Living in the past

[William Stratford]

One could argue that spending that money on a pair of shoes is actually an investment, both in a pair of shoes that will last for many, many years, and in the future of a specialist industry.

You could do that for half that price - spending such an enormous sum on shoes (especially when taken with his comments on the video that I quoted) show what his "lifestyle" is about. This isnt (in his own admission) about a love of the past but rather is about extravagant, conspicuous-consumption and living the life of a make-believe movie star where life is a "party". I don't expect him to behave differently, given society's norms today, but I do expect that people say what it is rather than suggest that it is other.

 

[Bird Lives]

I think this guy is sincere...He spent a long time as the suffering musician and now he's making great bread and a little over-zealous in catching up maybe....But what obviously started as in infatuation with the music has grown to an infatuation to creating his own time-zone....and he has the bread to do it.....

I say 'more power to him'...His very infatuation is what is making him so authentic which has made him more iconic which has made him more popular as an entertainer...He's very lucky...I wish Be-Bop was as popular with the 'money-crowd'....I'd like to be able to buy a couple new fur-felt fedoras without feeling like I was stealing from my family to do it...lol

 

[Edward]

In regard to musical instruments, there a world renown Australian flautist, Jane Rutter. I saw her recently on a music game show where she mentioned that her favourite flute cost her $60,000! Of course all jaws dropped. When asked why so expensive, she said it was made of 19 carat gold.

Apparently it does sound better, but only 5% of the top musicians would be able to tell the difference.

Read into that what you will

This is what we call the Law of Diminishing Returns. It's even more pronounced, I would say, in the world of the electric guitar where the tone of the instrument itself is only one small part of the overall sound by the time it goes through effects, an amp (typically overdriven), a PA system/mixing desk...etc.... Very different than the classical world in which it is all about (reproducing) the pure, unamplified, acoustic sound of the instrument itself. I can see those tiny difference being that much more important in the latter case. Even so, sooner or later it comes down to the decision between Instrument A and B, where A is twice the instrument that B is, and A costs five times the price of B. For every two hundred bucks price increase, that % difference decreases... Every individual will have the point at which they consider a certain increase is or is not worth the difference. Inevitably, a professional musician who plays the same instrument every day will, funds available, most likely be prepared to spend more than a hobby layer like myself. This will be the same across the board, whether it's guitars, shotguns, shoes or bicycles. The real trick, IMO, is in knowing yourself and your own needs well enough to know what is right for you, rather than either buying cheap because it's cheap, or being duped into spending crazy money on a product that might be great, might be "the best" but simply is in excess of your own needs.

 

[mummyjohn]

My, my, what have I kicked off here! I had no idea this thread would explode in a few days, and now that it has I realize I wasn't as articulate as I should've been in my first post. What I was exalting was consumerism, not conspicuous consumption. I definitely DO NOT encourage buying just to buy, and acquiring the newest thing just because it can be acquired.

A few pages back: "Consumerism reduces us to problem-solving machines in service of appetites. It has no actual comprehension of cherishing something as important in itself, rather than in its ability to sate those appetites. In short, it knows how to lust after but not how to love."

No. Consumerism is the 'protection and/or promotion of the interests of consumers.' That's a good thing, I want my interests to be popular and promoted by/in the marketplace! Furthermore, I strongly reject the notion of "having no actual comprehension of cherishing something as important in itself." Encouraging individuals to value products for the experience gained from them, not for their monetary value, is among my main campaigns in this life! My car is like another member of the family, I've grown up in it and it's a lot more to me than just steel and leather: it's long road trips to places I've never seen before, it's the dog sticking her head out the window, every so often it's even girls hollering at me as my buds and I cruise down PCH. My radio isn't just a way to play music, it's dozens of nights with friends dancing and drinking late into the night.

Technology, largely, is what separates us (humans) from virtually every other species. We are able to use more than merely the muscles we were born with to increase out total output. Man today does more than ancient man did; pigs today do just as ancient pigs did. I encourage you to buy what you like, but there's a big difference - and advertisers will hope you don't notice the seam - twixt what actually adds value to your life and what you can be convinced will add value to your life. Drawing or recognizing that divide is tough for people to do: you have to be honest with yourself. But I don't own any products that own me, I gain value (enjoyment) from every thing I own, and I don't indulge in purchases that I'm told by the seller will make my life better if I don't actually see them making my life better (note how I don't have a mobile phone on my person 24/7, and I truly have no desire for a "smart" phone).


