Advantages of a $1000 Pair of Shoes

[fritzl]



I'm concerned about DWF. Where is he for this thread? Highly opinionated on these topics, highly informed, and highly skilled. He is missed.

wouldn't be a good idea, imo.

 

[SuitedDx]

The things I miss over a long weekend.

 

[mcbrown]

Interesting thread. Just read it all from beginning to end. In the discussion over whether or not at a certain price point a shoe's quality and design can or will actually be appreciated by anyone but the wearer, one view is missing: that the opposite can be true as well. I for one work in an environment where compensation is high but conspicuous consumption is extremely frowned upon, as is "creative" dress. Suits are regarded as an affectation except for occasional meetings, and if you do wear a suit don't even think of wearing a pocket square. Fancy shoes? Forget it. If you are going to wear expensive shoes, they damn well better not look expensive. I can't even imagine what would happen if I rolled into work wearing some ridiculous huge Panerai or the like. In other words, just as there are circumstances where people may notice and react positively to the quality of XYZ expensive product, there are likewise circumstances where people may notice and react negatively to the same. This may or may not apply to anyone here besides me.

 

[kashmir]



wouldn't be a good idea, imo.

As much as I am looking forward for DW to rip this thread apart, I kinda wonder if we can sticky a thread with all them DWFrommer quotes inside!

All these footwear value questions pop up every now and then, I think he himself is fed up with reiterating his points over and over again.

Although I kinda feel that some of the senior members who already got the gist kinda helped out in spreading those points...

 

[Gdot]

Well - at least one thing is for certain. He appreciates some aspects of G&G shoes.

Read the whole thread. He even mentions that some of the sole edge treatments (notch at waist to heal) is a handwork procedure that not so many can accomplish well.

http://www.styleforum.net/t/204131/straight-from-the-bench/0_20

I'm also certain that somewhere else he has mentioned is appreciation of them aesthetically. Although cannot find that thread off hand.

 

[fritzl]



As much as I am looking forward for DW to rip this thread apart,

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I kinda wonder if we can sticky a thread with all them DWFrommer quotes inside!
All these footwear value questions pop up every now and then, I think he himself is fed up with reiterating his points over and over again.
Although I kinda feel that some of the senior members who already got the gist kinda helped out in spreading those points...

these threads are business as usual and they disappear faster than they appear. some will never get what's about - full drum beater mode - and hopefully some can take away tid bits... anyway.

 

[Saratorial_Splender]

I agree. I think this thread have done its job and outlived its purpose. Sign off!!

 

[Gdot]

It's a shame.......we were making headway in terms of identifying item by item some of the subtle differences between various quality levels of RTW shoes until the bespoke/handmade crowd came in.

 

[hendrix]

Gdot:

You should try going into the conservative business dress thread claiming that pink windowpane peak lapel cutaway frock coats are higher quality than navy 2 button suits. It will be fun.


In all seriousness: the one thing that makes SW&D marginally more tolerable than MC is that people understand that they're buying for design. It probably helps that the clothes they covet are made by Designers, making the distinction a little easier: e.g Dior Homme jeans are pretty well acknowledged to be of no better quality than APC, but people understand that they're buying for that distinctive cut (which, believe it or not, hardly anyone has managed to replicate). Design, exclusivity, perhaps a bit of selling a dream as well.

When talking about quality - saying that a nice, thick lamb leather jacket is better than a cheap, thin mall brand leather jacket is fair and true. Saying that a linen suit is better than a flannel suit is just silly. This is where I've taken issue with your argument. Design is not a mark of quality. Design is a mark of design. The justification for buying a $1000 shoe over it's slightly less expensive alternatives is all in what looks good to you. "I like the look of G&Gs lasts, the way they bevel the welt, their sole treatment" etc is a valid argument, as long as you understand that these are design features. Personally I think Carminas lasts are nicer and I only like a beveled welt on some of my shoes; specifically the ones that I wear at night.

And finally, in any environment - "creative" or otherwise, there is always a place for conservative styling if that's what the wearer chooses. It might not be you, and that's fine; I wouldn't suggest that anyone does anything other than be yourself.

The "advantage" of the $1000 shoe depends on one's personal styling perspective. Believe it or not, noone is trying to slander your purchasing habits because there is nothing wrong with the shoes you buy. And, well, that's your business really.

