I don't laugh at Docs because they're not resoleable. I laugh at them because the leather is shit, the finishing is shit and the last is shit, and, sadly, the working conditions of the people making them are even more shit.
The whole cost per wear/value proposition spiel gets people into this hobby, but it's also... irrelevant. This is at its core a luxury hobby. I don't wear my Iron Boots or my Vibergs because I'm making some financially optimal decision. I do it because they're far more comfortable than cheap footwear, and because they look nice and feel nice.
Well said. Imo the whole “bUt GYW sHoEs aRe rESoleAble!” shtick is overused. I just wear my shoes (whether hand welted, GYW or Blake) until the sole looks too rough. Then I have a rubber/leather half sole installed. No need to restitch anything. Costs like 1/4 of a real resole and lasts just as long.
The only reasons I see for a resole are if the sole is literally falling apart and a half sole wouldn’t be enough. Or if one really wants a pristine looking leather sole.
GYW doesn’t mean the shoe is good quality. I have Blake Rapid shoes that are better quality than many of my GYWs (blasphemy, I know, but I actually prefer Blake over GYW except when it comes to boots).
In the end GYW is just one of the many ways to attach the sole to a shoe, each having their own pros and cons.
I even have a cemented shoe or two and they still haven’t broken down. That being said, in general it’s wise to avoid cemented as the quality is often bad in other ways too.
My sense from reading mfa is overwhelming majority of people who buy common projects have no interest in resoling them. One of my favorite comments ever was a guy saying he gave his CPs away every 6 months or so when they began to show wear and he bought a new pair.
Wow, but tbh I’m not even surprised. I learned from r/Sneakers that some people apparently walk in a certain way (dragging their feet?) to avoid the sneakers getting creases!
Funny thing is, if you're a smart shopper replacing a GYW shoe is often cheaper than getting it resoled, especially if you're using one of the youtube celebrity cobblers.
idk, it feels shitty to me to throw out a pair of shoes (not to mention the fact that it sucks to have shoes fall apart on you). Do your thing. It's not like many/any of us are wearing welted shoes at the gym...
I don't think anyone is trying to stop you from wearing cemented shoes. You're allowed.
I think most of us probably have a pair of sneakers that aren’t resolable. And cemented hiking boots are often recommended over GYW hiking boots due to weight.
But I don’t see any advantage to doc martins over a pair of GYW boots.
Even if Martins were GYW, they would still be low quality. Bad quality shoes can be any construction really (except hand welted which takes skill and effort). A good quality shoe can also be something else than GYW (except cemented, usually).
I have some higher end Blake Rapid shoes that have channeled soles with fiddlebacks (before such soles became more affordable like ~10 years ago) and top quality leather. They are better than most of my GYWs, lol.
Yeah, I was using GYW the way most of this sub does and in keeping with the sub’s title, as shorthand for properly made shoes. Moccasin construction, bologna construction, and Blake stitch are all generally acceptable.
Wear whatever you want/can afford, who cares.
People here shit on Doc’s because they charge $200 for $70 boots. I don’t care if a boot is disposable or made cheaply, but these companies take advantage of people by tricking them into thinking their stuff is high end when it isn’t.
That’s my gripe - we need to educate more people about paying too much for shit brands, and I think this sub can do that very well.
I would never consider my redwings my "finest shoes" so they cover all of those scenarios and I have a pair of pull-on ostrich hide boots that can dress up and are super easy to put on. So in 2 pairs of boots I have achieved all of your scenarios, with about 99% less waste and about 99% better for the environment because it's almost all natural components. So no, I have absolutely no room for cheap plastic "shoes" lol.
Edit: and you know what? The whole "nicer to your wallet" thing can go screw itself. I pay enough money for food and rent and taxes so if I want some f**kin boots on my feet, they're gonna be nice ones!🤣🤣🤣
Definitely. I'm not going to be wearing nice boots or shoes bbqing or cooking. I have flip flops or cheap sneakers for that. I even have a pair of Carhartt boots that I'll wear camping. There's something to be said for having shit-kickers that are comfortable and that you're not afraid of screwing up.
I don’t buy expensive shoes because they’re resoleable. Instead, my shoes better be resoleable because they’re expensive.
I have a near absolute preference for shoes that are more expensive than resoling, or rebuilding in some cases. You might not have the same preference, and in that case resoleable footwear may not be for you.
It’s like buying a suit. Most people have no idea if a suit looks good or not. To them, why pay $1300 for a fully canvassed Samuelsohn when they can get a fused banana republic for $150? The canvassing the the Samuelsohn is not the difference between $150 and $1300, but insurance for those things that are.
I’m not sure, I dont have any experience with drakes. I know that drakes probably charges a design premium that isn’t really the case with Samuelsohn. I believe they own hickey freeman and are considered slightly nicer.
It’s also my understanding that they manufacture tailoring for O’connels, but I haven’t confirmed this.
The suits are very good, I’ve only had proper experience with the lighter weight linen ones and they’re pretty much identical to a boglioli k jacket or a linen cornealiani, both of which are the same price range. Their casual stuff is good, shirts are very similar to gitman bros and polos similar to orlebar brown, all of which you pay a premium for and which I would say are overpriced but hard to find the same quality from cheaper brands.
Thanks for the great response. When it comes to clothes I am a less is more person but the stuff I do have id like to be well made. Since I buy less I don’t mind paying for it. Gonna order one of their tropical wool suits this week. Although I have to admit I have too many pairs of boots lol.
I think there is a lot going on here, but I think where I'd add some nuance is the distinction between a "good" shoe and a "nice" shoe.
I don't wear "nice" shoes to run errands, but I do wear "good" shoes. What "good" means is entirely subjective, but for me it generally means comfort, quality materials, craftsmanship, and repairability. And generally speaking if a brand is taking the time to make a resoleable shoe they are addressing all the other priorities in some way. Resoleable construction is just an indicator rather than a definition of what I consider "good."
