The myth of expensive shoes being more comfortable?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by MillionaireTeacher, Dec 9, 2009.

  1. rebel222

    rebel222 Senior member

    Messages:
    4,704
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Also, your 50 year old shell gunboats are a poor example of "expensive" shoes.

    Some people join SF and stir up the pot before they really know what's going on. You probably have a lot to learn about high-end footwear before you can start generalizing the comfort of "expensive" shoes.

    Of course, I really don't know you or what you know, but I am making a outsider's observation.
     
  2. MillionaireTeacher

    MillionaireTeacher Senior member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Rebel,

    True, leave out the shells. Besides, I have barely worn them.

    But my experience with the 5 other pairs indicate declining comfort in the $50-$300 range.
    The dressier they are, the less comfortable. That is a trade-off I am perfectly fine with.

    I think you guys could be right about the broken in factor.
    This is a vicious circle. Since they aren't comfortable, I avoid them.
    I may have only worn the A&E Polo's about 15 times... but Barney's 50 times ....
    For both, the inner soles are rock hard, so I bought some Dr. Scholl's inserts.
    The J&M pair are better. They have a padded insole overlay, a blue "gelcap" pad, and the leather uppers are much softer.
    But, no matter how broken in, I can't imagine them having anywhere the shock absorbency of my Bass slip ons.
     
  3. Patek14

    Patek14 Senior member

    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    I have a cheap pair of bostonians which is in the bottom half of my shoe rotation pricewise. (I dont wear anything on the order of lobbs, edward green, etc). My ankle hurts, I just wore a hole in my heel, and my shoe has blood in it
     
  4. rebel222

    rebel222 Senior member

    Messages:
    4,704
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Rebel, I have 6 pairs of shoes from which I am basing my observations on. Hardly just haphazardly making stuff up.
    If those 60 year old shoes are your basis for "expensive" shoes comfort levels, then you are making stuff up. I love old gunboats. I have quite a few pair. Some of my Alden longwings are my most comfortable. I sell a lot of vintage shoes, so I know that the really old stuff can be stiff for a while. I don't think they are a good basis.
    Rebel, Ok, leave out the shells. I have barely worn them. But I still use 5 other pairs to make a clear case of degrading comfort ($0-$300 range) This is what I am basing my observations on, hardly just conjecture. I have owned the shoes for over a year. I estimate I've only worn the A&E Polo's about 20 times... and Barney's 50 times .... How long until they're broken in and comfortable?
    I wouldn't put AE anywhere near the top of my comfortable list. All I am getting at is that fit is a major factor in comfort. More expensive shoes can fit much better than blobby cheap stuff. It depends on if you get the right shoe/last for your foot. The amount of money you spend has nothing to do with it. If your foot is shaped like the same blob that they build Ecco's on, then they may be the most comfortable. I completely disagree with the statement that the more expensive shoes are always less comfortable. You probably are wearing the wrong size.
     
  5. nohomo

    nohomo Senior member

    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Do you more specific examples of why/where your feet are hurting? Is it the soles (not enough cushioning?), the top (creases digging into your foot?). It's kind of hard to say what the problem is for you without knowing specifics.

    I do agree w/ you that sneakers are more comfortable then dress shoes. However, there's a much larger difference between wearing nice dress shoes w/ a size/last that fit well and wearing crappy KC or Aldo ones. And Ecco and Rockports, or at least the vast majority of them, are not dress shoes.
     
  6. lasbar

    lasbar Senior member

    Messages:
    26,133
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Location:
    FOLKESTONE
    Do you more specific examples of why/where your feet are hurting? Is it the soles (not enough cushioning?), the top (creases digging into your foot?). It's kind of hard to say what the problem is for you without knowing specifics.

    I do agree w/ you that sneakers are more comfortable then dress shoes. However, there's a much larger difference between wearing nice dress shoes w/ a size/last that fit well and wearing crappy KC or Aldo ones. And Ecco and Rockports, or at least the vast majority of them, are not dress shoes.


    We have to compare things which can be compared...

