Shoes, Handmade in the United States for $1000.00

[Asian Afro]

Just came across this video and article on Jon Gray. Some of you may find them of interest. (I find it interesting that the initial cost of the last is now $150 and that the wait time is six to eight months. Maybe I paid less for a longer wait. )

 

[chogall]

It would be hard, I think, to find a better shoemaker than Delos.
That said, I have two customers in process now for whom I have cut/modified their insoles to incorporated arch supports. As long as an orthotic doesn't address short legs, plantar wounds such as might be found among diabetics, or very specifically medical/orthopedic corrections, many bespoke makers can modify the last to accommodate your needs.
I once had a customer who had large, hard lumps on the soles of his feet--calcium accretions mostly at the ball and heel. I modified the plantar surface of the last and he was happy as a clam. The only fly in the ointment was that in this state, you have to be certified and have a license to practice medicine to legally make such mods. I don't take on such work anymore.

That is a very high praise coming from a shoemaker!

Just came across this video and article on Jon Gray. Some of you may find them of interest. (I find it interesting that the initial cost of the last is now $150 and that the wait time is six to eight months. Maybe I paid less for a longer wait.

)

Great find. $150 for a last is not expensive at all and his charges are fair. Too bad he's far far away from where I live.

 

[Gdot]



I think people look for both quality and "glamour," and brand names and their associated prices are often confused with high quality. That sort of thinking isn't entirely wrong. For even when top drawer RTW shoes employ the same cost-saving methods as those used by much cheaper shoes, the materials may be better and the people who worked on them might be more skilled. But should the end product cost that much? Probably not, but that is the market price for so-called upper-tier shoes.
People need to be educated as consumers. I didn't even know good-looking shoes were still being made until I found SF. Heck, I didn't know enough a year ago to write the above paragraph. Your posts have opened my eyes more, and likely others' as well.
As for being associated with a famous brand...the brands SF members lust after are obscure to the general public. In my own experience, people can tell I'm wearing nice shoes, but they have no idea what brand or what they cost, nor do they care. I've noticed that women's eyes are often drawn to my Barker Lincolns (the worst-fitting shoes in my collection), but that's about it. I wear these shoes for my own pleasure.
Besides, I think there's more cachet in wearing killer shoes made by obscure craftsmen.

And it could well be said that many seek bespoke for the same ego driven, cachet driven, blindness as those who seek expensive ready to wear. Could it not?

After all one doesn't NEED bespoke shoes any more than one NEEDS G&G. (Assuming a normal foot.)

 

[fritzl]



And it could well be said that many seek bespoke for the same ego driven, cachet driven, blindness as those who seek expensive ready to wear. Could it not?

it could. the number is way lower.

After all one doesn't NEED bespoke shoes any more than one NEEDS G&G. (Assuming a normal foot.)

do a better research.

 

[Nerkg]

GeorgE esquivel shoes

 

[DWFII]



And it could well be said that many seek bespoke for the same ego driven, cachet driven, blindness as those who seek expensive ready to wear. Could it not?

I don't know how you get from there to here...esp,. if you stipulate "no-name" or "obscure" shoemakers as both Asian Afro and I did.

How does someone that no one has heard of, working away in relative peace and anonymity, accrue any cachet? Most of us don't even advertise...at all.

As far as the "ego" of the consumer...well that's their look out but whether aimed at obscure bespoke or high end RTW it's a poor excuse to buy, defend and extol anything or anyone.

And admirably illustrative of just the point I was making about ignorance.

 

[iroh]



Well, I thought this was all very tongue-in-cheek but if you are serious, let me point out that there are more environmental ills...more economic and social ills...associated with using petro-chemical based products than leather has ever produced. Ever.
Every pair of shoes with a rubber sole that you purchase and wear, not only harms the environment in its production but even in wear. And every pair you buy...and every time you defend them...you increase the demand for petro-chemically based products.
If "foolish" can be defined as being so blind to the consequences of your actions that you refuse to see the hidden costs for your personal comfort, then there is nothing so foolish in all of contemporary society as the position you have articulated. This attitude alone is responsible for all...all...of the spills, destruction of habitat, extinction of species, and global warming known to man...in one way or the other.
And every time you buy a product that is petro-chemically derived, especially when presented with an alternative, every time you defend its use, you add to the indifference and the tolerance of that toxicity as a normal and acceptable cost of personal comfort and ease.
With all due respect, it is not, in my opinion, a particularly rational...nor admirable...position to take.

i am pretty sure 1 rubber soled on a shoe will outlast dozens of leather soled replacements. which uses more oil? which causes more damage to the environment? leather soles don't make themselves, tanneries require heavy usage of chemicals that pollute, cows don't raise themselves, farms and farm equipment don't run on free will. unless you come from a mathematical background with extensive knowledge of the petro industry and are able to do a careful research and analysis on the usage of oil and the environmental impact of leather production i think you just better stick to making shoes and get stop thinking about those big ideas shoemaker hippie boy.

if you really feel guilty turn of the heat to your house for a day or stop driving your suv for a day, that will save enough oil to make up one pair of rubber soles.

 

[DWFII]



[COLOR=FF00AA]i am pretty sure 1 rubber soled on a shoe will outlast dozens of leather soled replacements. which uses more oil? which causes more damage to the environment?leather soles don't make themselves, tanneries require heavy usage of chemicals that pollute, cows don't raise themselves, farms and farm equipment don't run on free will. unless you come from a mathematical background with extensive knowledge of the petro industry and are able to do a careful research and analysis on the usage of oil and the environmental impact of leather production i think you just better stick to making shoes and get stop thinking about those big ideas shoemaker hippie boy. [/COLOR]

Absolutely wrong. Leather is by far, more environmentally friendly. As far as leather soles go, such leathers are tanned with bark extracts. The original process being simply filling a pit with water and oak bark and throwing the raw hide in.

