Cost of Quality Men's Shoes through the Decades?

[rezso.kuti]

I started with Vass Shoes some 13 years ago. My first pair was for €250.- (RTW classic shoes from their range, VAT incl.)
Edward Green was for GBP690.- now roughly GBP1000.-
St. Crispin, A.Sargent, etc. All have a much higher price today...

 

[JFWR]

I started with Vass Shoes some 13 years ago. My first pair was for €250.- (RTW classic shoes from their range, VAT incl.)
Edward Green was for GBP690.- now roughly GBP1000.-
St. Crispin, A.Sargent, etc. All have a much higher price today...

It seems like shoes really have gone up in price beyond inflation.

 

[Sartorium]

Given that many quality men's dress shoe brands have degenerated over the years into low-level or have just disappeared, my thought is that if quality was once high and universal, that capitalist competition ought to have made them cheaper in real terms than today.

That's not how capitalism works. As noted above, the processes and technology behind shoe manufacturing haven't changed significantly in that time span. In fact, many upscale manufacturers advertise using heritage machines and methods. The vast majority of shoe consumers, including most aficionados on this board, are not going to be able to tell a shoe's quality (excepting aesthetics) without opening it up. Hence build quality is at best a nominal & niche driver of sales. The advancements in the supply chain are therefore geared towards cutting costs, and the best way to do that is to build things faster. Anywhere where "better" can be traded off for "faster," it overwhelmingly has been, but especially in the parts of the shoe that aren't visible.

The inevitable result of a capitalist system combined with an under-educated market (this isn't a slight, our options are so vast and our markets so complex it would be more than a full-time job to stay educated about everything we consume) is quality fade. The efficiency of the capitalist machine is for accruing more capital, not for creating better products. This is why you see massive holding companies buying heritage makers and immediately stripping quality. They are strip-mining decades of accrued goodwill by selling an inferior product at the price born by a superior reputation until the market catches up.

Any industry where this hasn't obviously been the case, the cost to deliver better is being driven down by technological improvements.

 

[JFWR]

That's not how capitalism works. As noted above, the processes and technology behind shoe manufacturing haven't changed significantly in that time span. In fact, many upscale manufacturers advertise using heritage machines and methods. The vast majority of shoe consumers, including most aficionados on this board, are not going to be able to tell a shoe's quality (excepting aesthetics) without opening it up. Hence build quality is at best a nominal & niche driver of sales. The advancements in the supply chain are therefore geared towards cutting costs, and the best way to do that is to build things faster. Anywhere where "better" can be traded off for "faster," it overwhelmingly has been, but especially in the parts of the shoe that aren't visible.

The inevitable result of a capitalist system combined with an under-educated market (this isn't a slight, our options are so vast and our markets so complex it would be more than a full-time job to stay educated about everything we consume) is quality fade. The efficiency of the capitalist machine is for accruing more capital, not for creating better products. This is why you see massive holding companies buying heritage makers and immediately stripping quality. They are strip-mining decades of accrued goodwill by selling an inferior product at the price born by a superior reputation until the market catches up.

Any industry where this hasn't obviously been the case, the cost to deliver better is being driven down by technological improvements.

You read my comment incorrectly.

You are totally correct that capitalism tends to support quality decline over time when technology doesn't make it cheaper to produce good for less, but my point was that in the modern day there are shoe companies producing good quality shoes than there used to be, that there is less competition in that sphere, and therefore price can go up because they are not competing any longer.

When there is competition providing the same service at the same quality for less the market tends to get behind that company. The result is if you want to survive, you have to also lower your prices or provide some other value.

Three things have happened to defeat the "good quality was the norm" of prior years:

1. The advent of sneaker-like construction, synthetic materials, glued on soles, corrected grains, etc. The market for low-quality men's dress shoes has expanded, and given that many men don't care enough about dress shoes to still buy expensive stuff, they go for the cheaper stuff.

2. Free trade competition has driven many brands out of business or to outsource their shoes. The only made-in-America shoe makers left are Alden and Allen Edmonds, for instance. Most of these competitors from cheaper markets are producing lower-quality stuff as in 1, too.

3. The market for dress shoes has shrunk as casual style has taken root. Grown men didn't wear sneakers for non-athletic purposes in the 50s, whereas most of my friends (20s-40s) might have one pair of two pairs of dress shoes they wear on occasion.