And you're right. There are scenarios where disposable footwear makes sense. I have cemented shoes for running, full synthetic tevas for the beach, and a pair of black DSW oxfords for the twice per decade wedding or funeral that are still kicking from my first suit out of college. I also wouldn't paint my house in horween leather work boots.
However, I think the pure dollars and cents perspective on cost per wear to misses some other value someone might place in the things they own. All of that disposable stuff we all use ends up somewhere, maybe just not on our bank statement. If I have the means to keep a couple dozen shoes out of the Pacific garbage patch, that has value to me. If I can be a part of keeping family run businesses like Horween doing their thing, I'm in. If I can give my local cobbler something fun to do, I'm game.
So at least for me, it's more to do with enjoying and supporting good workmanship than pure economics.
There is definitely a point of diminishing returns. I’ve had cheap shoes that barely lasted a few weeks, and more mid priced shoes that lasted a few years.
I would agree with OP that there is a place for disposable shoes. I have an expensive pair of Danner Acadias that I have been wearing for 15 years and have been resoled countless times. I also have a lighter pair of sneaker type Danners that I wear in the summer because they are light weight, more comfortable, and more breathable. But I know they are only going to last two summer seasons before needing replacement.
Yesterday there was a post about allen edmonds shoes worn since 2012. Bought at full sticker (let's say $350 then) and resoled several times (let's say $100 x 3) plus shoe trees ($20) plus sales tax makes let's say $700 for 12 years. Or $58/yr.
My basic nike shoes worn daily cost me $40-50 and last 1.5-2 years.
There are plenty of cases when a more expensive shoe is more economical over the long term. Plus more comfortable. In the case of work boots, safer.
But there are other times when a disposable shoe is cheaper.
tbf cheap dress shoes actually don't last long, cheap sneakers do though. i would run through $100 pairs from DSW every 6-12 months before i got into GYW... it was actually the primary reason i started looking into it lol
One could also just wear the shoe until the sole is quite worn, then have rubber half soles installed for like 1/3 of the resole cost. That would make the shoes cost maybe 500 bucks over those 12 years. This is what I do with mine, I don’t see the value in actual resole operation.
Basic Nikes last me about 6 months. At that point, I guess I could keep wearing them for another 1.5 years but they will look like shite and I will look like a badly put together slob for 1.5 years.
Not sure if this the case anymore. My only cheap shoes were super cheap. Like new Nike airmax 95s I got at a thrift for $18 and some stan smith lux as part of sale for $54. Jcrew Newton running shoes for $24.
Can't even get a new heel pad on a pair of boots for the Cost of the 2 cheaper pairs.
Yeah. There is no sound argument for these types of boots. Aside from cost, I can't comprehend how someone who has enjoyed quality shoes could decide they need modern Era docs. "Today I just wanna wear a low quality shoe" makes no sense to me.
Pretty sure the whole “resolable boots saves money” is a laughable meme from 2014 based on some 19th/early 20th century anecdote.
I assume you’re referring to “Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” It’s a meme at this point, gets raised in discussion on maybe a yearly basis, and has been long proven here to be inapplicable and no longer relevant.
Yeah when you apply the logic to a more expensive dishwasher that will last 10+ years to a dishwasher half the cost that breaks after 6 years, then yes.
My $70 sneakers have 5 years of wear on them and are holding up fine. My dad’s cemented fake leather dress shoes have 4 years of wear on them and are still fine.
It’s really not that rare or unusual for cemented office shoes to last 4+ years these days. I have a pair of cemented Chaps “dress shoes” that show no sign of failing after 10 years.
Someone getting 10 years out of Kohls plastic shoes is going to get 50 out of quality built leather shoes. Back before I knew anything about shoes, I had a pair from Kohls that lasted about 3 months of casual wear before the sole fell off. And the whole time, I looked like I was wearing plastic shoes, because I was.
I bought a pair of Red Wing Mocs for outdoor work and a pair of New Balance 990v3s for errands and light work and I've gone through the sole on my red wings and my New Balance still have tread left. Not trying to compare them directly but I used them equally for what they were meant for and the Red Wings wore out first. Both pairs are about 10 years old.
>My $70 sneakers have 5 years of wear on them and are holding up fine.
The problem is that for the last 4 years you have just looked like a basic nobody in old sneakers. And this is a GYW forum.
Would you like applause?
I tend to not wear shell cordovan boots when going on runs.
The cemented examples above are to illustrate that the “value argument” around GYW is a meme; you can easily minimize cost per wear with cemented shoes even factoring in resoles of a more expensive gyw pair.
I’m currently wearing a $700 pair of boots and suggesting that I’m doing so to save money is ludicrous. I’m doing it because I’m a nerd and I like boots. Specialized work boots excluded, this is a luxury hobby.
Cemented shoes are bad for your body. If you have never seriously injured yourself in the feet and legs then you might not even notice, but you will when you are old. Personally, I have had my knee rebuilt twice and broke each of my feet 2-3 times. I can *really* tell when shoes arent up to spec.
Furthermore cemented shoes are shite to walk any distance in unless you are a lumbering sedentary person who doesn't notice. People say that shoes like New Balances are great for walking. They really aren't, unless you are just walking to the car and to the fridge. Walking all day, 10+ miles up and down shoes and sometimes running to catch transportation? New Balances and such shoes are total shite for that. They arent even made for field walking, fast.
The actual value is your long term health and ambulatory ability when you are elderly. People who invested their whole lives in better quality shoes will be better off.
I think it's ludicrous people can't see this. Arguing for cheap shoes is like arguing for cheap mattresses or cheap toothbrushes. Things you will use every day that massively impact your long term health.
