Nearly £200 for a pair of boots - seems a lot to me.
My main reason for watching the telly presentation was to look at Julia Roberts and her equally fit guest.
But it did set me wondering about the price of footwear.
How much would you pay for a pair of shoes or boots?
Much more than fifty quid and I'd walk, shod or not.
Routinely, a lot less.
www.qvcuk.com/ukqic/qvcapp.aspx/view.2/app.detail/params.frames.y.tpl.uktsv.item.tsv.cm_scid.TSV?cm_re=Hero-_-Carousel1-_-MusthavewinterstylefromEMU
|
|
That is a desperate price something that's only water resistant = damp feet after 10 minutes. I tend to go to Clarks when they have a sale although all their stuff is made in Taiwan or the Philippines and is still £70+! British made and very good are Hotter - comfortable and long wearing but over you £50 ceiling iffy.
|
I was a Clark's fan years ago, but I reckon quality - but not price - dropped when they moved manufacturing overseas.
A year or so ago I bought a couple of pairs of Scholl branded slip-ons from a shoe supermarket for ether £25 or £30 a pair.
Sturdy, worn well, and polish up nicely on the rare occasions I can motivate myself to prise open the tin of Kiwi.
|
Pair of everyday shoes £70 - £100
Pair of Walking boots - £100 to £150
Walking sandals - for holiday just purchased £60
|
>> How much would you pay for a pair of shoes or boots?
I pay over £200 for an average-quality pair of leather shoes. My Church's all-leather slippers are just over £100.
|
Are the £200 average quality ones four times better than Clarkes £50 ones?
I ask because I've had expensive (to me) shoes in the past from Loakes and they seemed no better in terms of length of life, wear resistance, or any other shoey criteria that I could think of, so I just went back to Clarkes.
|
|
Shoes are like cars, they suffer from marketing hype and badges.
|
True, but also like cars the very cheapest whilst functional will probably not be particularly comfortable or look that good. At the dearer end you are paying an awful lot for the name.
The "Mondeo" price for a pair of mens shoes I would say is around £85
|
...The "Mondeo" price for a pair of mens shoes I would say is around £85...
Mmm, food for thought.
I might have to up my shoe budget a little.
|
>> Are the £200 average quality ones four times better than Clarkes £50 ones?
Definitely. In fact I doubt if you could buy all-leather Clark's shoes for £50.
|
Ah, I see. I don't take enough interest in clothes to realise that leather or not all leather were even options, so I've learned something anyway. Thanks.
But I'd probably buy something like this in the sale and call it quits.
www.clarks.co.uk/p/20347137
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 3 Feb 12 at 11:08
|
I bet you guys are giving Humph dyspepsia.
I've never got used to paying more than a fiver for shoes. I usually manage to find leather-upper tennis shoes for about 20 quid in the Portobello shoeshops with permanent 'sales'. The ones I am wearing now are all leather apart from the rubber nipples all over their soles and heels. They are a bit flasher and posher than the tennis shoes so cost 30 quid. They are wearing quite well in the country mud and are decently water resistant.
|
>> But I'd probably buy something like this in the sale and call it quits.
>>
>> www.clarks.co.uk/p/20347137
How long would they last? One of my pairs of Church's shoes, which are on average worn once a week, are now 37 years old. They're still fashionable, have never been repaired and still shine as well as when they were bought. Will yours still be around in 37 years?
|
|
Never buy shoes that will last longer than you will :-)
|
|
i have 2pairs of expensive shoes for funerals/weddings etc but normaly get clarkes at 50-80 pounds a pair and thay last very well if i can be bothered to polish them properly
|
>>Will yours still be around in 37 years?
No they won't. But then again, nor will I.
Two years I guess. However, as my idea of shoe shopping is to ask the nearest assistant to point me at "the same ones I've got on or as near as you've got" and buy those, they might as well be 37 years old.
|
The Church's shoes I bought around 2002 in a half price sale are lasting very well indeed and still look as good as new, but at £90 I wouldn't expect any less.
:)
|
I bought a pair of black formal shoes in a shopping mall in the US for 20 dollars when one of the shoes I was wearing split along the sole whilst on my way to a business meeting. That was in May and this week one of them fell apart when I slipped on the ice whilst on my way to another business meeting here in Germany. I hobbled into a shopping centre and bought a new pair, this time for 29 Euros, made in Italy allegedly. When I have some more time I will treat myself to some decent quality ones.
