or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How do you justify spending $500+ on shoes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How do you justify spending $500+ on shoes? - Page 5

post #61 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbhdnhdbh View Post

Interesting discussion. I find the longer I am on SF the less I spend on clothes. I have reached a point that I don't use cost or brand as proxies for quality. I realize that many of the characteristics of higher quality do not matter to me, so I don't pay for them.

...

Honestly, no disrespect intended but I am curious...why do you read or post to SF then?

I just don't understand the impulse to challenge people who are earnestly and sincerely trying their best to help. Or who pretty universally, across the board, hold a world view that is at odds with your [generic] own beliefs. It's not like people are being forced to listen or believe.

It's kind of like the vegans or the PETA folks who show up in the shoe or leather threads every now and again to chastise us all.

My attitude is that...at a certain point...if I don't share a somewhat similar view of the world with the underlying assumptions of a discussion or a forum--for instance a respect for the concept of quality--then it makes no sense to jump in and try to re-define the issues.

If you join the Catholic church you have to accept the principle of Papal infallibility or nail your theses to the door on your way out.

--
post #62 of 124
On used shoes: I find the paranoia over used shoes rather amusing. To each their own. I respect those that have no issues re-using shoes, similarly, I respect the opinions of those who choose not to, citing public health concerns.

The amusing part is that no one has a problem dining at a restaurant and putting a public fork in their mouth, putting their lips to public drinkware, and wiping hands and face with public cloth napkins.
post #63 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

I think its more that its harder to find great shoes on deep discount the way you can find shirts, ties and SCs.

Shoes, especially English, don't really have seasons per say i.e. not like F/W 2013 but more like just F/W, so most aren't included a lot in clearance sales. Usually when they do have their sales, the selection is extremely limited. And EG now won't let you order anything by phone or e-mail. It sucks.

 

I don't buy used shoes because #1 despite trees, there's always gonna be nasty sweat and soil in the insole and lining #2 the insole is all molded to somebody's elses foot and the creasing has also already been set.

post #64 of 124
I've never been at ease with the "I buy whatever I want and can afford" answer, since there are so many things one can do with money. Buying things for oneself is just one. How about scholarships for poor children? How about medicine for them? How about food for the ones dying of starvation?

This is not to say that I haven't spent over $500 on shoes. But it is a struggle. I have to justify it to myself more than to anyone else. And I think it should be a struggle for us all. If we are to be truly responsible, we need to think long term and about others. "I buy whatever I want and can afford" just seems too short-sighted and selfish to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

Honestly, no disrespect intended but I am curious...why do you read or post to SF then? Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I just don't understand the impulse to challenge people who are earnestly and sincerely trying their best to help. Or who pretty universally, across the board, hold a world view that is at odds with your [generic] own beliefs. It's not like people are being forced to listen or believe.

It's kind of like the vegans or the PETA folks who show up in the shoe or leather threads every now and again to chastise us all.

My attitude is that...at a certain point...if I don't share a somewhat similar view of the world with the underlying assumptions of a discussion or a forum--for instance a respect for the concept of quality--then it makes no sense to jump in and try to re-define the issues.

If you join the Catholic church you have to accept the principle of Papal infallibility or nail your theses to the door on your way out.
--
I don't want to put words in d's mouth, but I was in a similar situation during my first few years here: I spent less money after joining than before.

His reason for viewing the forum seem to be the same as most people: to learn about high quality goods. Because he uses this info to find such goods used, he can spend less money than when he didn't have this info.

The same was true for me several years ago. And like him, I often prefer to buy used goods over new, due to environmental/conservational reasons. The difference is that I use the money I save buying used things (and some more money, I'm sure shog[1].gif) to buy custom goods from highly skilled artisans.

A quick note about papal infallibility, as it is commonly misunderstood (not necessarily by you, DW):

It does not mean that the pope makes no mistakes. On the contrary, popes confess their sinfulness at every mass along with everyone else ("I confess my sins to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters…"). This particular pope said, "I a sinner," when asked who he was in an early interview. A recent pope said he went to confession at least once a week.

