6 ms·

I got Alden shell cordovans, which are made with Horween leather, and I can already tell that they will last years longer than my other shoes. Don't spend $100

I got Alden shell cordovans, which are made with Horween leather, and I can already tell that they will last years longer than my other shoes. Don't spend $100 on shoes every year, spend $600 on shoes that will last for 10 years.

freehunter 12y ago
That's not always the best advice, though. What happens if my shoes get ruined after two years? I would have been better off with the cheaper shoes. What happens if my taste changes and I don't like boat shoes (or now I only like boat shoes)? I would have been better off with cheaper shoes. What happens if I lose a foot in an industrial accident? I would have been better off with cheaper shoes.
- shijie 12y ago
  One can argue "what-ifs" ad infinitum with no real efficacy or usefulness. Comments of this ilk are completely unhelpful. The parent comment is merely saying that, if one plans on wearing a type of shoe for an extended period of time (dress shoes like an Allen Edmonds Park Avenue, for example, have hardly changed in decades), one might as well buy the best, and have it last for a long time. One actually saves money by doing so.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - _delirium 12y ago
    > One actually saves money by doing so. This is what the disagreement is over, though: empirically, do most people taking this route save money, or do they end up spending more money in hopes of long-term savings that do not materialize? It depends strongly on the shoe, wearer, and various failure modes (and how repairable / expensive to repair each of those failure modes is). In my own case, I've generally found that the expensive shoes fail to save money, because even though they're more repairable, the cost of repairs eats up any savings, vs. just treating shoes as a disposable good (might be different if I lived somewhere with lower labor costs; around here even a simple resoling costs $50, and anything more involved starts at $100+). That might still be worth it if you prefer the nice shoes, don't like unnecessarily sending things to landfills, or other reasons, but for me, from a strictly cost standpoint I've found it hard to come out ahead.
    - galago 12y ago
      It took me a second to think through the premise that $600 dollar shoes might make economic sense. My guess is that people who wear $600 shoes don't walk to work, or really walk much of anywhere, at least not in their $600 shoes. So, they probably do last longer and fulfill the social signalling or whatever other purpose said shoes fulfill. I don't think anyone wears's shabby old 9 1/2 year old shoes that originally cost $600. I suspect people usually wear $600 shoes so that others can tell that they are not price-sensitive regarding footwear.
      - larrywright 12y ago
        I doubt it. People who want flashy shoes that people will notice spend money on more exotic brands, not Alden or Allen Edmonds. Shell cordovan is a bit unique amongst shoe leathers. It is valued by the people who wear it primarily because of the way it looks. Shell doesn't develop creases when you wear it, it develops "rolls". It also (at least in colors other than black, like Horween's famous Color 8), develops a patina that leather made from cow hide doesn't. It looks much better with age. I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old shell cordovan shoes for $100. They have seen lots of wear over the years, but are in great shape, and look amazing because of the afore-mentioned patina. That is why people pay that much for shell cordovan.
      - cmbaus 12y ago
        Cordovan is not a fussy material. It is meant to be worn hard, everyday.
      - hrktb 12y ago
