mens dress shoe advice Forum

[romothesavior]

The only shoe you'll ever need. Hell, you already have at least $100k in student loans, what's another $425???

http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/bruno-magli ... ts-_-1_4_B

http://www.colehaan.com/colehaan/catalo ... oup=528739
These are the exact same and you can go take a date out to dinner with the savings...

Actually they're not the exact same. One is a captoe and one isn't. Kind of a big difference.

[romothesavior]

Also, my first post ITT wasn't to tell OP to buy AEs or Alden's. It was simply to respond to the notion that no one notices what your shoes look like, or that its impossible to tell the difference between $50 shoes and $300 shoes. All of that is completely false. Like bk said, it's unlikely to have a huge impact on people's perception of you as an attorney. But if you're the type of person that wants to be well dressed, decent shoes are a must.

I also want to reiterate that you DO NOT need to spend huge gobs of money for a nice pair of shoes. I own like 6-8 pairs of AEs, a pair of Alden's, a pair of Meermins, some Bruno Maglis, and many other miscellaneous brands (J&M, Cole Haan, Bass, etc.) I've never spent more than $300 on any of them. I think the most I paid was like 225 at Nordstroms summer sale on my Park Aves before 2L OCI. The rest I bought as factory seconds, on sale, or lightly used on EBay, all for under $200. I like to spend money on quality, and I like to own nice things, but I've still got my mom's frugal streak in me. It's possible to get decent stuff and still shop smart.

[84651846190]

I also want to reiterate that you DO NOT need to spend huge gobs of money for a nice pair of shoes. I own like 6-8 pairs of AEs, a pair of Alden's, a pair of Meermins, some Bruno Maglis, and many other miscellaneous brands (J&M, Cole Haan, Bass, etc.) I've never spent more than $300 on any of them. I think the most I paid was like 225 at Nordstroms summer sale on my Park Aves before 2L OCI. The rest I bought as factory seconds, on sale, or lightly used on EBay, all for under $200. I like to spend money on quality, and I like to own nice things, but I've still got my mom's frugal streak in me. It's possible to get decent stuff and still shop smart.

This is a smart man. You buy quality shoes when they are on sale.

For the rest of you who think it's okay to spend over $300 on a pair of shoes, I have some stuff I'd like to sell you that's extremely prestigious and will make you look like a super serious lawyer.

[84651846190]

I seriously question the intelligence of *any* man buying shoes that cost more than $300. You can get excellent dress shoes for under $200. Anyone who tells you otherwise is the type of person who buys something expensive for the sake of having something expensive and then spends the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things.

Wearing a watch is archaic. By the time we are in our 50s, literally no one will wear watches.

Ouch, going after the shoes and the watches. Listen, if you don't like nice stuff, don't buy nice stuff. But just like you think there's this "type" that is always explaining in lengthy screeds why expensive things are important, there is also this "type" that interjects himself in discussions of expensive things, completely ignorant on the subject, trying to explain why it's so important not to have expensive things. In between are reasonable people. Where do you think you fit?

Setting aside the hilarious assertion that I'm ignorant when it comes to dress shoes, you're completely ignorant when it comes to making basic shopping decisions which is far more embarrassing.

[nelaw2010]

The only shoe you'll ever need. Hell, you already have at least $100k in student loans, what's another $425???

http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/bruno-magli ... ts-_-1_4_B

http://www.colehaan.com/colehaan/catalo ... oup=528739
These are the exact same and you can go take a date out to dinner with the savings...

All this tells me is that you've never worn a pair of Bruno Magli shoes. You're correct about the savings, but they are not the exact same shoes.

[Bronte]

Setting aside the hilarious assertion that I'm ignorant when it comes to dress shoes, you're completely ignorant when it comes to making basic shopping decisions which is far more embarrassing.

So you're a shoe connoisseur. Though not a watch connoisseur, I assume.

But don't you think you're exaggerating a little bit? Do you really think the difference between buying a $200 pair of shoes and a $300 pair of shoes is so monumental that it can tell you whether a person is intelligent, whether a person is completely ignorant when it comes to making basic shopping decisions, whether a person will spend the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things, and whether a person thinks his shoes are extremely prestigious and will make him look like a super serious lawyer?

I think you might be reading a little bit too much into it.

[84651846190]

Setting aside the hilarious assertion that I'm ignorant when it comes to dress shoes, you're completely ignorant when it comes to making basic shopping decisions which is far more embarrassing.

So you're a shoe connoisseur. Though not a watch connoisseur, I assume.

But don't you think you're exaggerating a little bit? Do you really think the difference between buying a $200 pair of shoes and a $300 pair of shoes is so monumental that it can tell you whether a person is intelligent, whether a person is completely ignorant when it comes to making basic shopping decisions, whether a person will spend the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things, and whether a person thinks his shoes are extremely prestigious and will make him look like a super serious lawyer?

I think you might be reading a little bit too much into it.