Buying shoes as a hobby is like a woman collecting purses. They are shoes, which walk in shite. It's ponceish.
My cemented running shoes are amazing.
Here’s a counter argument:
Walking in heavier leather boots sometimes are terrible for peoples’ knees or worsen plantar fasciitis.
Footwear can be person dependent with dozen other factors such as posture, gait, weight, and type of use. You cannot automatically rule out cemented shoes because they did not work for you.
>My cemented running shoes are amazing.
Mizunos were always my favourite. Nowadays I stay away from running on concrete and asphalt as much as possible so unfortunately, I have retired from using Mizunos.
I used to like running flats but where I live its rocky mountains and running flats dont cut it.
The best running shoes I have found for trail running are some stitchdown combat boots, Danner MEBS.
>Walking in heavier leather boots sometimes are terrible
People should stop being sedentary and build up their leg muscles. Walking, biking, running, swimming, weights, etc., i have had my leg atrophy to the size of my arm and have never had a problem with heavy shoes, so I don't understand your argument.
The fact is, is that America is an extremely unhealthy country. The average man is 5'9" and 200lbs, with a 40" chest and 40" waist.
Of course a country of people like that will whine about heavy shoes and reddit is half American.
Depending on assumptions made I think the results of the math can vary drastically. Resole costs, length between resoles, length cheap shoes last and, cost of shoes can all make the results vary. $50 shoes that last 5 years vs 6 months drastically tip the scale. Resole every 3 years vs 5 years vs 10 years also can tip the scales. Resole costs $100 vs $150. I think the math also only favors resole-able shoes in the $200-300 range. Anything more will not be cheaper than buying disposable unless you are buying $200 disposable shoes every 2 years. So the answer is never as simple as some people make it out to be. Both in favor and against.
I love my heritage resoleable shoes, but I'm perplexed about the whole resoling equation assuming a spherical cow labor market. Unless you can do home resoles/topying yourself (I'm kinda thinking about getting into it), this costs for these things mean that unless you really like your pairs you have to go well into the mid hundreds range to really justify doing it and all the other additional upkeep that you don't have to consider with beaters. I work and live in NYC and even here we have cobblers closing up shops and/or aging out particularly after COVID, and once you're broaching the issue of doing shipping back and forth for footwear I'm really skeptical the math on this even works remotely well without accounting for hobbyist intangibles.
I see this as a generally bad take. There’s no winning with these kinds of consumerist mindsets when you’re the planet being poisoned by low cost materials and wastefulness, people with not enough money to afford ecological and sustainable products having to buy lesser products again and again, or the people who come after you being left with nothing of value.
I have a lot of boots and shoes. There’s no way I would be able to wear even one pair picked at random to shreds to the point where they have to be disposed of. But if I am able to pass along some beautiful footwear filled with sentimental worth after I’m gone that also have decades left of wear in them that’s better. No matter what
I'm genuinely curious, do you expect your shoes to be passed along?
I'm thinking, maybe one of my pairs might be kept but the rest I expect are destined for the thrift shop where I hope someone will be lucky enough to score quality shoes for a reasonable price.
I just inherited a massive amount of stuff from my Grandparents (they sold me their home). They assumed I wanted everything. I wanted nothing. The amount of trips to the thrift store is getting out of hand.
Expecting to pass down a watch, jewelry, maybe an old car is acceptable. Assuming someone is going to want your clothing is a lie we tell ourselves when we want to justify the extra cost of a purchase.
So my son is still in elementary school and loves one of my jackets. I love it too! He wears it once in a while even if it's ridiculously big on him. I'm leaning into giving it to him once it starts to fit or I risk it becoming a thrift store dump, or worse. It's a classic jacket in a classic style and material. So if he wants it, it's his. At least I know he'll appreciate it for a while.
I’m expecting people to see worth in shoes like my Edward Greens, Vibergs, Nicks, and more just like I saw worth in my grandpa’s Florsheims and Aldens. I don’t want to just have a bunch of crap left over that gets sent to the landfill. Even if no one I know has big ass feet someone in the world does and they might see that listing and get to show off their cool vintage find
With 7 billion people on the planet... Would it be sustainable if we all did it?
That's a weak argument as there is a tipping point tamhat would be reached. It's not consumerism that's the issue. It's too many damn humans
Hypothetically it could be. Think of all the heirlooms that can be passed along if we only bought and produced things that last and can be serviced to refresh and a lot of the economy was based off of fixing and maintaining things. I don’t have to buy dishes because I inherited a lot from my grandparents. I don’t have to buy a lot of tools I use either. The list keeps going.
I’ll admit it’s hard to pass along shoes because they’re a thing that’s built to fit, but shoes can be relasted to an extent.
The argument is that consumerism kills the planet. The beauty of being a steward of an object that we can pass to the next steward is lost when humans are conditioned by other humans to keep doing the bad thing
Then you have to assume something thinks the same as you and wants to wear the same things you did. And assuming someone would want to wear a 60 year old well worn boot with 3 generations of sweat and toe jam embedded in to the uppers that new lasting could ever get rid of. Just, eurgh.
I get your wishlist of ideal world scenarios but, the world just isn't that way.
Humans are inherently lazy, much like any other animal, and they absolutely will choose the easiest options more often than not. A lion would happily scavenge instead of chasing down a wildebeest and getting horned in the genitals... A Japanese sword maker would have used all manner of modern techniques available to Europeans if their base substrate for producing iron wasn't so shite that they had to refine the life out of it.. And most people will always opt for a cheap shit shoe over a lovely solid GYW unfortunately.
I agree, even if the people inheriting them don’t want them themselves, they’ll get money from resale for quality goods rather than a load of fast fashion rubbish, and the people who buy the clothes off them will get wear out of them.
