quite like that 99% of people can't pick out my sport coat apart from a Lauren Ralph Lauren one sold at Macy's, I don't want to be ostentatious, but I do think that people can subconsciously tell quality. I do think that wearing a finer garment is communicated through how it moves and how it looks with age and people could pick out the better dressed individual in John Lobbs and a Kiton suit vs a standard Kohls department store ensemble. They might not be able to articulate why they think one man is better dressed but I think it shows.

 

Yep.  There are reasons to buy higher-quality shoes, but one is not that it is cheaper over time.  People on this forum give glued shoes short shrift in that regard; that's all this thread is about.  You should justify your purchases in some other way - if you feel the need to at all.

 

Another subject, but brought up in your post: I think with suits, a lot has to do with fit - I'd be interested to see how people (both learned and un-) would rate an ill-fitting but high-quality suit (or a bespoke suit worn by someone other than he for whom it was made) vs. a well-tailored fused department store suit.

post #19 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.

Again, if your justification is "most people wouldn't know the difference anyways", you are in the wrong forum. It's a bunch of clothing enthusiasts--aspiring to mediocrity or worse is not exactly what brings most folks here.

It's like going onto a sports car enthusiast forum and saying "why bother? my econobox gets me from point a to point b just as well as your Porsche." Perhaps, but that is completely and entirely beside the point.
post #20 of 70
I also like the environmental factor involved in well made shoes. A lot of the material and processed are very old world, and have less of an imprint.

But yes, I also don't give the "investment" aspect much thought. The higher you go, the more artistry and tradition you get...
post #21 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post


Again, if your justification is "most people wouldn't know the difference anyways", you are in the wrong forum. It's a bunch of clothing enthusiasts--aspiring to mediocrity or worse is not exactly what brings most folks here.

It's like going onto a sports car enthusiast forum and saying "why bother? my econobox gets me from point a to point b just as well as your Porsche." Perhaps, but that is completely and entirely beside the point.

 

If sports car enthusiasts' claim was: "Hyundai cars cost more money than Ferrari cars in the long run because a Ferrari car will last you a lifetime," I would make a thread entitled, "Contrary to popular SCE belief, inexpensive cars do not disintegrate upon their warranties' end."

 

If, in that thread, the (irrelevant) argument was then raised that Hyundai cars look worse than Ferrari cars from mile 1 through mile 100,000, I would reply that the poster is correct.  That's different from what I posted in this thread when the same point was made, because the visible difference between Gucci and Cole Haan shoes is much less noticeable than the difference between Ferrari and Hyundai cars.

post #22 of 70
To the OP:

1. The argument I have generally made for buying high quality shoes is that I like them, they look better, and they are not as expensive as merely comparing the retail prices would suggest. A pair of Allen Edmonds that retails for $360 is not going to be cheaper in the long-run than a pair of cheap $90 dress shoes, but it also is not going to be 4x as expensive, especially if you get rid of shoes that look like crap and cannot be repaired. Maybe it's 2x as expensive, but the point is that people experience sticker shock with nicer shoes that is not entirely justified since merely comparing retail prices is deceptive.

2. The idea that 99% of people cannot tell the difference between $70 shoes and $700 shoes is a laughable hyperbole. If we're talking about $700 Crockett & Jones shoes vs. Lobbs that retail for $1,400 or so, you may have a point that 1% of the population can tell the difference. It's the old diminishing marginal returns argument. Once you get to a certain point of quality, it is harder to tell the difference and fewer people can. If we're talking about $350 Allen Edmonds vs. $700 Crockett & Jones, more people are going to be able to tell the difference. Even more will tell the difference between $350 Allen Edmonds and bargain $70 shoes. Now put the $700 Crockett & Jones shoes next to the bargain $70 shoes, a lot of people will be able to tell that one is far superior.