First, I never said I could tell whether someone was intelligent or not based on an expensive shoe purchase. I only said I would question his intelligence. Maybe he is just extremely lazy or terrible with money?

Second, I think we can take judicial notice of the fact that spending $300 on a pair of shoes is a completely ignorant and/or lazy shopping decision.

Third, I think this thread stands as evidence of the "lengthy screeds" point (as opposed to my screeds which are quite pithy).

Finally, I think a healthy dose of hyperbole on the Internet is good for combating the notion that more expensive = better, a notion that only a bunch of striver proles trying to fit in with the upper echelons of high society would adopt.

[nelaw2010]

Setting aside the hilarious assertion that I'm ignorant when it comes to dress shoes, you're completely ignorant when it comes to making basic shopping decisions which is far more embarrassing.

So you're a shoe connoisseur. Though not a watch connoisseur, I assume.

But don't you think you're exaggerating a little bit? Do you really think the difference between buying a $200 pair of shoes and a $300 pair of shoes is so monumental that it can tell you whether a person is intelligent, whether a person is completely ignorant when it comes to making basic shopping decisions, whether a person will spend the rest of his life explaining to other people in lengthy screeds why it's important to have expensive things, and whether a person thinks his shoes are extremely prestigious and will make him look like a super serious lawyer?

I think you might be reading a little bit too much into it.

First, I never said I could tell whether someone was intelligent or not based on an expensive shoe purchase. I only said I would question his intelligence. Maybe he is just extremely lazy or terrible with money?

Second, I think we can take judicial notice of the fact that spending $300 on a pair of shoes is a completely ignorant and/or lazy shopping decision.

Third, I think this thread stands as evidence of the "lengthy screeds" point (as opposed to my screeds which are quite pithy).

Finally, I think a healthy dose of hyperbole on the Internet is good for combating the notion that more expensive = better, a notion that only a bunch of striver proles trying to fit in with the upper echelons of high society would adopt.

Without going back and forth, I encourage everyone to try on a pair of Brunos. They are comfortable, elegant, and will last 5 years or more (assuming you take care of them). Remember, you're going to be wearing them daily, so the shoes need to look good and be comfortable. Before you decide that spending $400 is frivolous, go try them on.

[BitterSplitter]

.

[romothesavior]

II can understand the "You don't need to spend $300 on a pair of shoes as a law student/summer associate/young associate" argument. I don't think anyone needs to spend that kind of money on shoes when they're young and indebted. Would I recommend dropping more on a pair of AEs or Aldens? Yes I would. They're solid shoes for their price range, significantly below the elite bespoke shoemakers (which can be $1,000 or more) but significantly better value than a $150-200 shoe. But I can understand why people don't want to or can't spend that kind of money, and I think there are serviceable alternatives out there.

What I can't understand, and what I find absolutely ridiculous, is this "You're all a bunch of morons for buying $300+ MSRP shoes, I question your intelligence, you must be lazy, no one can tell the difference, etc. etc." That's just absurd, and I can't take anything you say seriously re: clothing if that's really how you feel. And you want to talk proleish? It doesn't get more proleish than arguing that $300 is an outrageous amount of money to spend on a pair of shoes. We're not talking about a pair of Lobbs or Gaziano Girlings or something. We're talking about a $300 pair of quality, iconic, American-made shoes with a timeless look that will last you years. That's why people recommend them. If you want to steer towards cheaper pairs, that's fine, and I'd be happy to recommend (and already did recommend) OP some cheaper alternatives, but don't go knocking people who like to have nice shoes.

[rad lulz]

I just get all my shoes from Zara and throw them out after a week

[lolwat]

I mean, lots of people are posting random stuff so I'm not speaking for anyone, but I think the "don't buy $300+ shoes" isn't "don't buy good shoes," it's "don't spend MSRP on $300+ shoes because you can get them for $200 or less."

Well, at least until you're talking about Lobbs or G&Gs or C&Js or whatever, but even then you can probably find those for like $500-800 when they would retail for $1k+.

[84651846190]

+1 just bought my first pair of nice shoes last Fall at Nordstrom Rack for $140-150. Got a pair of Bruno Maglis that go for $300 full price retail. Even though V20 would probably applaud my frugality I must admit that I don't agree with him. Setting an arbitrary price point like >$300 is slightly asinine. I was born very poor and now my family is considered 'affluentish' so I've interacted with people from all walks of life and there are alot of people that would say spending >$100 implies the same characteristics that V20 says $2XX-300+ may imply. Arbitrary price points are arbitrary. Some people can afford to buy better shoes. Some people can't afford to waste an extra hour in their day to save $100(wouldn't that be nice). Some people don't need to wait until the pair of shoes they want go on sale to buy them. To each his own, but any argument setting a price point where paying above it may or would imply something is presumptious, judgmental and simply retarded.

Yeah man, and it's totally not judgmental or presumptuous to judge someone by their shoes, right? Also, LOL @ the idea that someone doesn't have time to shop around for shoes but they *do* have time to get them repaired, polish them, and make sure they don't start to look like shit.

