Just when you thought you had seen it all . . . (Warning: Not for the fainthearted)

[Mich486]

The ridiculous inflation of everything discussed on this forum has been driven by the larger body of consumers. One need look no further than the incoming jacket thread for evidence of that! For example, in 2010/11 a new Aero was around $650-$700? Half of the cost of a new jacket 9 years later. Same with Vanson, Johnson leathers, *enter brand name of your choice here*. There’s no turning back because we are all guilty of perpetuating the hype. So, just like every other fringe hobby, music scene, whatever...once it becomes “mainstream” the gig is up.

Personally, I’m struggling with the notion. I don’t suspect I will ever buy another custom jacket. Had I bought all my jackets in 2011 or earlier I could sell them for the price I paid (maybe even more)! But now? If I sell a jacket it’s not going to fetch more than 1/2 the msrp.
Perhaps in 9 years a used x,y,z will sell for $1350.

I doubt it very much.

The loss in value of a new leather jacket of the type discussed here on the secondary market is huge. If you buy used you can get back a decent amount of what you paid but as first buyer you take a massive hit as you are saying. It’s just too much. If I want to sell my Aero Highwayman in a very decent condition I probably will have to sell it for 40% of what I paid for it. It’s just too painful...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ton312]

The loss in value of a new leather jacket of the type discussed here on the secondary market is huge. If you buy used you can get back a decent amount of what you paid but as first buyer you take a massive hit as you are saying. It’s just too much. If I want to sell my Aero Highwayman in a very decent condition I probably will have to sell it for 40% of what I paid for it. It’s just too painful...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely. That’s why I will play the long game in the second hand market from now on. You don’t get the immediate gratification but you don’t get raked either.

 

[torfjord]

I guess I should have seen where this would go when I posted that T-shirt. Apologies for bringing the thread off topic!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Superfluous]

@Superfluous have you tried the Converse 70’s ? Quite a step up from the regular converse and way more comfort and durability. I’m sure they can’t compete with the Visvim but at 1/10 of the price they do pretty well IMHO.

Even the old school Cons do not compare to Visvim Skagway sneakers. Its night and day. Are Visvim's worth 10x the price? Thats a subjective and personal decision. For me, they are well worth the incremental price, just as a $2,400 Himel jacket is worth 10x the price of a mall leather jacket (Cons are the quintessential mall product). I value quality and am willing to pay for it. I welcome disagreement. All I ask is that I not be overtly criticized for patronizing quality.

For me, the whole point of Chuck Taylors is that they don’t last.

For me, sneakers are not a disposable commodity. Rather, I prefer quality that feels robust and endures over time. Moreover, and importantly, Chucks feel profoundly insubstantial and flimsy when worn. They feel disposable. You might like that feel -- I don't.

It never ceases to amaze me how some here (not the two quoted above) get so bent out of shape by someone spending significant sums for quality. Yes, we are way past the point of diminishing returns, and the relationship between price and quality is not linear. That said, there is no denying the palpable difference in quality. If someone appreciates that additional quality and is willing to pay for it, more power to them. Why the enduring need to criticize someone solely because they value, and pay for, high quality products?

Lastly, I love the fact that I continue to be such a lighting rod for controversy. All I have to do is mention a pair of sneakers I own and we are off to the races.

 

[Bamaboots]

Just no.

https://www.sonofastag.com/collecti...ellbound-48-543w-m-65-jacket-indigo-patchwork

May as well go big or go home if you're gonna wear that $#!*. Have to have these to go with it.

 

[Bamaboots]

Lastly, I love the fact that I continue to be such a lighting rod for controversy. All I have to do is mention a pair of sneakers I own and we are off to the races.

I enjoy that as well. Though I don't own any sneakers except for my Asics that are used for the gym and the hand me down ones that get relegated to yard work, far be it from me to criticize you or anyone else here for appreciating and buying quality. Have you seen my boot shelves? I seldom contribute to these threads but I read them quite often as you folks are entertaining, thoughtful and humorous for the most part and I've learned some things.

 

[ton312]

endures over time

Chucks are specifically designed NOT to do this...that's why they release 40,000 new versions/materials/designs per season
But I understand your point of view. Chucks are designed to fail so that you buy the newest iteration just as soon as it's released. I think that's the point and why they are fun and continue to hold my interest. The actual quality is of no real concern to me as I know they are cheap going in.

 

[Bamaboots]

Jimmy Goldstein. Leather, turquoise and silver conchos. I wonder what that thing weighs?

 

[Downunder G Man]

Who am I to judge but I struggle to understand people boasting about wearing skins of animal that are endangered. Sooner or later we are going to drive to extinction any form of life which is incompatible with human life anyway but still...

I surely find rattlesnake boots quite tacky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was merely trying to show the absurdity of $690 sneakers is all ! By any measure that is just mental !
I did not mean to come across as a "blowhard" regarding the skin type of my boot collection.
I myself have no , nor would want any, Elephant or truly endangered species.
Couple of years back I was wary of telling any interested party that some ( quite a few now !) of my jacket collection was HORSEHIDE lest I engender hostility.

 

[Siggmund]

Since we are arcing into value and aesthetics once again, I wonder what is the most expensive insubstantial article of clothing anyone can find? I'm talking about itsy-bitsy, teeny-weenie bikini's and like. Maybe measured in dollars per ounce.

