1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

How do you justify spending $500+ on shoes?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by JezeC, Dec 27, 2013.

  1. steffenbp11

    steffenbp11 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    794
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Awesome how this thread has involved into a major discussion of western/Christian values and ethics. I would however, like to add a northern European/Scandinavian angle to the discussion: when I look at my paycheck, the government has already taken more than 50 percent of what I am paid. I reckon that how I spend the last 45-50 percent is my own business. I am already subsidizing free education,health care, unemployment benefits, you name it - plus paying consumer prices 20 percent above EU average.. Overall I am not complaining btw. I am pretty sure that my family would have a substantial higher standard of living if we worked in the US or ( more realistically Germany) but I like my welfare state and that everyone gets a fair chance...
     
  2. AlexE

    AlexE Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,001
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    

    Based on what I have seen in Scandinavia (primarily Sweden and Denmark) there are few places where you could bump your standard of living...maybe in Switzerland.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2013
  3. Mute

    Mute Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,108
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    L.A.
    

    One of your best post ever. Bravo! I don't care too much for used shoes either. As to the OP's question, if I like it and I can afford it, I buy it. I'm generally fairly responsible in my spending with a few minor exceptions (some things you just have a passion for and your spending will often reveal what those are). I don't presume to speak for anyone else as to whether their spending is justifiable or even needs to be justified.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2013
  4. in stitches

    in stitches Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    

    i certainly do remember that scene. how could i not. i think though that that is an extraordinary circumstance. i also think that there are people even now, even not put under such extreme hardship and discomfort, that do live that way. its a very virtuous and righteous way to live, and if you have a family, you have to take their comfort into account as well. i dont think i could live like that, but i think its important that there are always people like that out there.

    i do think that for each person, as you said, there is some medium/moderate position that they should strive towards. somewhere where they feel that they are properly taking care of their own needs, and maybe wants as well, while not neglecting charity.

    lastly, i agree that charity is over misunderstood. in some cases a handout may be the best form of charity, in other cases, maybe not. just as a simple example, for many people, accepting a hand out is very degrading, and often times issuing a loan is the more charitable act. it takes care of the receivers financial needs, while keeping their dignity in tact. beyond that, as you said, there are many cases where charity may have nothing to do with money at all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  5. papa kot

    papa kot Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    340
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    My casual conversations with people indicate that one may not have to justify having several kids, a large house in the 'burbs or a luxury sedan - you know, those items are quite typical and expected. However, a pleasant talk may turn sour once you mention a quality pair of shoes, an interesting vacation or a simple fact that you'd rather enjoy life and work less. Once these thoughts live your mouth all bets are off :)
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Dogs Bollocks

    Dogs Bollocks Active Member

    Messages:
    41
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Go big or stay on the porch. I say go big.
     
  7. MyOtherLife

    MyOtherLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,501
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Location:
    The Arena - Centerfield
    

    $50 per toe and the rest for free.
     
  8. mkarim

    mkarim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,645
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    

    +100. My sentiments exactly.
     
  9. RogerP

    RogerP Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,333
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Location:
    Oakville, Ontario, CANADA
    True. You will never have someone stand in your home and ask you "Do you really need a house this big in an area this nice? Have you ever stopped to think how many others you could help if you lived in a house half this size in the dodgy end of town?"
     
    2 people like this.
  10. mkarim

    mkarim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,645
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    

    These same people will scrimp and save every penny and lose $50K in the stock market and fund stockbrokers' expensive lifestyles and think they're doing well, but balk if you still have your $300 pair of shoes long after their shares are gone. I ask them if their broker even bothered to send them a thank you note. Just sayin'...-:)
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2013
    2 people like this.
  11. AmericanGent

    AmericanGent Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    667
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Location:
    Florida, unfortunately
    ...deleted
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2014
  12. dbhdnhdbh

    dbhdnhdbh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    330
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Wow! This thread has become really interesting. At the risk of getting back to something less fascinating that religious doctrine, a few responses to things that came up while I was away.

    Used shoes. There was a poster on AAAC, a podiatrist, who shared the concerns about used shoes. But he was very clear that this was NOT because of a risk of infection. He thought that it was quite simple to disinfect shoes. He seemed to be most worried about crease patterns not fitting the new wearer's feet. The footbed was also mentioned, but seemed less a concern. For me, I often wear inserts so the molding of the footbed is not so critical, but in some of my used shoes the footbed fits my feet just wonderfully.

