31–40 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s definitely a point of diminishing returns, but boots from Ross can cost about $45, while a $300 pair of red wings would last a lifetime, if maintained properly. A pair of $1000 boots are definitely beyond that line and will also last a lifetime, while costing 3.3x more
What boots cost 3.3x these and will last 5x as long: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brahma-Men-s-Combustion-6-Steel-T...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several brands of boots like this. I have a pair of Red Wing boots that I purchased new in 2013 (I don’t remember the price but today they are $350). Unlike most other modern sneakers or boots, they are made so that the soles be replaced, which I have done once for $100. Other than this, the only consumable part is shoelaces. With maintenance of the leather, it is completely expected for these boots to outl…
$350/3.3 is $106. Do you expect these boots to last 5x longer than $106 boots?
Interesting - didn‘t notice that. I‘m only buying quality stuff and stick to it as long a possible. Most of my cloth are years old. I’m buying a new iPhone if the one i have doesn’t get any updates anymore, and furniture has to outlive me. I always thought this is reasonable and that everyone would do it that way: Always having high quality stuff, saving money instead of wasting it by continuously buying cheap things…
No, you are doing the rich man thing; the rich man can afford to buy a $20 pair of boots which lasts 5 years. The poor man can only afford the low-quality $6 pair which lasts a year.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$350/3.3 is $106. Do you expect these boots to last 5x longer than $106 boots?
Mine did; I'm still wearing them (I bought mine in 2016, and they haven't needed resoled yet) and the $100 boots I was wearing (US Navy authorized) would barely last a year. So for the $300 or so I paid then I got 6 years hard use out of them, and I'm still using them for stuff now that I don't wear them for work. I have other pairs of dress shoes from Red Wing that are similar; I doubt I'll EVER need to replace them…
Interesting - didn‘t notice that. I‘m only buying quality stuff and stick to it as long a possible. Most of my cloth are years old. I’m buying a new iPhone if the one i have doesn’t get any updates anymore, and furniture has to outlive me. I always thought this is reasonable and that everyone would do it that way: Always having high quality stuff, saving money instead of wasting it by continuously buying cheap things…
No, you are doing the rich man thing; the rich man can afford to buy a $20 pair of boots which lasts 5 years. The poor man can only afford the low-quality $6 pair which lasts a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you are doing the rich man thing; the rich man can afford to buy a $20 pair of boots which lasts 5 years. The poor man can only afford the low-quality $6 pair which lasts a year.
Show me the boots that are 3.3x more expensive but last 5x as long. When buying new, it's very rare that buying expensive actually saves you money.
I purchased a pair of Chelsea Boots from Churches of London in the late 90s and they still look great today!
I’ve had new soles a few times, and recent had a partial reconstruction; liners, pull tags and so on.
But I’ve had them 25 years and the actual boot leather is still fantastic!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What boots cost 3.3x these and will last 5x as long: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Brahma-Men-s-Combustion-6-Steel-T...
Looking at the reviews: Most of them in that range.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Show me the boots that are 3.3x more expensive but last 5x as long. When buying new, it's very rare that buying expensive actually saves you money.
No problem! I purchased a pair of Chelsea Boots from Churches of London in the late 90s and they still look great today! I’ve had new soles a few times, and recent had a partial reconstruction; liners, pull tags and so on. But I’ve had them 25 years and the actual boot leather is still fantastic!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mine did; I'm still wearing them (I bought mine in 2016, and they haven't needed resoled yet) and the $100 boots I was wearing (US Navy authorized) would barely last a year. So for the $300 or so I paid then I got 6 years hard use out of them, and I'm still using them for stuff now that I don't wear them for work. I have other pairs of dress shoes from Red Wing that are similar; I doubt I'll EVER need to replace them…
What were the $100 boots? Do you wear your current boots an equal amount?
I understand your point, but realize some of us really do live in these boots and have found some that make a huge difference.
The only (and big) negative for the Red Wings was the break in process. It was protracted and brutal. Once broken in they've been wonderful though.
Also, I'm giving the boots too much credit. Just looked them up and the Bellevilles I wore (800 ST) just before the Red Wings are $230 today. I replaced them yearly because they were coming apart.
For hiking and climbing I wear La Sportiva and they have been excellent as well, as another brand to look at.