Serious question that's going to make you all angry.

[Jay Gatsby]

If I drop a large sum of dough on a pair of nice shoes, but end up having to pay for new soles and other upkeep every couple of years or so, and the cost of this maintenance is equal to or greater than the cost to buy a cheap pair of shoes every six months, than what is the point of buying the more expensive shoes?

What about watches? If having my watch serviced every once in awhile costs the same as buying a new Seiko in the same duration of time, what's the point of having the more expensive watch?

 

[Douglas]

the expensive shoes and expensive watches look better.

 

[jrd617]

Originally Posted by Douglas

the expensive shoes and expensive watches look better.
Yes, but there are often diminishing returns in terms of looks after you shift from benchmade level to handgrade level. (Assuming that you're paying sticker price)

 

[dsmolken]

Originally Posted by Jay Gatsby

What about watches? If having my watch serviced every once in awhile costs the same as buying a new Seiko in the same duration of time, what's the point of having the more expensive watch?
I wonder how many people would notice if your expensive watch wasn't running. Probably very few. If you have a pocketwatch, you could probably leave it broken for 20 years with no one noticing.

 

[entrero]

1.Expensive shoes: get them topied

2.Expensive watches: if you can't afford the service then you don't deserve the watch. It's above your paygrade, get Seiko.

 

[voxsartoria]

Nice reevolving homage.


- B

 

[Harold falcon]

Originally Posted by Jay Gatsby

If I drop a large sum of dough on a pair of nice shoes, but end up having to pay for new soles and other upkeep every couple of years or so, and the cost of this maintenance is equal to or greater than the cost to buy a cheap pair of shoes every six months, than what is the point of buying the more expensive shoes?

"Expensive" shoes are better than cheap shoes. They look nicer, they feel more comfortable, and they are not made by children in windowless factories who eat maggots and rice. As they can be repaired and last longer they are a better choice from an environmental standpoint than disposable shoes.

 

[Bartolo]

What's the point of buying a car more expensive than a Ford Escort? They all get you to the same place at roughly the speed limit.

 

[RogerC]

Bring it down to calculation. In European money:
1 pair of C&J: €500
cost per resoling: €65 (at least, at my cobbler)
over 15 years, assuming you resole every three years: €825

1 pair of standard department shoes: €100
Lifetime: 1 year
over 15 years: €1500

And this is before we start talking about the environment, animal health & welfare (the leather, y'know), etc.

 

[makewayhomer]

people here just generally underestimate the life of shoddy products. before this year I always wore cheap < $100 shoes, and none of them ever fell apart in 1 year. I wore all of them for 3 years probably additionally, I've never seen evidence that a C&J will last longer than Loake, or that a high end shoe will outlast an Allen Edmonds. I've seen too many stories (like the one about Bloomberg wearing his AE for 10 years) to think that there is really a durability advantage it's just made up justification really, once you get to the AE/Loake level. after that, people spend more money for reasons besides durability (though that is often a stated justification) if value was really your primary concern, you would do what I do, and that's spent $80 on Park Avenues that have been worn once, or $150 on vintage shell cordovan Florsheims that have been worn 10 times. try beating me on price/wear, suckers!!

 

[Nicola]

Originally Posted by Jay Gatsby

If I drop a large sum of dough on a pair of nice shoes, but end up having to pay for new soles and other upkeep every couple of years or so, a

This is natures way of telling you to get more shoes.

 

[lee_44106]

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

"Expensive" shoes are better than cheap shoes. .


This is OFTEN true, not always. Checkout some of the "designer" monstrosities.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

". They look nicer, they feel more comfortable, .


They SOMETIMES look nicer, not always.


Birkenstocks are quite comfortable. Comfort is a measure of proper fitting and not how much $$$$

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

"they are not made by children in windowless factories who eat maggots and rice. .

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

" As they can be repaired .


This is the only fairly true statement you've made.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

"last longer .


Blatant myth perpetuated by people to justify the $$$$$ spent.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

"they are a better choice from an environmental standpoint than disposable shoes.


Oh OK.

 

[Trompe le Monde]

who's angry?

i have the money and i like to spend it. dont need others' approval or to rationalize the decision

 

[AJL]

This question addresses an inherent dichotomy that exists within MC: value and function vs. aesthetics and the pursuit of the ultimate.

If value is more important to you than aesthetics, then there is no real justification for buying the more expensive items. With that in mind, it is understood that a Hugo Boss suit will never stand in for Attolini, Allen Edmonds (got the spelling right this time...) shoes will never match the handmade characteristics and sophisticated styling of Edward Green or Vass, and Seiko is no aesthetic match for Patek or Lange. The less expensive items will perform more or less the same as their more refined counterparts, and most people will not notice the difference or care. Your call.

 

[scurvyfreedman]

Go read an economic text on necessity goods, normal goods, and luxury goods. Then get back to us.