or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian Members - Page 265

post #3961 of 57238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gassyndrome View Post
Aha - thanks for that. Makes sense!

And as for 'getting out more' meister, I don't quite understand. Do you want me to hang out in Florsheims? Get out and around and ask people where their ugly shoes came from?

Hang on to your shirt! You seemed to suggest in your post that Loakes and Florsheim were one and the same thing bro'.
post #3962 of 57238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Guido View Post
- Crocket & Jones from the Herringbone store in Circular Quay (Sydney)
- Edward Green from Henry Bucks (not cheap, IIRC >30%)
- St Crispins are also available, though I'm assuming this will be out of your budget & only MTM
- John Cutler sells Stefano Bemer & EG - again not budget approved
- I don't see or understand the love here for Loakes as they are SHITE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie's Wardrobe View Post
Don't agree with this at all. They are what they are. They're not St Crispins that's for sure. There also not Aquila's. For me they fit nicely in between as long as you stick to the 1880 range. I have 2 pair of 1880 (one which I'm wearing today and both have worn very well, are very comfy and polish up fantastic. Quality is on par with my Shipton and Heneage that are made by C&J.

It's prob worth noting here that many people on here can't afford to spend $1000+ on a pair of shoes, or even $500 for that matter. Not because we are poor, but because we have mortgages, new cars and other money consuming hobbies (in my case cycling, golf and fishing) but still want to look good on the budget we have. So in conclusion Loake are absolutely fine at the 1880 range level. Below that not so good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Guido View Post
- you raise some very valid points. I should have been clearer in that the price for Loakes in AUS (as for most things) are too high for what I have seen.
- also with the knowledge that one gains from this forum & the access to buying OS, for not much more IMO one is better off moving up a tier as we all know these shoes will last etc.
- like everyone else I also have commitments, we just come from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
- in no way was I comparing the build & workmanship to JL/EG etc., just comparing to how much I see them sale here for.
- I would rather another pair of RM Craftsman as they certainly provide a good ROI. NOt sure how much they are today as I have a few pairs dating late 90s.


It's not so much being able to spend $1000 or more on a pair of shoes - it's wanting to do so. Let's face it - we are a peculiar bunch of people and most "ordinary" men, rich or poor, would be pretty aghast at the thought of paying more than a few hundred for a pair of shoes.

I've come to know quite a few people who are millionaires and multi-millionaires and, almost exclusively, they either wear RM Williams boots or awful, cemented-sole, square-toed shoes. The wealthiest person I know - probably worth about $25 million, give or take a few million - seems to spend most of his time in a pair of Crocs.

Most of them see no value whatsoever in spending more than a few hundred dollars on shoes, and they can't be bothered spending the time tracking down an elusive pair of shoes online, particularly if they don't even know if it will fit them. They would rather march into David Jones, plonk down some cash, and walk out with a few pairs of shoes that they can wear into the ground. It's a sad state of affairs, but regardless of their socioeconomic background, most people just don't want to spend much money on a pair of shoes.
post #3963 of 57238
Speaking of Loake 1880, there are a few of those on sale at Herring at the moment. Cheaneys too.
post #3964 of 57238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post
It's not so much being able to spend $1000 or more on a pair of shoes - it's wanting to do so. Let's face it - we are a peculiar bunch of people and most "ordinary" men, rich or poor, would be pretty aghast at the thought of paying more than a few hundred for a pair of shoes.

Funny they can afford $100-$200 for a pair of shoes every year (that do not look good at all). My $800-1000 shoes are going to last 10-15 (maybe 20) years with some maintenance, hell even same goes for $500 C&Js.
post #3965 of 57238
I've found my Loakes to be good (Aldywch and Kemptons), but will probably not buy another pair. I'd rather save and go up a couple tiers now (next shoe on the list is the Alfred Sargent Ramsey double monk). Going for quality over quantity.
post #3966 of 57238
Well I'm staying under $300. I highly doubt that $200-$300 range shoes will look like ass after a couple of wears and I highly doubt $1000 shoes will last 3x as long. I'm aiming to maximize quality and quantity.
post #3967 of 57238
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahman View Post
Well I'm staying under $300. I highly doubt that $200-$300 range shoes will look like ass after a couple of wears and I highly doubt $1000 shoes will last 3x as long. I'm aiming to maximize quality and quantity.
Shoes are one item that you can rely on to last you a while. I would suggest using what you have now (as long as you have 2-3 pairs) and then save for a pair of C&Js or better. You will be much happier in the long run. I basically guarantee it. Edit: If you are spending $100+ on shirts, a $500 pair of shoes is easily justified. 10 Shirts on a rotation through a year will be worn out during the next year. You've just dropped ~$1000 on products with a two year lifespan. A pair of $500 shoes will last you at least 5, closer to 10 and perhaps 15 years, and you will not regret the purchase, unless you want to spend more on a pair of shoes.
post #3968 of 57238
Good advice Jobro. C&J handgrades vs Loake 1880's... there is quite a jump in quality that you really need to see to appreciate.

Still, wearing a pair of Loakes will still mean you're wearing better shoes than 99% of the population.
post #3969 of 57238
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnsNotHere View Post
Good advice Jobro. C&J handgrades vs Loake 1880's... there is quite a jump in quality that you really need to see to appreciate. Still, wearing a pair of Loakes will still mean you're wearing better shoes than 99% of the population.
Yes, if those 2-3 first pairs of shoes as I mentioned above are Loakes, you're defiantly not off to a bad start. After you have got the 2-3 pair rotation running (do not get hooked on quantity at this point), start investing in quality. If you're around 30 years old you have plenty of time to build a high quality rotation, even if you're on a budget. Take your time and don't feel the need to rush into shoes. A pair of captoes, wingtips, loafers and a pair of double monk straps are the foundations for an ideal rotation to aim for/start with.
post #3970 of 57238
Bad timing I guess.. But guess what the mail man delivered to me today.. More here http://mostexerent.tumblr.com/post/4...i-is-the#notes
post #3971 of 57238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phat Guido View Post
Bad timing I guess.. But guess what the mail man delivered to me today..
http://mostexerent.tumblr.com/post/4...i-is-the#notes

Very niiice!
post #3972 of 57238
Between Loake 1880 and CJ Handgrade there is big jump in price too (at least double). So the quality pretty much needs to be noticeably better as well as there should be greater attention to detail in workmanship. If you are one to really appreciate the beauty of a fine pair of shoes then it is well worth it. It is just that I don't really have such fine appreciation down to the minute details (if I have to pay dearly for it). I tend more towards practicality - decent shoes that hold up well for a fair price - and the $200 - $300 range will serve me quite well. I will probably go as far up as CJ Hallams and stop there.

PS Those Lobbs are indeed quite sexy.

PPS Journeyman: I did just find out DJs stock some Zegnas though they cost about $1000
post #3973 of 57238
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnsNotHere View Post
I've found my Loakes to be good (Aldywch and Kemptons), but will probably not buy another pair. I'd rather save and go up a couple tiers now (next shoe on the list is the Alfred Sargent Ramsey double monk). Going for quality over quantity.

That dbl monk is calling me too...
post #3974 of 57238
Thanks everyone for the advice.

I will get measured up in a store somewhere today and see whats around the web in a 47/48 (part of the problem!). I am definitely a quality over quality man (reformed) so I won't miss the extra $$$ in a year or two.

Do C&J even make anything in a 47/48?
post #3975 of 57238
Loakes have their place. Mine is in my work draw for when it rains. And I did give two pairs to mates. All my mates are 24-27 and almost exclusively wear RMs - could be worse
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members