• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Arguments Against Nice Shoes

jbeck6

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
After receiving more than 1 PM with wording I wouldn't want to repost I will take this down. Some people take their shoes a lot more seriously than I thought.
 
Last edited:

GBR

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
8,551
Reaction score
732
Your premise is a nonsense but this screed is far too long to read - this board is not a soap box. Précis it if you really want discussion.
 
Last edited:

Murlsquirl

The Moral Squirrel
Dubiously Honored
Moderator
Joined
May 16, 2013
Messages
9,318
Reaction score
12,522
Welcome to the forum, jbeck. Your sure made an entrance with that post. I would never say that "nice" shoes save me money in the long run. I buy the shoes I buy because I like them....that's about it.
 

Fred G. Unn

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
2,820
Reaction score
904
OP, you should leave it up. I actually read the whole thing. For those who didn't here's the summary:

"Nice shoes are more expensive than cheap shoes."
 

Claghorn

Stylish Dinosaur
Dubiously Honored
Spamminator Moderator
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
12,895
Reaction score
31,924
"I buy nice shoes because I can afford them"
 

Topaze

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
54
Reaction score
7
Money-wise, I don't think there is anything to gain by buying expensive shoes. I was never sold on the benefits of resoling expensive shoes vs discarding cheap ones and buying another pair of cheap shoes. And unless we're talking dirt cheap (and most likely we're not), adhesive construction shouldn't be that bad these days, meaning that the shoes shouldn't fall apart in a month or a season or so.

Aesthetically, though, I'd say shoes are the single piece of clothing where you'd really want to splurge. Maybe it's because with suits, blazers, slacks, overcoats etc., once I'm past the glossy and shiny polyester price range and into 100% wool, I'd rather pour all my efforts into fit first, and only then the fabric and construction (some higher end fabrics are even outright impractical to wear on a daily basis). That's because excellent fit with mediocre fabrics and construction trumps mediocre fit with excellent fabrics, at least in my eyes.

Shoes, however, are different. Strictly speaking, construction should not matter here (I mean, how many people compliment you on your shoes saying 'What a beautiful Goodyear welt'), but it so happens that better construction methods are mostly used in higher end shoes, and higher-end shoes, most importantly, have higher-end leather, better finishing, and, in many cases, better or at least more solid design. It is those three factors that make it immediately clear that the shoes are high-end. Leather, in particular, is a dead giveaway. I mean, any department store brand can, theoretically, forgo whatever fashion-forward designs they churn out on a daily basis and come up with some more conservative or timeless stuff. They can even keep the same adhesive construction process to cut costs. But they can't replace the leather without increasing the price, and that's why they'll rarely be confused with truly high end shoes. In most cases, they still look cheap, no matter how high the markup.

Whether that is important at all is another matter altogether.
 
Last edited:

SuitedDx

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,117
Sounds like a missed a nice debate
 

Fred G. Unn

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
2,820
Reaction score
904

Money-wise, I don't think there is anything to gain by buying expensive shoes. I was never sold on the benefits of resoling expensive shoes vs discarding cheap ones and buying another pair of cheap shoes. And unless we're talking dirt cheap (and most likely we're not), adhesive construction shouldn't be that bad these days, meaning that the shoes shouldn't fall apart in a month or a season or so.


This was basically his point. He was comparing disposable shoes ($40 Dockers) to Allen Edmonds IIRC.

EDIT: Just checked my history. Here were the two shoes he had linked to:
http://www.shoebuy.com/dockers-gordon/9180/837628
http://www.shoebuy.com/dockers-flagler-oxford/689975/1414167
 
Last edited:

SuitedDx

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,117
Yes, this has been discussed numerous times. I mean the price argument doesn't really hold (looking it strictly on financial basis). Fit is a really big thing though and it's a pain getting shoes every so often and you have go figure out if it'll feel good after the 5th wear. Nicer shoes tend to have lasts available and you can reference them. Some also need unique lasts so bespoke shoes are needed.

It's a splurge, right? Some people like going to the casino, some like cars, some like shoes. To a certain degree I do have to "keep up appearances" with my line of work but if I was REALLY in demand I'm sure my patients wouldn't care if I showed up in board shorts and flip flops as long as I do my job.
 

Makoto Chan

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
624
Reaction score
79

I will start this off saying I am happy to be proven wrong, indeed I just purchased a pair of Allen Edmonds so I would like justification on why I am wrong, but hear me out.

