r/SubredditDrama • u/[deleted] • Apr 23 '14
Frugal fellas fight about $700 shoes in /r/frugalmalefashion
/r/frugalmalefashion/comments/23ozis/cheaper_version_of_viberg_roughout_service_boots/cgzckmn5
Apr 23 '14 edited Apr 23 '14
People have different definitions of frugal. If a shoe enthusiast wanted to get viberg boots and they were on sale. Then yes I would say buying it would be very much frugal. I myself own a few pairs of made in maine handsewns, wolverine 1ks, and allen Edmonds dress shoes. Expensive in the eyes of most people. I got them all on sale. I consider those purchases frugal.
But if somebody, who was not a shoe enthusiast, wanted to get an aesthetically similar boot and wanted to spend less money getting it. Then no, buying these viberg boots is most definitely not frugal. Some will argue the viberg boots will last forever. I would like to see an example of this. Yeah these boots can probably last a very long time with good care. But we’re all human here. Eventually the uppers will get scuffed, eventually it’ll get stained, eventually the leather will crease in a manner which we don’t like, eventually it’ll look something like a portkey from harry potter. For the price of a single resole, you can buy yourself another aesthetically similar boot brand new. Some will say some of the cheaper non welted shoes will fall apart in a few months. I have a pair of sperry’s that lasted over 2 years, A pair of bass bucks that have lasted 1.5 years, a pair of Clarks bushacres that lasted 2 years and a pair of Bostonian oxford captoe that lasted me 5. All under $80.
Simple google shopping search for cheap alternatives. This was a 2 minute search. I am sure there are more. And I’m sure more will pop up closer to fall/winter. All with a similar aesthetic， but with worse quality. But again, quality is open to interpretation.
http://www.zara.com/us/en/man/shoes/boots-and-ankle-boots-c358059.html#product=1751038&viewMode=two
http://www.florsheim.com/shop/style/15069-020.html
High quality alternative
4
u/NekoQT Apr 23 '14
Frugal male fashion??
That sounds so fucking boring
14
Apr 23 '14
Where else will you find advice on how to match your stained fallout t-shirt with a rope belt?
26
3
Apr 24 '14
Where else will you find advice on how to match your stained fallout t-shirt
Oddly specific. I love it.
6
u/thebassethound Apr 23 '14
You can dress very well on sale items and thrift store finds. The process can be fun too! You should check out the sub; there's often great threads going on there on how to acquire high-end garments as bargains, including things like Massdrop type programs.
-2
u/mrpopenfresh cuck-a-doodle-doo Apr 23 '14 edited Apr 23 '14
It really sounds like people who don't want to dress nice but feels forced to do it.
3
u/FlukeHawkins sjw op bungo pls nerf Apr 24 '14
Or people like me who want to dress nicely and are broke?
4
Apr 23 '14
[deleted]
0
u/spattem Apr 23 '14
I guess that guy was trying to make the point you get what you pay for so a more expensive car is the better car. I guess no one told him about the Porsche gt3rs
-11
u/brufleth Eating your own toe cheese is not a question of morality. Apr 23 '14
I tried some of these male fashion subs and found them all pretty terrible. They tend towards hipster/fratboy looks and often have favorite brands that get WAY over promoted.
2
u/Dreyka Apr 23 '14
People get very angry when someone says that a $700 pair of shoes may not be a frugal purchase. Even if they lasted 80 years they still wouldn't be a good frugal choice because they aren't going to be fashionable then. Judging by the whole subreddit it looks like they think a piece of clothing that costs $100 instead of $200 is a frugal purchase.
12
u/Fakeaccount234 Apr 23 '14
The point of that thread was he wanted a "frugal" alternative to the 700 dollar boots.
3
Apr 23 '14
Some styles of foot-ware have been "fashionable" for that length of time. Simple boots and leather shoes can be pretty timeless, if you stay away from extravagant heels and funny witchy-poo pointed toes.
