Dressing Better Vol 2.0

wj4 · Apr 22, 2014

Pinoy732 said:
Sergio hooked it up proper and scooped me these for a hundo from when Epaulet LA closed down:

http://epauletnewyork.com/collectio...ulet-sport-trainer-white-leather-w-grey-suede

Wis has the same pair and says it is comparable to MMM. Desire for "lux" white sneaker has been alleviated

Yes. Comparable to Margiela. A bit better than CPs. New high tops are in the works too. Being sourced from the same fabric supplier as Tom Ford's.

The shape is a bit more contoured than Margiela and is more in line with Samba.

Adrian can post pics if he wants. I erased them.

hennessy · Apr 22, 2014

wj4 said:
Yes. Comparable to Margiela. A bit better than CPs. New high tops are in the works too. Being sourced from the same fabric supplier as Tom Ford's.

The shape is a bit more contoured than Margiela and is more in line with Samba.

Adrian can post pics if he wants. I erased them.

They remind me of the Vintage Gucci a lil bit with the shape of the midsole and heel:

Made in Italy too. Quality looks good on those Epaulets but I think they are ugly, just my opinion. I'm not a fan of GAT either. Prolly will be chastised for that opinion on here :lol:

rfx45 · Apr 22, 2014

Those GATs sucks, sorry. Sole is terrible. To me, quality wasn't as good as MMM at all. Stitchings were :x

Hennessy said:

S. Carters!

wj4 · Apr 22, 2014

I think next baller sneakers I cop will be the Rick Dunks. In a year or so :lol:

phen0m · Apr 22, 2014

Hennessy said:
They remind me of the Vintage Gucci a lil bit with the shape of the midsole and heel:

Made in Italy too. Quality looks good on those Epaulets but I think they are ugly, just my opinion. I'm not a fan of GAT either. Prolly will be chastised for that opinion on here

I co-sign. And most of what I find in a "designer" or casual sneaker are just terrible designs, many of which are incomprehensibly expensive when weighing the aesthetics to cost ratio.

sfc415 · Apr 22, 2014

Designer sneakers are trash for the most part. Simple designs like Lanvins,SLPs, Arenas>>>>>>>>those abominations that come from Louboutin, Raf, etc

wj4 · Apr 22, 2014

RFX45 said:
Those GATs sucks, sorry. Sole is terrible. To me, quality wasn't as good as MMM at all. Stitchings were :x

S. Carters!

Holy crap. You went to the store?!

No one asked for autographs, bro?

Stitching on mine are on point compared to the 5 or so pairs of Margielas I own.

wj4 · Apr 22, 2014

Phen0m said:
I co-sign. And most of what I find in a "designer" or casual sneaker are just terrible designs, many of which are incomprehensibly expensive when weighing the aesthetics to cost ratio.

You can tag incomprehensibly expensive to almost all of the luxury houses. That's why a lot of guys prefer more purer brands, for a lack of better word, of EG or JL instead of LV or Gucci shoes. You're paying for the design rather than quality.

They spend a good amount on marketing so the cuts gotta come from somewhere, sadly that somewhere is the quality bucket.

hennessy · Apr 22, 2014

wj4 said:
You can tag incomprehensibly expensive to almost all of the luxury houses. That's why a lot of guys prefer more purer brands, for a lack of better word, of EG or JL instead of LV or Gucci shoes. You're paying for the design rather than quality.

They spend a good amount on marketing so the cuts gotta come from somewhere, sadly that somewhere is the quality bucket.

But, design trumps quality, in a relative range. I'd rather have something that looks good and pay a premium than save some money for something that may be constructed a little better but doesn't look as good. Clothes/sneakers can be replaced. I don't understand people putting a huge emphasis on quality. And I'm not talking about comparing fast fashion brands with designer labels, but within a relative range (say a couple hundred dollars), who cares enough about quality to sacrifice the looks?

What is the difference in MSRP on the MMM vs. Epaulet GATs? Is it really enough to say, "oh yeah, they are similar quality, the Epaulet is cheaper so I will go with this." Clearly the MMM looks way better, and I don't even like either shoe. I know

pinoy732 got them for $100, which is a good price. But to me, that's a waste of money on an ugly shoe. I'd rather pay full price for the MMM and get the real deal, and be happy with my purchase. Just my 2 cents.

wj4 · Apr 22, 2014

Hennessy said:
But, design trumps quality, in a relative range. I'd rather have something that looks good and pay a premium than save some money for something that may be constructed a little better but doesn't look as good. Clothes/sneakers can be replaced. I don't understand people putting a huge emphasis on quality. And I'm not talking about comparing fast fashion brands with designer labels, but within a relative range (say a couple hundred dollars), who cares enough about quality to sacrifice the looks?