 

[Gdot]



Gdot:
You should try going into the conservative business dress thread claiming that pink windowpane peak lapel cutaway frock coats are higher quality than navy 2 button suits. It will be fun.
In all seriousness: the one thing that makes SW&D marginally more tolerable than MC is that people understand that they're buying for design. It probably helps that the clothes they covet are made by Designers, making the distinction a little easier: e.g Dior Homme jeans are pretty well acknowledged to be of no better quality than APC, but people understand that they're buying for that distinctive cut (which, believe it or not, hardly anyone has managed to replicate). Design, exclusivity, perhaps a bit of selling a dream as well.
When talking about quality - saying that a nice, thick lamb leather jacket is better than a cheap, thin mall brand leather jacket is fair and true. Saying that a linen suit is better than a flannel suit is just silly. This is where I've taken issue with your argument. Design is not a mark of quality. Design is a mark of design. The justification for buying a $1000 shoe over it's slightly less expensive alternatives is all in what looks good to you. "I like the look of G&Gs lasts, the way they bevel the welt, their sole treatment" etc is a valid argument, as long as you understand that these are design features.

And finally, in any environment - "creative" or otherwise, there is always a place for conservative styling if that's what the wearer chooses. It might not be you, and that's fine; I wouldn't suggest that anyone does anything other than be yourself.
The "advantage" of the $1000 shoe depends on one's personal styling perspective. Believe it or not, noone is trying to slander your purchasing habits because there is nothing wrong with the shoes you buy. And, well, that's your business really.

I appreciate your well worded response.

However, I still beg to differ that all the finer points of the detailed creation of a $1000 dress shoe that are in addition to the way a $500 dress shoe is made result in a higher quality level of shoe. Style preferences aside. It simply takes more time, care, and Craftsmenship to bevel a welt, fiddle back a waist (which I don't care for), hand last an upper over a more shapely last, use a more expensive tannage, close cut the welt, etc. etc.

All of these things, whether or not you chose them, increase the QUALITY of the shoe, as they require additional care and craftsmenship, no?

They certainly have reason to increase the cost, as they all cost more to create. As does increased design.

 

[hendrix]



I appreciate your well worded response.
However, I still beg to differ that all the finer points of the detailed creation of a $1000 dress shoe that are in addition to the way a $500 dress shoe is made result in a higher quality level of shoe. Style preferences aside. It simply takes more time, care, and Craftsmenship to bevel a welt, fiddle back a waist (which I don't care for), hand last an upper over a more shapely last, use a more expensive tannage, close cut the welt, etc. etc.
All of these things, whether or not you chose them, increase the QUALITY of the shoe, as they require additional care and craftsmenship, no?

No. Just because they incur higher costs doesn't make them a higher quality shoe.

They certainly have reason to increase the cost, as they all cost more to create. As does increased design.

Of course! But that doesn't mean it's a higher quality product. That's like saying shell cordovan is higher quality than calf, when in reality they're just different, and one happens to cost more because of scarcity.

BUT! It might mean that these are details that you would like to pay for.

The same as some people would like to pay a bit more for a shoe made in England which incurs higher labour costs because they would like to support a local made product, the same as someone might choose a shoe made of shell cordovan because they like the way it looks/wears in... etc etc. It's all good.

Saying that you're willing to pay more because you like these design details is fine.

Please don't equate it to quality though, because they're all made pretty much the same way and we don't want to have that discussion...

 

[kashmir]

How about: quality of craftsmanship, and what's associated with it, is not indicative of build quality and what's associated with it?

For me right now what I can afford is Loake 1880/ Meermin price level. If I were to, for example, purchase a C&J, that would be because I like the design, the shape, or the leather used, or probably **** like, I don't know, because I like Skye so much? But I'm not lying to myself: the construction is the same old goodyear welt, whatever that implies to you.

 

[dddrees]

No. Just because they incur higher costs doesn't make them a higher quality shoe.
Of course! But that doesn't mean it's a higher quality product. That's like saying shell cordovan is higher quality than calf, when in reality they're just different, and one happens to cost more because of scarcity.
BUT! It might mean that these are details that you would like to pay for.
The same as some people would like to pay a bit more for a shoe made in England which incurs higher labour costs because they would like to support a local made product, the same as someone might choose a shoe made of shell cordovan because they like the way it looks/wears in... etc etc. It's all good.
Saying that you're willing to pay more because you like these design details is fine.
Please don't equate it to quality though, because they're all made pretty much the same way and we don't want to have that discussion...

This was a big help, thanks for the explanation.

 

[JubeiSpiegel]

I was naive to hope this thread would end...

 

[fritzl]

best thread since i joined. bravo