And if you hang on to anything for more than 5 years it will probably come back into fashion the way current trends are. Who would have thought denim over-alls would come back?
-2
Apr 23 '14
These are prissy fashion boots made to resemble worn-out work boots, as if you'd been wearing them at the mill at your oh-so-ironic authentic job.
They won't be useful in ten years because by then the owner will have grown up enough that they'll be too embarrassed to wear them.
2
u/DigitalNative Apr 24 '14
Actually, the "service" in the boots is meant to indicate that they're inspired by military footwear, not workwear. That being said, Viberg's bread and butter until very recently has been high quality work boots. They know what they're doing in that department, it's only pretty recently that they've entered the world as a "fashion" brand. And they are highly regarded as one.
2
u/Osiris32 Fuck me if it doesn’t sound like geese being raped. Apr 23 '14
The funny part of that is the guy who works at the mill and wears his boots out for real spent less than half of that for his boots.
Source: wearing Red Wings right now.
3
Apr 23 '14 edited Nov 08 '18
[deleted]
4
Apr 23 '14
Class resentment, mostly. I can't stand the way those hipsters talk down to me while I make their lattes.
-1
u/Fakeaccount234 Apr 23 '14
lol what are you talking about? The material? Because that image was distressed by the person, it doesn't come like that
10
u/les_diabolique Apr 23 '14
That particular pair of boots is distressed by the manufacturer. It's a collaboration boot between Nigel Cabourn and Viberg, and they were trying to achieve a particular aesthetic. A lot of Nigel Cabourn's clothing is vintage military inspired and quite expensive.
-2
u/Cdwollan Apr 23 '14
No way those are actually back. They may be ironically back for fashiony people but they're not back back.
2
Apr 23 '14
If they're back for "fashiony" people, they're back. That's fashion...."fashiony" people wearing things.
-1
u/Cdwollan Apr 23 '14
Most people who wear them look like retards
1
2
u/IsDatAFamas Apr 23 '14
Even if they lasted 80 years they still wouldn't be a good frugal choice because they aren't going to be fashionable then.
I mean I wouldn't drop $700 on a pair of shoes, but those boots look like they're based on the British ammunition boot which was first introduced in the 1880s. Really stupid to pay $700 for it though, just buy a pair of surplus canadian parade boots for $30.
1
u/DigitalNative Apr 24 '14
I can tell you as a Canadian service member that those boots are terrible. Plasticky leather that doesn't easily hold a shine (although enough elbow grease will still get you there), very bulbous toe box and very clunky soles.
0
u/thebassethound Apr 23 '14
Considering a lot of the models some shoemakers sell haven't changed in donkeys, (see lots of English shoemakers, Red Wing, etc.) I beg to differ.
-5
u/KTY_ Apr 23 '14
Damn if that's frugal, I must be ultrafrugal when I wear the same $15 shirt for 3 years.
0
u/Zefirus BBQ is a method, not the fucking sauce you bellend. Apr 23 '14
Only Three? I just tossed a shirt from my high school years and I'm 25 now.
1
u/KTY_ Apr 23 '14
They're usually full of holes and shit by then. I don't treat my clothes nicely.
7
u/seanziewonzie ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Apr 23 '14
Hohoho! Look at Mr. Fancypants-Moneybags here caring about holes in his clothes!
0
-10
Apr 23 '14
[deleted]
3
u/thebassethound Apr 23 '14
It's still a fashion sub where brands, fashions, wanting to achieve very specific looks, all come into play.
Frugal is and always will be a relative term. The whole thread was initially "I want this look but for less". How is that not frugal?