So, again, papal infallibility does not mean they can do no wrong. It means that on a very rare occasion, the popes can create binding doctrine. This is so rare it has only happened twice in the over two thousand year history of the church.

It's based on the following theology: God is truth. To the degree that a person is inspired by God, that person knows revealed truth. This is true of all the faithful, since faith is a graced, inspired knowledge. Bishops, as the successors to the apostles, can on special occasions, when gathered together, speak for the faithful and write doctrine. Such are the church councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc.). On a very rare occasions, the pope, as the successor to Peter, can speak for the bishops who are speaking for the faithful who are inspired by God. On these very rare occasions, the pope is called "infallible," and again, it has only happened twice ever.
post #65 of 124
M, what are you, some kind of theology professor? ^_^
post #66 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by archetypal_yuppie View Post

The value is in wearing a superior shoe for the time that you are wearing it, not in purchasing durability.

True. Sometimes, after a certain point, you are not paying for more quality, but for exclusivity.
post #67 of 124
Emptym, very well put.
post #68 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post
 

Shoes, especially English, don't really have seasons per say i.e. not like F/W 2013 but more like just F/W, so most aren't included a lot in clearance sales. Usually when they do have their sales, the selection is extremely limited. And EG now won't let you order anything by phone or e-mail. It sucks.

 

I don't buy used shoes because #1 despite trees, there's always gonna be nasty sweat and soil in the insole and lining #2 the insole is all molded to somebody's elses foot and the creasing has also already been set.

 

Lot of F/W '13 shoe styles out there, just, you know, that apostrophe stands for "19," and you can replace those last two digits with pretty much any number you care to think of.

 

Not that I've ever bought $500 shoes. That's a lot of money for me. If it were ever merely a lot of money (no italics), it would come down to "Do I want this more than the discretionary stuff I won't buy because of it?" And, I might. I like having nice shoes.

 

I don't think I'll hit the point where where $500 isn't a lot of money, but if I do, I'll probably be repeating the same process as above but with costlier shoes.

 

Not that most of that's particularly new. But hey, anything that mentions patent, python, and scotch grain must be great.

post #69 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post


A quick note about papal infallibility, as it is commonly misunderstood (not necessarily by you, DW):

It does not mean that the pope makes no mistakes. On the contrary, popes confess their sinfulness at every mass along with everyone else ("I confess my sins to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters…"). This particular pope said, "I a sinner," when asked who he was in an early interview. A recent pope said he went to confession at least once a week.

So, again, papal infallibility does not mean they can do no wrong. It means that on a very rare occasion, the popes can create binding doctrine. This is so rare it has only happened twice in the over two thousand year history of the church.

It's based on the following theology: God is truth. To the degree that a person is inspired by God, that person knows revealed truth. This is true of all the faithful, since faith is a graced, inspired knowledge. Bishops, as the successors to the apostles, can on special occasions, when gathered together, speak for the faithful and write doctrine. Such are the church councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc.). On a very rare occasions, the pope, as the successor to Peter, can speak for the bishops who are speaking for the faithful who are inspired by God. On these very rare occasions, the pope is called "infallible," and again, it has only happened twice ever.

I think I knew that but it is a metaphor for the Catholic church just as incense, rosarys, and Latin masses are. I suppose I could have listed all those aspects too, ever now and again I am compelled to at least pay lip service to brevity.

biggrin.gif

--
Edited by DWFII - 12/29/13 at 9:30pm
post #70 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfSteam View Post

On used shoes: I find the paranoia over used shoes rather amusing. To each their own. I respect those that have no issues re-using shoes, similarly, I respect the opinions of those who choose not to, citing public health concerns.

The amusing part is that no one has a problem dining at a restaurant and putting a public fork in their mouth, putting their lips to public drinkware, and wiping hands and face with public cloth napkins.

Well, for one thing it's simply not the same kind of issue--every restaurant in the US...and I suspect most Western countries...has to pass inspections by government health agencies in order to operate. Napkins, dishes, forks and drinkware are generally sterilized and cleaning operations, as well as premises, must pass muster too.