 

[Bamaboots]

I guess that's true to a point. There is one subspecies of hippo (pygmy, maybe?) that is protected or endangered, but unless things have changed recently the common hippo that I think about as boot leather is not. They are still being legally hunted, at least in some places.

And just like that, we've gone from high-priced sneakers to hippo hunting!

Quite a digression but here we are now, I guess a thread on hippos state of conservation would be excessive.

If they are legally hunted I don’t know but the regular hippo population has shrunk massively (from tens of thousands to 100s in some areas) in the past 40years and they’ll go extinct well before the 22nd century if people keep killing them for ivory and their skin. Really I think there is no need to use hippo leather for boots. Again other people are fine with that and that’s ok too but I’m not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I probably shouldn't have gone back and read the last few pages. The whole endangered species argument is one I take seriously and appreciate the regulations and restrictions in place. CITES is an interesting read if one has the time. It's educational.

I have hippo, elephant, alligator, ostrich and assorted smooth leather cowboy boots. The two that obviously fall under CITES are the elephant and hippo. Both were made from legally harvested and marketed skins.

I think sometimes we forget that the hides come from multiple sources. Legal hunts, which I'm not going to debate the morality of but at least useable parts of the animal don't go to waste. There are nuisance animals that have to be taken, animals in zoos and rescue and rehab facilities that die natural deaths or have to be put down. The harvesting of these skins contributes to the upkeep of these organizations.

I'll probably never have another pair of elephant boots commissioned and the hippos were a second hand buy out of curiosity. Super tough leather and waterproof. I probably can't wear either pair in CA, hell, kangaroo leather is outlawed there.

 

[zebedee]

The nonsensical notion that you would distrust a man and challenge the fiber of his soul based on his willingness to pay more than you deem appropriate for a pair of sneakers says much more about you than the other person. That's just me, though.

No one bats an eye when people here spend north of $400 on a denim jacket, but $650 for a hybrid leather/canvas sneaker with a vulcanized rubber sole shocks the conscious, disrupts the soul, and elicits comments like that set forth above?

For what its worth, Mr. Porter states that my Visvim sneakers are "woven from strips of canvas and lined in leather for extra reinforcement," and incorporate "vulcanized rubber" souls:
https://www.mrporter.com/en-us/mens...ogi-woven-canvas-and-leather-sneakers/1010229 .
IMHO, the construction is superlative and well worth the price. If that genuinely causes soul-searching consternation for some, so be it . . . I will not lose sleep over it. Enjoy your vastly inferior Cons. I make no apologies for patronizing quality.

I am sorry if I've caused offence- I was intending that as a joke, hence the emoji.

 

[zebedee]

Personalaesthetic preferences, really. I've not owned a pair of gutties / plimsolls / training shoes in well over a decade now; I'm honestly much more comfortable in a decent leather brogue. That said, what primarily puts me off the big bucks on these sorts of taining shoes is the fact tat they all seem to be essentially disposable. I can't bring myself to pay significant money for footwear that can't have the soles redone or whatever. I imagnie it's all relative, though. If I earned ten times what I do, I'm sured there are some moreexpensive products I'd pick up that currently I eschew.

Sorry- I think I've caused some bother. I was meaning that post to be funny.

 

[navetsea]

heritage menswear is a full blown fashion trend there is no way to deny that (probably on a declining phase by now).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yeah I see that coming, some of these raw jeans only company now selling distressed, elastene blended denim they were mocking at years before, the different is they sell their distressed version at the same price they sell their raw or even higher, why not just buy cheap distressed mall denim jacket 1/6 of the price. the funny thing it is still a taboo to just sand papering your denim yourself or when you buy distressed jeans from mall brand, but it is OK now if you buy distressed denim done by a "reputable" company.

 

[scottyrocks]

What Ton says, Cons sneakers don't last and they aren't meant to. I walk/bike 20 + miles every single day and have been doing so for the last 10 years and I haven't had a pair of Converse that survived more than three months. Most I would get out of them is like five months and that's if I settled for wearing a pair of sneakers with holes and split soles.

Well, it's good to know that something hasn't changed in the last 40 years. Back in the '70s, when I wore Converse All-Stars daily, they lasted about three months. Long live consistency!

 

[ProteinNerd]

I have no idea what you guys do to your converse but I have 2 pairs of high tops, 1 canvas, 1 leather at the moment, both at least 4 years old and going strong.....actually I wish they would give up the ghost so I can buy some new shoes.

Due to a lack of storage space I’m running a strict one out one in policy on pretty much everything and I hate throwing out clothing that is still perfectly functional.

 

[navetsea]

I also spent years on one pairs of converse before finally the sole developed holes from being too thin, but maybe since i have low bridge and practically flat footed i dont give any shoes' upper construction much strain.

 

[torfjord]

I actually gave up on converse many many years ago, because the issue with longevity. For me, they usually lasted no more than a couple of months and then I had to throw them out.
Maybe they are cheaper in the US, but in Sweden they cost around 86 usd. For me that is not a cheap price for a couple of disposable shoes that you have to throw away after a couple of months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scottyrocks]

Even if they still cost the $10USD (for factory seconds) that they did when I wore them as a kid, I still wouldn't wear them now, as the last pair I tried on felt like bricks strapped to my feet.

 

[Big J]

I've had and still have converse. Think of them as 'street slippers' for when I want to go out to do something that isn't a big deal and won't involve a lot of walking. Quality is what you pay for, and they are cheap. I've had pairs that lasted a couple of months, and pairs that lasted for 5 years. Why? No idea.