Enough preaching. To get back to the article that started it all, who cares if someone else spends what you consider an exorbitant amount on shoes? It's not my money, and I don't judge. That's a personal thing, but if I was to judge someone, that would certainly be out of place. I'm sure there's a person out there whose lawnmower cost them more than their automobile. Do I think would be a ridiculous way to spend my money? Absolutely. But I'm not going to knock him for it. You can't fathom how he'd spend over a grand on shoes; some people can't fathom how I'd spend several on an amplifier (trust me, in the audiophile world, you realize there are some price tags that people not in the community just don't get).


TL;DR:

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much something costs a person, it matters how much it's worth to them. I'd gladly drive a 1930's Packard at a quarter of the fuel efficiency of my current car, but who cares: it's a FUN car that I think looks absolutely majestic, and you don't put a price on that. If he gains more than $1300 of joy (whatever that may mean) from those shoes, then more power to him for living in an unconventional way that satisfies him. I think he, to use the modern parlance, is one righteous dude.

 

[Undertow]

...who cares if someone else spends what you consider an exorbitant amount on shoes? It's not my money, and I don't judge. That's a personal thing, but if I was to judge someone, that would certainly be out of place. I'm sure there's a person out there whose lawnmower cost them more than their automobile. Do I think would be a ridiculous way to spend my money? Absolutely. But I'm not going to knock him for it. You can't fathom how he'd spend over a grand on shoes; some people can't fathom how I'd spend several on an amplifier...

...If he gains more than $1300 of joy (whatever that may mean) from those shoes, then more power to him for living in an unconventional way that satisfies him. I think he, to use the modern parlance, is one righteous dude.

Forgive me if I play Devil's Advocate here, but why shouldn't we comment on his choices? Shouldn't the actions of a public figure such as this man deserve discussion on an internet forum? I think he's pretty cool too, but wow, $1300 per pair of handmade shoes - and two pairs?! [huh]

Others have said it - I think it wasn't necessarily his intention to gloat, I think that's just how the article was written. Personally, I wish we could have seen pictures of the shoes. They must have been quite luxurious. He's a lucky guy. Doesn't mean he's somehow immune to discussion though.

But what do you think? Should he be somehow immune? Does an article with these details not necessarily allow some kind of discussion? Just curious.

 

[mummyjohn]

Well, I don't suppose it's inherently "wrong" to discuss it, but there's no interest in it, so why would I? I don't care how much he spent on the shoes (or anything else), so why waste any of my precious time discussing price?

 

[Noirblack]

Forgive me if I play Devil's Advocate here, but why shouldn't we comment on his choices? Shouldn't the actions of a public figure such as this man deserve discussion on an internet forum? I think he's pretty cool too, but wow, $1300 per pair of handmade shoes - and two pairs?! [huh]

Others have said it - I think it wasn't necessarily his intention to gloat, I think that's just how the article was written. Personally, I wish we could have seen pictures of the shoes. They must have been quite luxurious. He's a lucky guy. Doesn't mean he's somehow immune to discussion though.

But what do you think? Should he be somehow immune? Does an article with these details not necessarily allow some kind of discussion? Just curious.

There is no problem with commenting on it. I too find it interesting that this article was so controversial. The article indicated that his interest in vintage items stem from his attempt to genuinely appreciate the music of times gone by, starting with the clothes the musicians wore and growing out from there. I find that fascinating.

As to the question of whether he is just a greedy consumer of vintage autos, clothes, etc it is very difficult to know what his motivation is. I recall the article said he did his own work on the cars. Although not definitive, that indicates to me that he is interested in more than acquiring and merely owning. It sounds like he has an appreciation of these cars. But who knows? Someone else could take that information and still peg him as a greedy consumer of vintage autos. He does have seven after all. More than one car per person in a household seems excessive to me, but if he really likes them, appreciates them and even works on them, I won't knock him for owning more than one.

I also think that we have to recognize that he is a bit of an eccentric in that he seems fully committed to vintage living. I'll venture a guess that he is more committed to it than most of the people on the FL. If there are folks on the FL who live more vintage, I apologize in advance. I like to let eccentrics do what they do and not criticize them (as long as they aren't harming anyone). It makes life interesting.

