High-end shoes better?

[foto010101]

Hi,

Since I joined this forum I have read a lot about high-end shoes. Two weeks ago I tried on a pair Santoni shoes and fell in love.

Till today I have never bought shoes that retail for more than $350 and to be honest, they usually were of pretty decent quality.

So I expect high-end goodyear welted Santoni shoes ($600) to be of an even higher quality and durability. However, my expectation is not based on any strong arguments whatsoever. Are high-end shoes like Santoni makes better than lower range shoes? And in what way?

Please give me your opinions,

Mike

 

[kronik]

Originally Posted by foto010101

Hi,

Since I joined this forum I have read a lot about high-end shoes. Two weeks ago I tried on a pair Santoni shoes and fell in love.

Till today I have never bought shoes that retail for more than $350 and to be honest, they usually were of pretty decent quality.

So I expect high-end goodyear welted Santoni shoes ($600) to be of an even higher quality and durability. However, my expectation is not based on any strong arguments whatsoever. Are high-end shoes like Santoni makes better than lower range shoes? And in what way?

Please give me your opinions,

Mike

Construction, styling, leather quality, durability.. etc. At one point or another, short of bespoke, you will reach an asymptote in regards to price vs. increased value, if you will. There are 1000s of posts about shoes here with a high ratio of them centered on cost and value.

If they fit you well, Santoni goodyear-welted shoes are fantastic. With proper care, they will probably last you as long as most other shoes. I wouldn't necessarily pay retail for them, but sometimes you know if it's love or not; if it is, suck it up, pay the 600 bucks, and welcome to your addiction.

 

[Concordia]

This is not a Santoni answer, and for all I know, the extra $300 they charge is all marketing.

BUT-- shoes generally do get better as they get more expensive. There is a lot of handwork in making a good shoe, or at least, close supervision of machine work. Quality of leather counts, too. Both these things cost money.

THere is is also the fit issue. As with suits, a great-fitting shoe will last longer just because you aren't stretching them out of shape.

Styling is a bonus, and appears to be part of what you like about the Santonis.

Bottom line: you don't always get what you pay for, but you generally have to pay for what you get.

 

[NoVaguy]

generally linear improvements for RTW shoes up to about $350, and then it sort of flattens out.

So AE and Alden (both in the low 300's) are about twice as good as $150 shoes such as KC, but a 1200-1500 shoe such as john lobb is not 5 times better than AE or Alden.

 

[The Devil's Hands]

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

generally linear improvements for RTW shoes up to about $350, and then it sort of flattens out. So AE and Alden (both in the low 300's) are about twice as good as $150 shoes such as KC, but a 1200-1500 shoe such as john lobb is not 5 times better than AE or Alden.
I disagree, sort of. AE/Alden are about 5 times as good as Aldo/KC. The difference is huge and immediately noticeable. KC shoes retail in the high 200s by the way. Eventually shoes become like perfume: you're paying more just to have something different. Better ingredients-sure, but not necessarily better assembly or better concept. I'm thinking that most women would be split evenly between a Mora and a Jermyn II on which is a nicer looking shoe, but between a Mora and an Aldenard (Aldo-had to look it up), there is an obvious difference. Really obvious.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

generally linear improvements for RTW shoes up to about $350, and then it sort of flattens out.

So AE and Alden (both in the low 300's) are about twice as good as $150 shoes such as KC, but a 1200-1500 shoe such as john lobb is not 5 times better than AE or Alden.
true, but above that there is a marked improvement over Lobb imo.

 

[NoVaguy]

Originally Posted by The Devil's Hands

I disagree, sort of. AE/Alden are about 5 times as good as Aldo/KC. The difference is huge and immediately noticeable. KC shoes retail in the high 200s by the way.
I think you're overstating the aesthetics and understating the function. I should qualify that I'm merely stating that functionally, AE/Alden is twice as good as Aldo, KC, etc. While functionally, John Lobb, EG, at $1200-1500 etc are not three to four or five times better than the AE/Alden shoes

I'll agree that on aesthetics, AE is much much better, but that's just aesthetics. And a lot of people prefer the KC/Aldo aesthetic. I want to separate that out. I also want to separate out fit - that's more a function of the pre-selected last. Let me give you an example - I wouldn't be willing to pay $75 for an AE park avenue. It's just a horrible last for me. A random KC shoe would be more likely than not to fit me better. But functionally, excluding aesthetics and fit derived from last selection, it's still a better shoe than then the KC shoes.