That said people do get sick from contaminated food or other organisms and some restaurants ignore laws and restrictions.

However, if you're eating from utensils that have food caked on them (the equivalent of wearing used shoes)...you're begging for trouble, nothing short. And hanging out in some very unsavory places.

But shoes are much harder to sterilize or even fully clean than glass or stainless steel or porcelain. I would even go so far, knowing what I know about leather, as to say that you can never sterilize a pair of shoe completely...short of burning them.

Beyond that I know from personal experience that you can pick up diseases by buying and wearing used shoes. And it only takes one pair.

"Tobacco won't always kill you...sometimes it just takes a lung." Or your voice box or parts of your tongue.

--
Edited by DWFII - 12/29/13 at 9:47pm
post #71 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post

I've never been at ease with the "I buy whatever I want and can afford" answer, since there are so many things one can do with money. Buying things for oneself is just one. How about scholarships for poor children? How about medicine for them? How about food for the ones dying of starvation?

This is not to say that I haven't spent over $500 on shoes. But it is a struggle. I have to justify it to myself more than to anyone else. And I think it should be a struggle for us all. If we are to be truly responsible, we need to think long term and about others. "I buy whatever I want and can afford" just seems too short-sighted and selfish to me.
I don't want to put words in d's mouth, but I was in a similar situation during my first few years here: I spent less money after joining than before.

Very well said. I tend to buy shoes in the $350 to $600 range and definitely think about this. I'm okay with having a decent sized collection of quality shoes that I wear regularly and take good care of, but this sort of thought process is one thing that has stopped me from buying expensive watches or bespoke vs. MTM clothes.
post #72 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post


A quick note about papal infallibility, as it is commonly misunderstood (not necessarily by you, DW):
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
It does not mean that the pope makes no mistakes. On the contrary, popes confess their sinfulness at every mass along with everyone else ("I confess my sins to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters…"). This particular pope said, "I a sinner," when asked who he was in an early interview. A recent pope said he went to confession at least once a week.

So, again, papal infallibility does not mean they can do no wrong. It means that on a very rare occasion, the popes can create binding doctrine. This is so rare it has only happened twice in the over two thousand year history of the church.

It's based on the following theology: God is truth. To the degree that a person is inspired by God, that person knows revealed truth. This is true of all the faithful, since faith is a graced, inspired knowledge. Bishops, as the successors to the apostles, can on special occasions, when gathered together, speak for the faithful and write doctrine. Such are the church councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc.). On a very rare occasions, the pope, as the successor to Peter, can speak for the bishops who are speaking for the faithful who are inspired by God. On these very rare occasions, the pope is called "infallible," and again, it has only happened twice ever.

mtm,

BTW, I know this is your bailiwick --it certainly isn't mine--and, as a result, I automatically defer to you in these matters. But I find it interesting that if you google "Doctrine of Papal infallibility," you get a very different perspective...at least from Wikipedia. I'll let you do that search yourself but I would make one quote from it:
Quote:
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".

This doctrine was defined dogmatically in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, but had been defended before that, appearing already in medieval tradition and becoming the majority opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.

Now I don't know if this is counter to your explanation or not --I may be misinterpreting one or both. What interests me (aside from spuriously validating any mistaken assumptions I had) is that...knowing you and deferring to your expertise, and if what I'm reading on Wikipedia is correct...it calls into question the validity of all sorts of information being quoted from various sources on the 'Net. Information that has little or no first hand, real-world substantiation. Information that has no connection to the the person posting it and hence no reason/compulsion to take responsibility for the validity of it.