As a lurker I have often heard people say that it is cost effective to buy a pair of nice shoes vs cheap shoes. The typical reason is longevity, and that the nice look is simply icing on the cake and not the real reason to purchase nicer shoes. I would argue that both on a convenience side and a cost effective side buying even affordable 'step up' shoes fits neither of these.

For cost effective shoes I will use these dockers:
http://www.shoebuy.com/dockers-gordon/9180/837628
or
http://www.shoebuy.com/dockers-flagler-oxford/689975/1414167

I have worn these shoes for the past four years, and will be basing this off my experience, your results may vary. They are both currently available for $40 or less right now, and I have even seen them dip into the 30 dollar range, but will use $40. I know that these shoes last about 1.5 years with no care what so ever (with 2 pairs). They even claim they are full grain leather on their website, I have my suspicion though. They have also never caused me any hurt feet, hurt knees, hurt back, etc..

For nice shoes I will use allen edmonds:
http://www.amazon.com/Allen-Edmonds...&qid=1426424722&sr=1-1&keywords=allen+edmonds
or
http://www.amazon.com/Allen-Edmonds...&qid=1426424722&sr=1-3&keywords=allen+edmonds

The best price I can see for park aves online currently are $299, and the McAllisters are $279. Again you may find these for less, but I want to use common numbers, not the once in 2 year pricing. I have no experience so I will go based on what I have read on these forums that with a 2 pair rotation you can expect about 3 years before they need to be resoled, and that they can go through 2 resoling.

The first topic I will hit on is cost. The argument goes, yes, you will pay more buying the nicer shoe, but that in the long run the shoe will last so much longer that you will end up saving money. Taking that at face value we have $289 for the shoe (average of the two shoes above) + 2x resolings at $100 a piece (allenedmonds.com), coming out to 589 for 9 years of wear, or about $59/year for ownership per pair. Comparing this to the dockers you are looking at 6 pairs in those same 6 years. $40*6 is $240 or $24/year for ownership per pair.

The price differential doesn't stop there though. You need to add in that the dockers do not require shoe trees ($25 dollars for a pair, or about $3/year per shoe), something you don't need to worry about on the dockers because you'll be throwing them out before the leather really starts to wear from excess moisture or they develop wrinkle issues. Same thing with shoe polish, with the nice shoes you will be using $10-20 dollars worth of shoe polish and leather cream a year (adding $15 a year for those keeping up with the math) where with the dockers you can go several years on a cheap can of shoe polish.

Running tally: $77/yr for nice shoes, $25/yr for the cheapies. Even if you manage to go for seconds on the shoes, and get them for a steal at $150 a pop (I have never seen park aves for less then that) you are still looking at double the cost per year on the nice shoes.

It doesn't end there. There are two additional opportunity cost loses. With the nicer shoes you are investing the high cost up front in the beginning. The additional cost could be put in the market, towards buying a house, or towards getting a nicer suit (the price difference in the shoes easily covers the price difference from a cheap Macy's tommy hilfiger to something like a black lapel MTM suit) as your first suit. Additionally, the nice shoe will have leather soles, this is fine for a good bit of the time, but if it is raining heavily or there is snow/salt on the ground it is advisable to wear something else. This either results in needing to wear shoe covers (see below) or needing to purchase either a set of boots (another $100 minimum) or purchase the cheap shoes listed above. To add to this, because the nice shoes require rotation, a minimum of 3 pairs are required, so as to have at least 2 pairs during resoling. While these two items should theoretically prolong the life of the shoes listed above as they will have less wear on them, I am going to count this as a cost because the young man who is likely making this decision will now need to put $1000+ into just footwear in the first 2 years of his career vs $80 in footwear in the first two years of his career.