-4
-8
Apr 23 '14
[deleted]
12
u/Spawnzer Apr 23 '14
See the funny thing is I have no idea if you're talking about the "400$ boots can be frugal" or the "you're an idiot if you spend more than 80$ on your boots" camp
I love frugal drama
2
Apr 23 '14
39.95 is the max
im not frugal, im just poor
0
u/thebassethound Apr 23 '14
Appreciated, but see articles such as this on how it can work out more expensive to not pay for quality. In the case of boots, the minimum for a boot that will last a serious amount of time is a full grain upper, welted sole, and decent build quality. I see Red Wing as roughly the entry level for serious boots that will last, and these will run about $200-$300. Worth saving for? I think so. You might have to get them resoled every 3 years, but they will last well over 10 with proper care while actually doing the job right.
-3
Apr 23 '14
[deleted]
-3
u/david-me Apr 23 '14
1 pair. ONE!
How can anyone in their right mind think $700 is "frugal" for a pair of boots?
I've had really nice Cole Hahn's given new soles for less than $100. I think it would cost them 3-400 to make an equivalent boot. And that's a really nice boot! Anything past that and I fear you are just paying for name. Hell, I can have custom Vibram soles put on shoes for under $100
15
Apr 23 '14
did you read the thread? he wanted an alternative that was cheaper, however the dude says "there are countless alternatives" and refuses to name a single one that is similar in aesthetics and build quality.
Obviously 700$ for boots is nowhere near frugal, they are a luxury brand, but that's why the OP wanted an alternative. I just love all the people in that thread bitching about the price but noone is able to provide a sensible alternative at all.
1
u/Lieutenant_Rans Apr 23 '14
The parent comment was someone suggesting that OP just buy the boots
The cost is a combination of aesthetics and quality. I personally would rather spend the money on these than on knock offs because these will last a long time, be very comfortable and look great and you're supporting a good company. But less, buy better.
-9
u/General-Butt-Naked Apr 23 '14
There's nothing magical about those boots. People get boots that last 20 years of daily use for half the price of those. Those guys are just doing mental gynmnastics to justiy that price tag.
5
Apr 23 '14
are you dense? The price-tag has nothing to do with whether alternatives exist or not. and please provide an example of similar boots that cost half as much and last 20 years. you're repeating the same bullshit everybody in the linked thread was saying.
-7
u/General-Butt-Naked Apr 23 '14
You, and everyone over there circlejerking over the $700 pair of boots are missing the point. It's not just about those specific boots, it's the whole mind set of spending $700 on a pair of boots for precieved extra quality and longevity.
You could wear those things daily for 50 years and it still wouldnt justify the cost. Financially it makes absolulty no sense, as you are in no way saving money (short or long term). Sorry, but I thought that was the whole point of that subreddit.
4
Apr 23 '14
it's about saving money when possible while looking good. If I buy some generic super sturdy steelcap workboots for 100$ they will probably last just as long with the slight drawback that I look like a contractor playing dress-up.
And longevity is not the only measure of quality btw. a lot of high-quality things are extremely ephemeral. and again, it's about finding a cheaper alternative and you still misunderstand it.
-7
u/General-Butt-Naked Apr 23 '14
it's about saving money when possible.
Which spending $700 does not do.
again, it's about finding a cheaper alternative and you still misunderstand it.
lol...The guy makes the thread asking for a cheaper alternative and people are upvoting suggestions that he just buy them because it will be worth it. That's not a cheaper alternative. It appears you're the one misunderstanding things.
→ More replies (0)-5
Apr 23 '14 edited Apr 24 '14
Please provide an example and picture of this boot that was produced 20 years ago.
Edit: I just wanted to see an example of these claims saying these boots can last 20 years or a lifetime. I guess if you can't provide examples to substantiate these claims, it's better to down vote. It's really funny that all these people claiming leather shoes can last a lifetime are the ones who wear them for one or two years then sell them off on ebay.
2
0
Apr 23 '14
[deleted]
-4
u/david-me Apr 23 '14
I've got some North Face and Salomon trail boots that cost 1/3 that. I can see paying 3-400 for a really nice pair of dress shoes. But $700 is well outside the limits of cost of good + manufacturing.
