Mens shoes

[uberman]

Mall Walkers by Hush Puppies. Very comfortable and traditional. Try JC Penney mail order/internet.

Mall Walkers

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Because you can wear $20 jeans with a $550 pair of shoes, but not the reverse.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

Those are different arguments. The 10 year argument makes no sense. If you want something higher quality and are willing to pay for it or have some absurd eco policy about shoes, more power to you. But the logic that you should pay 7x as much for a pair of shoes because they will last 10 years makes no sense to me. Unless they are made of tungsten carbide, chances are good that you will end up spending more on the 10 year shoe at those prices.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

Those are different arguments. The 10 year argument makes no sense. If you want something higher quality and are willing to pay for it or have some absurd eco policy about shoes, more power to you. But the logic that you should pay 7x as much for a pair of shoes because they will last 10 years makes no sense to me. Unless they are made of tungsten carbide, chances are good that you will end up spending more on the 10 year shoe at those prices.

Most people don't want to go out and buy something shitty just so they can replace it soon afterwards. If you do, great, do that, nobody gives a fuck about your opinion in the matter, or whether you think "longevity" is important to you. It is important to the OP.

Additionally, the $50 shoe will look like a $50 shoe, like shit. If you want that, great, get it. Apparently OP doesn't.

I am sure I could go through your life and point out all sorts of stupidity.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

Those are different arguments. The 10 year argument makes no sense. If you want something higher quality and are willing to pay for it or have some absurd eco policy about shoes, more power to you. But the logic that you should pay 7x as much for a pair of shoes because they will last 10 years makes no sense to me. Unless they are made of tungsten carbide, chances are good that you will end up spending more on the 10 year shoe at those prices.

Most people don't want to go out and buy something shitty just so they can replace it soon afterwards. If you do, great, do that, nobody gives a fuck about your opinion in the matter, or whether you think "longevity" is important to you. It is important to the OP.

Additionally, the $50 shoe will look like a $50 shoe, like shit. If you want that, great, get it. Apparently OP doesn't.

I am sure I could go through your life and point out all sorts of stupidity.

Most people don't want to spend $400 on shoes. If you do, great, do that, nobody gives a fuck.

There are plenty of nice looking shoes for $50-75. If you just go into a shoe store at random you probably won't find them, though, because it involves actually waiting for a sale and not walking into a store with $8000 jeans and plopping 4 hundred dollar bills on the counter and asking for the pair of shoes that will be most likely to cost that much. Besides, since we are focused on the OP again, he didn't mention anything about it looking great.

Also, I have yet to buy a non-sneaker shoe that doesn't last longer than I care to wear it, and I haven't paid more than $100 for a pair of shoes my entire life. If you are still wearing the same shoes you paid $400 for 10 years ago, most likely they look like shit now since they were made with 90's fashion sense.

 

[CptObvious]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

Those are different arguments. The 10 year argument makes no sense. If you want something higher quality and are willing to pay for it or have some absurd eco policy about shoes, more power to you. But the logic that you should pay 7x as much for a pair of shoes because they will last 10 years makes no sense to me. Unless they are made of tungsten carbide, chances are good that you will end up spending more on the 10 year shoe at those prices.

Right now you can get a pair of Park Ave.'s from Shoebuy with the Live discount for ~$260. And you'd be hard pressed to find a pair of dress shoes for a professional business environment (cap toe, leather sole) for $50. I got my Bostonian Akron shoes for ~$65 (cheapest I could find to meet those specs), but I would not wear them all day because they are too uncomfortable. So if I had to wear a cap toe oxford everyday to work, I'd rather pay the $260 and not worry about them falling apart or being uncomfortable.

 

[compman25]

Clark's

 

[Doodoo]

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

Those are different arguments. The 10 year argument makes no sense. If you want something higher quality and are willing to pay for it or have some absurd eco policy about shoes, more power to you. But the logic that you should pay 7x as much for a pair of shoes because they will last 10 years makes no sense to me. Unless they are made of tungsten carbide, chances are good that you will end up spending more on the 10 year shoe at those prices.