Competition DOES drive down costs. Where we might see the cost come down again is with the direct-to-consumer retailers which can undercut Allen Edmonds by 100 dollars at the same quality.

 

[Sartorium]

You read my comment incorrectly.

You are totally correct that capitalism tends to support quality decline over time when technology doesn't make it cheaper to produce good for less, but my point was that in the modern day there are shoe companies producing good quality shoes than there used to be, that there is less competition in that sphere, and therefore price can go up because they are not competing any longer.

When there is competition providing the same service at the same quality for less the market tends to get behind that company. The result is if you want to survive, you have to also lower your prices or provide some other value.

Three things have happened to defeat the "good quality was the norm" of prior years:

1. The advent of sneaker-like construction, synthetic materials, glued on soles, corrected grains, etc. The market for low-quality men's dress shoes has expanded, and given that many men don't care enough about dress shoes to still buy expensive stuff, they go for the cheaper stuff.

2. Free trade competition has driven many brands out of business or to outsource their shoes. The only made-in-America shoe makers left are Alden and Allen Edmonds, for instance. Most of these competitors from cheaper markets are producing lower-quality stuff as in 1, too.

3. The market for dress shoes has shrunk as casual style has taken root. Grown men didn't wear sneakers for non-athletic purposes in the 50s, whereas most of my friends (20s-40s) might have one pair of two pairs of dress shoes they wear on occasion.

Competition DOES drive down costs. Where we might see the cost come down again is with the direct-to-consumer retailers which can undercut Allen Edmonds by 100 dollars at the same quality.

I see what you're saying, and mostly agree, especially with your third bullet, but re: the bolded: I would replace quality with perceived quality, and then stand by the rest of my post. The market demands real quality only insofar as it is able to tell the difference, which is generally not very far at all.

 

[JFWR]

I see what you're saying, and mostly agree, especially with your third bullet, but re: the bolded: I would replace quality with perceived quality, and then stand by the rest of my post. The market demands real quality only insofar as it is able to tell the difference, which is generally not very far at all.

Granted. Perceived quality probably plays a big role, which is precisely why so many men are like "why wouldn't I buy a Cole Haan shoe at 100 dollars over. 400 for an Allen Edmonds shoe?"

But I think if one is even somewhat informed, you can tell the difference between something you can pick up at Sears v. Allen Edmonds. Harder is the difference between Allen Edmonds and JM Weston.

 

[rezso.kuti]

The market for dress shoes has shrunk as casual style has taken root. Grown men didn't wear sneakers for non-athletic purposes in the 50s, whereas most of my friends (20s-40s) might have one pair of two pairs of dress shoes they wear on occasion.

I can fully agree. Not to mention that the production cost of sneakers is way less compared to hand welted shoes.

On the other side, I can tell you that the price of the high-quality box calf leather has gone up in the last 10 years.

 

[JFWR]

I can fully agree. Not to mention that the production cost of sneakers is way less compared to hand welted shoes.

On the other side, I can tell you that the price of the high-quality box calf leather has gone up in the last 10 years.

Yeah, Nike sneakers cost 27 dollars to make and ship to the US, and routinely sell for 100+ dollars. A good quality dress shoe will have cost of construction a lot more than that.

The leather costs seem to be going up from what I can tell, too.

 

[JFWR]

So, I discovered today that in 1970, Hanover's cordovan shoes went for 22.95. That amounts to only 151.00 in today's money.

Cordovan shoes from Allen Edmonds are 695. Alden on Madison Avenue sells their shoes for about 800 if I remember correctly.

The Hanovers do not in anyway seem like an inferior shoe. I have two pairs. They're good year welted, leather soles, leather insoles, cork, metal shank, and good construction. You know, solid shoes that in many respect remind me of Alden. Slightly bulky, but then again, Alden is, too.

So why in the hell do contemporary cordovan shoes cost almost 4 times more than what they did in 1970?

Allen Edmonds seems to have been an inherently more expensive brand than Hanover as they were selling Park Avenues (in calf) at 33 in 67. Nevertheless, those shoes are -still- less expensive than they are today by a substantial margin. Park Avenues were 2020 250 in 1967.

What's up with this?

 

[comrade]

I remember that my bother-in law's good friend who was young
lawyer in a distinguished firm said that his Church's Custom grade
shoes cost $36. It was 1968.

