Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Mr. Moo, Feb 28, 2011.
Or, in other words, money well spent.
Anyone use Collonil products? I recently tried some of their leather conditioner cream and was impressed.
On a similar topic, is it just me, or do "cheap" shoes nowadays look far worse on average than they did even just a few years ago? I am fully aware that I may just be used to seeing nice shoes and can't see past them, but periodically I will walk through regular shoe stores at the mall or department stores just for fun, and I really think that the shoe industry is becoming more polarized. Cheap shoes seem to be getting worse, only reinforcing the cost-effectiveness of decently constructed shoes.
I look at other men around me who are wearing dress shoes that are clearly cemented average department store quality leather shoes, but they don't look that bad per se. They are usually black or dark brown, have a decent shine, and have all leather soles. They just aren't high-end shoes. I used to wear them too. I don't tend to see these types of shoes at stores anymore.
I have a pair of shoes in a box in my closet that I keep for fun that I've had since I was 18 years old. They are bench-made, from Spain, deerskin, leather soles and heels with rubber inserts. They are Blake stitched. I bought them at a shoe store that carries shoes of average quality, and I paid an average price for them. I wore them for about 12 years as my Sunday and dressy occasion shoes. They still have their original soles, and the uppers are still in great condition. During the same time frame, I also had a pair of brown Bostonians made from some corrected grain leather, but they sure didn't look like plastic. They had cemented leather soles with full rubber heels. They were made in Italy, and were average quality shoes found at average department stores.
Now, however, there seems to be this huge void between the lowest cost high-end shoes (Allen Edmonds, Cheaney, Loake 1880, etc.) and "cheap" shoes. Johnston and Murphy and Cole-Haan make a few models that may still fit into that middle-ground category, but they charge as much as you would pay for a pair of Allen Edmonds seconds, and they are far inferior in quality.
If I go down to my local Macy's right now, I'll find Bostonians, Stacy Adams, Florsheims, and a few Italian named shoes. They will be absolutely horrible looking, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have even given them a second glance even before I knew what a nice shoe was. They truely do look like they have a plastic coating on them if they are in fact made from leather, which most aren't. Most have a synthetic "looks like leather" sole that is made of some leather colored laboratory product.
The 'fit' issue can be a complicated one. The most comfortable 'shoes' I have had (and I am on my second pair) are Nike Air-Max. They are recommended by osteopathic surgeons for those with chronic back pain. This is an example, perhaps, of how excellence in fit doesn't automatically come with 'good' shoes. This is not, particularly, an endorsement of Nike trainers, nor a buying suggestion for people on this site, but just a point about fit and comfort.
Thank you for your comment.
I would also add that many biographies of well-to-do folks place as much importance, if not more, on the choices of styling their hair with little regard to costs. A good looking hair style/cut is probably the first area of a gaze before heading downward from the neck to shoes. It's all important.
My employer, when interviewing prospective candidates for positions, would judge each portion of an applicant's care of themselves toward the care they would provide to our clients and how they would care for the relationships of colleagues.
I agree that these incidental effects can take place when wearing nicer attire of any sort.
Fair enough. Apparently Cole-Haan uses some Nike Air technology in some of their "dress" shoes. Trainers aside, I'd go out on a limb and say that you have a better chance of a well fitting shoe by going high-end rather than with average department store brands.
There is a nice video I posted in a previous link on Pre-Maintenance: CLICK HERE
Yes, I agree that - trainers apart- it is likely that good shoes are likely to fit better than cheap ones. What I would do, though, is leave the door open on the issue. A certain type of cheap shoe might fit very well. Overall, though, the generalisation holds.
I have seen collections of 90 pairs of high quality shoes, boots, and loafers - all in Calfskin - by some who began rotating their items after they started with just a few in the early years. They have never chosen shell, have kept their calfskins in excellent condition, and have used the savings of Calfskin to purchase newer styles over the years. Shell will probably last many generations after you are dead. If you take care of the calfskin version, you may be pleased.
On the other hand, I have seen some pretty impressive shines in Shell that calfskin may never be able to match. Perhaps a mix of both would be good.
Thanks, David! I like the video.
Do you, or others, have any thoughts on using a neutral cream polish (saphir MDO) instead of a colour one?
I wouldn't be taking advice from an osteopathic surgeon-they practice interior medicine. Did you mean orthopedic surgeon?
Could be either one. Osteopathic surgeons are simply surgeons who went to an Osteopathic medical school rather than a traditional one. They practice Osteopathic medicine, which is a more holistic approach to healthcare. Any branch of medical practice, including Orthopedic surgery, may have Osteopathic doctors or surgeons. Using shoes to help back pain would definitely fall in line with Osteopathic approaches.
I'm not trying to put words in Munky's mouth though.
Is that the difference between a DO and an MD?
Separate names with a comma.