Right now you can get a pair of Park Ave.'s from Shoebuy with the Live discount for ~$260. And you'd be hard pressed to find a pair of dress shoes for a professional business environment (cap toe, leather sole) for $50. I got my Bostonian Akron shoes for ~$65 (cheapest I could find to meet those specs), but I would not wear them all day because they are too uncomfortable. So if I had to wear a cap toe oxford everyday to work, I'd rather pay the $260 and not worry about them falling apart or being uncomfortable.

I actually had two pairs of the Bostonian Akron shoes...they looked like crap after about 8 months. The leather on them feels like plastic...if they're even real leather. I now have two pairs of Cole Haans and they've held up much better.

 

[LS21]

Originally posted by: torpid

Also, I have yet to buy a non-sneaker shoe that doesn't last longer than I care to wear it, and I haven't paid more than $100 for a pair of shoes my entire life. If you are still wearing the same shoes you paid $400 for 10 years ago, most likely they look like shit now since they were made with 90's fashion sense.

AE are not fad shoes. They are classic. meaning they withstand time. These are not running sneakers we're talking about. There are some things I would always like to have new, and other things I would like to have high quality because they are timeless

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Either Florsheim or Johnston and Murphy.

ZV

 

[Dulanic]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

Those are different arguments. The 10 year argument makes no sense. If you want something higher quality and are willing to pay for it or have some absurd eco policy about shoes, more power to you. But the logic that you should pay 7x as much for a pair of shoes because they will last 10 years makes no sense to me. Unless they are made of tungsten carbide, chances are good that you will end up spending more on the 10 year shoe at those prices.

Most people don't want to go out and buy something shitty just so they can replace it soon afterwards. If you do, great, do that, nobody gives a fuck about your opinion in the matter, or whether you think "longevity" is important to you. It is important to the OP.

Additionally, the $50 shoe will look like a $50 shoe, like shit. If you want that, great, get it. Apparently OP doesn't.

I am sure I could go through your life and point out all sorts of stupidity.

Most people don't want to spend $400 on shoes. If you do, great, do that, nobody gives a fuck.

There are plenty of nice looking shoes for $50-75. If you just go into a shoe store at random you probably won't find them, though, because it involves actually waiting for a sale and not walking into a store with $8000 jeans and plopping 4 hundred dollar bills on the counter and asking for the pair of shoes that will be most likely to cost that much. Besides, since we are focused on the OP again, he didn't mention anything about it looking great.

Also, I have yet to buy a non-sneaker shoe that doesn't last longer than I care to wear it, and I haven't paid more than $100 for a pair of shoes my entire life. If you are still wearing the same shoes you paid $400 for 10 years ago, most likely they look like shit now since they were made with 90's fashion sense.

While I may never pay $400 for shoes, the $50-$75 shoes just are not comfortable while still looking decent. I am a big rockport fan, they really are very very comfortable.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Because you can wear $20 jeans with a $550 pair of shoes, but not the reverse.

You wear Diesels?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

WorX rocks (Redwings) From someone who spends the entire day on their feet.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Because you can wear $20 jeans with a $550 pair of shoes, but not the reverse.

You wear Diesels?

No, I'm not a douche bag. I like Varvatos or Boss, etc... better (and not jeans either 😉). For the record, I do wear A|X jeans because they fit me really well, and nothing else.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: torpid

Also, I have yet to buy a non-sneaker shoe that doesn't last longer than I care to wear it, and I haven't paid more than $100 for a pair of shoes my entire life. If you are still wearing the same shoes you paid $400 for 10 years ago, most likely they look like shit now since they were made with 90's fashion sense.

AE are not fad shoes. They are classic. meaning they withstand time. These are not running sneakers we're talking about. There are some things I would always like to have new, and other things I would like to have high quality because they are timeless

The kid is a retard.

ROFL. I've got 4 guys around me, all wearing AE, that they have had for 10+ years (one is at 20 years). They look like they are brand new and they are the same shoe that's being sold today. They don't keep them around because they are economical, they keep them because they fit damn well, feel great, and look great, despite being older.

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid
So people are complaining that a $50 pair of shoes doesn't last 10 years, but their $350 pair of shoes does? BFD. You can buy 7 pair of $50 shoes in 10 years. Seems like a better deal to me.

