I agree completely given the two scenarios you presented above. I think I am trying to advocate for the middle ground though. If average John Doe on the street looked at a pair of 20 year old shoes on my feet and said "nice new shoes!" I would feel inclined to correct him by clarifying that they are actually quite old, but well cared for. I think fine shoes can be related to the concept of a "distinguished gentleman." No one looks at a guy with salt and pepper or gray hair and thinks he is young. A guy can age well and look more distinguished with age. Same for shoes. Cheap or neglected old shoes will look old. Old high quality shoes should look distinguished through years of use and care. If you see someone you know is old and yet they have full color hair and few wrinkles, you assume they are using dye and modern medicine to "look young." If you see a pair of shoes that look like they just came out of the box, then you will likely make a couple of assumptions. Either they are new, or they haven't been worn very often. We all know that mcarthur has dozens of pairs of shoes, and from what I hear, you do too. Therefore, you have to have shoes that only get worn a few times a year. This is a mathematical fact. A pair of old shoes that gets worn a few times a year will look almost new when they are 30 years old as long as they are conditioned perodically, while a pair of shoes that gets worn twice a week will look old within a few years regardless of care. This has to be taken into consideration when looking at someone's pictures. It isn't really fair or honest to take credit for how exemplary a pair of 30 year old shoes look if they have only been worn 10 times, nor is it a reflection of their quality. Even cheap things look relatively new when they aren't used much.