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

[Made in California]

Originally Posted by entrero

Time is money. You're just sugarcoating it
I like that. Can I use this line in real life?

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by Made in California

The difference between the SF users and the rest of the world is not just a willingness to spend money, but a willingness to spend time. OP, how do you feel about this?
This isn't always true when it comes to time to spend.

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by entrero

Here's the catch: factory recrafting won't be possible if the shoes were resoled somewhere else. I assume his cobbler does half-sole for 65 and not full resole. For full resole you need the original last, at least that's what I'm told
Not really true on the face of it. The factories just don't like to do it. The reason? They don't want to be responsible for someone else's hack job. A full resole can be done on hand welted shoes without the last...and done well too. But of course, having the last is always better. Doing a full sole on a GY welted shoe is far more problematic.

 

[RSS]

I'll have a heel replaced by a local fellow ... but when it comes to soles ... I send it back to the maker.

 

[mkarim]

Originally Posted by 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.

+100.

 

[mkarim]

Originally Posted by gladhands

I like nice ****, and I'm willing to do a lot more work to find slightly nicer products sold at deep discounts.

+10000000000000

 

[mkarim]

Originally Posted by Wideknot

I suggest that your calculations would be more accuate if you assume:

1 pair of standard depatment shoes: €100
Lifetime: Three years.
over 15 years: €500

This gives a savings of €325.

Yes but you get to enjoy the better-made, higher-quality shoes for 15 years for just a little (22Euros) more a year.

 

[lasbar]

Originally Posted by RSS

I'll have a heel replaced by a local fellow ... but when it comes to soles ... I send it back to the maker.

I always send back the shoes to the maker...

I have had a few bad experiences with local cobblers...

 

[DWFII]

Originally Posted by Wideknot I suggest that your calculations would be more accuate if you assume: 1 pair of standard depatment shoes: €100 Lifetime: Three years. over 15 years: €500 This gives a savings of €325.

The thing to remember...and it bears repeating, where ever short attention spans are evident...is that a good shoe will break in and conform to your foot. A poor shoe will never. Leather insoles will take and hold a footbed; fiberboard and leatherboard insoles will never. The thing that is never factored in by the parsimonious is the cost of medical bills or misery that trying to break in poorly made and/or poorly fitting shoes or shoes that will never, ever break in, incurs.

 

[entrero]

Oh that would be very difficult prove. To scientists it's much easier linking car crashes and phone calls

 

[Avocat]

Originally Posted by james_timothy

Here's a pointer to the Frenchy and oneeightyseven throwdown. You may want to use it to brush up on your chops.
That was my whole point, JT (and I am exceptionally well brushed up on the law of cyberspace, having said what was needed, thus avoiding any such chop fest, both here and for all time, which I for one do not engage in, nor do I find amusing. Trust that will be the end of it, but feel free if you like to brush up on anything you want (next time, break out the popcorn ... but unless it's virtual hockey we're talking about, it's simply not here worth fighting about

That said, Entrero's probably right re: the whole angry teen business; not mine/not for me, and want no part of it, though your point is a valid one (I do hear you on that, and thanks). Anywho, .. moving along ... I think DWFII's point has merit, based on what podiatrists and sports facilities say about it for which there's evidence to avoid "cheap" footwear (as in, ill made/ill fitting), though I hear you, Entrero also; so far as it's likely impossible (could be wrong) in terms of quality shoes (cheap/ill made/ill fitting aside) and their varying degrees as it relates to foot/back problems. I'm not sure how one would quantify "quality" in these terms, but dunno.

 

[Edward]

Originally Posted by celery

SF also promotes the myth of certain brands or levels of quality at which things "just fall apart" and they cite that buying a higher quality (read: more expensive) products means that they will last longer.

While this can be true in some cases, I do find it odd that I still wear (cheap) clothing that I purchased 8-10 years ago and it hasn't fallen apart in any way. But if I were to ask, "Should I buy these Cole Hanns" I'd get 50 replies telling me that they will fall apart in 4 months and that I should buy something that will last 30 years.

But I am honestly curious as to what people are doing to their clothes that causes them to fall apart? I have yet, in my lifetime, to replace an article of clothing because it fell apart. Almost everything I replace is because I would like a new design, old stuff gets donated and that's that.

Of course, I never purchase anything I believe to be of inferior quality. It may be considered such on SF, but as long as it looks like it will hold up for me, then it's good enough.

Amen!

 

[CDFS]

Originally Posted by Avocat

That was my whole point, JT (and I am exceptionally well brushed up on the law of cyberspace, having said what was needed, thus avoiding any such chop fest, both here and for all time, which I for one do not engage in, nor do I find amusing. Trust that will be the end of it, but feel free if you like to brush up on anything you want (next time, break out the popcorn ... but unless it's virtual hockey we're talking about, it's simply not here worth fighting about

I was subtle before. I feel a more direct approach may be in order. Your sentence structure is horrible, almost unreadable. Try using capitalisation and periods.

Also, see the bolded. What do those even mean without their counterpoints ( ')').

 

[epa]

Originally Posted by Avocat

Education and experience tell me to buy something of quality because it lasts longer. Does one really need a Ph.D or two terminal degrees to know this? I think not. In addition, and in the wise words of most here in the forum, I don't have to justify anything to the OP.

I recall that some of my first RTW suits, which actually were very cheap polyester suits (and please don't ask me if they were fully canvassed or not), held up very well (today I would say that they lasted too long...). Probably better than my latest bespoke suit in Loro Piana Super 130s Four Season cloth will.

So why do I pay the difference? Because the LP cloth looks great and feels great (yes, I know what people here think of supe120+ cloths, but so far I like it), and because the bespoke suit fits me much better than those substantially altered RTW suits did. And, of course, because I can afford to pay the extra to wear something I like.

 

[Avocat]

Originally Posted by scurvyfreedman

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

Originally Posted by EZETHATSME

I like nice ****, and am willing to pay a lot more for a slightly better product. EZ

Originally Posted by bellyhungry

People should do whatever makes them happy ans should be able to spend their money however they want to. As well, people should, if possible, stop worrying about what other people do or how other people spend their money. Failing that, they come across like sour grapes.

Originally Posted by Big T

If I want to buy some thing, I can. I have money! Pure and simple. Do I buy things simply to impress? No! I worked to hard to get my money!

Originally Posted by Mute

Uh......I buy these things because I like them and I can afford them. Do I really need any other reasons.

Originally Posted by RSS

If you actually have to ask such a question to know the answer ... you don't really deserve the answer.
I rest my case on the above facts and summation. The "defense" rests. (i.e., I've nothing more to add, really, as the above comments say it all, at least for me they do, and at all times have. I therefore must respectfully disagree with anyone who says that the above comments, whether they are read individually or taken together in their entirety as a collective whole, are in any way absurd, if at all).