$1000 Shoes

[BrooksLauren77]

Most shoes mentioned in your reply cost north of $300.

The best shoe he can get is used vintage Florsheim Imperial Kenmoor in Cordovan. Usually runs about $150 on eBay. Awesome shitkicker.

I phrased that poorly perhaps, but I said they cost at least 600 and then gave suggestions for shoes in the sub 300 range. That said, I agree with your Kenmoor endorsement which I mentioned as well.

 

[JubeiSpiegel]

The worse of arguments are usually just simply misunderstandings. That is usually the case with this subject on SF...

 

[BrooksLauren77]

I'm going to be lazy and just recycle content from this thread http://www.styleforum.net/t/434716/quality-mens-shoes-under-500:

- Jack Erwin: http://www.jackerwin.com/ -- they are in the $200 and have received decent enough reviews.

- Grenson: http://www.grenson.co.uk/ - reliable and in the $300 range. Widely available (you can find them in Club Monacos).

- Loding: http://www.loding.ca/ -- shoes look great, and the pitch is they are $500 for any pair they sell, and they don't have any sales. Remarkably, they have a retail shop in Toronto but not anywhere else in North America.

- Absolutely check out J. Fitzaptrick - http://www.jfitzpatrickfootwear.com/

- Also check out: http://www.scarosso.com/en/ - German dudes who started this shoe company not too long ago.

$500? really? Most shoes I see on the (Canadian) site are in the 300 range.

I thought Grensons were derided nowadays?

 

[BrooksLauren77]

The worse of arguments are usually just simply misunderstandings. That is usually the case with this subject on SF...

I guess it can be expected, given the extent to which we fetishize shoes on the forum.

 

[lee_44106]



It's obvious now that OP has done little to no research.
.

+10000

Another friggin newbie who is too lazy to do any research or reading and has that feed me instantly mentality.

The whole forum is being clogged with these lazy neophytes and their stupid questions, driving away all the good posters.

What a shame.

 

[BrooksLauren77]

+10000

Another friggin newbie who is too lazy to do any research or reading and has that feed me instantly mentality.

The whole forum is being clogged with these lazy neophytes and their stupid questions, driving away all the good posters.

What a shame.

My cynical side makes me think the OP is an inflammatory troll after thinking about it a bit. Styleforum is rather easy to troll.

 

[DWFII]



I'm afraid that I don't really understand what the point of your earlier comment was. The original poster could have phrased their post better but, in essence, they were asking for advice on cheaper shoes that were of decent quality, as they didn't want to spend $700 or $1000 on shoes. 

I guess you didn't understand this then either...

. Where else can I trust shoes to be manufactured that range from [COLOR=FF0000]$100-$300[/COLOR]? I could go pickup some AE's for $350 a piece but even those are rather expensive..
Thanks,
Alex

You then chime in and say that "the unspoken premise [is] that you don't need to look into it further; that "good enough" is indeed the same as "good." At which point...in my view...asking which shoe to buy here on SF is not significantly different than asking the shoe salesman at Walmart."

If that's the case, then let's close the thread because there's no point in making any suggestions to the OP as it seems to me that what you're saying is that unless he saves up his money until he can buy some hand-welted shoes, he might as well just buy any old rubbish.

I didn't say that at all. Again you have a comprehension problem. What I said was that he...or anyone here...that comes looking for advice about shoes without knowing anything about what makes a good shoe; and with preconceived bias about what shoes are worth; or what "quality," or "good" is...esp. without knowing what better and best are...might as well ask the shoe salesman. Because the people here on SF who share that subjective and blinkered opinion aren't going to be able to tell him, much less be inclined to tell him, any more than he already knows or believes. Nor any more than the shoe salesman can or will tell him.

If for no other reason than without objective knowledge, we're all just salesmen ourownselves.

--

 

[DWFII]



I called you a master cordwainer. take the compliment as you really know your material. however, the simple truth is you appear as an arrogant prick and out of touch with reality with how you describe inferior products from high end English mass manufacturers. it comes through quite clearly in your writing.

and BTW, I just cited facts on the materials used in mainline allen Edmonds shoes, which can be bought for ~100-$150. you did not and cannot dispute the facts I've listed.

In my view the arrogant pricks are the ones who have never got their hands dirty, never seen a shoe from the inside out, never paid their dues and yet some how feel entitled to advise others about things they know noting about. Who pretend to knowledge that they do not have and have never earned.

You "cited facts"...what facts? Have you ever torn any shoe apart...and tried to put it back together? Unless you're in the Trade I doubt you'd know the difference between leatherboard and leather.

Is saying that arrogant? Or is it simply the truth?