[84651846190]

II can understand the "You don't need to spend $300 on a pair of shoes as a law student/summer associate/young associate" argument. I don't think anyone needs to spend that kind of money on shoes when they're young and indebted. Would I recommend dropping more on a pair of AEs or Aldens? Yes I would. They're solid shoes for their price range, significantly below the elite bespoke shoemakers (which can be $1,000 or more) but significantly better value than a $150-200 shoe. But I can understand why people don't want to or can't spend that kind of money, and I think there are serviceable alternatives out there.

What I can't understand, and what I find absolutely ridiculous, is this "You're all a bunch of morons for buying $300+ MSRP shoes, I question your intelligence, you must be lazy, no one can tell the difference, etc. etc." That's just absurd, and I can't take anything you say seriously re: clothing if that's really how you feel. And you want to talk proleish? It doesn't get more proleish than arguing that $300 is an outrageous amount of money to spend on a pair of shoes. We're not talking about a pair of Lobbs or Gaziano Girlings or something. We're talking about a $300 pair of quality, iconic, American-made shoes with a timeless look that will last you years. That's why people recommend them. If you want to steer towards cheaper pairs, that's fine, and I'd be happy to recommend (and already did recommend) OP some cheaper alternatives, but don't go knocking people who like to have nice shoes.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. You have your prejudices against people who buy cheap shoes (who could afford more expensive ones). I have my prejudices against people who buy expensive shoes at sticker because I think the marginal benefit is much smaller than you and others are leading on. Also, I think it's just lazy. It takes like five minutes of research to figure out when Nordstrom's mid-year sales are.

[romothesavior]

If you read my posts ITT and took that away from the conversation, then... I just... I don't even...

You're reeding comprehenshun is not to gud.

[84651846190]

If you read my posts ITT and took that away from the conversation, then... I just... I don't even...

You're reeding comprehenshun is not to gud.

It's impossible for you to justify buying expensive shoes and not think that other people (who can afford them) should also buy them, no? If this is true, you're obviously implying there's something wrong with people who can afford expensive shoes who don't buy them. Don't pretend like you've been treating this as some sort of benign shoe hobby (like an interest in vintage cars or something) when you're saying shit like this:

I guarantee you that anyone with a semblance of fashion sense can tell your shoes are crap from a quick glance.

[SouthernSoul]

How is wearing monkstraps viewed in the firm world? Is that doing too much?

[Bronte]

It's impossible for you to justify buying expensive shoes and not think that other people (who can afford them) should also buy them, no?

No. And this is exactly what's wrong with your posting ITT. You think that it's necessary to impose your buying decisions on other people. In fact, you draw a number of negative inferences about people that don't make those same decisions--about their intelligence, about their personalities, etc. Not everyone does this, at least not to the extremes you're describing here.

[84651846190]

It's impossible for you to justify buying expensive shoes and not think that other people (who can afford them) should also buy them, no?

No. And this is exactly what's wrong with your posting ITT. You think that it's necessary to impose your buying decisions on other people. In fact, you draw a number of negative inferences about people that don't make those same decisions--about their intelligence, about their personalities, etc. Not everyone does this, at least not to the extremes you're describing here.

I'm not imposing anything. I'm giving you my opinion, which is obviously contrary to yours and Romo's. You obviously think my opinion is shit. So be it. And again, you're making false generalizations about what I've said. My comment about intelligence related to buying things without first putting in a de minimis amount of research wrt price. You cannot, and have not, disputed this proposition. You obviously care very deeply about this issue, and I can tell I've touched a nerve.

[09042014]

How the fuck can any of you even tell the difference between an expensive pair of shoes and a nice but lower end brand you cop't at Nordstrom Rack?

I defy you to tell me you that you can actually tell my cole haan loafers aren't bruno magli.

I bet at least one aspie in this thread is strutting around with Park Ave's, poorly polished, in business casual clothing thinking he's shot shit.

[BitterSplitter]

.

[84651846190]

You guys are implying I said people should be "hunting" for bargains. I didn't say this. I said people should spend 5 minutes of research before literally gifting over $150 to a shoe company.

[rad lulz]

How the fuck can any of you even tell the difference between an expensive pair of shoes and a nice but lower end brand you cop't at Nordstrom Rack?

I defy you to tell me you that you can actually tell my cole haan loafers aren't bruno magli.

I bet at least one aspie in this thread is strutting around with Park Ave's, poorly polished, in business casual clothing thinking he's shot shit.

Bruno magli is a pretty distinctive style

You probably mean like

Florsheim v cole haan or something

[BitterSplitter]

.

[84651846190]

You guys are implying I said people should be "hunting" for bargains. I didn't say this. I said people should spend 5 minutes of research before literally gifting over $150 to a shoe company.

LOL it only takes 5 minutes? you're getting ridiculous with your premises and assumptions on this one...sometimes you gotta know when to admit you might of said something incorrect and move on..save dignity over face or youre as superficial as those you condemn

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nordstrom+anniversary+sale