        Obviously they don't walk in damaging environments, but you should be able to repair the sole if it gets used. Another thing to consider aside from price and looks is that the design (how it is supposed to react on your walk) is fundamentally different from "cheap" snickers. For instance it's way more rigid and doesn't twist. For some it helps their walking, for others it's an hinderance.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    But if you decide you will wear the same type of shoes for 10 years and you think you will save money by buying the $600 shoes only to find they actually fall apart after two years, you're now spending $300 per year versus $100 per year. That doesn't make economic sense. The only way to know they will last for 10 years is to actually wear them for 10 years. I think your comment is completely unhelpful, because you're dismissing my point by simply repeating what the other person said. "You save money because you save money". No, if your shoe gets destroyed before you've worn them for six years, you're losing money. You don't seem to have addressed that point at all.
- aneisf 12y ago
  You can say the same thing about any large purchase. Ultimately, you've lived long enough at this point to know your shoe wearing habits to some degree. If you're the type to wear a particular sneaker day in and day out and are disappointed with the way it falls apart, it might be worthwhile to invest in a better shoe. If you wear a pair of leather shoes once a year, it might make more sense not to splurge, but if you wear a cheap pair often they're going to wrinkle and dull very quickly. Do what makes sense for you, but there's no point in trivializing high-quality goods because you don't "get" them.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    Oh I'm not trying to trivialize it, and I do get it. I have some things in my life that I splurge on because I enjoy the higher quality. But I don't try to justify it as saving money, I justify it as buying something I want and can afford. I don't say I bought a $2000 MacBook because it will save money over a $500 laptop after I've used it for four years, I bought the MacBook because I like using it more than I like using a different laptop. Buy $600 shoes if you want. But it's not always going to make economic sense to do so. I have a pair of $60 dress shoes that I've owned and worn for eight years now and they still look fantastic. I just don't wear dress shoes that much.
- jdminhbg 12y ago
  Not sure what the point of downvoting this was. I personally prefer nicer and more expensive stuff a lot of the time, but the economic argument in favor of it rings hollow to me. Your dog can eat $600 shoes as easily as $40 beaters from Target. Sometimes you will come out on top buying cheap, sometimes you will come out on top buying expensive.
- brc 12y ago
  If I was wearing leather shoes every day for work (let's say I'm a lawyer) I would actually prefer to settle on a style and just stick with that. Same goes for a quality suit. At some point, if you have a style, you go with it and that removes one more decision to make every day. As you age that stuff gets more important than following every meandering fashion trend.
cschmidt 12y ago
That's interesting. Apparently Alden only started using Horween leather in 2012 [1], so my shoes (several years old) are made from some other leather. [1] http://horween.com/?timeline-date=alden-becomes-a-customer http://horween.com/?timeline-date=alden-becomes-a-customer
- silviogutierrez 12y ago
  That post is mistaken. Must be a timeline app that is showing when the timeline entry was created, rather than the content. Alden has used Horween for years. In fact, they might be the biggest customers for shell.
larrywright 12y ago
> Don't spend $100 on shoes every year, spend $600 on shoes that will last for 10 years. Honestly, if you take care of them, they'll last a lot longer than that. As mentioned below, I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old Florsheim shell cordovan shoes for $100. They've seen lots of wear but I wouldn't be surprised if they're in use for decades more.

