the best value shoe(s) you can buy

[Wrigglez]

yes value is subjective, however the quality of craftsmanship and hand work done by a human in conjunction with better construction in my mind denoted the best value. yes price is important, but those who think anything over 40ps is far too much for a shoe has not been educated in what makes a well made shoe wouth more. I may be guessing but most of us here on SF are middle class people with an interest in clothes (or quality clothes) this means we are no more wealthy than someone who thinks 40ps is too much. So I believe the balance between quality and price lies somewhere between C&J, vass, RMW, 1880 lokes(lower end.) One thing forum member Sator once said that sticks in my mind is that the price of a quality suit (bespoke or high end hand made) is relitive (taking into account inflation) to the 1930's,40's,50's. Almost everyone (sator used the example of petty criminals) had a good suit in those times. However today, people are far more inclined to spend thousands on a flat screen TV than decent clothed that will not only last but look better on you too.
regards

 

[academe]

I suppose my main "problem" with your original post is that no price range was ever specified. I feel like threads like this are constantly popping up, i.e. "What's good value for money for product X, Y or Z?" ... When I think a better question to ask is "Given that I have a budget of ??? what is the best way for me to spend my money?" The default always seems to be the bottom of the barrel in terms of price, and I feel the conversations often turn into apple and orange type arguments, with posters comparing across broad quality categories... For example, Vass versus Lobb RTW versus G&G RTW and EG RTW may be fair comparisons becomes they're roughly in the same quality category, whereas Loake, Alden & AE are in yet another. Bespoke is a completely different set of comparisons yet again...

Originally Posted by makewayhomer

I mean, 99.9% of the population doesn't have $800 or so in their budget for a Vass, so by definition it cant be a good value if I can't afford it in the first place. at what price would Vass top being a good value? b/c the equation I laid out in my OP basically said: versatility + (price / solid years worn) = value pretty easy to come up with some scoring system for versatility. I would say a Chestnut/Dark Brown Chelsea can get a 10 b/c it can be worn with a maximum of outfits. to get a 10 it needs to be elegant and be a good example of the style, not just any Chelsea boot..., so it really takes a C&J, while I might give RM Williams an 8.5 or 9, and a Dark Brown Kenneth Cole Chelsea only gets a 3). Again, this score is about initial looks, style, color, etc. so that KC would still score higher than a beautiful patent leather tuxedo shoe from Lobb, which cant only be worn in 1 (infrequent) scenario the max score on the price / solid years worn might go to an Allen Edmonds that costs say $225 (as they are frequently discounted to) for say 10 years of wear, for $22.5 dollars per year. those exact numbers might be off, so suggestions welcome, but basically something like $22 per year of use = a 10 in this category, while say a shoe that costs $100 per year gets a 1 in this category. RM Williams costs $320 ish right now / 10 years of expected wear = $32 per year, so maybe this gets a score of 8.5 again. the C&J is more like $600 (?) and will last a few more years (12?) but it's cost per year will be worse, I think, than the RM, so it would score lower here. if you disagree, please say so. so the RM Williams Chelsea gets a total of 8.5 + 8.5 = 17. probably a very good score! of course to really do this you need to some up with a true scale and better data points, but thats the idea I had in my mind...if you can do that with a Vass then it's the best value shoe out there. my guess is that an AE Leeds or maybe even the RM would be very hard to beat on this scale

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by upnorth

However, Vass doesn't accept credit cards and charges an astronomical amount for shipping, not to mention that they can sometimes send you shoes that are way different from what you ordered. Also the amount they charge cannot be calculated simply by converting Forint into dollars, unless you happen to be at the shop paying for it, and a slight discount if made in cash. For remote orders, they are charged at a higher rate in Euros, plus transaction fees if you don't have a Euro bank account. $600 for Vass is clearly a miscalculation.

^^^

Good to know; I hadn't quite got as far as calling Vass over the phone. I'll just wait till I'm in Budapest and pay cash.

Originally Posted by upnorth

Fosters ready to wear, depending on lasts, seems to be made their various shoemakers from EG to C&J, at a premium, I might add.

^^^

I also hadn't been aware that Fosters RTW was made by others, although the prices don't seem too bad. The prices also don't seem too high compared to C&J, either... I typically expect to pay around £270 for C&J, and the "cheaper" Foster's RTW are quoted at around £280-365, which isn't too much more than what I would expect to pay for C&J benchgrades (i.e. the £280 price range) or handgrades (~£365). Likewise, some of the more expensive Fosters RTW is in the range of £565 is roughly what I would expect for EGs or comparable products like G&G...I suppose I'm not so hung-up about getting the absolutely best deal possible, as I'd rather just pay for exactly what I want...