My winter boots on the other hand are very good. They cost around 150 Euros 10 years ago and are still comfortable, warm, waterproof and polish up like new.
|
Timberland boots £90.00 cheapest i can get normally around £125.00
Shoes a bit less around £60.00, but saying that Trainers are £90.00 +
You need to move with the times gone are the days of £15.00 footwear.
|
>> You need to move with the times gone are the days of £15.00 footwear.
You'd be surprised. I'm sure Humph can tell us the ARP for shoes, I doubt if it's much more than £30, even allowing for the buyers of Church's.
www.shoezone.com/Mens-Shoes
|
I would say John Lewis have decent quality shoes without going over the top and a reasonable pair there costs £75- £100
www.johnlewis.com/Men/Men's+Shoes/Men's+Shoes/Men's+Shoes/10310/ProductCategory.aspx
|
...You need to move with the times gone are the days of £15.00 footwear...
What I'm wearing now:
www.wynsors.com/revolt-p-15038.html
£14 looks a bit dear, sure I paid about half that in a sale.
|
You need to move with the times gone are the days of £15.00 footwear.
Not quite! - these last me on average 12-14months, worn almost every day!
tinyurl.com/84rkt5f
|
>> Not quite! - these last me on average 12-14months, worn almost every day!
>>
>> tinyurl.com/84rkt5f
>>
I don't like lace-up, wide fitting or rubber soles.
Next suggestion?
|
Bagpuss, can you give us those prices in real money, i.e GBP?
;-)
|
>>but saying that Trainers are £90.00 +
Not if you buy Reebok Classics.
|
Anyone who spends best part of £100 on a pair of trainers should have their head read.
They must cost all of £10 to make.
|
>> tinyurl.com/7bpd8ft
>>
>> A bit pricey, though...
>>
Trainers? Yuck!
|
Anyone who spends best part of £100 on a pair of trainers should have their head read.
That train of thought could be applied to most things in life but we don't ALL want the cheapest thing or we'd be driving a PUNTO.
Jeans Levi's £60.00 a pair some cost more.
Jackets over £100.00 and leather name your price.
You have to pay for fashion those ladies boots are fashionable.
|
|
I only buy them in sales - online mainly - Today's bootwear are a pair of Rohan badged Brasher Ghandruk, listed on their site today at 115 notes, got them in the sale for 75. Cracking lightwieght comfortable boots.
|
>>I only buy them in sales - online mainly
It's one item that I don't buy on-line. I've had to send shoes and trainers back because of size variations.
|
>> Anyone who spends best part of £100 on a pair of trainers should have their
>> head read.
>>
>> They must cost all of £10 to make.
Try finding a decent pair of trainers for £10. If we all wanted 'something for nothing', most businesses would be closed down.
I've spent £90 on trail shoes, but they have lasted me years.
|
...If we all wanted 'something for nothing', most businesses would be closed down...
As would most shoe shops if we all bought shoes only every 20 years.
|
|
You get what you pay for....My superb Altberg bike boots were built to order in the UK - cost just short of 120 quid - cracking all round boot, last for years and years, money very well spent.
|
It's one item that I don't buy on-line.
And one that I do - but then finding any choice of style or fit in a size 13 in the high street is pretty much a forlorn hope. A pair of 'proper' shoes costs about £6 to post back if they don't fit - which you could easily spend on transport and parking anyway if you had to go into a major town to shop. In any case, I'm pretty good now at judging what'll fit me before I order, so I've not returned anything for a while.
|
My shoes cost £16.99 from Shoe Zone, leather uppers and a hard wearing sole and heel. I go from brand new to falling apart in eight weeks as my job involves walking miles several days a week.
Expensive shoes would not last a day longer.
|
>> You get what you pay for....My superb Altberg bike boots were built to order in
>> the UK - cost just short of 120 quid - cracking all round boot, last
>> for years and years, money very well spent.
>>
I've just had a look on their website. I prefer a "combat" type boot for motorcycling; mainly for the fact that I don't care for walking around in motorcycle boots, but partly because the old side-valve H-D has a foot clutch and traditional bike boots don't flex so well at the ankle.
Quite impressed with their prices; I've used Magnums for some years but these might well be worth the extra few quid.
|
|
They are supremely comfortable, warm and waterproof - bought a bargain basement Triumph branded pair in 2001 - still going strong, just had them heeled - not waterproof so summer use only.
|
>> As would most shoe shops if we all bought shoes only every 20 years.
I buy my footwear from stores that sell a whole range of goods. Most mens shoes don't have any style - brown or black, that's your lot. Women have it much better.
|
I paid the thick end of £300 for my pair of Sportiva Nepal Tops.
Worth every penny, and more.
Surgery on frozen tootsies is most inconvenient. And painful.
|
>>Surgery on frozen tootsies is most inconvenient. And painful.
