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 4

post #46 of 70
I'm not sure this is much of an argument.

Some people I work with wear the same cheap bullshit shoes that get ripped on here. Bass, steve madden, etc etc. They have worn the same pair for as long as 3 years, and that is wearing the same shoe almost every day. Price was in the $35 to $75 range.

Considering a cheap resole is about $90, there is no question the better economic move is to keep buying the cheap shoes. I've never seen a pair fall apart in 7 to 9 months.

Of course they looked like shit from day one, but if you don't care about appearance, its plainly cheaper to buy cheap shoes.
post #47 of 70

What about the cost to our feet?

 

There may be some honourable exceptions, but many cemented shoes appeared to be designed to be produced as cheaply as possible with little thought to supporting the natural movement of the foot.

 

A common problem I see in glued shoes is the lack of a shank or other support. As the waist of the shoe is narrower than the forefoot, the shoe is more flexible through the arch than at the ball of the foot. This puts strain on the arch and is an invitation to foot problems.

 

I have learned through experience that poorly constructed shoes are a bad investment.

post #48 of 70
Shoes are never an investment, it's not a matter of wondering if they're a good or bad one.
post #49 of 70
Investment, in this case, is not a monetary one.
post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger la Rock View Post

What about the cost to our feet?

There may be some honourable exceptions, but many cemented shoes appeared to be designed to be produced as cheaply as possible with little thought to supporting the natural movement of the foot.

A common problem I see in glued shoes is the lack of a shank or other support. As the waist of the shoe is narrower than the forefoot, the shoe is more flexible through the arch than at the ball of the foot. This puts strain on the arch and is an invitation to foot problems.

I have learned through experience that poorly constructed shoes are a bad investment.

Wearing shoes is an invitation to foot problems. Go bare foot.
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post


Wearing shoes is an invitation to foot problems. Go bare foot.

True. Human body is "designed" to walk bare foot.

post #52 of 70

I bought these magnanni miro's in undergrad and i get compliments all-the-time. They look nice, they're stylish, and they're comfortable.  the fact that they aren't goodyear welted doesnt really matter, im truly not out to impress grown men nit-picking construction details. just women and others who wish to dress well.  we're not all in a position to spend $350+ on shoes, but that's not to say one in $200-300 shoes can't out-style someone who is rocking a bespoke suit with $800 shoes.  seems like it's just a pissing contest sometimes.

 

post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by dohare View Post
 

I bought these magnanni miro's in undergrad and i get compliments all-the-time. They look nice, they're stylish, and they're comfortable.  the fact that they aren't goodyear welted doesnt really matter, im truly not out to impress grown men nit-picking construction details. just women and others who wish to dress well.  we're not all in a position to spend $350+ on shoes, but that's not to say one in $200-300 shoes can't out-style someone who is rocking a bespoke suit with $800 shoes.  seems like it's just a pissing contest sometimes.

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Not goodyear welted???? they will disintegrate in 10, 9, 8, ....

post #54 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post


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

I just want it to be said that this made this whole thread worthwhile.

 

Also, are there somehow people who the OP helps? Either you've worn good shoes all your life, and are likely to continue doing so, or you've worn enough cheap shoes to know how long they last.

post #55 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post

 

Also, are there somehow people who the OP helps? Either you've worn good shoes all your life, and are likely to continue doing so, or you've worn enough cheap shoes to know how long they last.

To be fair, sometimes we all need a "reality check"... many of us rationalize our large shopping receipts by insisting that high end men's shoes end up "saving us money"! Which is occasionally true, though not as often as we'd like to think...

post #56 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post


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.

 

Interesting thread and great topic.  Hitting on the definition of "investment" is what I was going to touch on before aravenel beat me to it.  People completely misunderstand what the word investment means as it applies to perishable goods.  It has nothing to do with putting money into shoes with the expectation of capital appreciation, dividends, or interest earnings.  It has everything to do with quality.  You can invest in quality, and end up with a better value in the long term, but only if you care for it.  Using cars as an analogy fails on many fronts, though it is the most frequently brought up analogy when these discussions erupt.

 

I think that a better analogy that most people can relate to would be furniture.  From day one, an article made from particle board looks cheaper than an article made from mahogany.  Most people can see the difference up front, and if not, give it some time and I promise the difference will become readily apparent..  After the article starts being used, the one made from mahogany begins to take on character, while the one made from particle board begins to look worse and worse.  People often obsess over the first scratch on a smooth surface, but when you see an antique that has so many scratches and dings that it is exuding character, it is a thing of beauty.  The article made from mahogany can be stained, it can have it's finish restored, it can be waxed and polished to bring out it's natural beauty.  Blemishes can be sanded or filled, if one desires.