Once again my friend, variety is the spice of life.

If you're not on the forums, I'm sure you'll never hear of Epaulet, Kent wang, Armoury, etc.

When I hear non web dudes talk about brands, it's usually Armani suit, prada shoes, etc.

We all have different tastes. I paid $300 for Prada sneakers that were half off and quality is pretty poor. Joints are made in Vietnam too :lol:

I copped because I like how they look.

hennessy · Apr 22, 2014

wj4 said:
Once again my friend, variety is the spice of life.

If you're not on the forums, I'm sure you'll never hear of Epaulet, Kent wang, Armoury, etc.

When I hear non web dudes talk about brands, it's usually Armani suit, prada shoes, etc.

We all have different tastes. I paid $300 for Prada sneakers that were half off and quality is pretty poor. Joints are made in Vietnam too I copped because I like how they look.

That's cool man. I just would never use quality to justify the purchase of a aesthetically sub-par product (within fashion, appliances and stuff like that is different). If you honestly think that shoe looks just as good as the MMM, or even good enough to wear, that's your style. I agree with

rfx45 though those joints are horrid. It's not a shot against you or

pinoy732 either because you guys have good style. I just think copping that shoe was a swing and a miss. $100 wasted that could've been put towards the MMM or something else. Again just my opinion.

sarteaga0408 · Apr 22, 2014

Hennessy said:
But, design trumps quality, in a relative range. I'd rather have something that looks good and pay a premium than save some money for something that may be constructed a little better but doesn't look as good. Clothes/sneakers can be replaced. I don't understand people putting a huge emphasis on quality. And I'm not talking about comparing fast fashion brands with designer labels, but within a relative range (say a couple hundred dollars), who cares enough about quality to sacrifice the looks?

What is the difference in MSRP on the MMM vs. Epaulet GATs? Is it really enough to say, "oh yeah, they are similar quality, the Epaulet is cheaper so I will go with this." Clearly the MMM looks way better, and I don't even like either shoe. I know pinoy732 got them for $100, which is a good price. But to me, that's a waste of money on an ugly shoe. I'd rather pay full price for the MMM and get the real deal, and be happy with my purchase. Just my 2 cents.

The MMM GAT is almost the same as the Epaulet GAT. I'm not a fan of the shoe on my foot though which is why I didn't buy a pair for myself.

pinoy732 · Apr 22, 2014

I respect what you are saying and though it is not in my norm, Balenciagas are dope to me. I just can't justfiy spending that price on something I won't wear often. I just wanted something a tad nicer than JP's that wouldn't break the bank when I do decide to don sneakers. At $100 for the Epaulet's, why not? (Also I just unloaded a bunch of ties and ended up paying like $30 out of pocket :lol:

)

I completely see what you mean in not liking them though. They are a peculiar style but remind me of the Adidas Samba which I always dug. To each their own. In my field and just in personal tastes, I'd rather drop $400-500 on something like Carmina vs. Balenciaga/CP/etc. But that's just because I would get more use out of it. I'd see why a cat who rocks kicks on the regular would say the opposite though.

bilboshmangins · Apr 22, 2014

Emperor having no clothes kind of deal?

wj4 · Apr 22, 2014

Hennessy said:
That's cool man. I just would never use quality to justify the purchase of a aesthetically sub-par product (within fashion, appliances and stuff like that is different). If you honestly think that shoe looks just as good as the MMM, or even good enough to wear, that's your style. I agree with rfx45 though those joints are horrid. It's not a shot against you or pinoy732 either because you guys have good style. I just think copping that shoe was a swing and a miss. $100 wasted that could've been put towards the MMM or something else. Again just my opinion.

I already have like 4 pairs of MMM GATs though. :lol:

and a pair of Lanvin and prada and Pierre hardy if we want to talk about lux kicks.

bilboshmangins · Apr 22, 2014

I've never understood luxury sneakers, save for maybe arenas. A lot of them are derivative forms of popular athletic brand sneakers...what is the appeal beyond the label factor?

grizzlyboy · Apr 22, 2014

bilboshmangins said:
I've never understood luxury sneakers, save for maybe arenas. A lot of them are derivative forms of popular athletic brand sneakers...what is the appeal beyond the label factor?