Can always just do a "Ranulph" and pull them off.
|
|
If I had just 1% of his guts I'd call myself a man.
|
|
Not sure its guts hes got or if he is just plain crazy!
|
Read this:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes
Then make up your own mind!
|
>> Read this:-
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes
>>
>> Then make up your own mind!
yes I know all that, and I still cant make my mind up if he his brave or just plain stupid.
|
|
He's obviously not stupid - he thinks and plans very carefully - it's just that when he thinks and plans he makes choices we wouldn't!
|
|
The point being, are those choices rational.
|
It was nice knowing legacy lad....
If he thinks tomorrow is a good day to (a) travel to then do a 20+ mile walk and (b) do the walk followed by the drive home then please do not call out the emergency services if in trouble. Curl up and wait for it to thaw :-) That's what a true explorer would do.
Prince William is on the Falklands annoying the Argentinians too so not available to fly from Anglesey.
|
|
Contrary to the crap in the media, there are other helicopter pilots with C Flight 22 Sqn.
|
>> Contrary to the crap in the media, there are other helicopter pilots with C Flight 22 Sqn.
Which could and should have been sent to the Falklands in this sensitive anniversary instead of William Wales... why else are we sending another ship.
We'll end up with an incident in this celebratory year for our queen (that lots of us don't want).
I still think a deal over oil/gas (if it's there under or near the Falklands) with Argentina is best.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 3 Feb 12 at 23:55
|
>> I still think a deal over oil/gas (if it's there under or near the Falklands)
>> with Argentina is best.
Appeasement will see us taken for a ta-ta.
Look where it got us with the Scots and the Welsh ;-)
Walk softly and carry act as if you have a big stick!
|
|
Good idea in the i paper today. Why don't we sell the Islands to the Argentinians? We need the money, they want the land. Change of sovereignty for cash used to be common.
|
We need more money than selling the islands will give us.
Never mind the bank of England will start printing soon (again).Mony out of nothing the way to go.>;)
Last pair of trainers I bought 50 quid Clarksons.I was thinking made in the UK.No its Thailand.
Three pair of shoes Clarksons will outlast me.Sandals for summer.I have never paid more for shoes than 60 pound.
|
They haven't enough money to make any difference to us.
Come the day Argentina is better off than we are, we really are finished.
Territorial claims are arbitrary anyway. On the basis that their population density is less than a tenth of ours, they should give us some of theirs.
Or perhaps the 80% ethnic Europeans can go back to Spain and Italy, whence most came, while we give the Falklands back to the indigenous population (seagulls).
Their politicians use the Malvinas claim to boost their own popularity.
Step one of the UK's strategy should be to persuade the ruling class there that any excursions to the islands will either end in humiliation for them or come at a very high cost, then they'll desist.
Pub talk of course, but I'll own the sentiment. Aggression should not be rewarded, so they should be considered locked out for a lifetime, say 100 years or so.
|
"They haven't enough money to make any difference to us. "
Well sell them to the highest bidder then. Must be worth a few quid and as ASDA or is it Tesco say "every little helps".
Keeping them is a bit like running a holiday cottage when you can't afford the mortgage on your main place.
|
|
not really at 60 m a year it's not much.
|
The Argies claim to a territory 300 miles away is neither logical nor valid. Falklands inhabitants did not replace an indigenous population because there was none. The islands were claimed by Britain in 1765, long before Argentina existed as a country, and have been permanently settled since 1833.
|
|
What would be the British attitude if roles were reversed and the Argies owned St Kilda?
|
...What would be the British attitude if roles were reversed and the Argies owned St Kilda?...
I wonder why you always seek to point out what you consider to be the inadequacies of your fellow countrymen?
Bear in mind it's the "British attitude" as applied down the years which enables you to do that.
|
I wonder why you always seek to point out what you consider to be the inadequacies of your fellow countrymen?
Steady, Iffy! All Bromp did was to invite us to step away from the familiar Get Awf Our Laaand orthodoxy and consider the question in an inverted form. Even at the height of the Bush-Blair nightmare we never got a law to make that Unpatriotic.
(Not like you to end a statement with a question mark, either.)
To answer Bromp's question, St Kilda is at least geographically proximal to the UK, so the inversion doesn't quite work. The Falklands aren't really close to anywhere; Argentina is just the country they're least far away from. Given the wishes of the islanders, whose genetic heritage isn't any more relevant than mine where I live, and the harm Argentina did to its own case in 1982, I see no reason to change the status quo.
|
...Not like you to end a statement with a question mark, either...
The sentence begins: 'I wonder why', which is a question, although 'I wonder' is superfluous.