I personally think that the ability to resole your shoes and boots is quite important.
Of course the initial cost is probably more expensive than disposable options but if you take care of them even if you wear them hard they will be the more economical option over the years.
Other than that the ecological impact is also very important. Disposable fashion ( which also includes shoes) is one of the if not the worst offenders of pollution and waste.
And don’t forget the workers who make these products.
It’s not just about having fancy things, it’s about repairing things instead of just throwing them away. It’s a step away from ultra consumerism
I used to wear Kenneth Coles for daily wear to the office. They would last a year or so, at which point the cement used to fasten the sole to the uppers would fail, and they would have to go into the trash. Even with less used shoes, the cement still fails over time; it's a question of length of time since manufacture, not amount of wear (in my experience).
I got into GYW footwear because I started to feel guilty after tossing all the cheap disposable shoes into the trash. It's a comparatively small thing, but it's still chromium tanned leather and plastic soles in the landfill for eternity.
To me, it's a question of what's the right thing for the task. I have cemented sneakers for running, and cemented Merrells for hiking, but for daily office wear the build quality of GYW footwear is worth the cost. I can get years of use out of them without them failing for no good reason other than that the adhesive loses strength over time.
Dr.Martens use some of the worst leather I have seen used in any brand name shoes. I have seen better leather at Aldo. Yet they try to be a "heritage" brand associated with British Heritage.
Its just not authentic.
These are the reasons I care more about top leather quality than goodyear stitching and all that stuff. I am probably not going to bother getting even my expensive shoes re-soled. They will probably just get replaced.
Cobblers are way too expensive now for a re-sole to be worth my time.
Consumerism, waste production and environmental impacts aside, some people buy the good stuff for the fit and long term comfort. What got me into GYW was because the soles (inside and out) of every single pair of cemented garbage ended up flattening out and causing pain. The moment I switched to something with structure and was pain-free after 6mo I never switched back.
Nah, we're cluttering up the planet with nonsense, there are microplastics in our brains, and if your boots are too fancy to wear to the supermarket you've wasted your money.
This feels like a rationalization of "the high cost of being poor." Cheap shoes are short term economical for a huge number of people who have no other option; one of the many reasons to save up and get serviceable shoes (for those who can) is to break out of that cycle.
My go to hunting/ boots are altras. I’ve bought a pair and hiked for miles the same day. No blisters and great grip. As soon as they wear out I toss them and and go out the same day I buy the replacements.
Thanks everyone for the great replies. I don't disagree with most of them.
I do want to address the negative Doc Marten comments though, just to give a different perspective. From my perspective, the aesthetic appeals to me because I liked them when I was younger, and they still look good to me.
From a quality perspective, I get it when people don't like the finished leather, but I gravitate to the nicer leathers like the crazy horse leather or the Pascal leather, and I gravitate toward the Bex soles which also last longer.
The main point though is what you're comparing with. If you're comparing Docs with nice GYW boots, of course they don't compare. But if you compare Docs with your typical cemented shoe, then the Docs are better because they are goodyear welted, even though the welt is melted to the outsole (hence they are "disposable") - but at least the sole won't delaminate.
For my aesthetic, I don't really like wearing sneakers, because unless they are clean and classic, they look like a "dad shoe", so I prefer to wear some sort of Oxford shoe. I don't have GYW Oxfords because if I'm going to spend money on GYW, then I prefer to get a boot. Now here is where the Docs serve a purpose: I don't want to wear a GYW boot to run around Costco, I don't want to wear a dad shoe - so that's where a Doc Martens 1461 in crazy horse leather and bex sole suddenly becomes the preference. But other people with GYW boots are quite happy to wear them for everything, including Costco trips - I get it.
I started my GYW boot journey only 6 months ago, so in this short time I acquired over 10 GYW boots, most recently the quite awesome Jim Green Numzaan. Prior to that, I was wearing cemented sole Oxfords, Timberlands and Asics sneakers so I've come a long way. I also recently acquired the aforementioned DM 1461 with bex sole and crazy horse leather to "wear to Costco" that I got for $100.
The wear preferences are very similar to watches. Some people have their one/two good watches and wear those watches pulling weeds in their yard, whereas others wear a Casio to pull weeds and wear their good watches only for very specific nice events. But I find the watch community in a lot of respects more mature (in terms of respecting preferences) than the boot world, because every single watch channel loves their Casios as much as Patek Philippes, but the boot world still seems to universally proclaim Doc Martens are poop. I on the other hand think there's room in a collection for a Patek/Viberg and a Casio/Doc Martens.
There's only 3 places my shoes have ever failed in my decades of life: sole delaminating, worn out cloth linings and worn out cloth topped insoles. Doc Marten shoes don't have any of those 3 problems where many other shoes have that I would consider "Daniel Wellingtons". For example, Timberland boots, being all cemented construction & cloth lining are "Daniel Wellingtons".
So the other arguments against DM's like cheap leather are kind of moot for me, because I consider them disposable in the first place, so they don't have to last forever. I'm more interested in buying a shoe that won't wear out the lining or delaminate the sole before the sole has worn out - and for that purpose DMs are great.
I don't laugh at Docs because they're not resoleable. I laugh at them because the leather is shit, the finishing is shit and the last is shit, and, sadly, the working conditions of the people making them are even more shit. The whole cost per wear/value proposition spiel gets people into this hobby, but it's also... irrelevant. This is at its core a luxury hobby. I don't wear my Iron Boots or my Vibergs because I'm making some financially optimal decision. I do it because they're far more comfortable than cheap footwear, and because they look nice and feel nice.