Usually it's the materials used. I do not personally own a pair, but from what I have seen the sneakers tend to hold up a little better.

scarsorscabs · Apr 22, 2014

Hennessy said:
wj4 said:

You can tag incomprehensibly expensive to almost all of the luxury houses. That's why a lot of guys prefer more purer brands, for a lack of better word, of EG or JL instead of LV or Gucci shoes. You're paying for the design rather than quality.

They spend a good amount on marketing so the cuts gotta come from somewhere, sadly that somewhere is the quality bucket.

Click to expand...

But, design trumps quality, in a relative range. I'd rather have something that looks good and pay a premium than save some money for something that may be constructed a little better but doesn't look as good. Clothes/sneakers can be replaced. I don't understand people putting a huge emphasis on quality. And I'm not talking about comparing fast fashion brands with designer labels, but within a relative range (say a couple hundred dollars), who cares enough about quality to sacrifice the looks?

What is the difference in MSRP on the MMM vs. Epaulet GATs? Is it really enough to say, "oh yeah, they are similar quality, the Epaulet is cheaper so I will go with this." Clearly the MMM looks way better, and I don't even like either shoe. I know @Pinoy732 got them for $100, which is a good price. But to me, that's a waste of money on an ugly shoe. I'd rather pay full price for the MMM and get the real deal, and be happy with my purchase. Just my 2 cents.

Margiela GATs are like $450-475 for the basic ones and they're saying retail is $275 for the Epaulet. That's a pretty substantial difference in cost when you can buy almost buy 2 for 1.

That being said, those Epaulet are even worse than GATs. That sole is terrible. A $100 pricetag isn't gonna make them look good.

bilboshmangins · Apr 22, 2014

If anyone is interested in a size 10 pair of walnut cliftons hit me up.

typerpinoy · Apr 22, 2014

speaking of interviews. got dressed up for an interview where i essentially wear pajamas and slippers to work

wj4 · Apr 22, 2014

Trying to get into a private hospital :pimp:

rfx45 · Apr 22, 2014

bilboshmangins said:
I've never understood luxury sneakers, save for maybe arenas. A lot of them are derivative forms of popular athletic brand sneakers...what is the appeal beyond the label factor?

Plenty actually, outside of style, shape and quality, silhouette plays a huge part. This is something kind of hard to understand or explain unless you have both in hand.

Branding as well, yes Gucci and LV tends to have outlandish monogram and makes you a walking billboard but most are very minimal as well such as CP, SLP, Margiela, etc... Nikes and Jordans tends to have their logo plastered on the shoes, many wants an alternative that doesn't have that.

Let's get it out of the way now, yes you will pay a premium for the price, that's just how luxury brands work, I've beaten this to death but luxury items aren't exactly a responsible purchase. It's a "want", not a "need."

Furthermore, they aren't always derivative a popular athletic brand, I mean IIIs and XIs are arguably the most famous of all sneakers ever made in the world and there really isn't a comparable pair int he high-end department, well Lanvin kind of made their own IV version but those didn't sell so you can't really always say "you only buying because it's a more expensive pair of these".

Actually come to think of it, outside of the classic designs like Stan Smiths vs. CP Achilles/SLP lows, there really much that are an alternative to each other when it comes to popular athletic shoes? I mean Raf has a Vandals look a like but you can tell how much better the Raf version looks in comparison to Nikes. It's the minimalism and sleekness that works for the Raf while the Nikes already looks beat and bulky and has that huge swoosh.

rfx45 · Apr 22, 2014

Pinoy732 said:
I respect what you are saying and though it is not in my norm, Balenciagas are dope to me. I just can't justfiy spending that price on something I won't wear often. I just wanted something a tad nicer than JP's that wouldn't break the bank when I do decide to don sneakers. At $100 for the Epaulet's, why not? (Also I just unloaded a bunch of ties and ended up paying like $30 out of pocket )

I completely see what you mean in not liking them though. They are a peculiar style but remind me of the Adidas Samba which I always dug. To each their own. In my field and just in personal tastes, I'd rather drop $400-500 on something like Carmina vs. Balenciaga/CP/etc. But that's just because I would get more use out of it. I'd see why a cat who rocks kicks on the regular would say the opposite though.