In other words, as a general rule, quotes from the Internet are nearly always suspect (and should be), IMO...unless you're the author or someone who can personally vouch for their truth.
post #73 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post

I've never been at ease with the "I buy whatever I want and can afford" answer, since there are so many things one can do with money. Buying things for oneself is just one. How about scholarships for poor children? How about medicine for them? How about food for the ones dying of starvation?
This is not to say that I haven't spent over $500 on shoes. But it is a struggle. I have to justify it to myself more than to anyone else. And I think it should be a struggle for us all. If we are to be truly responsible, we need to think long term and about others. "I buy whatever I want and can afford" just seems too short-sighted and selfish to me.

i think this is an excellent point, and while i do not quite disagree, i look at it as follows.

i do place a great value on charitably using ones money to help others. however, as long as the money one is spending on their clothing is not infringing on what amount they would be using to help others, i think its fine.

certainly you could argue, well by very definition if you spend $500 on shoes and could get different shoes that would be just fine for $200, than you are spending $300 that you could be giving away. but i dont see it that way. by that logic should one never eat out at a fancy diner? should we be buying smaller homes and cars and never sending our kids to private school so we can give every extra penny to others?

maybe for a select few people out there that works, but i would not say that is what should be expected of the vast majority of people out there. the way i see it, everybody is comfortable with a certain level of charity. some people give 10% of their earnings, so more and some less, and as long as ones luxury purchases do not infringe on what they feel comfortable giving away, i do not see it as selfish.

now, what a person may personally struggle with is their own private business, and if a person does not feel right spending copious amounts of money on clothing, when there are people out there who live in cardboard boxes, that is their own personal decision, but i do not think that is a justification that every person should feel the need to make as long as they are comfortable with the amount of money they use for others as compared to how their spend for themselves.

just my opinion.
post #74 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post

mtm,

BTW, I know this is your bailiwick --it certainly isn't mine--and, as a result, I automatically defer to you in these matters. But I find it interesting that if you google "Doctrine of Papal infallibility," you get a very different perspective...at least from Wikipedia. I'll let you do that search yourself but I would make one quote from it:

Now I don't know if this is counter to your explanation or not --I may be misinterpreting one or both. What interests me (aside from spuriously validating any mistaken assumptions I had) is that...knowing you and deferring to your expertise, and if what I'm reading on Wikipedia is correct...it calls into question the validity of all sorts of information being quoted from various sources on the 'Net. Information that has little or no first hand, real-world substantiation. Information that has no connection to the the person posting it and hence no reason/compulsion to take responsibility for the validity of it.

In other words, as a general rule, quotes from the Internet are nearly always suspect (and should be), IMO...unless you're the author or someone who can personally vouch for their truth.

I don't think the two explanations are that different at the end of the day. The doctrine of papal infallibility does state that the Pope can speak without error on certain matters of faith and morals. It's the, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church" that is critical and may seem like a lighter condition than it actually is. So the pope must (1) speak ex cathedra (when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) to (2) define a doctrine (3) concerning faith or morals and (4) say that the doctrine must be held by the whole church. Anything said also cannot contradict prior doctrine defined infallibly. There's a lot there and it almost never happens. More than 99.9% of what a pope says does not meet this standard and for many popes it is 100%.

So when the Pope gives an interview, writes a book, writes an apostolic exhortation that the likes of Rush Limbaugh declare "Marxist," or even writes a teaching doctrine such as an encyclical letter, he is not defining doctrine infallibly.
post #75 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by emptym View Post

I've never been at ease with the "I buy whatever I want and can afford" answer, since there are so many things one can do with money. Buying things for oneself is just one. How about scholarships for poor children? How about medicine for them? How about food for the ones dying of starvation?

This is not to say that I haven't spent over $500 on shoes. But it is a struggle. I have to justify it to myself more than to anyone else. And I think it should be a struggle for us all. If we are to be truly responsible, we need to think long term and about others. "I buy whatever I want and can afford" just seems too short-sighted and selfish to me.

I praise the thought you put into this and the concern you have about the well being of others. However, I actually believe that by buying high-priced products manufactured by qualified workers who receive decent wages as employees of mid-sized businesses in Northampton or Middleborough (and those are ultimately the companies we talk about here) you do as much good as by saving up your money in order to donate it for scholarships for kids of unemployed manufacturing workers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › How do you justify spending $500+ on shoes?