Who buys $900 shoes??

[kt1988]

could think of better things to spend 900 on

[Expat owl]

Irrespective of what people think and the supposed stupidity of spending £900 on a pair of shoes it really comes down to a matter of disposable income.

If your disposable income was £100per month you couldn't buy shoes at £900.

If your disposable income was £1000 per month you could buy them but you probably wouldn't and you'd probably spend a normal? amout on shoes.

If your disposable income was £10,000 per month then you'd probably not think twice about spending £900 on shoes.

 

People argue that the quality is no different to a pair of cheap shoes but that's total cobblers.

As someone has already provided with the example of the Rolex, quality costs more and it lasts !!

[Plain Talker]

Irrespective of what people think and the supposed stupidity of spending £900 on a pair of shoes it really comes down to a matter of disposable income.

If your disposable income was £100per month you couldn't buy shoes at £900.

If your disposable income was £1000 per month you could buy them but you probably wouldn't and you'd probably spend a normal? amout on shoes.

If your disposable income was £10,000 per month then you'd probably not think twice about spending £900 on shoes.

 

People argue that the quality is no different to a pair of cheap shoes but that's total cobblers.

As someone has already provided with the example of the Rolex, quality costs more and it lasts !!

 

I'll ask you the same as I asked Bloke when he was talking about wanting a £4/4.5 K Rolex for his milestone 50th:-

 

 

OK...

 

If it's half past three, and the watch on your wrist tells you it's half past three...

 

Does it actually make it any better of a half past three, just because the face of your watch has the words "Rolex" on it?

 

He actually went out and bought a Citizen watch, for about £350/ £400 (which was still a bit steep, IMO!) which looked nicer than the Rolex he wanted, and was a better timekeeper than the Rolex.

[Expat owl]

I'll ask you the same as I asked Bloke when he was talking about wanting a £4/4.5 K Rolex for his milestone 50th:-

 

 

OK...

 

If it's half past three, and the watch on your wrist tells you it's half past three...

 

Does it actually make it any better of a half past three, just because the face of your watch has the words "Rolex" on it?

 

He actually went out and bought a Citizen watch, for about £350/ £400 (which was still a bit steep, IMO!) which looked nicer than the Rolex he wanted, and was a better timekeeper than the Rolex.

 

No the time won't be any different. However, the Rolex would last a lifetime where as cheaper watches won't and you'll always be able to sell the Rolex (should you need to) which you wouldn't be able to do with cheaper watches.

 

Like I say, it's all down to how much you have. If you can afford a Rolex and you want one then it's personal choice and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

[Plain Talker]

I think that the fact that the less expensive watch kept better time than a Rolex speaks volumes, Expat...

[Expat owl]

I think that the fact that the less expensive watch kept better time than a Rolex speaks volumes, Expat...

 

He wanted a rolex but diidn't have one? Without having the Rolex how would you know it didn't keep time as well as the less expensive watch.

Would also depend on whether the Rolex was an automatic or battery driven. The automatic ones depend on movement and when they aren't worn it affects the ability to keep time.

 

I'd also question why all international sporting events use Rolex or Omega as official timekeepers. They don't use Timex or Casio and they'll tell the time.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Expat owl

[DaFoot]

He wanted a rolex but diidn't have one? Without having the Rolex how would you know it kept better time than the less expensive watch.

Would also depend on whether the Rolex was an automatic or battery driven. The automatic ones depend on movement and when they aren't worn it affects the ability to keep time.

 

I'd also question why all international sporting events use Rolex or Omega as official timekeepers. They don't use Timex or Casio and they'll tell the time.

 

Nothing to do with the sponsorship/kickbacks then?

 

Any modern watch will probably not lose/gain any more than a few seconds in a human lifetime if that. Rolex more accurate? What's a few seconds anyway. It is still only as accurate as the person who set the time in the first place.

[Expat owl]

Nothing to do with the sponsorship/kickbacks then?

 

Any modern watch will probably not lose/gain any more than a few seconds in a human lifetime if that. Rolex more accurate? What's a few seconds anyway. It is still only as accurate as the person who set the time in the first place.

 

Possibly due to sponsorship but if Casio offered more would they get it?....I don't know.

 

Your other comment is also perfectly valid and I have no argument with it. Like I've already said, if you can afford it and you want one you'll buy a Rolex. If you don't want to spend that money you'll buy a cheaper watch.

It's all down to what you can afford and what you want.

[Conrod]

I'm not sure that you are right, at the $900 end of the trade.

 

I'm pretty sure that you could knock out a £200 pair of shoes in a sweatshop. If I was paying $900, I'd be wanting something pretty special.

 

Which was the point that I was making.

 

There is nothing wrong with paying a craftsman a good wage for doing a good job (or an exceptional wage, for an exceptional job). These days, we all seem to be obsessed with cheap, cheap, cheap. If we were prepared to pay more for good stuff, then maybe the sweatshops would recede and we'd get quality goods, but to get them, we'd need to pay a quality price.

 

I might just picket Primark tomorrow:D

You're totally correct - you don't get quality items from a cheap manufacturer.

 

I don't buy designer brands - if somebody wants me to advertise their brand label, they can pay me for carrying it, I certainly won't pay a premium for the job of marketing their product.

 

However, I do like quality things and I'm willing to pay for them. I buy jeans from M&S but if I want a suit I have it made - no sweatshop off-the-peg rig can come anywhere near a well-tailored bespoke suit. The same goes for shoes - sweatshops are fine for 'everyday' stuff, but if you want a really nice pair of shoes, hand made by a craftsman is worth paying; I had a handmade pair of brogues for over 20 years - had them resoled 3 times, and they just didn't look old or stop being comfortable.

 

I'm reminded of an episode of Top Gear when Clarkson was talking about why people buy certain cars, and he compared it to buying a nice coat. "People with new money spend £500 on a coat because they want the latest fashion - people with old money spend £500 on a coat because they want it to last 25 years".

 

I'm not so sure about handbags - not a specialist topic of mine.

[Harleyman]

I wouldn't mind giving someone £80 for some trainers that were designed and made over here but as long as they weren't made like Nike

 

Good luck on finding that. What do they do in Northampton for a living these days?