Some people prefer quality over quantity. Besides, it's very wasteful to our resources to be throwing out so many shoes.

Those are different arguments. The 10 year argument makes no sense. If you want something higher quality and are willing to pay for it or have some absurd eco policy about shoes, more power to you. But the logic that you should pay 7x as much for a pair of shoes because they will last 10 years makes no sense to me. Unless they are made of tungsten carbide, chances are good that you will end up spending more on the 10 year shoe at those prices.

Right now you can get a pair of Park Ave.'s from Shoebuy with the Live discount for ~$260. And you'd be hard pressed to find a pair of dress shoes for a professional business environment (cap toe, leather sole) for $50. I got my Bostonian Akron shoes for ~$65 (cheapest I could find to meet those specs), but I would not wear them all day because they are too uncomfortable. So if I had to wear a cap toe oxford everyday to work, I'd rather pay the $260 and not worry about them falling apart or being uncomfortable.

I agree. Especially with the Bostonian part. Every pair of Bostonians I've owned I couldn't wear for long period of time. They were just too uncomfortable.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LS21

Originally posted by: torpid

Also, I have yet to buy a non-sneaker shoe that doesn't last longer than I care to wear it, and I haven't paid more than $100 for a pair of shoes my entire life. If you are still wearing the same shoes you paid $400 for 10 years ago, most likely they look like shit now since they were made with 90's fashion sense.

AE are not fad shoes. They are classic. meaning they withstand time. These are not running sneakers we're talking about. There are some things I would always like to have new, and other things I would like to have high quality because they are timeless

The kid is a retard.

ROFL. I've got 4 guys around me, all wearing AE, that they have had for 10+ years (one is at 20 years). They look like they are brand new and they are the same shoe that's being sold today. They don't keep them around because they are economical, they keep them because they fit damn well, feel great, and look great, despite being older.

Wow, you used ROFL and retard and completely illogical rebuttals to defend your moronic position. If you look above and read carefully (assuming you can read - doubtful), I noted that comfort and other signs of quality are a different argument. I wasn't even originally talking to you in the first place. I guess you were so defensive-minded about your $3000 collection of shoes that you felt I was attacking you. I addressed only the completely moronic logic that a longer lasting shoe is worth paying substantially more for, all other things being equal.

Also worth noting, since we are taking the gloves off here, is that the OP said he wanted a reasonably priced shoe. Nowhere on planet earth would someone consider $350 a reasonable price for a pair of shoes.

Also, shens on the 4 guys around you.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
While I may never pay $400 for shoes, the $50-$75 shoes just are not comfortable while still looking decent. I am a big rockport fan, they really are very very comfortable.

😕 I assume this means you think rockports don't look decent? You can easily get them for $50-75.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: torpid

Wow, you used ROFL and retard and completely illogical rebuttals to defend your moronic position. If you look above and read carefully (assuming you can read - doubtful), I noted that comfort and other signs of quality are a different argument. I wasn't even originally talking to you in the first place. I guess you were so defensive-minded about your $3000 collection of shoes that you felt I was attacking you. I addressed only the completely moronic logic that a longer lasting shoe is worth paying substantially more for, all other things being equal.

Also worth noting, since we are taking the gloves off here, is that the OP said he wanted a reasonably priced shoe. Nowhere on planet earth would someone consider $350 a reasonable price for a pair of shoes.

Also, shens on the 4 guys around you.

Wow, you go girl. I don't have a 3k collection, nor did I feel like you were attacking me. I think your point behind 7x50 is retarded and completely missing the point. *YOU* may think that $50 shoe looks as good, but I certainly don't.

I've worn many shoes, starting from the lowest to the highest. My AE Park Aves look far superior to any of them. They feel better than any shoe I've owned of any lower grade, including the J&M rubber soles I have on now that cost $120.

As far as I know, most people don't buy for planned obsolescense.

$350 for something that lasts 20+ years? Fine by me and I know many people who find it very reasonable, perhaps OP does.