freehunter 12y ago

That's not always the best advice, though. What happens if my shoes get ruined after two years? I would have been better off with the cheaper shoes. What happens if my taste changes and I don't like boat shoes (or now I only like boat shoes)? I would have been better off with cheaper shoes. What happens if I lose a foot in an industrial accident? I would have been better off with cheaper shoes.

shijie 12y ago
One can argue "what-ifs" ad infinitum with no real efficacy or usefulness. Comments of this ilk are completely unhelpful. The parent comment is merely saying that, if one plans on wearing a type of shoe for an extended period of time (dress shoes like an Allen Edmonds Park Avenue, for example, have hardly changed in decades), one might as well buy the best, and have it last for a long time. One actually saves money by doing so.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- _delirium 12y ago
  > One actually saves money by doing so. This is what the disagreement is over, though: empirically, do most people taking this route save money, or do they end up spending more money in hopes of long-term savings that do not materialize? It depends strongly on the shoe, wearer, and various failure modes (and how repairable / expensive to repair each of those failure modes is). In my own case, I've generally found that the expensive shoes fail to save money, because even though they're more repairable, the cost of repairs eats up any savings, vs. just treating shoes as a disposable good (might be different if I lived somewhere with lower labor costs; around here even a simple resoling costs $50, and anything more involved starts at $100+). That might still be worth it if you prefer the nice shoes, don't like unnecessarily sending things to landfills, or other reasons, but for me, from a strictly cost standpoint I've found it hard to come out ahead.
  - galago 12y ago
    It took me a second to think through the premise that $600 dollar shoes might make economic sense. My guess is that people who wear $600 shoes don't walk to work, or really walk much of anywhere, at least not in their $600 shoes. So, they probably do last longer and fulfill the social signalling or whatever other purpose said shoes fulfill. I don't think anyone wears's shabby old 9 1/2 year old shoes that originally cost $600. I suspect people usually wear $600 shoes so that others can tell that they are not price-sensitive regarding footwear.
    - larrywright 12y ago
      I doubt it. People who want flashy shoes that people will notice spend money on more exotic brands, not Alden or Allen Edmonds. Shell cordovan is a bit unique amongst shoe leathers. It is valued by the people who wear it primarily because of the way it looks. Shell doesn't develop creases when you wear it, it develops "rolls". It also (at least in colors other than black, like Horween's famous Color 8), develops a patina that leather made from cow hide doesn't. It looks much better with age. I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old shell cordovan shoes for $100. They have seen lots of wear over the years, but are in great shape, and look amazing because of the afore-mentioned patina. That is why people pay that much for shell cordovan.
    - cmbaus 12y ago
      Cordovan is not a fussy material. It is meant to be worn hard, everyday.
    - hrktb 12y ago
      Obviously they don't walk in damaging environments, but you should be able to repair the sole if it gets used. Another thing to consider aside from price and looks is that the design (how it is supposed to react on your walk) is fundamentally different from "cheap" snickers. For instance it's way more rigid and doesn't twist. For some it helps their walking, for others it's an hinderance.
- freehunter 12y ago
  But if you decide you will wear the same type of shoes for 10 years and you think you will save money by buying the $600 shoes only to find they actually fall apart after two years, you're now spending $300 per year versus $100 per year. That doesn't make economic sense. The only way to know they will last for 10 years is to actually wear them for 10 years. I think your comment is completely unhelpful, because you're dismissing my point by simply repeating what the other person said. "You save money because you save money". No, if your shoe gets destroyed before you've worn them for six years, you're losing money. You don't seem to have addressed that point at all.
aneisf 12y ago
You can say the same thing about any large purchase. Ultimately, you've lived long enough at this point to know your shoe wearing habits to some degree. If you're the type to wear a particular sneaker day in and day out and are disappointed with the way it falls apart, it might be worthwhile to invest in a better shoe. If you wear a pair of leather shoes once a year, it might make more sense not to splurge, but if you wear a cheap pair often they're going to wrinkle and dull very quickly. Do what makes sense for you, but there's no point in trivializing high-quality goods because you don't "get" them.
- freehunter 12y ago
  Oh I'm not trying to trivialize it, and I do get it. I have some things in my life that I splurge on because I enjoy the higher quality. But I don't try to justify it as saving money, I justify it as buying something I want and can afford. I don't say I bought a $2000 MacBook because it will save money over a $500 laptop after I've used it for four years, I bought the MacBook because I like using it more than I like using a different laptop. Buy $600 shoes if you want. But it's not always going to make economic sense to do so. I have a pair of $60 dress shoes that I've owned and worn for eight years now and they still look fantastic. I just don't wear dress shoes that much.
jdminhbg 12y ago
Not sure what the point of downvoting this was. I personally prefer nicer and more expensive stuff a lot of the time, but the economic argument in favor of it rings hollow to me. Your dog can eat $600 shoes as easily as $40 beaters from Target. Sometimes you will come out on top buying cheap, sometimes you will come out on top buying expensive.
brc 12y ago
If I was wearing leather shoes every day for work (let's say I'm a lawyer) I would actually prefer to settle on a style and just stick with that. Same goes for a quality suit. At some point, if you have a style, you go with it and that removes one more decision to make every day. As you age that stuff gets more important than following every meandering fashion trend.

cschmidt 12y ago

That's interesting. Apparently Alden only started using Horween leather in 2012 [1], so my shoes (several years old) are made from some other leather. [1] http://horween.com/?timeline-date=alden-becomes-a-customer http://horween.com/?timeline-date=alden-becomes-a-customer

silviogutierrez 12y ago
That post is mistaken. Must be a timeline app that is showing when the timeline entry was created, rather than the content. Alden has used Horween for years. In fact, they might be the biggest customers for shell.

larrywright 12y ago

> Don't spend $100 on shoes every year, spend $600 on shoes that will last for 10 years. Honestly, if you take care of them, they'll last a lot longer than that. As mentioned below, I just sold my late stepfather's 40 year old Florsheim shell cordovan shoes for $100. They've seen lots of wear but I wouldn't be surprised if they're in use for decades more.