Time to move up in shoe quality advise please

[cptjeff]

Originally Posted by Mr.Big

Nobody but a complete loser would want to wear a 20 yo shoe and besides an AE will last just as long as a $1500 shoe. And that's aside from the fact that your foot continues to grow slowly in length even after you are fully grown. If you bought a shoe at 30 by the time you're 50 (20 years later) you would need a size at least 1/2 or even more longer. Go ahead wear a shoe a 1/2 or more too small at 50 and you'll soon be crippled with plantar fasciitis.
You are quite wrong.

 

[emc894]

Originally Posted by Mr.Big

Nobody but a complete loser would want to wear a 20 yo shoe and besides an AE will last just as long as a $1500 shoe. And that's aside from the fact that your foot continues to grow slowly in length even after you are fully grown. If you bought a shoe at 30 by the time you're 50 (20 years later) you would need a size at least 1/2 or even more longer. Go ahead wear a shoe a 1/2 or more too small at 50 and you'll soon be crippled with plantar fasciitis.
Agree to disagree. Expensive shoes are a luxury, no doubt, but in my eyes a lot smarter of one than buying a $2,000 TV or computer instead of a $500 model. At least better, cheaper versions won't be out in 6 months. I've never heard of a foot continuing to grow, that may well be true, but I have heard of many shoes owned for 20 years or more, and plan to wear mine that long. I guess I am a complete loser. The shoe only gets more comfortable (plantar fasciitis not withstanding

) Here is Prince Charles' shoe in 2009. You can see he has actually patched the leather, because it if very old.

 

[habanos]

Prince Charles needs an upgrade. His shoes look like a pair of old corrected grain Loakes! I believe it is fine to wear shoes for as many years as you like but when they look stolen out of a mausoleum it is time for a new pair.

 

[emc894]

I agree, it was an extreme example. But as a public figure who collects his salary from taxpayers to do nothing, its nice to see him get his money's worth. And his pants a are too wide. EDIT: better pic, definitely strange looking.

 

[hendrix]

Originally Posted by Kauai

I would suggest Edward Green and John Lobb.

From personal experience I have spent a huge amount of money over the last 6 months moving in small steps from Allen Edmunds level quality to EG and JL. In the process I have purchased a ton of intermediate shoes I am unlikely to wear and will probably sell at a loss. It took a while to get over the conceptual hurdle of buying $1K+ shoes, but it is possible to find them on sale or occasionally from unlikely buyers who bought the wrong size. I have also spent on a fair amount on shoes that don't quite fit so I would also suggest finding a store to try on shoes and make sure they fit rather than buying new models untested. Now if only I could get as motivated to post shoes I should sell as I do to buy new shoes

I was going to +1 this, and then i read the below post, which i'll also +1. Distinctive shoes such as Alden shell longwings, Peal Co bucks, Trickers boots etc come in the mid-range and are unlikely to get "subbed out" upon the addition of a pair of JLs.

Originally Posted by TheWGP

You know, this is a good post and a good point - but there's something to be said for having an understanding of what differentiates makes and qualities. I'm not saying go crazy with AE or Loakes or whatever - but not everyone ends up wanting *nothing* but EG/JL/G&G/etc. For example, I happen to think a pair or two of Alden shells is an interesting addition to anyone's collection, if only to know what the whole shell conversation is about. Similarly for understanding benchgrade vs. handgrade and so on. After all, everyone needs some rainy day shoes.

p.s. if you wear EG/JL/G&G as your rainy day shoes, I hate you.

 

[JSSM]

Originally Posted by Mr.Big

It would be a bit ridiculous for a guy living in some small flat, driving a Toyota and making only $100k a year to be buying shoes in the ne plus ultra range which are bought by people living in mansions and driving Bentleys.
You clearly haven't slummed it down at $100k for a while. It can buy far more than than a small apartment and Toyota. Even so, his small flat (which suggests he'd not married with kids) and Toyota give him a mostly disposable income (and probably greater than many people earning multiple times more).

 

[fritzl]

Originally Posted by comrade

I would consult Fritzl posts and his "Operation Paprika".
He is an expert on the important Austro-Hungarian school of footwear.
Offhand, these include, Vass, Balint, St Crispins, Materna, Scheer, etc.
For a lower price point than these Ludwig Reiter is worth looking at.
Their prices are about the same as high-end C&J line, I think.

you're welcome.

i would recommend materna.

 

[DerekS]

Originally Posted by Mr.Big

Nobody but a complete loser would want to wear a 20 yo shoe and besides an AE will last just as long as a $1500 shoe.
And that's aside from the fact that your foot continues to grow slowly in length even after you are fully grown. If you bought a shoe at 30 by the time you're 50 (20 years later) you would need a size at least 1/2 or even more longer. Go ahead wear a shoe a 1/2 or more too small at 50 and you'll soon be crippled with plantar fasciitis.

I suppose im a complete loser then. I have a pair of ferragamos that are almost that old that my dad stopped wearing and passed to me. They still look brand new...well cared for shoes dont age.

 

[Church's Goer]

The same way that your ears and nose will be bigger.

QUOTE]

Ears and noses are made of cartilage, unlike feet, which are made of bone. I'm guessing you have had a cauliflowered foot before too?