 

[Camerashy]

I was married in 1973 and bought a pair of Grensons shoes for my wedding day paying £26.
I said at the time that I would never pay that price for a pair of shoes again......how wrong can you be.

 

[wdrenth]

Maybe of interest an advert from 1911 for boots from Lotus. It was printed in The Graphic, a British illustrated magazine of the period, I don't think it still exists. The boots on the left cost 22 shilling and 6 pence. To compare, in 1914 a private soldier an infantry regiment in the British Army got 1 shilling a day. At 365 shilling a year, that is about 6% of the income.
Using Measuring Worth, one can get can idea of today's prices. Real value would be about GBP 115,-, but that is simply the original value corrected for inflation. The labour value however, the income needed, is around GBP 445,- on current money
To return to the private soldier, who in today's money get about GBP 20,000,- a year (probably before taxes). Meaning these boots would cost about 2.5% of his or her income.

I am not an economist and find it hard to compare 1911 to 2020. Something tells me that these boots were quite expensive back then (but maybe also more of an investment), and that they became more affordable today, relatively speaking.

Regardless of my 'logic', it is a nice picture that I wanted to share. I remember having seen a similar advert for oxfords, which I will share when I find it again
The adverts in this magazine are quite interesting, and in a way not so different from what we see today: shape correcting underwear, toothpaste and other body related items for a better health, shaving stuff, healthy food, and things for traveling / outdoor.

 

[JFWR]

Maybe of interest an advert from 1911 for boots from Lotus. It was printed in The Graphic, a British illustrated magazine of the period, I don't think it still exists. The boots on the left cost 22 shilling and 6 pence. To compare, in 1914 a private soldier an infantry regiment in the British Army got 1 shilling a day. At 365 shilling a year, that is about 6% of the income.
Using Measuring Worth, one can get can idea of today's prices. Real value would be about GBP 115,-, but that is simply the original value corrected for inflation. The labour value however, the income needed, is around GBP 445,- on current money
To return to the private soldier, who in today's money get about GBP 20,000,- a year (probably before taxes). Meaning these boots would cost about 2.5% of his or her income.

I am not an economist and find it hard to compare 1911 to 2020. Something tells me that these boots were quite expensive back then (but maybe also more of an investment), and that they became more affordable today, relatively speaking.

Regardless of my 'logic', it is a nice picture that I wanted to share. I remember having seen a similar advert for oxfords, which I will share when I find it again
The adverts in this magazine are quite interesting, and in a way not so different from what we see today: shape correcting underwear, toothpaste and other body related items for a better health, shaving stuff, healthy food, and things for traveling / outdoor.

View attachment 1421504

Superb post. This reminds me of some of the mathematics Gibbon did to determine how the rate of pay for Roman legionaires compared to 18th century British soldiers.

This could well be a function of "we can sell shoes for higher now because people are wealthier" but this still flies in the face of the fact that most other items.

Cars have stayed about the same price since 1970.

Computers and TVs have gone DRAMATICALLY down in price.

Food prices shift too much to change, but with the exception of bacon, most food prices have wildly fluctuated beyond inflation.

But men's shoes, for the same worksmanship and the same leathers, have gone up in price substantially.

Presumably, the established brands that still produce shoes in America and Britain would not have vastly increased their worksmanship for their well-made shoes. If anything, chances are the worksmanship has gone down...but prices go up.

Cheap shoes are available now made of crappy leathers with glued on soles and sneaker features, but that is not a comparable product. New TVs today are legitimately better in terms of what they can do compared to my TV in the 80s and 90s.

 

[comrade]

Lotus Veldtschoen shoes were sold in a shop in the East 40s in Manhattan near BB, Press, Paul Stuart, Triplesr, etc at least through the 70s and probably beyond. Here's an example:

Neuwertig LOTUS Zug Grain VELDTSCHOEN Derby, Circa 1980: 44-44.5D | Classic Shoes For Men

classicshoesformen.com

 

[JFWR]

Lotus Veldtschoen shoes were sold in a shop in the East 40s in Manhattan near BB, Press, Paul Stuart, Triplesr, etc at least through the 70s and probably beyond. Here's an example:

Neuwertig LOTUS Zug Grain VELDTSCHOEN Derby, Circa 1980: 44-44.5D | Classic Shoes For Men

classicshoesformen.com

Exceptionally cool.