Shens? Whatever sparky. I work midtown manhattan, check how many i-banks are there, JS80 and 3cho can verify.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: torpid

Wow, you used ROFL and retard and completely illogical rebuttals to defend your moronic position. If you look above and read carefully (assuming you can read - doubtful), I noted that comfort and other signs of quality are a different argument. I wasn't even originally talking to you in the first place. I guess you were so defensive-minded about your $3000 collection of shoes that you felt I was attacking you. I addressed only the completely moronic logic that a longer lasting shoe is worth paying substantially more for, all other things being equal.

Also worth noting, since we are taking the gloves off here, is that the OP said he wanted a reasonably priced shoe. Nowhere on planet earth would someone consider $350 a reasonable price for a pair of shoes.

Also, shens on the 4 guys around you.

Wow, you go girl. I don't have a 3k collection, nor did I feel like you were attacking me. I think your point behind 7x50 is retarded and completely missing the point. *YOU* may think that $50 shoe looks as good, but I certainly don't.

I've worn many shoes, starting from the lowest to the highest. My AE Park Aves look far superior to any of them. They feel better than any shoe I've owned of any lower grade, including the J&M rubber soles I have on now that cost $120.

As far as I know, most people don't buy for planned obsolescense.

$350 for something that lasts 20+ years? Fine by me and I know many people who find it very reasonable, perhaps OP does.

Shens? Whatever sparky. I work midtown manhattan, check how many i-banks are there, JS80 and 3cho can verify.

I assumed you had a 3k collection since you are advocating AE shoes so strongly and have here and in a prior thread suggested that about 7 pair of shoes is about right. I guess that'd be only $2500. So how many pair of AE that you are recommending the OP buy do you own exactly? And why aren't all your shoes AE shoes since you seem to think nothing below it is worth buying?

My only point about 7x50 was that you shouldn't buy a shoe solely because it will last longer if it costs a LOT more. Especially if it costs money due to required regular maintenance, I might add. I did later expand on that to note that most shoes I've owned do last a relatively long time, longer than the 2 months the OP indicated for example.

Since I don't have to limit my shoes to formal business attire (not sure if the OP does either, BTW), I have found plenty of extremely comfortable shoes that look decent enough. It did take a while, though, and involved returns and shopping around (see my first post in the thread). Maybe the really formal business attire shoes are only comfortable and properly supportive if you pay $300; if so then buy some by all means.

So when you say 4 guys around you, you mean somewhere in mid-town manhattan or what? If so I retract. If you mean within one cube or desk as you implied, I stand by my shens. The odds against that are astronomically low, unless your company somehow gets AE shoes at an enormous discount.

 

[RagingBITCH]

I like my Steve Maddens (about $60-80). It's not like I'm pairing my shoes with $400 pants and a $200 shirt.

In regards to $400 vs $50 - unless you're pairing those $400 shoes with $400 pants and $200 shirt, why bother spending that much money on shoes? No one is going to notice the difference anyway.

 

[BoomerD]

I don't see any shens in it at all. If LK works in the type of environment where spendy suits and shoes are the norm, they why wouldn't people buy nice, well made shoes?
I worked heavy construction. $400.+ White's work boots are the norm in the type of work I specialized in.
Sure, you have the occasional cheapskate who thinks that Red Wings are just as good, and that he can throw away $150-$200/pair every year or so, whereas I send my White's in for a rebuild. (costs about the same as a new pair of Red Wings, but the boots are FAR superior to anything Red Wing has to offer.)
If you work at MickeyD's, I doubt you'll find $300 shoes on anyone, but if you work in a job in finance, banking, stocks & bonds, etc., I'll bet they're much more common than you think.

 

[RKS]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
I like my Steve Maddens (about $60-80). It's not like I'm pairing my shoes with $400 pants and a $200 shirt.

In regards to $400 vs $50 - unless you're pairing those $400 shoes with $400 pants and $200 shirt, why bother spending that much money on shoes? No one is going to notice the difference anyway.

If you work with people that wear nice tailored suits and AE shoes; I'm sure they would notice if you walked in with your $50 Stride-Rite loafers. A good suit will cost you at least $500 so you wouldn't want cheap shoes or even a cheap shirt to ruin the get-up.

 

[ivan2]

full of high rollers in manhattan man, one day I was in an elevator with three guys, none of us were in suit, yet all three of them wears Daytona...