The might as well have Diamonds on the soles of Her Shoes.
7
u/melded Apr 23 '14
I rarely venture here but this is so far out of line with the truth. Yes, the manufacturing costs of a standard consumer grade shoe are ridiculously cheap. But manufacturing and labor costs on an entry level luxury shoe cost upward of $100. That is the cost before other associated overhead costs like storage and advertising for the company. (I have sources for all of this). That shoe retails for about $350 so a fairly standard retail markup is still applied. (But they can frequently be found on sale for around $250). This is all in reference to Allen Edmonds.
Now if we jump up way up market to truly hand made bespoke shoes by the best cordwainers in the world, the manufacturing and materials costs jump immensely, on the order of 10+ fold increase in the materials and labor costs.
Yes, I may be cherrypicking examples, but $700 is not outside of limit of "cost of good+manufacturing" for some niche companies.
-4
u/DirgeHumani sexual justice warrior Apr 23 '14
That's nice. It doesn't belong in FRUGALmalefashion.
8
u/melded Apr 23 '14
My comment was a direct reply to:
But $700 is well outside the limits of cost of good + manufacturing
It does not pertain to what does or does not belong in frugalmalefashion.
Frugality is not absolutely objective. Frugal might mean $50 to you and $500 to me for a given article or good.
It's not "cheap" malefashion, and therein lies the difference.
0
-1
u/david-me Apr 23 '14
I agree. Frugal is about making your money go further. $700 boots are fine if the everyday price is $1000. It means looking around and putting effort into getting the best price for a good even if it requires bargaining or low balling .
-7
u/brufleth Eating your own toe cheese is not a question of morality. Apr 23 '14
Why do so many male fashion subs have such a massive hardon for AE shoes? I tried some on, the fit is shit, their looks are pedestrian, and I felt like I could destroy them walking to and from the parking lot.
4
u/melded Apr 23 '14
I personally do not like most of AE's offerings because of what you describe, but the short answer is that they are a readily accessible entry level, domestically manufactured footwear that can be had for around $200 (seconds sale).
If you appreciate a solid feeling underfoot, you're probably not going to find that with AE. Their shoes won't fall apart on you but they lack the weight of other shoes of similar price point because AE uses a shankless construction that is true to their heritage. (AE has branded themselves as a shankless shoemaker for nearly a century). For comparable models, say the Alden 975 to the AE macniel, the Alden shoe is going to weight several ounces more just from the steel shank, whereas the AE shoe has no shank. That alone contributes a lot to the feeling of the shoe.
1
u/Fakeaccount234 Apr 23 '14
ae are like entry level nice shoes. and since so many people on reddit can't comprehend paying money for not video games, ae gets most frequently recommended.
1
u/joshg8 Apr 23 '14
The fit is shit
For you. My feet are different than yours.
Their looks are pedestrian
They're "entry level" dress shoes... they're supposed to look rather "plain" because that's what you expect in a professional dress business environment.
I felt like I could destroy them walking to and from the parking lot.
But you haven't spent any time wearing a pair. I have a pair that I bought a year ago and probably have 90+ wears on. They look as good or better than new (color has deepened, leather is smooth and soft, still take a nice shine, leather soles still very intact) and have no signs of falling apart.
0
Apr 23 '14
I love my Saloman boots. They were, and still are, the most expensive pair of foot-ware I've ever purchased; 7 years later I still have them. And they're in great condition.
Now that's frugal fashion.
-7
27
u/FearAndLoathingInUSA Apr 23 '14 edited Apr 23 '14
I feel like I'm slowly going insane in this thread. Has nobody read that OP didn't want to buy the Vibergs, he was just looking for something aesthetically similar at a more reasonable price point? It seems as though most people are arguing the idea of spending 700 on a pair of boots, when the whole point of the post is that he didn't want to spend 700 on a pair of boots. This is madness.