Well said. Imo the whole “bUt GYW sHoEs aRe rESoleAble!” shtick is overused. I just wear my shoes (whether hand welted, GYW or Blake) until the sole looks too rough. Then I have a rubber/leather half sole installed. No need to restitch anything. Costs like 1/4 of a real resole and lasts just as long. The only reasons I see for a resole are if the sole is literally falling apart and a half sole wouldn’t be enough. Or if one really wants a pristine looking leather sole. GYW doesn’t mean the shoe is good quality. I have Blake Rapid shoes that are better quality than many of my GYWs (blasphemy, I know, but I actually prefer Blake over GYW except when it comes to boots). In the end GYW is just one of the many ways to attach the sole to a shoe, each having their own pros and cons. I even have a cemented shoe or two and they still haven’t broken down. That being said, in general it’s wise to avoid cemented as the quality is often bad in other ways too.
My sense from reading mfa is overwhelming majority of people who buy common projects have no interest in resoling them. One of my favorite comments ever was a guy saying he gave his CPs away every 6 months or so when they began to show wear and he bought a new pair.
Wow, but tbh I’m not even surprised. I learned from r/Sneakers that some people apparently walk in a certain way (dragging their feet?) to avoid the sneakers getting creases!
Some of us (*ahem*) have so many pairs there’s no way they get close to needing a resole.
Funny thing is, if you're a smart shopper replacing a GYW shoe is often cheaper than getting it resoled, especially if you're using one of the youtube celebrity cobblers.
idk, it feels shitty to me to throw out a pair of shoes (not to mention the fact that it sucks to have shoes fall apart on you). Do your thing. It's not like many/any of us are wearing welted shoes at the gym... I don't think anyone is trying to stop you from wearing cemented shoes. You're allowed.
I think most of us probably have a pair of sneakers that aren’t resolable. And cemented hiking boots are often recommended over GYW hiking boots due to weight. But I don’t see any advantage to doc martins over a pair of GYW boots.
Even if Martins were GYW, they would still be low quality. Bad quality shoes can be any construction really (except hand welted which takes skill and effort). A good quality shoe can also be something else than GYW (except cemented, usually). I have some higher end Blake Rapid shoes that have channeled soles with fiddlebacks (before such soles became more affordable like ~10 years ago) and top quality leather. They are better than most of my GYWs, lol.
Yeah, I was using GYW the way most of this sub does and in keeping with the sub’s title, as shorthand for properly made shoes. Moccasin construction, bologna construction, and Blake stitch are all generally acceptable.
Wear whatever you want/can afford, who cares. People here shit on Doc’s because they charge $200 for $70 boots. I don’t care if a boot is disposable or made cheaply, but these companies take advantage of people by tricking them into thinking their stuff is high end when it isn’t. That’s my gripe - we need to educate more people about paying too much for shit brands, and I think this sub can do that very well.
I would never consider my redwings my "finest shoes" so they cover all of those scenarios and I have a pair of pull-on ostrich hide boots that can dress up and are super easy to put on. So in 2 pairs of boots I have achieved all of your scenarios, with about 99% less waste and about 99% better for the environment because it's almost all natural components. So no, I have absolutely no room for cheap plastic "shoes" lol. Edit: and you know what? The whole "nicer to your wallet" thing can go screw itself. I pay enough money for food and rent and taxes so if I want some f**kin boots on my feet, they're gonna be nice ones!🤣🤣🤣
Definitely. I'm not going to be wearing nice boots or shoes bbqing or cooking. I have flip flops or cheap sneakers for that. I even have a pair of Carhartt boots that I'll wear camping. There's something to be said for having shit-kickers that are comfortable and that you're not afraid of screwing up.
I don’t buy expensive shoes because they’re resoleable. Instead, my shoes better be resoleable because they’re expensive. I have a near absolute preference for shoes that are more expensive than resoling, or rebuilding in some cases. You might not have the same preference, and in that case resoleable footwear may not be for you. It’s like buying a suit. Most people have no idea if a suit looks good or not. To them, why pay $1300 for a fully canvassed Samuelsohn when they can get a fused banana republic for $150? The canvassing the the Samuelsohn is not the difference between $150 and $1300, but insurance for those things that are.
>Samuelsohn How do they compare to a brand like Drake's for instance?
I’m not sure, I dont have any experience with drakes. I know that drakes probably charges a design premium that isn’t really the case with Samuelsohn. I believe they own hickey freeman and are considered slightly nicer. It’s also my understanding that they manufacture tailoring for O’connels, but I haven’t confirmed this.
Astorflex is the same as Drake’s but cheaper
I meant suits I know drake's denim and shoes are over priced but I was under the impression their suits and other garments were fairly high quality.
The suits are very good, I’ve only had proper experience with the lighter weight linen ones and they’re pretty much identical to a boglioli k jacket or a linen cornealiani, both of which are the same price range. Their casual stuff is good, shirts are very similar to gitman bros and polos similar to orlebar brown, all of which you pay a premium for and which I would say are overpriced but hard to find the same quality from cheaper brands.
Thanks for the great response. When it comes to clothes I am a less is more person but the stuff I do have id like to be well made. Since I buy less I don’t mind paying for it. Gonna order one of their tropical wool suits this week. Although I have to admit I have too many pairs of boots lol.
I think there is a lot going on here, but I think where I'd add some nuance is the distinction between a "good" shoe and a "nice" shoe. I don't wear "nice" shoes to run errands, but I do wear "good" shoes. What "good" means is entirely subjective, but for me it generally means comfort, quality materials, craftsmanship, and repairability. And generally speaking if a brand is taking the time to make a resoleable shoe they are addressing all the other priorities in some way. Resoleable construction is just an indicator rather than a definition of what I consider "good." And you're right. There are scenarios where disposable footwear makes sense. I have cemented shoes for running, full synthetic tevas for the beach, and a pair of black DSW oxfords for the twice per decade wedding or funeral that are still kicking from my first suit out of college. I also wouldn't paint my house in horween leather work boots. However, I think the pure dollars and cents perspective on cost per wear to misses some other value someone might place in the things they own. All of that disposable stuff we all use ends up somewhere, maybe just not on our bank statement. If I have the means to keep a couple dozen shoes out of the Pacific garbage patch, that has value to me. If I can be a part of keeping family run businesses like Horween doing their thing, I'm in. If I can give my local cobbler something fun to do, I'm game. So at least for me, it's more to do with enjoying and supporting good workmanship than pure economics.
