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 3

post #31 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

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

BS!
post #32 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcammer View Post

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.

I think this really depends on the woman and the social circle. Women who live in cities and meet a lot of young professional types are much more likely to notice and care about these things. Same goes for women who went to schools where they were exposed to people with luxurious tastes. I do think that decent (AE or higher) and well cared for / shined shoes make a positive social impression in general, but it matters more in some areas than others. Almost nobody cares if you have on G&Gs, but I think you get points for not wearing shoes that look cheap.
post #33 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.  

that's why i wear mine with the price tag hanging off the tongue
post #34 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trompe le Monde View Post

that's why i wear mine with the price tag hanging off the tongue

rotflmao.gif
post #35 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post


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.

 

No, I am a highly-educated and intelligent professional who considers it proper and just to familiarize the less fortunate with reasonable positions.

 

You ought to (in the parlance of our times) recognize.

post #36 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibaldleach View Post

I think this really depends on the woman and the social circle. Women who live in cities and meet a lot of young professional types are much more likely to notice and care about these things. Same goes for women who went to schools where they were exposed to people with luxurious tastes. I do think that decent (AE or higher) and well cared for / shined shoes make a positive social impression in general, but it matters more in some areas than others. Almost nobody cares if you have on G&Gs, but I think you get points for not wearing shoes that look cheap.

I think it has more to do with age. Women over the age of say 35 may recognize and appreciate quality shoes on a man. I work with hundreds of 20s to 30s professional women in NYC. They tend to dislike squared toe shoes, but if a guy put on a $70 pair of aldo wingtips, they would likely think the dude is looking sharp. They seem to like my C&Js as well, but not any more or less than the cheapie wingtips. I also think most women think that GQ represents the pinnacle of men's style.

After mid 30s, the classic, well dressed man starts to appeal to women more, in my opinion.
post #37 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post

No, I am a highly-educated and intelligent professional who considers it proper and just to familiarize the less fortunate with reasonable positions.

You ought to (in the parlance of our times) recognize.

No one who defines their occupation as being "a professional" can be highly-educated or intelligent.
post #38 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post


No one who defines their occupation as being "a professional" can be highly-educated or intelligent.

 

post #39 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post




Even your choice of images/meme is banal and mediocre.


Here's a sassy bobcat, let this be a lesson to you all:
post #40 of 70
I liked Rob more when he went by his given name, Reevolving.
post #41 of 70
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post


Even your choice of images/meme is banal and mediocre.


Here's a sassy bobcat, let this be a lesson to you all:
 

 

 

Strong words for a man who considers a doctor/lawyer who calls himself a professional to be neither highly-educated nor intelligent.

 

(So untenable a position is so rarely espoused, friend, that I've no hope for you.)

post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post


Even your choice of images/meme is banal and mediocre.


Here's a sassy bobcat, let this be a lesson to you all:

post #43 of 70

I don't wear expensive shoes or clothes, but I do think there is a difference, down to a point, between them. At some point shoe construction suffers as you cut prices. DWF would say there is a huge drop in quality and durability when one goes from hand welted to Goodyear welted construction. That transition takes place at a very high price point. Ignoring hand welted shoes, GY welted shoes can be resoled readily. I don't know whether glued on soles can be, but the shoes tend not to be made to last that long. It is conceivable that buying at the low end of GY welted and resoling might have a cost advantage over the high end of glued on. But if you go low enough in price, then resoling can cost as much as another pair of glue jobs. 

 

Among GY welted shoes, it is not clear that there are durability differences between the bottom and the top of that market. Perhaps there are, but I have not hear experts, in this case cobblers, offer opinions. It seems that people who buy expensive shoes are mainly attracted by the finishing, style, perhaps the name of the manufacturer. As many of these comments illustrate, these people view their shoes as style items. Lobbs are worth far more than CJ, which are worth far more than AE because of the style considerations. As with women's clothes, this is part of the entertainment industry. People pursue fashion and buy fancy clothes for the fun of it.

 

Your own appearance has no effect on the look of the shoes.

 

Suits are a different matter. They do not sustain the stresses of being walked on, rough city streets, water splashed on them... Durability is not nearly so much of a consideration. They are even more style items than are shoes. But how a suit looks depends very heavily not only on fit, but on the fitness of the wearer. If I were built like, say, LeBron James, then perhaps it might make sense for me to show off my physique with a carefully tailored suit. But if I were built like him, then dressing to show it would impress people a lot more than the cost or tailoring of the suit. 

 

I am way too cheap to buy expensive shoes, but my feet have been happier since I switched from cheap shoes with excessively flexible glued on rubber soles to cheap (used) better made shoes with leather soles. I don't know whether anyone notices my shoes, but I really don't care. I do not wear them to make style statements or attract ladies. I wear them to conform, more or less, with expectations for my work, and to protect my feet. I don't need to spend $2000, or even $200, to do that.

post #44 of 70
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.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRob View Post
 

 

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.

 

:lurk:

 

I've got to admit, OP's picking you guys apart with the type of pin-point logic that we need more of around these parts.

post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyMac View Post

I've got to admit, OP's picking you guys apart with the type of pin-point logic that we need more of around these parts.

Pinpoint logic? It's a completely he-said-she-said argument, based on a very limited and not very relevant premise. Furthermore, his "rebuttal" didn't even address my point--that this is a forum of enthusiasts, and thus what the other 99% of people do or do not do or notice is irrelevant.

Here's an equally valid counterpoint--I have also owned cheap glued shoes and nicer shoes. My cheap shoes had to be replaced every 7-9 months when they fell apart. My first pair of "nice" shoes are going on four years now. Considering that those "cheap" shoes cost me $100/pair and my first pair of "nice" shoes were Allen Edmonds at $300, the AE were clearly the better buy, not even factoring in the time it took me to find a pair of shoes that I liked, particularly given my wide feet.

Granted, one should not view them as a monetary investment. No clothing should be--once you clear a very basic threshold, it becomes a discretionary expense. Treating it as anything other than that is just a good way to get yourself in trouble. When people say a nice pair of shoes, suit, etc are an investment piece, they mean that it is a piece that can form a central part of your wardrobe and get a great deal of use over a long period of time, and it may thus be worth allocating more of your budget towards that item. They don't mean that you should go buy the EGs because you will somehow be more monetarily wealthy for having bought them.

And again, the point still stands--this is a forum of clothing enthusiasts. They value clothing, and everything that goes with that, particularly aesthetics and build quality. Those "nice" shoes or suit or whatever have value beyond the pure monetary.
Edited by aravenel - 11/13/13 at 3:40pm
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