how to tell if a shoe is expensive

[Godot]

Real leather, polished with a good design. I don't know the exact numbers, but there are a lot of fake leather shoes out there. Visit DSW.
I don't know how true this is but I've always heard that women judge you on your footwear. I have had more women compliment me on my monks then my watches. go figure

 

[Veremund]

They say powerful business people look at your shoes first. Since you can't see logos on dress shoes, what do they look for? To me, some of the expensive shoes look no different than cheap ones and some of the ones I thought looked expensive were rather cheap.

I know this is an old thread, but it’s a classic question. People who care are mostly checking to see if you’ve put in the time and effort to make sure your shoes look their best. Clean and well polished.

Cheap shoes fall apart quickly and cannot be re-crafted. Good shoes last longer and can be re-crafted. That’s the big difference.

 

[DWFII]

I come into this thread late, admittedly not having read the whole thing, and with a snarky but pointed comment: A shoe is expensive if you pay a lot of money for it. It is even more expensive if it then falls apart or loses fit or finish in a relatively short time. It's even more expensive if you cannot afford it.

Bottom line is that the whole intent and premise of the question is misguided and off-base. It's almost nonsensical outside of the context of the above answer..

Price, expense...these do not equate to quality. Plenty of high priced, expensive shoes are only marginally better in quality than much, much cheaper shoes.

 

[BigData]

Here's a question related to this topic - some shoes have hard soles, rubber soles or partial rubber & leather soles. Is either one of these an indication of a higher quality shoe? I always assumed full hard soles were not only more expensive (to buy and maintain) but considered higher quality.

 

[Oshare]

Here's a question related to this topic - some shoes have hard soles, rubber soles or partial rubber & leather soles. Is either one of these an indication of a higher quality shoe? I always assumed full hard soles were not only more expensive (to buy and maintain) but considered higher quality.

When talking about decent Goodyear welted shoes, I don't think the type of sole is an accurate indication of the quality or cost of the shoe.
A lot of it comes down to preference, perceived comfort, and practicality for the type of weather you have where you live.

For example, I have a pair of John Lobbs with Dianite-like rubber soles which I chose because I wanted a pair I could wear without fear of getting them wet. On the other hand, I have other shoes which cost a fraction of the price of the John Lobbs, but which have full leather soles. All are Goodyear welted shoes for an apples to apples comparison.

If you're comparing Goodyear welted shoes with leather soles to discount store shoes with cemented rubber soles, then yes, the leather soled shoes are probably more expensive and better. But this is more like an apples to oranges comparison. They are just totally different.

 

[palk]

I come into this thread late, admittedly not having read the whole thing, and with a snarky but pointed comment: A shoe is expensive if you pay a lot of money for it. It is even more expensive if it then falls apart or loses fit or finish in a relatively short time. It's even more expensive if you cannot afford it.

Bottom line is that the whole intent and premise of the question is misguided and off-base. It's almost nonsensical outside of the context of the above answer..

Price, expense...these do not equate to quality. Plenty of high priced, expensive shoes are only marginally better in quality than much, much cheaper shoes.

You are absolutely correct. The prior three pages of replies on this thread came to the same conclusion. Some reframed the question into how to tell by looking whether a shoe is a quality shoe or not, which though subjective in some areas, surely has some middle ground.

Here's a question related to this topic - some shoes have hard soles, rubber soles or partial rubber & leather soles. Is either one of these an indication of a higher quality shoe? I always assumed full hard soles were not only more expensive (to buy and maintain) but considered higher quality.

When talking about decent Goodyear welted shoes, I don't think the type of sole is an accurate indication of the quality or cost of the shoe.
A lot of it comes down to preference, perceived comfort, and practicality for the type of weather you have where you live.

For example, I have a pair of John Lobbs with Dianite-like rubber soles which I chose because I wanted a pair I could wear without fear of getting them wet. On the other hand, I have other shoes which cost a fraction of the price of the John Lobbs, but which have full leather soles. All are Goodyear welted shoes for an apples to apples comparison.

If you're comparing Goodyear welted shoes with leather soles to discount store shoes with cemented rubber soles, then yes, the leather soled shoes are probably more expensive and better. But this is more like an apples to oranges comparison. They are just totally different.

While I agree with Oshare that a rubber sole doesn't indicate that a shoe is of poor quality, I can't recall ever seeing a leather-soled shoe at a discount shoe store (i.e., a purveyor of poor quality shoes), so there is at least a grain of truth there.