 

[Miss Stella]

Yes he does very much so, he really does have the look, and I really do admire the lengths he goes to to achieve that.

Ben

Good golly, thank you! I was beginning to think I checked into an economic debate thread!

 

[HadleyH]

Good golly, thank you! I was beginning to think I checked into an economic debate thread!

nah... it's just those shoes ain't cheap hehe! , what is he, Donald Trump? good for him bless his heart!.... then again if he has the money it's all well and good and if he doesn't and goes broke in the process.... ok too.


What do I care anyway [huh]

 

[MikeBravo]

This is what we call the Law of Diminishing Returns. It's even more pronounced, I would say, in the world of the electric guitar where the tone of the instrument itself is only one small part of the overall sound by the time it goes through effects, an amp (typically overdriven), a PA system/mixing desk...etc.... Very different than the classical world in which it is all about (reproducing) the pure, unamplified, acoustic sound of the instrument itself. I can see those tiny difference being that much more important in the latter case. Even so, sooner or later it comes down to the decision between Instrument A and B, where A is twice the instrument that B is, and A costs five times the price of B. For every two hundred bucks price increase, that % difference decreases... Every individual will have the point at which they consider a certain increase is or is not worth the difference. Inevitably, a professional musician who plays the same instrument every day will, funds available, most likely be prepared to spend more than a hobby layer like myself. This will be the same across the board, whether it's guitars, shotguns, shoes or bicycles. The real trick, IMO, is in knowing yourself and your own needs well enough to know what is right for you, rather than either buying cheap because it's cheap, or being duped into spending crazy money on a product that might be great, might be "the best" but simply is in excess of your own needs.

On this game show she did a duet with another guest. She used her $60,000 flute and he used one of those whistling lollypops that cost about 50 cents!

 

[Undertow]

Yeah, it does seem like he has the whole "vintage life" thing by the tail. I'd say he must be a little eccentric to maintain that kind of life. I know I'm quite eccentric, although I don't own as many items. I live a "vintage life" of sorts, just fewer items and more ideas.

I'm surprised no one mentioned this fella's gal pal. I wonder if she is "vintage" as well? (And I wonder if she slapped him silly when she hear about those shoes! )

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are all kinds of "vintage lives" -- the thing we should avoid is assuming *the* vintage life is the one of ostentation. A lot lot lot lot more people in the Era lived very simply than ever lived splendidly.

I keep wondering how one could make a pair of shoes to justify such a price tag. Elkskin laces with platinum tips? Eyelets hand-carved from fragments of genuine Apollo moon rock? Heel nails drawn from the rarest vermeil? Leather hand-tanned from the tender underbelly of an unborn gnu? A lining fashioned from down plucked from the Littlest Angel's wing?

 

[William Stratford]

 

[C-dot]

I keep wondering how one could make a pair of shoes to justify such a price tag. Elkskin laces with platinum tips? Eyelets hand-carved from fragments of genuine Apollo moon rock? Heel nails drawn from the rarest vermeil? Leather hand-tanned from the tender underbelly of an unborn gnu? A lining fashioned from down plucked from the Littlest Angel's wing?

I still don't think I could justify paying $1300.00 for it, unborn gnus or not. (But then again, I can't abide to pay $7.00 for a sandwich.)

 

[Ben Stephens]

Well, lets suppose that the artisan who made them had overheads (Including his wage) of $100 an hour. That is only 13 hours work to make a pair of shoes.

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[mummyjohn]

I suppose I'll take another stab at being definitive, both within and beyond this thread; hopefully this'll sum it all up:

Something's worth what someone will pay for it.



Again, not trying to distract from the topic at hand, which is the fact that this guy is totally awesome!

 

[HadleyH]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this fella's gal pal. I wonder if she is "vintage" as well? (And I wonder if she slapped him silly when she hear about those shoes! )

You bet she did.......... if he has one that is

 

[Feraud]

Wow.... I wonder if he's a member of the Lounge.....

Would you be if you were the subject of this scrutiny?

 

[scotrace]

Would you be if you were the subject of this scrutiny?

If he was, we've run him off with it.

 

[W.A.Mack]

Somehow I doubt that he is much into the internet. As for the girlfriend. I doubt she would put up with his Antique treks if she was not into vintage as well.