And leather is a natural by-product of farming/ranching/agriculture. Unless you want to stop eating, I suspect it's better to think about big ideas than to go through life with your head stuck in the ground...or, or more likely, your backside...ostrich dude.

 

[DWFII]

BTW, we have literally thousands of years of history making footwear and clothing and other artifacts out of leather...and despite several hundred years of intensive use of coal for heating and industry...it wasn't until the last hundred years or so (roughly contemporaneous with the introduction of, and the love affair of 'denial society' with, rubber and plastics and other PC based products) that any significant damage to air quality, water quality or the viability of fragile ecosystems occurred.

Quid pro quo?

Or just another "don't confuse me with the facts" example to be dismissed out of hand in pursuit of personal comfort? And convenience.

If it's all about you, I'm sure one rubber sole won't make a difference one way or the other. But that's fly in the ointment, isn't it? It isn't just one rubber sole. It isn't even rubber soles in general. It's about attitudes.

These kinds of justifications always seem to originate with, and be informed by, one form of solipsism or another.

 

[fritzl]



i am pretty sure 1 rubber soled on a shoe will outlast dozens of leather soled replacements.

this is plain wrong.

no shirts to bleach or any major sock repairs going on in your life?

 

[Gdot]



BTW, we have literally thousands of years of history making footwear and clothing and other artifacts out of leather...and despite several hundred years of intensive use of coal for heating and industry...it wasn't until the last hundred years or so (roughly contemporaneous with the introduction of, and the love affair of 'denial society' with, rubber and plastics and other PC based products) that any significant damage to air quality, water quality or the viability of fragile ecosystems occurred.
Quid pro quo?
Or just another "don't confuse me with the facts" example to be dismissed out of hand in pursuit of personal comfort? And convenience.
If it's all about you, I'm sure one rubber sole won't make a difference one way or the other. But that's fly in the ointment, isn't it? It isn't just one rubber sole. It isn't even rubber soles in general. It's about attitudes.
These kinds of justifications always seem to originate with, and be informed by, one form of solipsism or another.

This is a well made point. It does however, neglect to also consider the exponential growth in population. Particularly in the past two hundred years.

This is not to speak in favor of our petro chemical addiction by any means - as it is indeed a habit we cannot sustain.

 

[Asian Afro]



How does someone that no one has heard of, working away in relative peace and anonymity, accrue any cachet? Most of us don't even advertise...at all.

I was thinking of the "coolness," if not truly cachet, of items from obscure master craftsmen. In that (warped) sense, being highly skilled yet anonymous is your cachet. It's the no-name brand name.

Or you could say that your cachet is your standing in a small circle of craftsmen. Either way, it's something some people do go for. (I do, and I think Gdot might too.)

 

[Gdot]



I don't know how you get from there to here...esp,. if you stipulate "no-name" or "obscure" shoemakers as both Asian Afro and I did.
How does someone that no one has heard of, working away in relative peace and anonymity, accrue any cachet? Most of us don't even advertise...at all.
As far as the "ego" of the consumer...well that's their look out but whether aimed at obscure bespoke or high end RTW it's a poor excuse to buy, defend and extol anything or anyone.
And admirably illustrative of just the point I was making about ignorance.

Because there are people whose egos are stroked simply by the term or idea of bespoke. They don't understand about quality or design or even who - as long as it is 'custom' 'unique' 'bespoke'. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Just that when talking about people's motivations as you do it is not simple as 'people who chose G&G do so purely out of ego' whereas those choose bespoke specifically do not.

 

[fritzl]



I was thinking of the "coolness," if not truly cachet, of items from obscure master craftsmen.

well, there are a number of makers with a cachet, who are not known by an broader audience. at least i know several of them(not in the u.s. and a.). what's the deal?

 

[Gdot]



I was thinking of the "coolness," if not truly cachet, of items from obscure master craftsmen. In that (warped) sense, being highly skilled yet anonymous is your cachet. It's the no-name brand name.
Or you could say that your cachet is your standing in a small circle of craftsmen. Either way, it's something some people do go for. (I do, and I think Gdot might too.)

Definitely NOT something I go for. Quite the opposite. I could care less about the 'cachet' of any of it.

I'm interested in quality to suit my particular needs and design. For instance, for me the G&G end product is BETTER than bespoke in that I can get all the durability I need, design that I can get from no other RTW brand, comfort, etc. etc. for LESS money than bespoke. So for those designs that I can only get at G&G they are the choice. For other, more common place design I'm currently happy with C&J benchgrades.

I need no brand cachet, no name dropping, etc. etc.

That being said, I wonder about mystique of bespoke - what is so special that I'm not getting. And definitely prefer the idea of an 'all natural' product. However, I'm still struggling with the idea that bespoke is a LUXURY item that I have no real reason to indulge in.

Thus I started this thread, as it had come to my attention that I might be able to get all that I get from G&G and more for a not so great premium in price.

I completely reject the notion that 'quality at any cost' is valid for me. I have financial limits. Just the same as DWFII. After all he has confirmed that he doesn't have a slate roof on his house. Why doesn't he have the highest quality, most durable, most environmental friendly, 'BEST' roof at any cost? For the same reason I don't pursue this option with shoes. TIME AND MONEY - factors that DWFII somehow seems to think we should refuse to consider yet hypocritically considers in his own choices.

All that being said. This thread is about bespoke shoes in the $1000 price range. If ya'll want to have this preposterous debate regarding the 'morality' of which shoe one should own I would kindly ask that you set up your own thread for it.