    My £2 Flip-flops are actually more comfortable than your $150 loafers and sneakers are also more comfortable than dress shoes.

    I still think that a well-constructed shoe is always more comfortable than one without good support.

    Your argument was solely based on money and price , but let me tell you something ,wearing a certain type of shoes is thansometimes more than a mere comfort issue.
     
  7. blofeld

    blofeld Senior member

    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Blofeld, the utility in a nondescript/ugly shoe is that they are comfortable as hell, and don't destroy your feet. Tome, its a clear a tradeoff b/w style vs. comfort. 95% of the time I prefer comfort. When I am dressing up for a party, I will suck it up, wear the expensive shoes, and tough it out. Just like a $5000 suit is not as comfortable in bed as sweat pants and a baggy sweatshirt. (I am sure someone will beg to differ)

    Agreed on the suit vs. sweatpants in bed, but you don't wear sweatpants outside the house (I hope). What I was trying to say is that with the the right choice, you do not have to make a trade-off between style and comfort. Keep looking and trying different things. Your current examples of "expensive" shoes are not good ones.
     
  8. MillionaireTeacher

    MillionaireTeacher Senior member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    I am going to see if the A&E's improve once they are more broken in. (As with the vintage shells)

    nohomo, the creases aren't digging in. It's just that the expensive soles have no cushion.
    After a few hours, the balls of my feet are very tender.

    I believe the shoes fit reasonably well.
    They are neither too big or too tight.
    If they were too tight, I'd toss them ASAP without batting an eye.
     
  9. luk-cha

    luk-cha Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    4,534
    Likes Received:
    73
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2006
    Location:
    Was Sinndom, Now is Rolexdom
    price does not make the shoe fit any better, if it does not fit from the off then it never will, and price does not guarentee fit!
     
  10. Teou

    Teou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Location:
    Little red dot
    have we not also consider the profile of your sole, feet? Flat footed etc? Some shoes have higher arch as support (my Allen Edmonds is an e.g).

    I have shoes from Cole Haan, Johnstons, Barker, tods and others. Frankly the Barker's sole is very hard but the leather is so supple. But the more expensive shoes, the leather do hold its shape really well.
     
  11. Jimbo26

    Jimbo26 Member

    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Es are stiff at first but I think most models have a cork layer that softens and molds to your foot over time. For my last pair that took two months of wearing them 2-3x/week, but now they feel great.

    One factor that hasn't been mentioned is that leather soles sound much cooler when you're walking in lobbies or hallways.
     
  12. MillionaireTeacher

    MillionaireTeacher Senior member

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2009
    Teou, I do I have flat feet.
    But that is a constant across all 6 pairs.

    I think it's a very case of Occam's Razor. (padding = comfort)
    The A&E Polo's have zero inner padding and leather soles.
    The Barney's have no inner padding, but lug soles. I added Dr.Scholls inner soles.
    The J&M have inner padding and rubber soles.
    The Bass have thick rubber soles.

    Now that I've laid it out explicitly, I seriously doubt I will ever buy another pair of shoes that do not have padding.
    (or at least, not expect them to be comfortable)
     
  13. sully

    sully Senior member

    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    price does not make the shoe fit any better, if it does not fit from the off then it never will, and price does not guarentee fit!

    Spot on my friend,and when it all comes together comfort is the result. I have one pair of Foster & son bespoke and I can wear them all day long and be as comfortable at the end of the day as at the start, but I do not wear them all the time as I'm not sure I can afford another pair soon, so they are for special occasions but they are so comfortable. Long live Terry Moore [​IMG]
     
  14. Prince of Paisley

    Prince of Paisley Senior member

    Messages:
    4,432
    Likes Received:
    4,020
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Sydney
    Leather soled shoes without "padding" are far more breathable than sports shoes, and being in a hot climate, I know I'd rather wear a pair of C&J brogues around all day than a pair of nikes.
     
  15. RJman

    RJman Posse Member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    18,647
    Likes Received:
    102
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    In the not too distant future
    This troll makes Cruiser look like vox.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by