 

[Tarmac]

and this thread gets..... 1 star!

 

[makewayhomer]

Originally Posted by academe

I suppose my main "problem" with your original post is that no price range was ever specified.

ok, fair enough...and perhaps I should have flushed out ($ spent / years worn) a bit more. I could see that some define "value" as "the best shoe I can buy for X dollars" instead of "how can I get the best bang (years worn) for buck'

that, combined of course with style, looks, etc

 

[TC11201]

Originally Posted by makewayhomer

ok, fair enough...and perhaps I should have flushed out ($ spent / years worn) a bit more. I could see that some define "value" as "the best shoe I can buy for X dollars" instead of "how can I get the best bang (years worn) for buck'

that, combined of course with style, looks, etc

I think this "bang for the buck" definition misses far too many things - aesthetics, fit, etc. Bang for the buck really then boils the value down to materials and construction only and allows no value for things like aesthetics, finsihing quality, fit, etc. Taking the AE vs Vass example, AEs will almost assuredly last as long as Vass when subjected to the same use. AE also makes enough styles that you are likely to find a highly versatile style. But, most discerning eyes will not find a given AE shoe as aesthetically appealing as say a given Vass U-last shoe. How would that be factored in to the Bang for the buck measure of value?

Alternatively, despite the love Vass seems to get here, the U-last is a tough shoe for many people to fit into (basically anyone with wide feet). Not sure I'd care how nice looking a shoe is or how many years it would last if I was in pain everytime I wore it. The question then is how much you (or anyone) would be willing to pay for these "benefits" which go beyond $ per wear. I'd say that the "best shoe for X" is a better (if still incomplete) way of looking at these things since it implicitly includes all of these factors (and others). Define what $ amount you want to / are willing to spend and what you want out of the shoe and go from there.

 

[makewayhomer]

Originally Posted by TC11201

I think this "bang for the buck" definition misses far too many things - aesthetics, fit, etc. Bang for the buck really then boils the value down to materials and construction only and allows no value for things like aesthetics, finsihing quality, fit, etc. Taking the AE vs Vass example, AEs will almost assuredly last as long as Vass when subjected to the same use. AE also makes enough styles that you are likely to find a highly versatile style. But, most discerning eyes will not find a given AE shoe as aesthetically appealing as say a given Vass U-last shoe. How would that be factored in to the Bang for the buck measure of value?

well, I started to get into this above...

probably an ideal 'scoring system' as I laid out in the OP would have allowances for

1. initial aesthetics (basically, how well is the intended style achieved?)
2. versatility of style
3. versatility of color
4. durability (years worn / dollars spent)

I would think that 'finishing quality" is unimportant to count as the benefit of finishing quality should be captured in durability. though perhaps not, I don't know enough to confidently say.

fit, I dunno I think that is going to differ so much person to person that it comes down to a personal thing for you. I tried on a couple different C&J for BB shoes and they all hurt, while my RM's fit like slippers. that doesn't mean that RM's "fit better" it means "they fit ME better"....so that would be a personal fudge factor into any objective scoring system

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by Tarmac

and this thread gets..... 1 star!

You're being generous...

 

[TC11201]

Originally Posted by makewayhomer

well, I started to get into this above...

probably an ideal 'scoring system' as I laid out in the OP would have allowances for

1. initial aesthetics (basically, how well is the intended style achieved?)
2. versatility of style
3. versatility of color
4. durability (years worn / dollars spent)

I would think that 'finishing quality" is unimportant to count as the benefit of finishing quality should be captured in durability. though perhaps not, I don't know enough to confidently say.

fit, I dunno I think that is going to differ so much person to person that it comes down to a personal thing for you. I tried on a couple different C&J for BB shoes and they all hurt, while my RM's fit like slippers. that doesn't mean that RM's "fit better" it means "they fit ME better"....so that would be a personal fudge factor into any objective scoring system

Quite honestly, I think that the last piece about fit captures the essence of this discussion entirely. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your posts, but it seems that you are looking for a universal / objective way to measure these things, centered around (but not exclusively) bang for the buck / durability. To me, that's a task akin to squaring a circle - far too many elements of subjectivity which necessarily and properly will infiltrate whatever objective criteria is set up.