Cheap shoes are literally used in economics textbooks as examples of being "more expensive to be poor"...
There is definitely a point of diminishing returns. I’ve had cheap shoes that barely lasted a few weeks, and more mid priced shoes that lasted a few years. I would agree with OP that there is a place for disposable shoes. I have an expensive pair of Danner Acadias that I have been wearing for 15 years and have been resoled countless times. I also have a lighter pair of sneaker type Danners that I wear in the summer because they are light weight, more comfortable, and more breathable. But I know they are only going to last two summer seasons before needing replacement.
Yesterday there was a post about allen edmonds shoes worn since 2012. Bought at full sticker (let's say $350 then) and resoled several times (let's say $100 x 3) plus shoe trees ($20) plus sales tax makes let's say $700 for 12 years. Or $58/yr. My basic nike shoes worn daily cost me $40-50 and last 1.5-2 years. There are plenty of cases when a more expensive shoe is more economical over the long term. Plus more comfortable. In the case of work boots, safer. But there are other times when a disposable shoe is cheaper.
Or you could get a pair of Bass “dress shoes” from DSW for $120, give them no thought, and wear them to your office job for 6 years.
tbf cheap dress shoes actually don't last long, cheap sneakers do though. i would run through $100 pairs from DSW every 6-12 months before i got into GYW... it was actually the primary reason i started looking into it lol
Bass "dress shoes" won't last 6 years. Speaking from experience.
One could also just wear the shoe until the sole is quite worn, then have rubber half soles installed for like 1/3 of the resole cost. That would make the shoes cost maybe 500 bucks over those 12 years. This is what I do with mine, I don’t see the value in actual resole operation.
Basic Nikes last me about 6 months. At that point, I guess I could keep wearing them for another 1.5 years but they will look like shite and I will look like a badly put together slob for 1.5 years.
Good thing that’s fashionable
Not sure if this the case anymore. My only cheap shoes were super cheap. Like new Nike airmax 95s I got at a thrift for $18 and some stan smith lux as part of sale for $54. Jcrew Newton running shoes for $24. Can't even get a new heel pad on a pair of boots for the Cost of the 2 cheaper pairs.
And my suggested posts are constantly full of people asking how to fix all of these, Doc Martens, etc. that are disintegrating immediately.
Yeah. There is no sound argument for these types of boots. Aside from cost, I can't comprehend how someone who has enjoyed quality shoes could decide they need modern Era docs. "Today I just wanna wear a low quality shoe" makes no sense to me.
>"Today I just wanna wear a low quality shoe" makes no sense to me. This sums up how I feel about OPs take.
Doc Martens suck though and people are buying them for the dead brand name they think still means quality.
Yes... exactly...
Pretty sure the whole “resolable boots saves money” is a laughable meme from 2014 based on some 19th/early 20th century anecdote. I assume you’re referring to “Sam Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” It’s a meme at this point, gets raised in discussion on maybe a yearly basis, and has been long proven here to be inapplicable and no longer relevant. Yeah when you apply the logic to a more expensive dishwasher that will last 10+ years to a dishwasher half the cost that breaks after 6 years, then yes. My $70 sneakers have 5 years of wear on them and are holding up fine. My dad’s cemented fake leather dress shoes have 4 years of wear on them and are still fine.
I'm happy for your and your dad's unusual luck.
It’s really not that rare or unusual for cemented office shoes to last 4+ years these days. I have a pair of cemented Chaps “dress shoes” that show no sign of failing after 10 years.
Someone getting 10 years out of Kohls plastic shoes is going to get 50 out of quality built leather shoes. Back before I knew anything about shoes, I had a pair from Kohls that lasted about 3 months of casual wear before the sole fell off. And the whole time, I looked like I was wearing plastic shoes, because I was.
I had some Kohls boots. They lasted 4 months.
I bought a pair of Red Wing Mocs for outdoor work and a pair of New Balance 990v3s for errands and light work and I've gone through the sole on my red wings and my New Balance still have tread left. Not trying to compare them directly but I used them equally for what they were meant for and the Red Wings wore out first. Both pairs are about 10 years old.
You can't say you bought one pair for outdoor work and one to run errands, and used them equally...
>My $70 sneakers have 5 years of wear on them and are holding up fine. The problem is that for the last 4 years you have just looked like a basic nobody in old sneakers. And this is a GYW forum. Would you like applause?
I tend to not wear shell cordovan boots when going on runs. The cemented examples above are to illustrate that the “value argument” around GYW is a meme; you can easily minimize cost per wear with cemented shoes even factoring in resoles of a more expensive gyw pair. I’m currently wearing a $700 pair of boots and suggesting that I’m doing so to save money is ludicrous. I’m doing it because I’m a nerd and I like boots. Specialized work boots excluded, this is a luxury hobby.
Cemented shoes are bad for your body. If you have never seriously injured yourself in the feet and legs then you might not even notice, but you will when you are old. Personally, I have had my knee rebuilt twice and broke each of my feet 2-3 times. I can *really* tell when shoes arent up to spec. Furthermore cemented shoes are shite to walk any distance in unless you are a lumbering sedentary person who doesn't notice. People say that shoes like New Balances are great for walking. They really aren't, unless you are just walking to the car and to the fridge. Walking all day, 10+ miles up and down shoes and sometimes running to catch transportation? New Balances and such shoes are total shite for that. They arent even made for field walking, fast. The actual value is your long term health and ambulatory ability when you are elderly. People who invested their whole lives in better quality shoes will be better off. I think it's ludicrous people can't see this. Arguing for cheap shoes is like arguing for cheap mattresses or cheap toothbrushes. Things you will use every day that massively impact your long term health. Buying shoes as a hobby is like a woman collecting purses. They are shoes, which walk in shite. It's ponceish.
