1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Contrary to popular SF belief, shoes with glued-on soles don't disintegrate immediately

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by BigRob, Nov 12, 2013.

  1. BigRob

    BigRob Senior member

    Messages:
    179
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    If sports car enthusiasts' claim was: "Hyundai cars cost more money than Ferrari cars in the long run because a Ferrari car will last you a lifetime," I would make a thread entitled, "Contrary to popular SCE belief, inexpensive cars do not disintegrate upon their warranties' end."

    If, in that thread, the (irrelevant) argument was then raised that Hyundai cars look worse than Ferrari cars from mile 1 through mile 100,000, I would reply that the poster is correct. That's different from what I posted in this thread when the same point was made, because the visible difference between Gucci and Cole Haan shoes is much less noticeable than the difference between Ferrari and Hyundai cars.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  2. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Senior member

    Messages:
    5,225
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    To the OP:

    1. The argument I have generally made for buying high quality shoes is that I like them, they look better, and they are not as expensive as merely comparing the retail prices would suggest. A pair of Allen Edmonds that retails for $360 is not going to be cheaper in the long-run than a pair of cheap $90 dress shoes, but it also is not going to be 4x as expensive, especially if you get rid of shoes that look like crap and cannot be repaired. Maybe it's 2x as expensive, but the point is that people experience sticker shock with nicer shoes that is not entirely justified since merely comparing retail prices is deceptive.

    2. The idea that 99% of people cannot tell the difference between $70 shoes and $700 shoes is a laughable hyperbole. If we're talking about $700 Crockett & Jones shoes vs. Lobbs that retail for $1,400 or so, you may have a point that 1% of the population can tell the difference. It's the old diminishing marginal returns argument. Once you get to a certain point of quality, it is harder to tell the difference and fewer people can. If we're talking about $350 Allen Edmonds vs. $700 Crockett & Jones, more people are going to be able to tell the difference. Even more will tell the difference between $350 Allen Edmonds and bargain $70 shoes. Now put the $700 Crockett & Jones shoes next to the bargain $70 shoes, a lot of people will be able to tell that one is far superior.

    The whole 99% thing gets thrown around here way too much and it really does not make for productive dialogue. Nobody is going to disagree that the average SFer cares more about these things than the average person in society, but there are still plenty of people in society who care about these things and try to look good and who can tell the difference between crap shoes and nice ones (even more can tell the difference between crap shoes and really nice ones). Wearing decent shoes is a basic part of being well dressed. Let's save the 99% hyperbole for things like showing 3 vs. 4 studs in a black tie rig, where it may actually be accurate.
     
    2 people like this.
  3. kirbya

    kirbya Senior member Affiliate Vendor

    Messages:
    648
    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Ah, the age-old debate. I've been pulled into this debate before with friends. It's impossible to even compare a $90 pair of shoes to something nicer on a purely utilitarian basis because everyone places a different "value" on how they look. I, personally, would never be caught dead with a pair of bozo clown shoes, which is what most $90 pairs look like. I can't get over how uninspired and gigantic your average $90 pair of shoes are!
     
  4. GusW

    GusW Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    19,129
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    The comfort, style and enjoyment of owning, wearing and caring for quality shoes are their own reward. If you don't value these attributes then all the forum debates in the world won't matter.
     
    3 people like this.
  5. aportnoy

    aportnoy Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    6,790
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    How did we get from the original premise that "cheap shoes don't fall apart immediately upon wearing" to the new premise that "cheap shoes are indistinguishable from much more expensive ones?" :brick:
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Fuuma

    Fuuma Senior member

    Messages:
    25,818
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    

    Morons are people who think knowing about nice clothes is what distinguishes morons from non-morons.


    ps: rob is a troll, it is not his first foray into utter stupidity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
    2 people like this.
  7. MZhammer

    MZhammer Senior member

    Messages:
    1,057
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    That's not comparing apples to apples. Fit is paramount to any well-dressed comparison. If you want to compare two well fitting suits of differing construction, or two ill-fitting suits of different construction that would be one thing. To compare a suit three sizes too big from Camps de Luca made for a man that isn't me versus an Alfani suit with all the right tailoring done EVERYONE will agree that the fitted suit looks better on me.