    I considered the "ick" factor briefly. But think of this. If you are admitted to the hospital they will put you in a bed. You will get nice, clean, USED sheets. The person who used those sheets before may have had any of a number of horrible diseases. The sheets get cleaned and reused. If I were a diabetic I might worry about foot infections from shoes. But it is not that difficult to disinfect shoes. Antifungal sprays and powders work. So does ozone treatment and UV. Not that I had needed to resort to them.

    Why would someone come to the church of SF if a nonbeliever? Perhaps that takes too narrow a view of it. Rather than think of it as following, or not, Catholic orthodoxy, how about viewing it far more broadly as "Christianity, in all its various manifestations" or "religion" or "ethics and spirituality"? Not everyone who finds such topics interesting, and might read a site devoted to such discussions, will agree with any particular set of views. I read SF because it is interesting. I enjoy knowing more about things than I did before. Since I wear clothes, knowing how they are made, why they are made that way, and the choices implied, is interesting. Shoes, in particular I find interesting. Probably because there are some quality issues that will impact comfort. An ill fitting suit might look bad, but it will not be painful.

    There is a difference between being interested in clothing and being willing to spend a lot of money on clothes. To a large extent, more knowledge has made it possible for me to determine what is valuable to me. It turns out that little of what makes clothes expensive is valuable to me. I don't care about brands. I don't care that others will recognize that I am dressed the way some style icon recommends, or that my outfit resembles that worn by some celebrity. Although I understand why people say that a canvased jacket is better than fused, I don't care about the distinction. I have some of both, acquired before I had any idea how jackets were made, and I wear them interchangeably. But I still enjoy reading the tailor's fit and feedback threads.

    Part of the reason I don't worry as much about my appearance as I gather many on SF may is that I recognize that I am a pretty average looking middle aged man. There are no clothes that could be made, at any price, that would make me look like, who should I say- Brad Pitt? LeBron James? I am never going to be mistaken for either guy. I have learned to live with this fact.

    It is a big wide wonderful world out there, full of people with a variety of values and opinions. As far as I know, no one has ever been killed by someone NOT buying fancy clothes. No children starving, no puppies harmed. Collecting and wearing expensive shoes is one hobby that some share and some do not. Being cheap and worrying about the environmental impact of consumption is another. I am the cheap type. Clothes are interesting, but I would rather put my money in savings.
     
  13. DWFII

    DWFII Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,215
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    If you have already made up your mind about something that you yourself don't have any experience with, nothing anyone can say will change it.

    The podiatrist on AAAC notwithstanding, this subject has raised its head before. Most of the following was part of a discussion of the possible consequences of wearing rubber soled shoes. Nevertheless the point, as it applies to this discussion, is both that the foot infections have been on the rise for decades and that they are fairly common in the general population as well as the injunction (strongly emphasized below and supported bu the medical establishment) to avoid old shoes.

    If foot infections are on the rise and have been as is suggested in the medical literature, then your chances of contracting these diseases rise exponentially if you purchase and wear used shoes.

    From http://emedicine.medscape.com
    Quote:
    Now what does occlusive mean? Well...slight divergence for clarity:

    Quote from the Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing [​IMG] Farlex 2012:

    Granted all footwear is to some degree ocullsive but footwear that cannot breathe, that prevents the possibility of breathing in some degree is going to be more occlusive than footwear that is constructed of materials and with techniques that deliberately seeks, as much as possible, to minimize occlusion.
    Quote:
    .

    Obviously these fellows and their parents and grandparents had been wearing leather shoes for some centuries without significant problems. The difference? Rubber and other synthetics were not in common usage in the footwear industry prior to the turn of the 20th century.

    What causes fungal foot infections?

    Quote:
    As I stated quite clearly for those who were still awake, such problems as I outlined are not going to afflict everyone. I think I used the words"genetic make-up"...

    Quote:
    How do you treat or get rid of fungal foot infections?
    Quote:
    All the above quotes are from the same source (http://emedicine.medscape.com/) with the exception of the definition provided for the word "occlude"

    This next quote is from the book Fungal Disease in Britain and the United States1850-2000:Mycoses and Modernity(Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History.

    Quote:
    Significantly rubber outsoles didn't really gain any market share until well into the 20th century when by-products of the petro-chemical industry became available. Coincidence? Perhaps, but reasonably, logically, objectively, a contributing factor.