And here's a little inconvenient fact that may have escaped your notice, despite many repetitions--I don't talk about specific makers or models. But FWIW, every RTW maker has a top of the line model that they may put leather into and every maker has a bottom line model that they put shoddy into. It doesn't signify...unless you're in the Trade you're in no position to evaluate.

But again, where do your "facts' come from? Experience? Hard work? Paying your dues? Or are you simply parroting something you've heard or read or run across on the Internet, and wanted desperately to believe because believing it makes it easier for you?

The best and the most foolish thing I do on this forum is believe that people are really interested in learning more about the things they say...or pretend...they care about.

The "best" because there really are people like that here and I can sometimes offer them insights and knowledge that they couldn't easily get anywhere else.

The "most foolish" because there are many who are here only to pontificate (usually about anything and everything, esp. things they know nothing about); and crow (implicitly or otherwise) about how much money they spent on items of clothing; how exclusive their purchase was; and/or how much less money they paid for something that they personally cannot distinguish from more expensive items and so assume that no one else can either. Which is just another form of power trip.

These are the people who "know the price of everything and the value of nothing." They don't value work... not even so far as to research the subjects they talk about...and they don't respect the experiences and knowledge of people who do work. They feel entitled to respect they haven't earned simply because they exist. Talk about arrogant pricks.

This is the "don't confuse me with the truth" gang and the less they know about anything the more vociferous they become.

And the happier they are.

--

 

[Journeyman]

I guess you didn't understand this then either...

I didn't say that at all. Again you have a comprehension problem. What I said was that he...or anyone here...that comes looking for advice about shoes without knowing anything about what makes a good shoe; and with preconceived bias about what shoes are worth; or what "quality," or "good" is...esp. without knowing what better and best are...might as well ask the shoe salesman. Because the people here on SF who share that subjective and blinkered opinion aren't going to be able to tell him, much less be inclined to tell him, anymore that he already knows or believes. Nor anymore than the shoe salesman can or will tell him.

If for no other reason that without objective knowledge, we're all just salesmen ourownselves.

--

To be frank, someone who asks for advice on what shoes to get for $300 isn't looking for a lecture on shoemaking techniques.

The OP has already been told to avoid corrected-grain shoes with cemented soles. Bombarding him with information about the interior construction of shoes will probably do more harm than good as he will think, "Holy mackerel, I didn't ask for a technical lecture, I just asked for a few brand recommendations".

The advantage of coming to a place like SF is that there are people here who are able to weigh up what a person is looking for, and the possible brands and price points that might match what the person is looking for, and make recommendations based on that.

Clearly we disagree on this point, but I don't think that it is necessary to give someone a technical lecture on the finer points of shoe construction so as to make such recommendations. Isn't it sufficient to just tell the person asking for a recommendation that they should steer away from certain features, look for other features, and that certain brands will include those reasonable features at a particular price point?

 

[chogall]

I'm not denying that there is a heirarchy. No-one is denying that there is a heirarchy.

However, as others have now pointed out, Loake and (as far as I'm aware) AE have stacked leather heels and leather insoles and in Loake's 1880 line, are made of calf leather rather than corrected grain leather.

I'm afraid that I don't really understand what the point of your earlier comment was. The original poster could have phrased their post better but, in essence, they were asking for advice on cheaper shoes that were of decent quality, as they didn't want to spend $700 or $1000 on shoes.

You then chime in and say that "the unspoken premise [is] that you don't need to look into it further; that "good enough" is indeed the same as "good." At which point...in my view...asking which shoe to buy here on SF is not significantly different than asking the shoe salesman at Walmart."

If that's the case, then let's close the thread because there's no point in making any suggestions to the OP as it seems to me that what you're saying is that unless he saves up his money until he can buy some hand-welted shoes, he might as well just buy any old rubbish. In my opinion, that's not right. Sure, Loake's 1880 line isn't as good as Vass, nor as good as your boots, but they are undeniably better than the shoes that most men wear and they are within the OP's price range so it's therefore worthwhile suggesting them to the OP.

There's a difference between buying shoes to the spec vs. buying "BMW" level shoes at $100-$300.

 

[Dandy Wonka]

Check this:

http://parisiangentleman.co.uk/2014...ons-the-2014-ready-to-wear-mens-shoes-review/

 

[DWFII]



To be frank, someone who asks for advice on what shoes to get for $300 isn't looking for a lecture on shoemaking techniques. 

The OP has already been told to avoid corrected-grain shoes with cemented soles. Bombarding him with information about the interior construction of shoes will probably do more harm than good as he will think, "Holy mackerel, I didn't ask for a technical lecture, I just asked for a few brand recommendations". 

The advantage of coming to a place like SF is that there are people here who are able to weigh up what a person is looking for, and the possible brands and price points that might match what the person is looking for, and make recommendations based on that.