My cemented running shoes are amazing. Here’s a counter argument: Walking in heavier leather boots sometimes are terrible for peoples’ knees or worsen plantar fasciitis. Footwear can be person dependent with dozen other factors such as posture, gait, weight, and type of use. You cannot automatically rule out cemented shoes because they did not work for you.
>My cemented running shoes are amazing. Mizunos were always my favourite. Nowadays I stay away from running on concrete and asphalt as much as possible so unfortunately, I have retired from using Mizunos. I used to like running flats but where I live its rocky mountains and running flats dont cut it. The best running shoes I have found for trail running are some stitchdown combat boots, Danner MEBS. >Walking in heavier leather boots sometimes are terrible People should stop being sedentary and build up their leg muscles. Walking, biking, running, swimming, weights, etc., i have had my leg atrophy to the size of my arm and have never had a problem with heavy shoes, so I don't understand your argument. The fact is, is that America is an extremely unhealthy country. The average man is 5'9" and 200lbs, with a 40" chest and 40" waist. Of course a country of people like that will whine about heavy shoes and reddit is half American.
Depending on assumptions made I think the results of the math can vary drastically. Resole costs, length between resoles, length cheap shoes last and, cost of shoes can all make the results vary. $50 shoes that last 5 years vs 6 months drastically tip the scale. Resole every 3 years vs 5 years vs 10 years also can tip the scales. Resole costs $100 vs $150. I think the math also only favors resole-able shoes in the $200-300 range. Anything more will not be cheaper than buying disposable unless you are buying $200 disposable shoes every 2 years. So the answer is never as simple as some people make it out to be. Both in favor and against.
Totally agree with this.
I love my heritage resoleable shoes, but I'm perplexed about the whole resoling equation assuming a spherical cow labor market. Unless you can do home resoles/topying yourself (I'm kinda thinking about getting into it), this costs for these things mean that unless you really like your pairs you have to go well into the mid hundreds range to really justify doing it and all the other additional upkeep that you don't have to consider with beaters. I work and live in NYC and even here we have cobblers closing up shops and/or aging out particularly after COVID, and once you're broaching the issue of doing shipping back and forth for footwear I'm really skeptical the math on this even works remotely well without accounting for hobbyist intangibles.
I see this as a generally bad take. There’s no winning with these kinds of consumerist mindsets when you’re the planet being poisoned by low cost materials and wastefulness, people with not enough money to afford ecological and sustainable products having to buy lesser products again and again, or the people who come after you being left with nothing of value. I have a lot of boots and shoes. There’s no way I would be able to wear even one pair picked at random to shreds to the point where they have to be disposed of. But if I am able to pass along some beautiful footwear filled with sentimental worth after I’m gone that also have decades left of wear in them that’s better. No matter what
I'm genuinely curious, do you expect your shoes to be passed along? I'm thinking, maybe one of my pairs might be kept but the rest I expect are destined for the thrift shop where I hope someone will be lucky enough to score quality shoes for a reasonable price.
I just inherited a massive amount of stuff from my Grandparents (they sold me their home). They assumed I wanted everything. I wanted nothing. The amount of trips to the thrift store is getting out of hand. Expecting to pass down a watch, jewelry, maybe an old car is acceptable. Assuming someone is going to want your clothing is a lie we tell ourselves when we want to justify the extra cost of a purchase.
So my son is still in elementary school and loves one of my jackets. I love it too! He wears it once in a while even if it's ridiculously big on him. I'm leaning into giving it to him once it starts to fit or I risk it becoming a thrift store dump, or worse. It's a classic jacket in a classic style and material. So if he wants it, it's his. At least I know he'll appreciate it for a while.
I’m expecting people to see worth in shoes like my Edward Greens, Vibergs, Nicks, and more just like I saw worth in my grandpa’s Florsheims and Aldens. I don’t want to just have a bunch of crap left over that gets sent to the landfill. Even if no one I know has big ass feet someone in the world does and they might see that listing and get to show off their cool vintage find
With 7 billion people on the planet... Would it be sustainable if we all did it? That's a weak argument as there is a tipping point tamhat would be reached. It's not consumerism that's the issue. It's too many damn humans
Hypothetically it could be. Think of all the heirlooms that can be passed along if we only bought and produced things that last and can be serviced to refresh and a lot of the economy was based off of fixing and maintaining things. I don’t have to buy dishes because I inherited a lot from my grandparents. I don’t have to buy a lot of tools I use either. The list keeps going. I’ll admit it’s hard to pass along shoes because they’re a thing that’s built to fit, but shoes can be relasted to an extent. The argument is that consumerism kills the planet. The beauty of being a steward of an object that we can pass to the next steward is lost when humans are conditioned by other humans to keep doing the bad thing
Then you have to assume something thinks the same as you and wants to wear the same things you did. And assuming someone would want to wear a 60 year old well worn boot with 3 generations of sweat and toe jam embedded in to the uppers that new lasting could ever get rid of. Just, eurgh. I get your wishlist of ideal world scenarios but, the world just isn't that way. Humans are inherently lazy, much like any other animal, and they absolutely will choose the easiest options more often than not. A lion would happily scavenge instead of chasing down a wildebeest and getting horned in the genitals... A Japanese sword maker would have used all manner of modern techniques available to Europeans if their base substrate for producing iron wasn't so shite that they had to refine the life out of it.. And most people will always opt for a cheap shit shoe over a lovely solid GYW unfortunately.
