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

[Jangofett]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

A guy asked if my shoes were Allen Edmonds today. I said, "no, they are Edward Green." "Ah," he said, "Allen Edmonds, Edward Green and Kenneth Cole all make very good shoes."

Did you punch him in the face for besmirching EG and even AE for putting KC in their hallowed company?

 

[TRA8324]

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

A guy asked if my shoes were Allen Edmonds today. I said, "no, they are Edward Green." "Ah," he said, "Allen Edmonds, Edward Green and Kenneth Cole all make very good shoes."

That is aggravating. At least you got somewhat of a compliment though. I have yet to receive a compliment on my whiskey shell EG wingtips despite receiving multiple compliments on my beater Bass suede wingtips.

 

[Klobber]

Originally Posted by Patek14

By the way, the most humorous part of this thread is how everybody is viewing AEs as a cheapo shoe and EGs, JLs, Vass, etc as expensive. Since when is $325 for a pair of shoes cheap? What planet are you guys living on?!?! Most guys spend 50 bucks on a pair of rubber soled "dress" shoes they were somewhere between 2 and 5 times a week.

Very good post. I agree, the overwhelming majority of guys purchase their shoes from lower end department stores like JC Pennys, Macy's or Kohls. They get $50 - $100 cheap rubber sole shoes, which frankly are further away from the quality of AE than AE is itself from JL, EG, VASS, etc.

Even those guys purchasing from Nordstrom, Saks etc plump for Kenneth Cole, Hugo Boss (luxury to uninformed masses), Cole Haan, or at a real push, a pair of half decent shoes (i.e. Bruno Magli, Testoni etc) at a discount ... All these dress shoes have something in common, they can cost less than $250. *** I know Bruno Magli comes in with MSRP of $350+, but Im always seeing them on sale.

Only around 15 - 20% of the working population would even consider spending more than $250 for dress shoes. That is the base AE, Alden etc would find their sales ticking over.

I believe the percentage of those willing to spend $500 or over are down to 5% - 10% and most those people would jump on the Prada, Armani, Ferragamo or Gucci gravy train since they are brands they consider luxury.

The overwhelmingly small percentage of the population (< 2%) would even consider blowing $1000 plus on John Lobbs etc... and out of this small percentage, many would consider Louis Vuitton to be the highest quality luxury label when in fact LV are some way away from the absolute top end.

Of course these numbers are speculative - I do not know the % but it makes it easier to get my point across.

In generic context, calling AE shoes for the poverty stricken man is most hilarious

! Not unless a persons version of poverty is to earn less than $300K a year!

 

[Jangofett]

You have to admit what we are engaged in, is actually an extreme hobby.
How many of us here, owns 20 to 30 pairs of shoes, which no matter how you cut it, is more than sufficient to last one person his entire lifetime.

Not only do we buy 1000 dollar shoes, we buy many pairs of them.
A normal rich person, a millionaire, will probably buy one pair from Gucci and be done with it. And he wont even buy shoe trees.

We are like those nuts who are not satisfied with 1 or 2 tattoos, think its a great idea to tattoo their face as well.

 

[miurasv]

Most people here in UK think shoes like Loake are the top end brand of shoes with brands like Clarks being perceived as high quality at reasonable but certainly not cheap prices.

 

[Archivist]

Jesus, what a depressing thread.

 

[Ace_Face]

From a recent article in The Atlantic entitled "Secret Fears of the Super Rich":

"A vast body of psychological evidence shows that the pleasures of consumption wear off through time and depend heavily on one's frame of reference. Most of us, for instance, occasionally spoil ourselves with outbursts of deliberate and perhaps excessive consumption: a fancy spa treatment, dinner at an expensive restaurant, a shopping spree. In the case of the very wealthy [or SFers], such forms of consumption can become so commonplace as to lose all psychological benefit: constant luxury is, in a sense, no luxury at all."

 

[Nicola]

Originally Posted by Quadcammer

women couldn't care less, are you guys serious?

.


You need to get out more. I know women who can spot better shoes from across a room. Problem is half the time you feel like you should hold on tight to your wallet

 

[Fraiche]

Guys, let's all be honest.

It's all about one thing and we all just wanna lie about it: Vanity.

It's cool. I'll admit it. **** looks good, feels good and I still don't give a **** that I'm blowing money I know could be put to better use.

(But for real, watching youtube videos of the EG factory of some old white guy work on shoes who's been doing it for 40 years is quite comforting to know the money's going somewhere worth it.)

 

[HRoi]

Originally Posted by Jangofett

You have to admit what we are engaged in, is actually an extreme hobby. How many of us here, owns 20 to 30 pairs of shoes, which no matter how you cut it, is more than sufficient to last one person his entire lifetime. Not only do we buy 1000 dollar shoes, we buy many pairs of them. A normal rich person, a millionaire, will probably buy one pair from Gucci and be done with it. And he wont even buy shoe trees.
yeah, and this is typical of hobbyist forums - both the behavior itself and the warped sense of reality it imparts to its readers. it gets worse though - i'm buying a car in the next month or so and have started to lurk the car enthusiast forums...so i'm starting to get depressed because now it seems like everyone in the world drives a damn Porsche 911 or Lambo except me

 

[Jangofett]

Originally Posted by HRoi

yeah, and this is typical of hobbyist forums - both the behavior itself and the warped sense of reality it imparts to its readers.

it gets worse though - i'm buying a car in the next month or so and have started to lurk the car enthusiast forums...so i'm starting to get depressed because now it seems like everyone in the world drives a damn Porsche 911 or Lambo except me

Well, at least you aint the second Jay Leno.
Heard he drives an old fire engine around town!

 

[Reevolving]

Originally Posted by Quadcammer

But seriously, I've met and dated women ranging from the young, wealthy fashion-obsessed, to older, sophisticated banker types, and everything in between, and the most popular pair of shoes among these women was a pair of brown Alfred Sargent Chathams. Cost about $250..

This foots with my research here:
http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=211096

Originally Posted by Klobber

Only around 15 - 20% of the working population would even consider spending more than $250 for dress shoes.

Try 1%

 

[Shoe fetishisisisist]

Originally Posted by pebblegrain

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

 

[Shoe fetishisisisist]

Originally Posted by miurasv

Most people here in UK think shoes like Loake are the top end brand of shoes with brands like Clarks being perceived as high quality at reasonable but certainly not cheap prices.


Loake are poo, lots off corrected grain, and found in outlets, horses for courses but i personally wouldn't touch em

 

[miurasv]

Originally Posted by Shoe fetishisisisist

Loake are poo, lots off corrected grain, and found in outlets, horses for courses but i personally wouldn't touch em

I've got quite a few Polished Binder Church's shoes which are corrected grain. I like them. Did you buy a pair of brogue boots after? Just saw your thread enquiring about Loake Burfords. Grenson Fred looks good.