"But what about me?" I hear the young investment bankers making a ton of money say, "price is of little concern to me." Fair enough, but what about the convenience of the cheap shoes? Most people who are at the point where the cost of a fashion piece matters less are very short on time and value ease of use. In several ways the cheap shoes provide a benefit here. First, in just daily use, there is much less planning with a cheap shoe. You choose your suit, choose the shoes to go with it, if it is winter grab a coat, if it isn't walk out the door. With nice shoes you need to check the weather for rain, see if the salt trucks are coming before work or after work, and in the event of a massive downpour have some form of shoe cover or boot at the office just in case (if that is even possible, many who are starting out do not have this option). Same thing when coming home. With the cheap shoes there is no need to be careful or use a shoe horn, simply step on the back of the shoe and kick it off, you will be throwing the shoe out long before you wear out the leather on the heel. With the nice shoes, you need to be far more careful taking them off, taking the time to put the shoe tree in, and in storage. Yes, that may only be an extra 5 minutes a day between both morning and night, but over that same 9 year window that works out to 16425 minutes or 273.75 hours or 11.4 FULL DAYS of extra time spent worrying about your shoes. That is more than a full day a year just in shoe care.

The convenience isn't just in the small things, but in being able to just toss the shoes when a fluke happens. I will use two examples from my life, but there could be any number of different ones. I take the train into work, parking in a parking lot covered in all sorts of mean nasty stuff about 1/4 mile from the train. One day a water main broke, and the majority of the pathway was covered in about 3-4 inches of water and would not be fixed for several hours. I had the choice of removing my shoes, walking in socks through broken glass, gum, and who knows what else you would find in a parking lot in the middle of a city, getting back on the train and getting a cab to my car from another stop, or just walking through and ruining my shoes. Knowing that I could replace the shoes for $30 bucks I just pulled up my pant legs, went on through, put the shoes in a bag when I got to my car and tossed them when I got home without any worry. Another example from just this past winter, as I was clearing the ice off my car a large chunk fell off the hood, right onto my toes. It split the leather in two on the shoes (and cut up my toes), but I did not stress at all. Threw the shoes out, grabbed another pair, and off I went.

Of course, none of this may matter. Maybe you purchased the shoes simply because they look good (like I did). Maybe you can resole them yourself, allowing for extra costs to be saved. Maybe you go straight from your garage to an underground garage so you don't worry about the weather. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere and there really is a cost effective reason to purchase nicer shoes. I just wanted to put this out there for the young guy weighing all the options to get a dissenting view.


You're right, there are benefits to not giving a **** about looking cheap! I don't think I can prove you wrong.
 

emptym

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
9,654
Reaction score
7,351
One's pocket book isn't the only thing at stake. As people have mentioned, there's also the value of beauty.

Then there are environmental benefits to buying things that won't quickly end up in landfill.

And there are social benefits to supporting craftsmen/women.

Of course there's probably a point at which buying even the most environmentally and socially responsible shoes would be more damaging than one new pair of Ecco's every year, at least considering other ways the money could be spent.
 
Last edited:

jbeck6

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I wasn't trying to cause a stir, and certainly didn't mean to offend people enough that they felt the best way to spend their Sunday mornings was writing aggressive messages to a stranger on the internet.

I wrote this because I know a lot of people, myself included, started to look on this forum when they were young and just starting out. Many of the threads on Allen Edmonds, not just here but in other fashion blogs or even video game and gun forums, say that 'in the long run you will save money' or refer to them as an investment that will pay off. Nowhere was I able to find online someone who actually did the math so I typed out the original post so that if someone in the future is searching they can have another point of view.

My point was not to say to not buy nice shoes, but rather to view them the way someone would view a BMW over a Toyota. It will cost more to buy, cost more to maintain, and in the long run, have it's own headaches. If you have expendable income and enjoy it, then feel free to spend, but just like any other luxury (good booze, latest tech, nice watch), it is a cost not an investment.
 
Last edited:

ter1413

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
22,101
Reaction score
6,033

OP, you should leave it up. I actually read the whole thing. For those who didn't here's the summary:

"Nice shoes are more expensive than cheap shoes."


Thanks for the summary because I remember starting to read the original post and stopped....
 

TOstyle

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
608
Reaction score
82
Other than just price, this is missing some of the utility of a better made shoe. They don't have to be bespoke, but I definitely get better wear out of good quality, well-made sturdy shoes. That's worth paying for.

And aesthetically, other than Cole Haans (which I used to like but the styling has changed significantly and I'm more meh on them), if stepping outside of a pure cost factor, cheap shoes do generally tend to not be too pleasing. Not guarantee a more expensive shoe is, but it does open up the range of choice.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 36.2%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 59 38.8%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.2%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 26 17.1%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 26 17.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,158
Messages
10,578,902
Members
223,882
Latest member
anykadaimeni
Top