STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by NotoriousMarquis, Apr 16, 2012.
Here you go. Sorry for the bad quality.
I've never really bought into the argument that good shoes end up being cheaper than cheap shoes. After all, even if this argument does work out in good shoes favor, change all 3 AEs to full retail and now it's no longer valid. Or change it to EGs instead. It is true that the price difference might not be as much as the retail price difference, but still, you're paying extra money to have nicer shoes. That said, one major point you're missing is accounting for the time difference in the expenditures. Money today is worth more than money in 10 years. Since more of the AE's cost is front loaded, they are relatively more expensive than you are calculating.
Side point - I had never heard of this 5 resole cap on recrafts? I thought you could resole pretty much indefinitely without any damage or risk of damage. Not true? I'm 30 and haven't had any shoes resoled more than once yet, but this would convince me to put topeyes and/or taps on my next resoles.
whoever is arguing that cheap shoes last 4 months with regular wear is full of it.
I have people that work for me that own $30 dollar shoes that are going on 1.5 years. Do they look good? hell no. Is the heel completely shot? yup. Are they still useable to a person who would buy $30 shoes in the first place? 100%.
Only on StyleForum could one find a discussion on the NPV of a pair of shoes! Perhaps we should investigate the different characteristics of the various makes to asses correlation of wear on different surfaces and under different environmental conditions such that a truly diversified shoe portfolio could be constructed
haha - well certainly i have a pair of boots that's designed to be worn in rough weather so as to save the wear on other shoes, so that's already a step in that direction.
It seems that no one understood that the OP is not comparing 1 crap shoe vs 3 AEs.. In the OP he is clearly saying that in the time frame given, he would need 15 of the crap shoes to last as long as 3 AEs.
I've always assumed that reoles would be limited for a pair of shoes. This is the reason I have always used topies. I am about to get a pair of loafers resoled after 5 years of wear (2 days/week for 5 years) based on deteriorated support on the insole. The rest of the shoe is in great shape. Based on the 5-resole rule on that, I've got another 20 years of good use.
OP's statement was comparing 3 AEs worn concurrently with 15 crappy shoes worn consecutively. So essentially, he was comparing 1 crap shoe to 3 AEs (15 crap shoes worn individually for 8 months at a time). The objections are coming in saying that 2 pair of shoes are the minimum necessary.
Although I see no reason that the OP's calculations wouldn't be applicable if the crap shoes were worn 2 or 3 at a time.
If you want to save money, buy $3.39 shoes at Goodwill. If you want to wear nice shoes, buy AE or better.
This is not a penny-pincher forum.
Allow me to defend my post.
1) I love nice shoes. I buy nice shoes and will continue to do so. My math isnt to convince people to buy ecco or rockport shoes, it's a point of consideration that we ignore when people come here asking for help and we tell them AE is ultimately a better investment.
2) Crap shoes will last that long. In high school I wore rockport and ecco shoes and they lasted at least a year with daily wear.
3) the point i am making is that from what i've learned here on SF, most people need minimum three shoes for them to last and so they dont have to wear them on consecutive days, and that most people who buy crap shoes wouldn't want shoes that didnt last that long. If you told bob the law office clerk who has been wearing ecco sheos for 15 years that he cant wear them two days in a row, then he'd be upset. i assume people who buy those shoes, based on personal experience, want to wear them every day.
4) I completely understand that I've not factored in how good shoes look vs how crappy others look--if you want to concretize the monetary value of that, then based on my math its slightly over 1k.
I think what we overall here tend to forget is that most people don't notice shoe deterioration (even people with leather soled shoes who don't know anything about them wear it right through the leather on the heel, which we wouldn't do). They don't mind bicycle toes, or creases, or holes in the heels, square toes, etc. So when someone finds square toed shoes from aldo that will probably realistically last a good 8 months, and asks if they should cop, we say no, get AE seconds they'll last longer and it's a better investment. It's an investment in looking good, but maybe not so much in money.
as i said last time, this is just fodder.
on the same token, im pretty sure a honda civic will last longer and is repaired and maintained much cheaper than a mercedes SL. but do you really want to pick up your date in a civic?
You would only resole the shoes 4 times, not 5 (unless you resoled them when new or right before you throw them out).
Most importantly, this.
OK, thread summary:
Wearing $300 AEs is more expensive than wearing $100 crap shoes over a 15-year period, but not three times as expensive since the AEs will last longer. However it still may be worth it to you to wear $300 AEs or whatever other shoes, as you may value wearing better shoes for aesthetic or whatever other reasons. Anything else to discuss?
Since Notorious made it clear his post wasn't intended as making cost the sole justification for buying non-crap shoes, I think we can forgo further posts justifying buying non-crap shoes for non-cost reasons.
It's clear that the cost of the re-sole on the nicer shoes is what makes them inefficient, cost-wise. Heck, the re-sole alone is probably more than many cheap pairs of shoes. What I'd be curious to know is whether there was a time in the past when the relative cost of a re-sole was much lower, such that the higher initial cost of a nice pair of shoes actually was jusitified by a lower total cost of ownership compared with buying garbage.
This is what I don't get. In theory, should you be able to resole shoes more than that. I know AE says oherwise too, but ferragamo, for example, says you can wear tramezza shoes forever based on their goodyear construction. Im sure this is just a phrase they use, but Im actually curious. for example:
these are a photo of cleverley shoes from esquire's page. they were made in the early 60's and their owner sent them in for recrafting.
is it really possible that shoes looking like that that are over 40 years old were resoled under 4 times?
It's hard to wear out the soles when you are slogging through swamps in your dress shoes!
Seriously it is possible to resole a pair of shoes more than four times.
Separate names with a comma.