Even the four elements you cite, which IMO are incomplete (finish quality is quite distinct from durability), are subject to personal taste. Take item 1, how well is the intended style executed. Indeed, Vass makes a U-last version of, for instance, a cap-toed Oxford and a Budapest-last version of the same model. Both equally well constructed and durable. I find the U-last very elegant (if hard to fit), while I find the Budapest models horribly ugly - they look like Frankenshoes to me. Others on the board find Budapest last very attractive and true to context (something like a terroir for shoes). Both are very well built cap toed oxfords, but very different in appearance. Not sure anyone could universalize which version "achieves" its objective better. It's entirely subjective. As another example, take the board's evaluation of Alden - some people swear by them b/c, despite a less exacting finish in some areas, they consider them both extraordinarily durable and "authentic" in a sort of sui generis way. Others place far more emphasis on the less refined finishing quality and wouldn't be caught dead in any pair. One man's paragon of excellence is another's over-priced ugliness.

Again, I'd say one would be better served by narrowing choices based upon something not subjective ($) and then deciding among the options presented which meets the buyer's unique ordering of features and benefits best.

 

[sho'nuff]

Originally Posted by cdmoore1855

I am not really sure what Aldens cost because they have never really appealed to me. Vass cost $600 for Calf and $750 for Shell. I was merely saying they are great value if you compare them to their peers. Aldens are not their peers.

I agree that the curve value will peter off the higher up you go, but sometimes you have to splurge on things that you know are not in your best financial interests but put a smile on your face

seriously? well, send me an invoice, i would like to purchase 20 pairs in each (U lasts) and ima gonna flip them on ebay

 

[makewayhomer]

Originally Posted by TC11201

Quite honestly, I think that the last piece about fit captures the essence of this discussion entirely. Perhaps I'm reading too much into your posts, but it seems that you are looking for a universal / objective way to measure these things, centered around (but not exclusively) bang for the buck / durability. To me, that's a task akin to squaring a circle - far too many elements of subjectivity which necessarily and properly will infiltrate whatever objective criteria is set up.

Even the four elements you cite, which IMO are incomplete (finish quality is quite distinct from durability), are subject to personal taste. Take item 1, how well is the intended style executed. Indeed, Vass makes a U-last version of, for instance, a cap-toed Oxford and a Budapest-last version of the same model. Both equally well constructed and durable. I find the U-last very elegant (if hard to fit), while I find the Budapest models horribly ugly - they look like Frankenshoes to me. Others on the board find Budapest last very attractive and true to context (something like a terroir for shoes). Both are very well built cap toed oxfords, but very different in appearance. Not sure anyone could universalize which version "achieves" its objective better. It's entirely subjective. As another example, take the board's evaluation of Alden - some people swear by them b/c, despite a less exacting finish in some areas, they consider them both extraordinarily durable and "authentic" in a sort of sui generis way. Others place far more emphasis on the less refined finishing quality and wouldn't be caught dead in any pair. One man's paragon of excellence is another's over-priced ugliness.

Again, I'd say one would be better served by narrowing choices based upon something not subjective ($) and then deciding among the options presented which meets the buyer's unique ordering of features and benefits best.

I can see all of this...ty

 

[Faded501s]

Vass, Lobb, EG & G&G are the first brands mentioned

Like so many have said, without some budget considerations there is no way to give a proper answer. For my buck I'll go with Santoni or Churchs over AE or Alden but a lot of that has to do with aesthetics. I find all of them pretty similar in quality. If you want a real bang for your buck go to eBay and find some NOS welted Cole-Haan, Florsheim, J&M, Knapp, Nettleton, etc., etc. for $20...or $100. Most are built a lot better than AE, Alden, Churchs or Santoni.

 

[javin]

Hey Style Forum,

I am a young male, looking to get a pair of Stacy Adams oxfords. I have small feet. (Anywhere between a 6 - 7.5 depending on the brand)

I am a 6 in Aldo shoes, a 7 in Converse All-Stars, and a 7.5 in Classic Vans shoes.

I would like to hear others thoughts on the sizing of Stacy Adams shoes.
How do you guys feel they fit?


Thanks!

Edit: You know what, I'm totally up to hearing about other brands too! However, I am only looking to spend less than $100. (I'm young and don't feel confident making an investment on some more expensive shoes)

 

[dshreter]

Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I'm going to try and head off a number of more hostile responses quickly.

1. I don't think many people in this forum where Stacy Adams shoes, so you'll have a tough time getting input on their typical sizing.

2. Not many on this forum like Stacy Adams or Aldo shoes, and you'll probably get some people making fun of these selections shortly.

3. Please do consider other brands, and finding something on sale. Lots of nice shoes you can find for $100

 

[csoukoulis]

Just like any other cheap ****** shoe i'd imagine. oh yea...welcome