$10.95 Marbury Shoes

[raley]

Here is an article to back up this economic sort of thinking:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magaz...weatshops.html

 

[Rome]

I don’t think anyone was arguing the fungibility of cheap labor. I just wanted to see how people felt about it.

 

[Max]

Yo, I'll take three pairs of the low tops in white, please. Thanks.

 

[tundrafour]

The point of wearing $100+ basketball shoes is to show off something that everyone knows cost a lot of money. Cheap shoes are nothing new; even cheap shoes endorsed by professional athletes are, as others have already pointed out, not new. In spite of the fact that these shoes may be of similar quality to more expensive brands and in spite of Marbury's good intentions in endorsing them, they're an answer to a problem that doesn't really exist. There's no real dearth of cheap shoes, there's just a lack of cheap shoes that are also cool. And since coolness is defined largely by price and accessibility (or lack thereof), these shoes aren't and won't be cool. If Air Jordans, etc., had cost $11 when they first came out, would anyone really have wanted them?

 

[StevenRocks]

Originally Posted by tundrafour

The point of wearing $100+ basketball shoes is to show off something that everyone knows cost a lot of money. Cheap shoes are nothing new; even cheap shoes endorsed by professional athletes are, as others have already pointed out, not new.

In spite of the fact that these shoes may be of similar quality to more expensive brands and in spite of Marbury's good intentions in endorsing them, they're an answer to a problem that doesn't really exist. There's no real dearth of cheap shoes, there's just a lack of cheap shoes that are also cool. And since coolness is defined largely by price and accessibility (or lack thereof), these shoes aren't and won't be cool.

If Air Jordans, etc., had cost $11 when they first came out, would anyone really have wanted them?
I've seen the Starburys in person at my local Steve & Barry's. They actually are pretty cool for a cheap shoe (with the exception of the runner, which looked like ass). The construction quality is as good as an entry-level Nike and they were flying off the shelf. i can't voch for the comfort, because my size was sold out, but if the shoe holds up more than 4 months without causing blisters, they've got the $60.00 and under sneaker market equalled.

The reason this is different than a Starter, Cross-Trekker, Voit, Shaq, or whatever is that this shoe and assoicated clothing line is marketed and sold as a coordinated collection with decent fabrications and designs. It'll never be Air Jordan, but Air Jordan isn't what it used to be back in the day.