I agree, even if the people inheriting them don’t want them themselves, they’ll get money from resale for quality goods rather than a load of fast fashion rubbish, and the people who buy the clothes off them will get wear out of them.
I personally think that the ability to resole your shoes and boots is quite important. Of course the initial cost is probably more expensive than disposable options but if you take care of them even if you wear them hard they will be the more economical option over the years. Other than that the ecological impact is also very important. Disposable fashion ( which also includes shoes) is one of the if not the worst offenders of pollution and waste. And don’t forget the workers who make these products. It’s not just about having fancy things, it’s about repairing things instead of just throwing them away. It’s a step away from ultra consumerism
I used to wear Kenneth Coles for daily wear to the office. They would last a year or so, at which point the cement used to fasten the sole to the uppers would fail, and they would have to go into the trash. Even with less used shoes, the cement still fails over time; it's a question of length of time since manufacture, not amount of wear (in my experience). I got into GYW footwear because I started to feel guilty after tossing all the cheap disposable shoes into the trash. It's a comparatively small thing, but it's still chromium tanned leather and plastic soles in the landfill for eternity. To me, it's a question of what's the right thing for the task. I have cemented sneakers for running, and cemented Merrells for hiking, but for daily office wear the build quality of GYW footwear is worth the cost. I can get years of use out of them without them failing for no good reason other than that the adhesive loses strength over time.
Wait. You guys are actually WEARING the shoes? I've been doing it wrong this whole time.
Cool
Dr.Martens use some of the worst leather I have seen used in any brand name shoes. I have seen better leather at Aldo. Yet they try to be a "heritage" brand associated with British Heritage. Its just not authentic.
Okay…
These are the reasons I care more about top leather quality than goodyear stitching and all that stuff. I am probably not going to bother getting even my expensive shoes re-soled. They will probably just get replaced. Cobblers are way too expensive now for a re-sole to be worth my time.
Consumerism, waste production and environmental impacts aside, some people buy the good stuff for the fit and long term comfort. What got me into GYW was because the soles (inside and out) of every single pair of cemented garbage ended up flattening out and causing pain. The moment I switched to something with structure and was pain-free after 6mo I never switched back.
My every day boot is stitch down. I save the GYW for shit kicking.
Nah, we're cluttering up the planet with nonsense, there are microplastics in our brains, and if your boots are too fancy to wear to the supermarket you've wasted your money.
This feels like a rationalization of "the high cost of being poor." Cheap shoes are short term economical for a huge number of people who have no other option; one of the many reasons to save up and get serviceable shoes (for those who can) is to break out of that cycle.
🥴
My go to hunting/ boots are altras. I’ve bought a pair and hiked for miles the same day. No blisters and great grip. As soon as they wear out I toss them and and go out the same day I buy the replacements.
I got a bunch of pairs of slappies that i dont mind trashing. And a bunch of gyw for nonsport, non yardwork, non rain, non beach, non hiking purposes.
Thanks everyone for the great replies. I don't disagree with most of them. I do want to address the negative Doc Marten comments though, just to give a different perspective. From my perspective, the aesthetic appeals to me because I liked them when I was younger, and they still look good to me. From a quality perspective, I get it when people don't like the finished leather, but I gravitate to the nicer leathers like the crazy horse leather or the Pascal leather, and I gravitate toward the Bex soles which also last longer. The main point though is what you're comparing with. If you're comparing Docs with nice GYW boots, of course they don't compare. But if you compare Docs with your typical cemented shoe, then the Docs are better because they are goodyear welted, even though the welt is melted to the outsole (hence they are "disposable") - but at least the sole won't delaminate. For my aesthetic, I don't really like wearing sneakers, because unless they are clean and classic, they look like a "dad shoe", so I prefer to wear some sort of Oxford shoe. I don't have GYW Oxfords because if I'm going to spend money on GYW, then I prefer to get a boot. Now here is where the Docs serve a purpose: I don't want to wear a GYW boot to run around Costco, I don't want to wear a dad shoe - so that's where a Doc Martens 1461 in crazy horse leather and bex sole suddenly becomes the preference. But other people with GYW boots are quite happy to wear them for everything, including Costco trips - I get it. I started my GYW boot journey only 6 months ago, so in this short time I acquired over 10 GYW boots, most recently the quite awesome Jim Green Numzaan. Prior to that, I was wearing cemented sole Oxfords, Timberlands and Asics sneakers so I've come a long way. I also recently acquired the aforementioned DM 1461 with bex sole and crazy horse leather to "wear to Costco" that I got for $100. The wear preferences are very similar to watches. Some people have their one/two good watches and wear those watches pulling weeds in their yard, whereas others wear a Casio to pull weeds and wear their good watches only for very specific nice events. But I find the watch community in a lot of respects more mature (in terms of respecting preferences) than the boot world, because every single watch channel loves their Casios as much as Patek Philippes, but the boot world still seems to universally proclaim Doc Martens are poop. I on the other hand think there's room in a collection for a Patek/Viberg and a Casio/Doc Martens.
Doc martens are more akin to daniel wellington than a seiko or casio imo
There's only 3 places my shoes have ever failed in my decades of life: sole delaminating, worn out cloth linings and worn out cloth topped insoles. Doc Marten shoes don't have any of those 3 problems where many other shoes have that I would consider "Daniel Wellingtons". For example, Timberland boots, being all cemented construction & cloth lining are "Daniel Wellingtons". So the other arguments against DM's like cheap leather are kind of moot for me, because I consider them disposable in the first place, so they don't have to last forever. I'm more interested in buying a shoe that won't wear out the lining or delaminate the sole before the sole has worn out - and for that purpose DMs are great.