    My point is that all other factors being roughly equal, a fine suit or a nice pair of shoes communicates their value subtly to the eye and will, more often than not, be chosen as the better dressed ensemble. It may not be overt, the viewer might not say "I just love the pick stitching and natural shoulder" or "wow look at that broguing on the shoe" but they will feel its effect. Add that to the additional comfort and enjoyment you get when wearing them, it's a case for some of us to upgrade.

    Most of us around here understand that and choose to invest the money up front to have items that last longer and look better their entire lives, that's what they should mean by invest- invest in your image, comfort and enjoyment.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
  8. jdiaz26

    jdiaz26 Active Member

    Messages:
    26
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2013
    Well, it might be true that shoes with glued-on soles don't disintegrate immediately. But there is one strong point on the side of nice expensive shoes. Women recognize and love them. They have no idea about glued-on soles, goodyear or blake and they don't care about it. But when I'm wearing my shoes I get compliments from women, and my friends don't. Women have a natural radar for expensive clothing, do not underestimate it. Last weekend I was wearing my new pair of JL Chapel, and my niece (who is 8 years old) told me: "Wow, those shoes are beautiful. My father should buy the same ones", and she has no idea about goodyear, calf leather, or even money.
    But now seriously, coming back to the origin of this thread, some cheap shoes can stand years of daily use without proper care, but I just don't like the way they look, thus they don't make me happy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
    1 person likes this.
  9. Quadcammer

    Quadcammer Senior member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    

    Yeah, don't think so. Most women care more about the time you met Jay-z than that you may have on a pair of handcrafted G&Gs.
     
  10. div25sec9

    div25sec9 Senior member

    Messages:
    627
    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Location:
    Canada
    What about the cost per km? Why would you wear something that looks and feels so inferior just to save a few cents per km?
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. TheWraith

    TheWraith Senior member

    Messages:
    4,882
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    

    BS!
     
  12. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Senior member

    Messages:
    5,225
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    

    I think this really depends on the woman and the social circle. Women who live in cities and meet a lot of young professional types are much more likely to notice and care about these things. Same goes for women who went to schools where they were exposed to people with luxurious tastes. I do think that decent (AE or higher) and well cared for / shined shoes make a positive social impression in general, but it matters more in some areas than others. Almost nobody cares if you have on G&Gs, but I think you get points for not wearing shoes that look cheap.
     
  13. Trompe le Monde

    Trompe le Monde Senior member

    Messages:
    2,004
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    

    that's why i wear mine with the price tag hanging off the tongue
     
  14. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Senior member

    Messages:
    5,225
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    

    :rotflmao:
     
  15. BigRob

    BigRob Senior member

    Messages:
    179
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    No, I am a highly-educated and intelligent professional who considers it proper and just to familiarize the less fortunate with reasonable positions.

    You ought to (in the parlance of our times) recognize.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
  16. Quadcammer

    Quadcammer Senior member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2010
    

    I think it has more to do with age. Women over the age of say 35 may recognize and appreciate quality shoes on a man. I work with hundreds of 20s to 30s professional women in NYC. They tend to dislike squared toe shoes, but if a guy put on a $70 pair of aldo wingtips, they would likely think the dude is looking sharp. They seem to like my C&Js as well, but not any more or less than the cheapie wingtips. I also think most women think that GQ represents the pinnacle of men's style.

    After mid 30s, the classic, well dressed man starts to appeal to women more, in my opinion.
     
  17. Fuuma

    Fuuma Senior member

    Messages:
    25,818
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    

    No one who defines their occupation as being "a professional" can be highly-educated or intelligent.
     
    7 people like this.
  18. BigRob

    BigRob Senior member

    Messages:
    179
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2013
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Fuuma

    Fuuma Senior member

    Messages:
    25,818
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2004
    
    Even your choice of images/meme is banal and mediocre. Here's a sassy bobcat, let this be a lesson to you all: [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
    6 people like this.
  20. bourbonbasted

    bourbonbasted Senior member

    Messages:
    4,024
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    I liked Rob more when he went by his given name, Reevolving.
     
    11 people like this.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by