What model of Vans?
Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
IMO anything with that horrible foam (most shoes at this point) is going to last a year TOPS. In fact, running shoes with foam, are supposed to be limited to around 300 miles.
If you are talking about something like a half cab, that has the standard vans soles, yeah, I agree quality has gone down some (same with those new chuck 70s). They feel cheaper, and are made from far cheaper materials.
Personally, I have tons of shoes that are decades old, and still going, but I do not own any shoes with foam (mostly chuck taylors). And I'm apparently not very hard on shoes, somehow.
I think the unfortunate reality is you'll have to buy some expensive, high quality shoes, or expect to throw shoes out yearly.
There are companies like this one who claim to resole running shoes, but I don't know how far they can/do go, and have never used them before.
I remember checking out some Ecco shoes at the mall years ago, didn’t pull the trigger as they were almost $300 but the way the construction as described to me it sounds like those could last 5+ years.
It's nearly always a false economy to try to reduce the upfront cost of footware (and a tremendous number of other things)
The Sam Vimes boots theory of socioeconomic inequality is a famous quote about how over time the more "affordable" option is often costs much more than the "expensive" option whilst also being a worse experience.
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.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
– Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms
The problem is not all fifty dollar boots are equal. Some are ten dollar boots with nice packaging.
And some boots used to be good, but have since been bought out by Mike Ashley and run into the ground.
What types of shoes? High tops? Canvas? Sneakers?