Clearly we disagree on this point, but I don't think that it is necessary to give someone a technical lecture on the finer points of shoe construction so as to make such recommendations. Isn't it sufficient to just tell the person asking for a recommendation that they should steer away from certain features, look for other features, and that certain brands will include those reasonable features at a particular price point? 

What technical details?...post some quotes from me in this thread to that effect! I never mentioned Goodyear welting, I never spoke about nails versus pegs, chain stitching versus lock stitching, handwax versus thread lube....etc..

And maybe the problem is, as several others have mentioned here, is if the OP...or any other inquirer...doesn't want to know even the basics about the materials his shoes are made of, he might as well be buying Crocs. they're "good," too.

“I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.” --Abraham Lincoln

And sure, he will find like minded folk here on SF...as you and others have so ably demonstrated. But it is the blind leading the blind. Although anyone so dependent on other people's opinions to make decisions about their clothing is, I agree, a ripe and inviting target for those seeking converts to their own version of the "cult of ignorance" that Asimov so aptly described.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”― Søren Kierkegaard

 

[dieworkwear]



I didn't say that at all. Again you have a comprehension problem. What I said was that he...or anyone here...that comes looking for advice about shoes without knowing anything about what makes a good shoe; and with preconceived bias about what shoes are worth; or what "quality," or "good" is...esp. without knowing what better and best are...might as well ask the shoe salesman. Because the people here on SF who share that subjective and blinkered opinion aren't going to be able to tell him, much less be inclined to tell him, anymore that he already knows or believes. Nor anymore than the shoe salesman can or will tell him.

I agree, DWF, but sometimes a dude is new to clothes and just looking for an accessible way in. That includes both time and money. Meaning, he doesn't want to have to read really long posts about construction and wade through all the technical details. He also doesn't want to spend a lot of money.

People have limited time and resources, so they allocate to the things that are important to them. If, at some point, he decides he's really interested in shoes, he can learn more and spend more money. For the meantime, however, having an easy and accessible way into something better is nice. And practical for a beginner. Insisting that he spend more time and money is often just discouraging, if not outright turning people away.

Incidentally, I've recently stalled on the purchase of a new camera for just this reason. The mountain of information and costs just means I delay and delay a new purchase. Keep feeling I should know more and more before I really plunk down some money. In reality though, I should just buy something, play with it, and learn as I go. If I enjoy the hobby, I'll invest more time and money, rather than freeze up from having purchased anything at all because the amount of knowledge and money required feels too daunting.

Clothes are the same way.

 

[DWFII]



I agree, DWF, but sometimes a dude is new to clothes and just looking for an accessible way in. That includes both time and money. Meaning, he doesn't want to have to read really long posts about construction and wade through all the technical details. He also doesn't want to spend a lot of money.

People have limited time and resources, so they allocate to the things that are important to them. If, at some point, he decides he's really interested in shoes, he can learn more and spend more money. For the meantime, however, having an easy and accessible way into something better is nice. And practical for a beginner. Insisting that he spend more time and money is often just discouraging, if not outright turning people away.

Incidentally, I've recently stalled on the purchase of a new camera for just this reason. The mountain of information and costs just means I delay and delay a new purchase. Keep feeling I should know more and more before I really plunk down some money. In reality though, I should just buy something, play with it, and learn as I go. If I enjoy the hobby, I'll invest more time and money, rather than freeze up from having purchased anything at all because the amount of knowledge and money required feels too daunting.

Clothes are the same way.

You know when people aren't falling into fits of hysteria or indulging in ignorant hyperbole, they see that I've never said anything that contradicts you or your position. One of my first responses in this thread was advice to the OP to first figure out what "good" meant to him. All else is beside the point. If "good" means low price, so be it. If good involves some degree of quality qua quality, then low end shoes might not be exactly what he's looking for.

I've made that point repeatedly.

At the same time, my perspective is from someone who knows shoes and shoemaking...and the Trade...from the inside out. From the perspective of actually having done the work and understood the connections and implications. Of all the people posting to this forum, and esp. to this thread, very very few, if any, have the same unique insights that are acquired by someone doing this for a lifetime. Unlike many others here I don't consider myself a savant or a guru of haute couture. I'm the slob you see at Walmart looking for a new pipe wrench to do a little home repair. But that's the thing, see...I don't pretend. I don't pretend that I am qualified to talk about anything but what I know. And what I know is shoemaking.

People have priorities that are different than mine. I'm not telling them what to wear or what to buy. I don't criticize square toed shoes. Some people like them but to me they're just shoes--to be appreciated as shoes and not as icons of sophistication.

All I do is analyze the objective differences.The pros and cons. "I (sic) report, you decide."

--

 

[dieworkwear]

I wonder how many people clicked this thread because it's titled "$1000 Shoes," only to see that we're debating Loake.