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.