$300 Allen Edmonds vs $1000+ Lobb or Edward Green

I don't know much about shoes and I'm trying to learn. What makes the British shoes worth 4-5 times more than Allen Edmonds based on price? What makes them so much more expensive/better? Do they last longer? Do they look better for a longer period of time? Or is it simply the look/build?

I've compared the Purple Label Ralph Lauren made in England shoes $1k + to their Made in Italy/US counterparts at half the price. They look more like a work of art than something I want to pound on the pavement as I walk . Other than the glorified look/build, why should you pay that much more for those shoes?

Originally Posted by Tony Romo

Click to expand...

I don't know much about shoes and I'm trying to learn. What makes the British shoes worth 4-5 times more than Allen Edmonds based on price? What makes them so much more expensive/better? Do they last longer? Do they look better for a longer period of time? Or is it simply the look/build?

I've compared the Purple Label Ralph Lauren made in England shoes $1k + to their Made in Italy/US counterparts at half the price. They look more like a work of art than something I want to pound on the pavement as I walk

. Other than the glorified look/build, why should you pay that much more for those shoes?

You've already answered your question. Better styling/build/quality/brand

Same reason someone would drive a $500k Ferrari vs $25k Prius, even though both will get you where you need to go.

Answer: SEX

this question again

Originally Posted by nelly

Click to expand...

Same reason someone would drive a $500k Ferrari vs $25k Prius, even though both will get you where you need to go.

Answer: SEX

this.

first, you need to recognize the law of diminishing returns. for almost all products, whatever is "the best/most expensive" is never going to be 5x as good as the "good" stuff that its 5x as expensive than.

second, you ever hear those stories about people walking around in their 15 year old Allen Edmonds shoes?

that should answer your question

First, I am not a shoemaker and I don't claim that I am aware of all the technical details which differentiate those shoes. However, I can clearly see the higher degree of perfection regarding materials (leather) and finishing (stitching, colors, soles) when I compare a pair of Edward Greens to a pair of C&J Benchgrades and those again to a pair of Allen Edmonds. So, this will justify some percentage of the price premium. Furthermore, there is more manual labor involved in the making of a pair of EGs which obviously does not come for free.

Then there is the question of styling which is always a matter of taste. Still I think many people would agree that some of the lasts and most designs of EG are more refined / sophisticated than the styles of AE which might indicate that more work and money was invested into the design of one model resulting again in a higher price. I admit that I am speculating here ;-)

The EG is like a Rolls Royce, the C&J like a BMW and the AE like a Toyota. All bring 4 people from A to B in the same time, but at different levels of luxury and at different price points. This being said, I own shoes from all three makers each having its place and purpose.

Originally Posted by makewayhomer

Click to expand...

second, you ever hear those stories about people walking around in their 15 year old Allen Edmonds shoes?

that should answer your question

well actually yes...

I love my Lobbs...leather, stitching, shape, etc. all better can any of my AEs.

Lobbs and Green are in a completely different league to Allen Edmonds.

But I look at things differently.

For a pair of Lobbs, I could buy perhaps 4 pairs of Edmonds. If I need shoes just to take me to work and back, AE's work out well. Just how horrendous are Edmonds anyway? Everytime I go to my local Patrick James, I always drool over the pair of leather soled tan brown wingtips they have on display. Are they really that bad shoes? I do not think so.

Being the typical bourgeois, I tend to invest money on higher end goods so invariably end up breaking conventional wisdom by purchasing Lobbs, Green, and occasional Vuittons without the logos. However, I have about 6 pairs of AE's, and routinely replace them with other AE's - they are my workhorse shoes where at least half the week you will find AE on my feet.

I have all three makes, among others. At the end of the day, and at the end of the decade, the shoes I love most are the ones that fit the best. It's a matter of the lasts, more than the looks, in my opinion. Some of the old AE lasts fit me as well as a custom made last, and I collect and hoard those. Similarly, there are EG lasts which fit very well, yet do not fit better than the AEs. So I will very often choose a pair of less expensive shoes for a day, or for a month of travel, while leaving the more expensive pairs in the closet.

Further, after 15 or 20 years of wear, how much you've paid for something becomes irrelevant. You will probably have paid as much or more than the initial cost in maintenance.

I'd rather have one pair of EG than 3 pairs of AE. Not trashing AE at all...but my personal incremental value (most of it emotional, I admit, but a significant part is aesthetics also) is well worth the higher cost.

I think if all innards of the shoes were held constant, the finishing and plain look of the leather, even on the most simple of shoe styles is enough to justify the price in my mind. It is hard to understand this based on most internet pictures, but if you see a high end shoe next to a mid-range shoe there is a huge difference.

Originally Posted by musicguy

Click to expand...

this question again

+1

If you can't tell any difference, then seriously, this is great ******* news. You can save $700 per pair of shoes and feel like the belle of the ball.

seriously