Mantellassi price points and quality?

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by josepidal

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.

 

[josepidal]

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.

 

[epa]

Originally Posted by josepidal

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".

 

[mussel]

Originally Posted by odoreater

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...."

 

[josepidal]

Oh there we go. Thanks.

 

[Roger]

Originally Posted by odoreater

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?

 

[Roger]

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.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by epa

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.

 

[Thracozaag]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Their apple juice is ok, though.

koji

 

[josepidal]

Originally Posted by Roger

This analysis fails completely without a coherent operational definition of quality.
It also didn't really answer my question heh.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Roger

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.

Originally Posted by mussel

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.

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by josepidal

It also didn't really answer my question heh.

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.

 

[Thracozaag]

Originally Posted by odoreater

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

You sure about that?

koji

 

[odoreater]

Originally Posted by Thracozaag

You sure about that?

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.

 

[pejsek]

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).