Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by earthdragon, Nov 18, 2008.
It doesn't compute as in you don't like their margin on profit?
I'd skip the ambergold because it looks too.. Timberland-ish (when rappers used to wear them).
Sand Suede, or as Olli said, chocolate suede. Can't go wrong with either.
Personally, I'd go for the sand suede as it's a casual shoe.
It's probably a little cold to be thinking of swimwear, but thought I would let Melbourne folks know that DJs (Bourke St) has 75% off previous season Vilebrequin trunks as part of their clearance sale (ie $60 down from $240).
Mostly Ms (fit like S) and XL/XXLs (L/XL fit respectively) left.
There's always a RMW guy huffing and puffing in the shadows. He sees the article and he knows, ohh he knows that they wont mention his beloved Chelsea.
But occasionally there are good days, and there is much rejoice. He can be seen with boot tag standing proudly erect, and the towns people can hear the distinctive thud of the dancing RMW for many miles...
You really need to understand how a business is operated. They buy the shoes, pay for it, or at most 30 days credit. It gets onto a ship (faster by plane, but the costs is way higher), they pay for freight, and the shoes gets here in one or two months. Then they pay custom clearance fees, and pay for transport to get the shoes to the shop. Then they need to unpack the shipment, check for defects, tag and price, then put on display. Then they wait for you to come in, and in the meantime, pay for marketing, rent, electricity and whiskeys. You buy them, months later, which is when they finally get their cash, of which the government get 10% GST. Over all these months, they have to pay interest on funds employed or at least account for the costs of capital outlaid. Then they get their profit, of which they need to plow it back again to repeat the whole cycle.
The inventory turnover is low, and capital requirements are high. Very different if you are Woolies, where you get paid even before you have to pay the farmer.
Would you do all of this for 10% net profit margins?
This is a very nice last....
Loake "corrected" grain leather? Price looks pretty tempting as a first dip into the Loake terrritory.
Very well put
Not concur more regarding shoes in Oz. It is therefore disheartening walking around Sydney trying to locate adequate shoes. I generally do the trudge between the two Josephs, DJs, and Lloyd but necessarily come away empty handed. It's commonly ridiculously overpriced or an aesthetic compromise.
Look, we all know that the price you pay for a C&J in Australia from a bricks and mortar store in Melbourne is comparable to what you would pay for it from a bricks and mortar store in London.
We all know that the price you pay for Loake in Australia from a bricks and mortar store in a city with very expensive rents is roughly 75-100% more than you would pay for it from a bricks and mortar store in London.
Rents for London and Melbourne are both extortionate and both are 'high cost' cities.
The RRP for Loake in Melbourne is pretty much identical. Evidently there isn't much 'fat' for the retailers to cut, otherwise you'd see some price competition.
The easiest explanation for me is that there is a middle man for Loake who is making a killing. I spoke to Sebastian at America Tailors about this and this was his most likely explanation. He says he sees the same things with fabrics and their suppliers, its the main reason why some cost a lot more than others.
You see it in all industries, especially cycling. For some components the stores can deal directly with the manufacturer (e.g. Garmin) so that you can have a reasonably priced item. For other components you have go via a distributor which increases costs.
No skin off my nose, I've bought Loake from Herring and I'll do it again. But I'll buy C&J locally.
I was under the impression there was still a significant markup for both C&J and Carmina locally versus buying direct from manufacturer?
How much do you pay for a pair of CJ, are they bench grade or hand grade?
This is exactly what happens in musical instruments, too, but a bit less sinister.
Basically, the distributor has a different set of responsibilities (warranty issues, dealing with the company) but does not sell direct. It's still a business that accepts risk, though, and still needs to make 10-15% profit. Then the BnM stores, who also want to make 10-15% profit also - so prices are often 1/4-1/3 more than they are in the USA - WITHOUT factoring in increased costs due to shipping and currency risk.
When I first got into instruments, I assumed this was all gouging at the distributor's level (after all, they do have a safer job than shops a lot of the time, so I thought), but now that I've actually spoken to quite a few people in the industry, it's not nearly that simple. Distributors might not be necessary (although for larger brands, say Fender, Gibson and Ibanez they really are), but they accept risk and absorb costs to some extent (especially currency costs which they cushion a LOT).
...but yeah I can save $200 and buy from the USA any day of the week because there are no distributors, and there are less people taking a cut. It's often what I did (no regrets), but I regret thinking there were people here trying to rip me off.
Separate names with a comma.