How do you justify spending $500+ on shoes?

[JezeC]

This is really out of curiosity for the people that frequently purchase shoes in the range of $500+

Personally for me, I would only buy them if I see myself wearing them as staple items (probably wearing them at least 1x a week or at the very least 1.5x in two weeks.

For shoes that are a bit playful, flamboyant or whatever, I don't think it's necessary to buy this type in quality form since it will hardly be worn aside from a few occasions...

Not to start a perpetual flame war or anything, but I find shoes such as the Strand to be in the category of "hardly worn", at least for me, while dark brown captoes and burgundy wingtips dominate my weekly wardrobe.

So for shoes with scotchgrain or python material, how often do people really wear these footwear to justify the expense?

 

[RogerP]

Justify to whom? I buy them, I wear them, I enjoy them. I like the way they look and I like the way they feel. They aren't placed on a pedestal and kept in pristine condition - but they are well cared for. Some are worn more than others, but all get worn. I don't feel I need any further justification beyond that.

 

[JezeC]

I guess more or less to justify the logic behind spending $500+ on rarely worn shoes when you can just buy something similar at a lower quality. Nice shoes are generally expensive because of its durability, but that may not be an issue with shoes that are hardly worn.

 

[RogerP]

What does hardly worn or rarely worn mean to you?

I don't think logic is the definitive criterion when purchasing premium / luxury items. A larger number of less expensive shoes might indeed last as long if worn within a large rotation. For you, it may not "make sense" to spend more on a premium shoe if all you are concerned with is miles per dollar of shoe leather.

 

[MacktasticGDogg]

For me, the justification for buying a certain pair of shoes is whether I can wear them reasonably often (keeping in mind I have a relatively large shoe collection, at least by non-SF standards) and whether I can afford it. For shoes I know will probably get less wear, I'm actually more inclined to spend more because in my mind they end up lasting longer. There's really not much logic to it once you reach a certain point though. The only reason I can offer for most of the shoes I own is that I like them and am fortunate enough to be able to afford them.

 

[dohare]

$500 can mean different things to different levels of income. when you say Strand do you mean AEs? at $345..and the service AE provides, i think it's well worth it. I'd wear them weekly if i had a pair.

 

[laufer]



This is really out of curiosity for the people that frequently purchase shoes in the range of $500+

Personally for me, I would only buy them if I see myself wearing them as staple items (probably wearing them at least 1x a week or at the very least 1.5x a week.

For shoes that are a bit playful, flamboyant or whatever, I don't think it's necessary to buy this type in quality form since it will hardly be worn aside from a few occasions...

Not to start a perpetual flame war or anything, but I find shoes such as the Strand to be in the category of "hardly worn", at least for me, while dark brown captoes and burgundy wingtips dominate my weekly wardrobe.

So for shoes with scotchgrain or python material, how often do people really wear these footwear to justify the expense?

It is easy. You just start frequenting the Style Forum and soon you will be justifying a purchase of $5000 John Lobb bespoke shoes.

 

[Claghorn]

For cordovan, definitely worth it. They'll last you forever and a half. They might even save you money in the long run.

 

[bings]

Diminishing Returns.

After a while of wearing nice clothing and shoes you just can't get the same satisfaction out of a pair of $300 shoes as you did when you moved up from $100 ones... you have to spend $500 just to feel like you did something

This is the purely emotional argument.

 

[dddrees]

As Roger said I don't have to justify this to anyone. However I currently do not service any debts of any kind so this makes it a whole lot easier to purchase nicer things I like to wear.

 

[Garasaki]

This is really out of curiosity for the people that frequently purchase shoes in the range of $500+

Personally for me, I would only buy them if I see myself wearing them as staple items (probably wearing them at least 1x a week or at the very least 1.5x in two weeks.

Yeah so...staple shoes are definitely one of my criteria for spending that much on shoes.

I'm not planning on buying any python shoes, 500 bucks or no....

From your post, it seems like you are saying "spending 500 on staple shoes makes sense" but the title is "how do you justify spending 500 on shoes" and the answer really is...are they something you'll wear a lot (ie staple). At least for me.

On the other hand, there are probably those on this forum and elsewhere who have the resources to spend 500 or more on non-staple shoes...and frankly I don't think they have to justify their spending.

 

[bourbonbasted]

How to Justify $500+ Shoes Based on SF Post Count

1 - 1,000 posts -- "You're buying quality footwear. It's an investment and the shoes will last for way longer!"

1,001 - 2,000 posts -- "I'm supporting traditional, artisan manufacturing processes and investing in quality while taking a stance against disposable fashion!"

2,001 - 3,000 posts -- "Well I haven't bought a pair of shoes that retailed for less than $500 in over a year, so..."

3,001 - 4,000 posts -- "I like nice things so I buy nice things. Justification is a coping mechanism that suggests you have no business buying expensive shoes."

I'll let you know how that scale progresses once I break 4,000 posts.

 

[dddrees]

How to Justify $500+ Shoes Based on SF Post Count

1 - 1,000 posts -- "You're buying quality footwear. It's an investment and the shoes will last for way longer!"

1,001 - 2,000 posts -- "I'm supporting traditional, artisan manufacturing processes and investing in quality while taking a stance against disposable fashion!"

2,001 - 3,000 posts -- "Well I haven't bought a pair of shoes that retailed for less than $500 in over a year, so..."

3,001 - 4,000 posts -- "I like nice things so I buy nice things. Justification is a coping mechanism that suggests you have no business buying expensive shoes."

I'll let you know how that scale progresses once I break 4,000 posts.

I like this, and to some extent this is true.

Reasons change not just do to post count, but the amount you have purchased and time you've been buying them.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]



I guess more or less to justify the logic behind spending $500+ on rarely worn shoes when you can just buy something similar at a lower quality. Nice shoes are generally expensive because of its durability, but that may not be an issue with shoes that are hardly worn.

This is generally false.

Sure, they have better quality via better craftsmanship, materials, and construction. But people that pay meaningfully more for shoes thinking it will save them money via longevity will in most cases be proven wrong.

The value is in wearing a superior shoe for the time that you are wearing it, not in purchasing durability.

 

[Cleav]

Glib answer - because they're better (on the whole)

Glib answer 2 - because some people can

This need not be about footwear, good, bad or indifferent…

How do you justify spending $XXXXXXX on a wristwatch

" $ XXXX Tie

" $XXXXXXX Car

etc, etc

Work hard, play hard and take your pleasure where you see fit.