 

There is very little that can be done to something made from particle board.  Most people buy articles of furniture made from particle board because they don't care about the difference in quality, they can't afford it, or they don't intend for it to last long enough for it to matter.  There is a reason you don't see articles made from particle board in fine antique shops.  It doesn't generally last long enough to make it there, and even if it did, it has very little resale value.  If an article made of particle board does reach antique status, it is probably because it received little or no direct use that would lead to showing wear.  It just sat in a corner with a picture frame on it for 50 years.  You can use furniture made from fine wood.  Kids can bang their toys on it.  You can eat on it.  You can knock silverware and dishes against it.  You can spill stuff on it.  You can carry it with you for years.  It can be used like this for centuries if well cared for.  As soon as particle board gets wet, it swells and distorts.

 

When you buy furniture made from fine wood, you are making an investment.  Pure and simple.  You can use it the rest of your life, pass it on to your kids, grandkids, and great grandkids.

 

Of course there are people that only want new stuff.  They are the ones that often buy particle board stuff to use until it looks bad, then they throw it out and get new stuff.  People with more money than sense may buy fine wood articles and still replace them frequently, but they are the exception to the rule.  To each their own.

 

This is the definition of investment that applies to fine footwear.   No, shoes won't last for centuries (with regular use), and a lot of what I said above about wood furniture doesn't directly apply to shoes, but much of it does.  There is also a lot more to a good quality pair of shoes and how long they last than just cemented vs. stitched construction.  Shoes can disintegrate from the inside out before the sole wears out.  Using someone as an example that buys cheap shoes, and gets a certain number of years out of them as a reason that cheap shoes are adequate isn't really logical.  If a person can get 10 years out of a pair of $100 shoes, good for them!  The same person will still get far longer out of a pair of $300 shoes!  The quality difference exists no matter what.  If a person only gets 1 year from a pair of good quality shoes, then they probably only get a few months from a pair of cheap shoes.  Don't confuse spending more money on something because of a brand name with spending more money on quality.  Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

 

Obviously the law of diminishing returns kicks in at some point, and you are paying for beauty and finishing as opposed to durability.  Again, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  That doesn't negate that higher quality is better than lower quality.  Do people exaggerate the short life of a cemented pair of shoes?  Often, yes.  Does that mean that a high quality pair of shoes won't last significantly longer and look better through the process?  No.  If you enjoy watching a quality product age, take on a unique character, and become a companion that goes with you everywhere you walk, then invest in quality.  If you don't care about that, then buy cheap ones. 

post #57 of 70
^
Had a lot on your mind, Money? smile.gif
post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger la Rock View Post
 

What about the cost to our feet?

 

There may be some honourable exceptions, but many cemented shoes appeared to be designed to be produced as cheaply as possible with little thought to supporting the natural movement of the foot.

 

A common problem I see in glued shoes is the lack of a shank or other support. As the waist of the shoe is narrower than the forefoot, the shoe is more flexible through the arch than at the ball of the foot. This puts strain on the arch and is an invitation to foot problems.

 

I have learned through experience that poorly constructed shoes are a bad investment.

 

I agree that cheap shoes aren't necessarily designed with foot health in mind.

 

I just wanted to point out that shanks are constantly thrown around as providing "support" for the foot.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Shanks exist for the sole purpose of maintaining the integrity of the shoe at the waist.  When a shoe is only 270 degree welted, it has a separate heel seat apart from the welt.  Thus, there is a gap in the structure of the shoe at the heel breast.  A shank serves to keep the shoe from "collapsing" in that area over time.  It isn't providing support to the foot of the wearer.  That's why 360 degree welted shoes don't have to have shanks.  The 360 welt maintains the integrity of the shoe from the heel to the forepart.  Many claim that they can feel more "support" from having shanks in their shoes, but this is a myth.  It makes no physiological sense, and shoe experts that aren't relying on shanks as a marketing ploy for their shoes (like Alden with their steel shanks) will tell you the same thing.

post #59 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by JubeiSpiegel View Post

^
Had a lot on your mind, Money? smile.gif

 

:rolleyes:

post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyWellSpent View Post
 

 

I agree that cheap shoes aren't necessarily designed with foot health in mind.

 

I just wanted to point out that shanks are constantly thrown around as providing "support" for the foot.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Shanks exist for the sole purpose of maintaining the integrity of the shoe at the waist.  When a shoe is only 270 degree welted, it has a separate heel seat apart from the welt.  Thus, there is a gap in the structure of the shoe at the heel breast.  A shank serves to keep the shoe from "collapsing" in that area over time.  It isn't providing support to the foot of the wearer.  That's why 360 degree welted shoes don't have to have shanks.  The 360 welt maintains the integrity of the shoe from the heel to the forepart.  Many claim that they can feel more "support" from having shanks in their shoes, but this is a myth.  It makes no physiological sense, and shoe experts that aren't relying on shanks as a marketing ploy for their shoes (like Alden with their steel shanks) will tell you the same thing.


You misunderstand me. I did not mean that cheap cemented shoes lack a feature that supports the foot, but that many cheap cemented shoes lack structural integrity, however that may be achieved.

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