    Additional tidbits I found which support my thesis::

    Quote:
    Quote:
    . http://nail-fungus.co.uk/category/remediestreatments/

    People can do as they want...there is no shoe police. Ignore good advice, well researched data, and common-sense...no skin off of anyone's teeth.

    But a word to the wise...if any are to be found with in hearing or reading distance:

    When I was first in this business (and didn't know any better), I "inherited" a beautiful, almost new pair of moccasins by virtue of them being left for repair and never picked up. They were just my size, they fit me perfectly and I was poor as a church mouse. They were on of only a few pair of shoes that I have ever had in my adult life that I didn't make....and the only pair that weren't brand new.

    Despite having gone through the jungles of SE Asia with no ill effects, within a year of "adopting" those moccasins, I developed a toenail infection. At one point in time it threatened to spread to all my toe nails and even the nails of my hands. I spent months and months on strong anti-fungals...at some risk to my liver...before it went into remission. I have never gotten rid of it entirely, however. The original toenail is still infected. That's probably 35 years ago now.

    I've said my piece on this...I do not wish you ill but somewhere, sometime, karma inevitably catches up with those who choose to think themselves immune.

    Or to paraphrase Orr in Joseph Heller's Catch 22 "How can you see you've got flies in your eyes if you've got flies in your eyes?"
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  14. Claghorn

    Claghorn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,003
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Location:
    Texas.
    I'm all for leather soles, though I'll stick with Dainite for snow, ice, and rain. I'm pretty sure the occlusive footwear referred to in the literature you cited refers to stuff like rubber work boots which are made entirely out of synthetic materials (some actually specifying occlusive footwear as such). The soles themselves might make a difference, but not a big one and not one which those articles are referring to. Leather uppers, on the other hand, probably make a huge difference. The rise in foot infections probably has more to do with the decline of sandals and cotton socks and the rise of tennis shoes than it does with the decline of leather soles.

    As far as used shoes, if one takes the proper precautions (sanitizing it, putting in new insoles, etc), I doubt the risk of infection is significantly higher than the risk one would experience simply from wearing and sweating in shoes.

    Doesn't change the fact that they are still someone else's shoes. So, you know, ewww.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2014
  15. RogerP

    RogerP Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,333
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Location:
    Oakville, Ontario, CANADA
    

    Agreed with all of that.
     
  16. DWFII

    DWFII Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,215
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    

    How are you going to put in new insoles? From your remarks, I suspect you don't even know what an insole is. And are you going to replace the lining while you're at it?

    Sanitizing...how are you going to sanitize a shoe? With what? And how are you going to get whatever you use deep into the fibers of the leather where such infections lurk? Or under the edges of the insole, deep in the seams of the lining? I suspect you don't really understand the nature of leather either.

    Finally, I don't know which is the more troubling pathology--the foot diseases or the nearly automatic, blind, knee jerk dismissal of well-researched and experienced information...offered in a kind and charitable spirit...that challenges what a person so desperately wants to believe.

    Why do you think I post all this stuff that you and others so obviously don't want, can't abide, to hear or consider? What are my motives, do you suppose? Go back and re-read (read for understanding) this last bit:


    --
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  17. Claghorn

    Claghorn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,003
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Location:
    Texas.
    Easy there. I know you've beefed with a number of folks (or they've beefed with you, w/e), hence the defensiveness, but we've never interacted before, so don't jump all over me for how others have handled your advice in the past.

    Clearly, I meant insole as in insert/insole (the Dr. Scholls type stuff). They are commonly referred to as such, and I have no qualms with continuing to do so. I don't know much about the nature of leather, but some reading suggests that while anti-bacterials work, anti-fungals are a trickier matter. So there's that. Regardless, there's no call for such harshness of tone.

    As far as what you've linked, I had read through it. It's clearly talking about this kind of stuff:
    [​IMG]
    And not

    [​IMG]

    "Occlusive footwear" in medical literature discussing bacterial and fungal foot infections consistently refers to rubber work boots (or boots with steel cap toes).



    As far as what I want to believe: I imagine rubber vs leather soles do make a difference. Just not as much difference as you make it out to be. And that's fine. I don't buy used shoes (because it's gross), and I prefer leather to Dainite weather permitting.