The whole 99% thing gets thrown around here way too much and it really does not make for productive dialogue. Nobody is going to disagree that the average SFer cares more about these things than the average person in society, but there are still plenty of people in society who care about these things and try to look good and who can tell the difference between crap shoes and nice ones (even more can tell the difference between crap shoes and really nice ones). Wearing decent shoes is a basic part of being well dressed. Let's save the 99% hyperbole for things like showing 3 vs. 4 studs in a black tie rig, where it may actually be accurate.
post #23 of 70
Ah, the age-old debate. I've been pulled into this debate before with friends. It's impossible to even compare a $90 pair of shoes to something nicer on a purely utilitarian basis because everyone places a different "value" on how they look. I, personally, would never be caught dead with a pair of bozo clown shoes, which is what most $90 pairs look like. I can't get over how uninspired and gigantic your average $90 pair of shoes are!

Saphir Shoe Polish  -  Shoe Shine Guides

Luxury Wooden Hangers & Hundreds of other Fantastic Men's Accessories

Reply

Saphir Shoe Polish  -  Shoe Shine Guides

Luxury Wooden Hangers & Hundreds of other Fantastic Men's Accessories

Reply
post #24 of 70
The comfort, style and enjoyment of owning, wearing and caring for quality shoes are their own reward. If you don't value these attributes then all the forum debates in the world won't matter.
post #25 of 70
How did we get from the original premise that "cheap shoes don't fall apart immediately upon wearing" to the new premise that "cheap shoes are indistinguishable from much more expensive ones?" baldy[1].gif
post #26 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWraith View Post

So? The masses are morons. That's not anything to crow about, mate.

Morons are people who think knowing about nice clothes is what distinguishes morons from non-morons.


ps: rob is a troll, it is not his first foray into utter stupidity.
post #27 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post
 

 

Yep.  There are reasons to buy higher-quality shoes, but one is not that it is cheaper over time.  People on this forum give glued shoes short shrift in that regard; that's all this thread is about.  You should justify your purchases in some other way - if you feel the need to at all.

 

Another subject, but brought up in your post: I think with suits, a lot has to do with fit - I'd be interested to see how people (both learned and un-) would rate an ill-fitting but high-quality suit (or a bespoke suit worn by someone other than he for whom it was made) vs. a well-tailored fused department store suit.


That's not comparing apples to apples. Fit is paramount to any well-dressed comparison. If you want to compare two well fitting suits of differing construction, or two ill-fitting suits of different construction that would be one thing. To compare a suit three sizes too big from Camps de Luca made for a man that isn't me versus an Alfani suit with all the right tailoring done EVERYONE will agree that the fitted suit looks better on me.

 

My point is that all other factors being roughly equal, a fine suit or a nice pair of shoes communicates their value subtly to the eye and will, more often than not, be chosen as the better dressed ensemble. It may not be overt, the viewer might not say "I just love the pick stitching and natural shoulder" or "wow look at that broguing on the shoe" but they will feel its effect. Add that to the additional comfort and enjoyment you get when wearing them, it's a case for some of us to upgrade.

 

Most of us around here understand that and choose to invest the money up front to have items that last longer and look better their entire lives, that's what they should mean by invest- invest in your image, comfort and enjoyment.

post #28 of 70

Well, it might be true that shoes with glued-on soles don't disintegrate immediately. But there is one strong point on the side of nice expensive shoes. Women recognize and love them. They have no idea about glued-on soles, goodyear or blake and they don't care about it. But when I'm wearing my shoes I get compliments from women, and my friends don't. Women have a natural radar for expensive clothing, do not underestimate it. Last weekend I was wearing my new pair of JL Chapel, and my niece (who is 8 years old) told me: "Wow, those shoes are beautiful. My father should buy the same ones", and she has no idea about goodyear, calf leather, or even money.

But now seriously, coming back to the origin of this thread, some cheap shoes can stand years of daily use without proper care, but I just don't like the way they look, thus they don't make me happy.


Edited by jdiaz26 - 11/13/13 at 11:42am
post #29 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdiaz26 View Post

. But there is one strong point on the side of nice expensive shoes. Women recognize and love them.

Yeah, don't think so. Most women care more about the time you met Jay-z than that you may have on a pair of handcrafted G&Gs.
post #30 of 70
What about the cost per km? Why would you wear something that looks and feels so inferior just to save a few cents per km?
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