Eventually shoes become like perfume: you're paying more just to have something different. Better ingredients-sure, but not necessarily better assembly or better concept.

Yeah. I agree. But really, assembly goes to function. And it can, to some extent, be quantified - durability, non-last derived fit due to things such as lining and cushion/cork materials, etc.

I'm thinking that most women would be split evenly between a Mora and a Jermyn II on which is a nicer looking shoe, but between a Mora and an Aldenard (Aldo-had to look it up), there is an obvious difference. Really obvious.

Yeah. Most would pick the Aldo shoe. And if KC, forget about it. They're definitely picking the KC over everything.

 

[The Devil's Hands]

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

I think you're overstating the aesthetics and understating the function.
I should have said it's more than linear up to $300 Retail. Afterwards you're absolutely correct. I'd say the example is more of a sigmoid, where the retail price is the abscissa, and the abstract measure of quality is the ordinate. the AE sits on the upper knee of the curve ([2,.9] as marked in the link), and Lobb sits far to the right. I'd say Nunn-Bush is on the lower knee.

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

I'll agree that on aesthetics, AE is much much better, but that's just aesthetics. And a lot of people prefer the KC/Aldo aesthetic.
Most people haven't seen high end shoes. I think they prefer KC/Aldo over reebok, but if you showed them a Macneil, they'd think it was pretty sharp.

Originally Posted by NoVaguy

Yeah. Most would pick the Aldo shoe. And if KC, forget about it. They're definitely picking the KC over everything.
I don't think so. I'm positive those suede moras would be more appealing to women, but I have a Y-chromosome, so I guess I will never know. I get a lot of compliments on my Byrons. In any case, I hope the ladies would have some taste.

 

[lawyerdad]

Who makes the abscissa? Scafora? Sounds kinda Spanish to me.

 

[kronik]

Goddamned mathletes.

 

[Kasper]

Some of the John Lobb and Santoni models might look more distinct than the Johnston & Murphy and Bostonian shoes that I wear but I don't believe that the construction is really that much better. From some of the Lobb photos I've seen I even think that the leather looks plasticity and not conservative enough for more professional work environments.

 

[teddieriley]

Originally Posted by Kasper

Some of the John Lobb and Santoni models might look more distinct than the Johnston & Murphy and Bostonian shoes that I wear but I don’t believe that the construction is really that much better. From some of the Lobb photos I’ve seen I even think that the leather looks plasticity and not conservative enough for more professional work environments.

To appreciate the true quality of leather and the antiquing, you really need to see the shoe in person. Photos typically use flash and that can impart a plastic look to the shoe if it reflects a certain way. Except photos taken by members here, pictures of lobbs or other shoes in magazines could certainly be photoshop'd to achieve the advertising effect (lighting or whatever) they want.

Here's a non-mathematical way I decided dropping $1000 on some Santoni FAM fritz's I just purchased. It was antiqued in a burgundy color I hadn't seen before. The leather felt really substantial and the welting looked great. I loved the styling as it is a really unique long split toe on a sleek last. Also, Italian shoes fit me better as they aren't as generous in the vamp area as many English shoes. The most I had dropped before this was around $500. Was the extra $500 worth it? Absolutely. One, these shoes were in what I consider a limited edition color that I was looking for. Although not completely handmade, one of the best constructed shoes out there. No way these shoes are going to go on sale anytime in the near future. I believe this is one of the best looking shoes I've ever seen, period. If they hold up and my feet don't shrivel, I envision I'll be wearing these bad boys when I'm 70. Will I be doing the same with my Vass or C&Js? Probably, but they don't get the title of "my favorite and best looking shoes." (subjectively speaking of course). That's what my $1000 got me.