Accepted style is to use a question mark, even if the question is rhetorical, which it wasn't - I was inviting an answer, which you provided.
|
The sentence begins: 'I wonder why', which is a question...
No, it isn't. 'Why do you...' is a question and requires a question mark; 'I wonder why you...' is a statement, and doesn't. 'I wonder, why do you...' would also be a question, but that's not what you wrote.
|
...No, it isn't...
It's a question, two reasons:
1. I say it is - the question mark at the end is a clue.
2. You answered it.
|
>> The sentence begins: 'I wonder why', which is a question, ....
"I wonder why ..." is a statement. "Why ........" is a question.
|
..."I wonder why ..." is a statement. "Why ........" is a question...
OK, here's a statement or three:
Some people post on internet purely to pick fault.
You tried with the speed cameras in Durham, and you're trying it again.
Failed both times - sharpen up or ship out.
|
Ooh! iffy's gorra a cob on!
:-D
|
...Ooh! iffy's gorra a cob on!...
You have the point, make of it what you will.
|
>> ...Ooh! iffy's gorra a cob on!...
>>
>> You have the point, make of it what you will.
Ooh! iffy's gorranother cob on!
:-D
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 4 Feb 12 at 14:45
|
>> Ooh! iffy's gorranother cob on!
Some conditions are permanent. It must be quite wearing when people point and laugh as he pads about in those things he wears on his feet.
But I'm glad we have a dedicated, literate full-time pedant among all the amateurs and part-timers.
|
Since we're now talking about Argentina ............
"It is hoped that 12,000 jobs will be created in Argentina as part of plans for the footwear industry to make 200 million pairs of shoes and export 50 million by the year 2020."
|
|
probably the same as france with the channel islands.
|
>> What would be the British attitude if roles were reversed and the Argies owned St
>> Kilda?
I don't know, but I think we should make a bold bid for the Faroes, and see if Argentina makes supportive noises.
|
Short answer to the OP. Shoes and boots are like tyres to use a topical analogy. You can buy inexpensive ones which will feel and indeed be perfectly adequate. If you care or want to care about quality it will cost a bit more. How you measure quality is though rather subjective in the same way. Longevity of use is not necessarily the only factor. Like tyres, the characteristics of footwear can be measured in many diverse ways. One thing is for sure with footwear anyway, whatever you pay, economic forces have long since dictated that few such purchases are bad value. Quite the opposite in fact. If you pay £15 you are getting £15s worth and if you pay £200 you are getting something of that value. Fortunately we live in a world which allows access to those choices.
|
>>Quite the opposite in fact. If you pay £15 you are getting £15s worth and if you pay £200 you are getting something of that value.
An economist's definition, which is OK if you allow that brand is part of the utility for some. Can a pair of off the peg 'trainers' ever be worth £100+ if label is ignored?
Not disagreeing with your point, which is presumably based partly on the premise that few shoe retailers are super-rich.
I tend to assume that 'practical' value is somewhere in the middle with most things. A £15 pair of shoes, once VAT, selling costs and some profit margin is allowed for, doesn't allow for much spent on manufacturing. A bit like a £3.60 bottle of wine. 60p is VAT, and £1.81 is duty. The remaining £1.19, less the overheads and profit, doesn't leave much value in the wine does it? At £6.00, the basic wine cost can be several times as much for the same profit margin. At £60 for a bottle, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 4 Feb 12 at 11:27
|
...and after several £60 bottles, the beholder's eye for beauty can become unreliable.
};---)
|
"Trainers" are the notable exception Manatee. Industry foible, but I don't really categorise them in the same group as other footwear. Most of these types of shoes are made in one of fewer than 10 factories in the world who supply all the recognised brands and most of the lesser known ones too. The equipment required to make them is actually outrageously expensive. The sole moulding machines are up to half a million £ each and each mould ( per size/design ) is at least £20k. Given that normally each machine has 24 moulding stations you can see the sort of costs which have to be overcome before you even buy raw materials. They have be kept running ( sorry ) 24/7 as the gloop which forms the soles would set inside the machine if it were switched off.
However, volume amortises costs and I know of no trainer design which would be worth more than $6.00 US at the factory gates and most are in the region of $3.50 US, some of course much less.
Reality is, regardless of brand and price they have often been made on the same machine by the same Chinaman.
"Proper" shoes are a bit different. Depending upon their construction there is often still a remarkably high level of human skill and labour required.
|
>> If I had just 1% of his guts I'd call myself a man.
>>
When he went around the horn with Robin Knox Johnston he spued most of them out :)
|
That's a lot for a pair of boots - Meldrew
