Why don't cheap shoes have sleeker looking lasts?

[Liquidus]

I was wondering this today. It seems like all the cheap shoes I see people wearing have terrible shapes. Surely it doesn't cost anymore to have a sleeker last than a bulky one? Do shoe manufacturers think that they won't sell as well to the general public?

 

[landshark]

Probably to fit a larger variety of sizes. Same reason for low armholes, fuller trousers, etc.

 

[ThatGuy]

Fat people need fat feet?


I don't know

 

[blahman]

You see cheap shoes people wear have terrible last because people who buy them have terrible taste.

 

[CYstyle]

the mass majority like square toed duck bill shoes and prefer that to sleeker shoes.

 

[Jangofett]

Probably because they don't care and sleeker looking last probably mean the shoes' sizing should fit into certain international sizing standards.

But with cheap production and fake leather, your size 9D shoes will over time stretch to 10.5E, making them look and feel like Crocs (not the animal), therefore pissing you, as the customer, even more.

BTW I see some of the cheaper shoes are beginning to copy some of the other label's styles, which look great, especially with patina on toe caps, but on closer look, look like some frigging fake leather with the fronts simply coloured. Like some cheap floozy with too much makeup but looks horrible when you are sober.

 

[bringusingoodale]

Originally Posted by landshark

Probably to fit a larger variety of sizes. Same reason for low armholes, fuller trousers, etc.

I am convinced this isn't it when it comes to shoes (and I even have my doubts when it comes to jackets).

Some factory in the Philippines got a design and order for some clunky looking shoes a long time ago and they pump them out without a second thought. There isn't a team of designers working on the look of shoes for this coming fall or winter or whatever, so all you get is the same cheap shoes. Cheap shoes, like cheap things, are no one's concern.

 

[either/or]

Originally Posted by Liquidus

I was wondering this today. It seems like all the cheap shoes I see people wearing have terrible shapes. Surely it doesn't cost anymore to have a sleeker last than a bulky one?

I think you just described the raison d'être for RTW.

 

[click here]

Cheap shoes in Japan has it

 

[pvrhye]

Originally Posted by click here

Cheap shoes in Japan has it

They have cheap shoes in Korea too, but they're expensive anyway (just to **** with you).

 

[dasai]

Originally Posted by click here

Cheap shoes in Japan has it
True, inasmuch as there are nicer-looking cheap shoes, but they have crappy pointy ones too. I think the problem in Japan is that so many cheap shoes are just so unexceptional, but then again, that probably just goes with the territory.

 

[DocHolliday]

Square was in, now it's going out. Such is the nature of fashion. People bought the square toes, so they made more of them. I overheard a guy not long ago talking about how he would never consider a shoe without a square toe.

I suspect part of the reason they became popular is because they seemed more youthful than traditional shapes. We sometimes see traditional shapes deemed old-man shoes even around here.

 

[Holdfast]

The cheaper a shoe is, the more it is to be either:

a) worn by people who don't care what shoes look like, and just want something "comfortable"

or

b) worn by people looking for fast/disposable fashion

Group A - at least in the West - tend to unconsciously associate "comfortable" with "not tight" and so with "bulky/blobby last". So the shoes for this group are unashamedly utilitarian in design with no pretence at being sleek. If the shoe looked sleek, this group probably wouldn't try it on, automatically assuming it won't fit and would be uncomfortable.

Group B may or may not feature sleek lasts, depending on what is in fashion. But even when sleek shoes are in vogue, these fashion-forward shoes tend to have other exaggerated features that make them unpleasant to look at. Still, you may occasionally find a diamond in the rough in this category.

 

[Quadcammer]

have you not looked at aldo?

Those things are sleek as hell and about as cheap as it gets.

They don't look very good...but hey, if thats what you want.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Zara has sleek looking ugly cheap shoes. So do a lot of no-name places around Europe.