$300 for sneakers: is there something wrong with me?

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by Brian SD

For those shoes, yes, you're crazy. IMO, they just look like ordinary suede Pumas but by Adidas and they say Yohji down the stripe.

IMO, I wouldn't buy them even if they were $50. There are other y-3 shoes I would get, but not those.

Which (out of curiosity)? And really, there are no Pumas that look like that. Even the very, very simple Future cats look completely different. Especially, since they are a lot thinner and look completely different when worn.

The reason I like the Y-3 Field's is that they have a "˜chunkier' look to them, without actually having the heft that goes along with chunky shoes. Also, I sometimes have problems with shoes, which tend to bother my left (but not my right...!) arch...but I have never had any problems with my suede Field's.

Jon.

 

[wttm]

on a related note
where can you get the new court japan?

 

[DNW]

I think $300 is acceptable, but only for something you really really want. I recently paid $200 for a pair of New Balance 2001, but only because I've been wanting a pair of 1500, then 2000, then 2001 for a few years. So, I gave myself a treat.

Personally, I my limit is $200 for a pair of sneaks. And no offense, but I don't think those Adidas are worth $300. Most of that premium comes from the name printed on one of the stripes. I don't see anything particularly desirable about them.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

I think $300 is acceptable, but only for something you really really want. I recently paid $200 for a pair of New Balance 2001, but only because I've been wanting a pair of 1500, then 2000, then 2001 for a few years. So, I gave myself a treat.

Personally, I my limit is $200 for a pair of sneaks. And no offense, but I don't think those Adidas are worth $300. Most of that premium comes from the name printed on one of the stripes. I don't see anything particularly desirable about them.

Yeah, but I could care less about the name, to me its only about the look and the feel. I have wanted these for about 2 years, they have gone already through several versions of the shoe and it seems popular enough that they keep on making it (always a good sign).

Jon.

 

[Renault78law]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

I think $300 is acceptable, but only for something you really really want. I recently paid $200 for a pair of New Balance 2001, but only because I've been wanting a pair of 1500, then 2000, then 2001 for a few years. So, I gave myself a treat.

Personally, I my limit is $200 for a pair of sneaks. And no offense, but I don't think those Adidas are worth $300. Most of that premium comes from the name printed on one of the stripes. I don't see anything particularly desirable about them.
I wear the 2001s too. But to run in, they're great shoes. Do you wear them on the street? For designer footwear, $300 isn't so bad. Er, relatively.

My street shoes are Dolce & Gabbana and Helmut Lang. The only reasonably priced street shoe I have is Chucks, but I don't find them comfortable at all.

 

[shoreman1782]

I guess the point is that they're $300 because of the name, not the look and feel. $300 is not ridiculous to pay for what you want, but in this case you are paying for the name, so if that's not what you care about, it may be frivolous.

EDIT: Well, maybe part of the $300 is the look, but whether or not it is a unique look is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by Renault78law

I wear the 2001s too. But to run in, they're great shoes. Do you wear them on the street? For designer footwear, $300 isn't so bad. Er, relatively.

My street shoes are Dolce & Gabbana and Helmut Lang. The only reasonably priced street shoe I have is Chucks, but I don't find them comfortable at all.

I wear my 2001 mostly to exercise/run in, or just to walk around on lazy days. They're not particularly good looking, but I do love 'em.

 

[stach]

$300 to Operation Smile will transform a disfigured child.

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by stach

$300 to Operation Smile will transform a disfigured child.

Are you talking about imageWIS?

 

[sygyzy]

Originally Posted by Get Smart

I'll spend a lot on something I really dig but $300 is beyond my cutoff for trainers. The most I spent was $165 on a pair, and even then I thought I was insane. Altho last fall I did see a Neil Barrett/Puma trainer for $265 that I seriously considered, but passed on.

You mean these?

HOT!

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

Are you talking about imageWIS?
He better not be. I’ll show him ‘child’. Jon.

 

[imageWIS]

Originally Posted by sygyzy

You mean these? HOT!
Not really. I’ve tired these on, the pull off the strap and can change the hardness of the shoe; unfortunately all the removable blocks are too hard. Also, they didn’t fit me too well. Jon.

 

[Brian SD]

Originally Posted by Renault78law

I wear the 2001s too. But to run in, they're great shoes. Do you wear them on the street? For designer footwear, $300 isn't so bad. Er, relatively.

My street shoes are Dolce & Gabbana and Helmut Lang. The only reasonably priced street shoe I have is Chucks, but I don't find them comfortable at all.

I'm curious what your HLs and D&Gs look like. Have any picture links or anything? I really like HLs shoes, and although it's odd I really dig the white patent leather ones.

 

[benecios]

Just to make you feel better I sold a pair of Adidas Consortium Neighborhoods for $1250 last year.

 

[imageWIS]

See, I think this is nuts for $209. I mean really, they look like Vans.

http://www.revolveclothing.com/Displ...oduct=DASS-MZ1

Jon.