On the other hand, couldn't you say it the other way too? As in if it is going to be your only pair so you might as well get the better one?

I actually just want to stretch that to a different discussion because I get asked this a lot, especially when it comes to suits.

If you're only going to own one suit that will see a few wears, what is better? A cheap but mediocre to bad quality suit (H&M, ZARA, etc...) or a more expensive but great quality (shouldn't matter if designer or suit maker or mtm or bespoke) and well made? I can see the answer going both ways to be honest, though personally, I think I would prefer option 2. If it is going to be my one and only suit, I think I wouldn't mind splurging on it a bit.

What are your thoughts and opinions?

bilboshmangins · Apr 22, 2014

RFX45 said:
bilboshmangins said:

I've never understood luxury sneakers, save for maybe arenas. A lot of them are derivative forms of popular athletic brand sneakers...what is the appeal beyond the label factor?

Click to expand...

Plenty actually, outside of style, shape and quality, silhouette plays a huge part. This is something kind of hard to understand or explain unless you have both in hand.

Branding as well, yes Gucci and LV tends to have outlandish monogram and makes you a walking billboard but most are very minimal as well such as CP, SLP, Margiela, etc... Nikes and Jordans tends to have their logo plastered on the shoes, many wants an alternative that doesn't have that.

Let's get it out of the way now, yes you will pay a premium for the price, that's just how luxury brands work, I've beaten this to death but luxury items aren't exactly a responsible purchase. It's a "want", not a "need."

Furthermore, they aren't always derivative a popular athletic brand, I mean IIIs and XIs are arguably the most famous of all sneakers ever made in the world and there really isn't a comparable pair int he high-end department, well Lanvin kind of made their own IV version but those didn't sell so you can't really always say "you only buying because it's a more expensive pair of these".

Actually come to think of it, outside of the classic designs like Stan Smiths vs. CP Achilles/SLP lows, there really much that are an alternative to each other when it comes to popular athletic shoes? I mean Raf has a Vandals look a like but you can tell how much better the Raf version looks in comparison to Nikes. It's the minimalism and sleekness that works for the Raf while the Nikes already looks beat and bulky and has that huge swoosh.

that's what I meant buy popular designs, a lot of the silhouhettes are things you find in classic runners/trainers and high tops. As an example shelling out $400+ for a german military trainer?

furthermore:

rfx45 · Apr 22, 2014

What other options are there for German Army Trainers? Sambas are completely different, even the one posted earlier has a different shape and sole, it really isn't the same. MMM GATs have been popular for years now and alternative were so limited that people literally buys from Germany and sell them on Ebay for dirt cheap but ti still does not sell well because quality is also cheap, shape is different. Margiela made that shape and it is just better. Margiela isn't hiding it either, the shoe tag in the insole clearly says "replica: German Army Trainers". Actually I'd say Margiela made GATs popular.

As for those runners, that is a recent phenomenon. Running shoes in general has gotten lots of popularity int he past few years, before you'd see dude wearing NBs with chinos and a button-up and you see an English teacher but not it is stylish to do so as long as your clothes fit well. So yeah high-end designers tried to the ride the hype train as well. Nothing wrong with that, for the most part, they provide a more "fashion forward" style and with quality that is better than most you would get for less than $100.

That is besides the point for this thread though, especially with the baller runners, because those aren't encouraged in this thread.

But my original post still stands on what the appeal is, some maybe a copy but as you can see with the Vandals version of Raf Simons vs. Nike, Rafs just look 100x better and it looks like you paid for it too.

They also provide original design though, I can flood this thread with it but it really isn't appropriate as it isn't what the thread is trying to promote.

I'll leave with this example though, Lanvin low tops. Very simple and clean yet I have not seen a comparable shoe alternative for it at a much cheaper price. There are others that tried but it just didn't look as good, they miss in the shape, overall design, quality, etc...

Search

Dressing Better Vol 2.0

wj4

hennessy

rfx45

wj4

phen0m

sfc415

wj4

wj4

hennessy

wj4

hennessy

sarteaga0408

pinoy732

bilboshmangins

wj4

bilboshmangins

grizzlyboy

scarsorscabs

bilboshmangins

typerpinoy

wj4

rfx45

rfx45

bilboshmangins

rfx45

Similar threads

Thread Gallery

Share this page