Mantellassi price points and quality?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by josepidal, Sep 17, 2006.

  1. odoreater

    odoreater Senior member

    Messages:
    8,739
    Likes Received:
    43
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Location:
    Elizabethtown
    Well, yes, but people also say that EG is "very good" and Lobb is "very good" and it can get a bit confusing without some idea of relative merits.

    It all has to do with the law of diminishing marginal returns. Basically, as the input into the production of a shoe increases, the relative output decreases. For example, there is a HUGE difference between, say, a pair of Johnston & Murphy ($200) and a pair of C&J handgrades ($450). The C&J handgrades are twice the price and probably more than twice as nice.

    Now, say a pair of EGs is roughly twice the price of a pair of C&J handgrades; however, they are not twice as good quality wise because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. Sure, there are aesthetic reasons why one might prefer one to the other or other "value" reasons (e.g., the value of exclusivity); however, as I said, "quality" wise, they are not twice as good.

    Now, make the jump from a pair of EGs that retail for $1000 and a pair of Sutors that retail for $1500. At this point, the law of diminishing marginal returns has worked so much that the increase in quality is almost negligible. So, at this point, it's not rational to make a decision based on quality as a factor. Therefore, other factors have to catalyze the decision. These factors might be aesthetics, exclusivity, brand loyalty, national loyalty, necessity, whatever; however, the unifying element of these factors is that they are highly personal.

    In conclusion, it doesn't make sense to ask forum members which shoes are better quality-wise at this point. The quality difference between Sutors, Lobbs, EGs, and even C&Js (heck, even Allen Edmonds) is so negligble that it should not be a determining factor. Since the determining factors are highly personal, the decision also has to be personal.
     
  2. josepidal

    josepidal Senior member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    I think it's not so hard to compare the quality of C&J and EG.

    In any case, I was trying to specifically ask for mantellassi compaarisons to EG or Lobb in terms of leather, and in terms of construction.

    Of course, if you throw aesthetic and national tradition and a lot of other things, it gets confused.
     
  3. epa

    epa Senior member

    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    Madrid
    Well, yes, but people also say that EG is "very good" and Lobb is "very good" and it can get a bit confusing without some idea of relative merits.
    A friend of mine bought some Martinelli (Spanish shoes) and said that they were "very good". I bought a pair years ago and found them to be "very bad".
     
  4. mussel

    mussel Senior member

    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    It all has to do with the law of diminishing marginal returns. Basically, as the input into the production of a shoe increases, the relative output decreases. For example, there is a HUGE difference between, say, a pair of Johnston & Murphy ($200) and a pair of C&J handgrades ($450). The C&J handgrades are twice the price and probably more than twice as nice.

    Now, say a pair of EGs is roughly twice the price of a pair of C&J handgrades; however, they are not twice as good quality wise because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. Sure, there are aesthetic reasons why one might prefer one to the other or other "value" reasons (e.g., the value of exclusivity); however, as I said, "quality" wise, they are not twice as good.

    Now, make the jump from a pair of EGs that retail for $1000 and a pair of Sutors that retail for $1500. At this point, the law of diminishing marginal returns has worked so much that the increase in quality is almost negligible. So, at this point, it's not rational to make a decision based on quality as a factor. Therefore, other factors have to catalyze the decision. These factors might be aesthetics, exclusivity, brand loyalty, national loyalty, necessity, whatever; however, the unifying element of these factors is that they are highly personal.

    In conclusion, it doesn't make sense to ask forum members which shoes are better quality-wise at this point. The quality difference between Sutors, Lobbs, EGs, and even C&Js (heck, even Allen Edmonds) is so negligble that it should not be a determining factor. Since the determining factors are highly personal, the decision also has to be personal.


    I think what Mr. Franklin really wanted was just a simple straight answer like "construction wise EG & Sutor Goodyear welts are very close, leather quality about the same with EG's antique finish 2 notches above; in terms of last, I much prefer EG's English understated elegant lasts...."

    But you mumbled and jumbled him to death with terms like "diminishing marginal return", "national pride", "brand loyalty", "value of relativity", "Law of Exclusivity...."
     
  5. josepidal

    josepidal Senior member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Oh there we go. Thanks.
     
  6. Roger

    Roger Senior member

    Messages:
    1,936
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Location:
    Vancouver
    It all has to do with the law of diminishing marginal returns. Basically, as the input into the production of a shoe increases, the relative output decreases. For example, there is a HUGE difference between, say, a pair of Johnston & Murphy ($200) and a pair of C&J handgrades ($450). The C&J handgrades are twice the price and probably more than twice as nice.

    Now, say a pair of EGs is roughly twice the price of a pair of C&J handgrades; however, they are not twice as good quality wise because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. Sure, there are aesthetic reasons why one might prefer one to the other or other "value" reasons (e.g., the value of exclusivity); however, as I said, "quality" wise, they are not twice as good.

    Now, make the jump from a pair of EGs that retail for $1000 and a pair of Sutors that retail for $1500. At this point, the law of diminishing marginal returns has worked so much that the increase in quality is almost negligible. So, at this point, it's not rational to make a decision based on quality as a factor. Therefore, other factors have to catalyze the decision. These factors might be aesthetics, exclusivity, brand loyalty, national loyalty, necessity, whatever; however, the unifying element of these factors is that they are highly personal.

