[Earl of Ormonde]

I love Loakes. The feel, the look, the quality.

 

[Earl of Ormonde]

Exactly Colnago! For me, labels and where and how a shoe was manufactured are totally uninteresting and irrelevant. In the past, I've bought Loakes because I prefer the look over other makes (especially the rather too dated look of Sargents) and they've fitted my feet better and more comfortably than Cheaneys, Churches, Sargents,and Lloyds. Price has never been a deciding factor.

 

[Earl of Ormonde]

I am not a big fan........ I don't think the quality is that great.

Based on what? And are you referring to relative quality or quality per se as a product?

 

[Earl of Ormonde]

And they are men's shoes. For me the dainty waists of some higher end shoes are no attraction at all being more suited to women's shoes in my estimation.

THANK YOU Hector, that was EXACTLY what I was trying to put my finger on but couldn't quite identify, especially with Sargents and 2 or 3 of the
other high end brands; that feeling that they just look old fashioned and slightly feminine - which was quite Edwardian actually, so I suppose that is what makes them look old fashioned. I conclude that the two go hand in hand.
"Too dainty, too dandyish" would be a good way to précis it then.

 

[Earl of Ormonde]

I agree entirely with Rich's analysis. I have tried Loake 1880s but found the plastic middle to the heel and the lack of comfort underfoot too much to bear. I had been spoilt by Church's shoes by this time in my life. A friend of mine says " If you've never had shoes costing more than £130 then you'll like Loakes but if you have had shoes costing £200 you won't be happy with Loakes.

So, the moral of this is you may be very happy with Loakes and they certainly make some good looking shoes in the 1880 range but lets not pretend they're as good as shoes costing £250 plus - you do get what you pay for in the shoe world ( mostly!)

So applying your logic then, you'd be happy to pay a ridiculous sums for a piar of, for example, Paul Smiths, and then what? Convince yourself that they are more comfortable than every other cheaper shoe simply because they cost more? Good luck with that. Seems to me like you've fallen victim to the type of shoe marketing that claims that quality costs! Which of course is nonsense. Labels and marketing are what cost, not quality.

And to conclude, I disagree with your last statement, "you get what you pay for". No, you don't. What you get is what the high end labels think the market can bear pricewise without pricing themselves out of business regardless of the quality of the shoe.