    The way in which socioeconomic or cultural changes impact things outside of their respective spheres is neat. Exploring how the introduction of synthetics--both in footwear and in socks--has affected trends in podiatric infections is interesting. My initial comment was intended primarily to be a remark on this rather than a direct refutation to your previous post. I understand that to you footwear is an art, and one rapidly being lost. But not every disagreement (a slight one at that) is an attack on you or your art.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2014
  18. RogerP

    RogerP Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,333
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Location:
    Oakville, Ontario, CANADA
    Indeed.
     
  19. DWFII

    DWFII Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,215
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    The Highlands of Central Oregon
    

    Well for one thing, it's nonsensical to talk about inserts/insoles as a palliative to infections. Insert ten "insoles"...the infection is still in the shoe.

    And secondly and more to the point, we are not talking about rubber soles we are talking about used shoes and the problems that come along with them.

    As for my "harshness of tone," I don't consider anything I said to be harsh--stark perhaps, no cotton batting, but it's simply stating the facts. It only becomes harsh (or personal) if you take as such or are particularly defensive.

    Where is that specified? Or is it just speculation and interpretation?

    Rubber soles...as you admit further on in your post...are occlusive, do hold in moisture to create, hot, humid, macerating environments. Not as much as all plastic, all synthetic running shoes but the effect is there.

    And as I mentioned, when you contrast the use of rubber outsoles...or any synthetic component... with the standard of deliberate permeability inherent in all leather shoes the differences take on real meaning. The incidence of these diseases really begins with footwear in general...long before rubber or plastic was a factor.

    But again it misses the point...bacterial and fungal infections can reside in shoes independent of the materials used to construct them. Bacterial and fungal infections can exist even when preventative measures are taken. Swimming pool waters are chlorinated but swimming pools are a primary vector for such diseases.

    There you go.

    But that said, I am not making these issues out to be more than they are...people (you?) are making them out to be less than they are. I have said over and over again...in bold, bold italic, underlined and bold italic underlined...that these are just possibilities. Possibilities, that by virtue of my life and a set of unique experiences that encompass a wide range of situations, I have taken note of. Possibilities that I know are real. I share those experiences with people who are open minded enough to at least accept the possibility. Yet as with your post, all the repetition, underlining, etc., doesn't seem to be getting through. And as a result these discussions end up being about misconceptions, false assumptions and outright distortion. If there is a fault here it is in people feeling like they have to defend objects that they have no direct responsibility for/connection to (they didn't make the shoes, for instance)--a lack of objectivity, IOW.

    I understand. But these discussions are not private mail either. I almost never address any issue just to the one person who last responded. Conversations take place among many people all at once...some of them nearly unseen and unheard. I am always mindful of the "audience" so to speak.

    They don't take place in a vacuum, for that matter. Or in a isolated moment in time--they have a history.

    I didn't consider your remarks an attack on me, but they were dismissive, in my view, if only because they sought to focus on the rubber sole aspect rather than the dangers of wearing used shoes. As I said before, leather itself is occlusive to some extent. People who don't wear shoes...even all leather shoes...don't have these problems. AFAIK no one was prepared, or looking to, rehash the rubber sole bit here. I was not. Nor, on the face of it, was it appropriate to do so.

    But dismissive also because, like the remark that "occlusive footwear in the medical literature" only refers to rubber work boots, your remarks weren't substantiated (they may be true but when I read that information, I did not take that meaning). It seemed, again, like instantaneous, defensive rationalizations. Flippant denials.

    If that's not the case then I misunderstood but I don't see how I could have read it any other way.

    The "art" part of it doesn't signify. I'm not an artist.

    But I ask again..and I invite anyone to answer this....what do you think my motives are?

    --
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2014
  20. dbhdnhdbh

    dbhdnhdbh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    330
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    I am a risk averse type. If I believed the risk of harming my feet was significant, I would not do it. How to investigate this risk?

    With all due respect, expert opinion is what one refers to when there is no science. In this case, there is science on the subject.

    Abstract

    At several public baths, we isolated dermatophytes from the soles of healthy volunteers by a new direct isolation method (foot-press culture method). We confirmed that a public bath is one of major sources of infection of dermatophytes. We showed that simple treatments such as (i) wiping the sole with a towel; (ii) washing with soap; (iii) 100 steps on another mat; and (iv) holding the foot up for an hour, significantly reduced the fungi on the soles of six healthy volunteers. These treatments may be effective for prevention of tinea pedis.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by