    In conclusion, it doesn't make sense to ask forum members which shoes are better quality-wise at this point. The quality difference between Sutors, Lobbs, EGs, and even C&Js (heck, even Allen Edmonds) is so negligble that it should not be a determining factor. Since the determining factors are highly personal, the decision also has to be personal.

    This analysis fails completely without a coherent operational definition of quality. Are you excluding esthetics from quality? If so, why? And if so, what do you mean by quality? People differ in how they define quality. You seem to be limiting it to, perhaps, (a) quality of leather and (b) construction. Many would say much more can be included. And just out of curiosity how did you establish a metric in which C&J Handgrades can be definitively described as "probably more than twice as nice" as J&Ms?
     
  7. Roger

    Roger Senior member

    Messages:
    1,936
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Location:
    Vancouver
    I find it hard to understand why some forumers have got so bent out of shape about Josepidal's failure to painstakingly use the search function. The question posed in this thread is a perfectly reasonable one that will be of interest to many shoe fanciers. Why should we require a poster to scan numerous earlier threads that are only tangentially related to the central question posed and have to piece together an incomplete answer to this question by finding the occasional posts that obliquely address it? Is forum space so precious that we must hold off all ideas and questions until we are 100% certain that they haven't been addressed--most likely only partially and tangentially--in some fashion before? Why don't we try to keep participation on this forum fun, not requiring hard work, and free from fear that we will be castigated for not making every little effort to keep all posts absolutely original. For those who feel the need to criticize a failure to exhaust all search possibilities before posting, you can always just ignore the thread.
     
  8. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Senior member

    Messages:
    21,949
    Likes Received:
    7,144
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    A friend of mine bought some Martinelli (Spanish shoes) and said that they were "very good". I bought a pair years ago and found them to be "very bad".
    Their apple juice is ok, though.
     
  9. Thracozaag

    Thracozaag Senior member

    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    Their apple juice is ok, though.

    [​IMG]

    koji
     
  10. josepidal

    josepidal Senior member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    This analysis fails completely without a coherent operational definition of quality.
    It also didn't really answer my question heh. [​IMG]
     
  11. odoreater

    odoreater Senior member

    Messages:
    8,739
    Likes Received:
    43
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Location:
    Elizabethtown
    This analysis fails completely without a coherent operational definition of quality. Are you excluding esthetics from quality? If so, why? And if so, what do you mean by quality? People differ in how they define quality. You seem to be limiting it to, perhaps, (a) quality of leather and (b) construction. Many would say much more can be included. And just out of curiosity how did you establish a metric in which C&J Handgrades can be definitively described as "probably more than twice as nice" as J&Ms?

    I used the term "quality" to encompass objective factors. Aesthetics are completely subjective.

    Anyway, this is an internet message board, not a scientific journal dedicated to shoe quality.

    I think what Mr. Franklin really wanted was just a simple straight answer like "construction wise EG & Sutor Goodyear welts are very close, leather quality about the same with EG's antique finish 2 notches above; in terms of last, I much prefer EG's English understated elegant lasts...."

    But you mumbled and jumbled him to death with terms like "diminishing marginal return", "national pride", "brand loyalty", "value of relativity", "Law of Exclusivity...."


    I don't know who "Mr. Franklin" is, but josepidal, who started this thread, is a big boy who goes to Harvard Law - he should be able to understand terms like the ones I used.

    Sheesh, you try to give the guy an honest answer and not simply tell him to use the search function and people start bitching about it.
     
  12. odoreater

    odoreater Senior member

    Messages:
    8,739
    Likes Received:
    43
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Location:
    Elizabethtown
    It also didn't really answer my question heh. [​IMG]


    How did it not answer the question? Let me summarize for you without all the big fancy words:

    Quality is about the same. Pick which ever one you like better.

    See, people tell you to use the search and don't bother to give you answers because even when they do give you answer you just don't get it.
     
  13. Thracozaag

    Thracozaag Senior member

    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Location:
    Cygnus X-1
    Anyway, this is an internet message board, not a scientific journal dedicated to shoe quality.

    You sure about that?[​IMG]

    koji
     
  14. odoreater

    odoreater Senior member

    Messages:
    8,739
    Likes Received:
    43
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Location:
    Elizabethtown
    You sure about that?[​IMG]

    koji


    Well - I was operating under some time constraints. I didn't have time to complete my double blind study before making my post so I threw caution to the wind and posted without all the necessary studies and data in front of me. Nevertheless, I stand by my original analysis.
     
  15. pejsek

    pejsek Senior member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    I agree that no topic should be considered out of bounds just because it has been broached in the past. At the same time, the archives contain a wealth of information and research often proceeds by checking out tangents that might not immediately appear to answer the precise question at hand.
    I'll admit, though, to being a bit baffled by the initial query. josepidal seemed to be asking for a precise empiricism that does not exist (as far as I know) in the world of shoes. Mantellassis are very good shoes and cut no obvious corners. I think you can group them roughly (as jcusey did in his rtw shoe pyramid), but I don't understand the need to place them precisely on a continuum. The Italian shoes work according to a whole different set of principles than the English ones. At the higher end it's a matter of taste (and there's no accounting for that beyond the individual).
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by