>>4531

What I find in instances like this is that the enquirer actually does have something in mind, or at least a general set of tastes, but they're just looking to see what's available by suggestions. So how about it, OP? Can you be more specific?

If not, I'll just tell you what I'd get in your position: classic Pumas, every time.

>>4531
I'm picturing OP as your average uni student. Hoody, jeans, etc.

>>4531
I'm just fed up with having shoes fall apart in under a year.


>>4532
I'm a bit spoiled for choice for choice really. One person says get this it's great, the other says don't it's shit.

>>4533
At this moment in time, I am wearing some tracky bs, a green T-shirt and a stripy jumper from topman.

I've worn Chelsea boots basically all year for the past 2 years, superficially similar to these in colour and style (mine are nobbier). You can often find them going cheap in my experience.

>>4536
Judging by his post >>4535 I can only assume that he's after something that will go with trackies as well as more presentable trousers. Trainers seem like the obvious choice.

>>4537

Nothing goes with trackies, because they're fucking trackies. If he's wearing them in public the shoes are immaterial.

>>4538
Now now, I'm as much of a snob as the next guy but some people will persist in wearing tracksuit bottoms outside the comfort of their own home. At least if he's going to wear trackies he should be wearing some trainers to go with them instead of a pair of leather boots, he'd look like a Russian gopnik otherwise.

Only one choice for tracky style.

>Basic
>Comfortable
>Looks good
>Available everywhere
>Good quality
>Works with lots of outfits
>Fairly cheap

I'll always recommend these.

>>4541
How long do those last?

I understand what's going on and each to their own, but why not try some Yorkshire logic. Buy some shoes that you can afford that will last, fuck fashion and you have an advantage in that fools will look down and laugh at your feet. Looking down at your feet gives you an advantage in punchery.

Here's the thing about OP's obsession with longevity; trainers do not weather well. Granted some fuccbois will maintain that a white trainer only looks good once it's battered to shit, and I'm inclined to agree sometimes, but no matter how long the stitching and the soles hold up, a trainer will last a year at most before it looks like old shit no matter what state it's in structurally.

What I'm saying is stop being so fucking tight and buy based on looks/comfort, you prick.

Agreeing with the posters who have advised against getting trainers. Unless the OP wants to look like a manchild, of course.

>>4545
I assume you're going to chime in with that the OP should be wearing a nice pair of boots or shoes, completely ignoring that he doesn't want to spend more than £40 or look like a pikey. Trainers are the safe option for presentableness for your money. Spend £40 on a pair of shoes and it invariably looks like you only spent £40 on a pair of shoes.

Just get some desert boots lad or the new low top versions. The soles are shit but they actually take ages to wear out.

>>4542

I've had mine for two years and they look great.

>>4546

Really? What is the difference between a £40 pair of shoes and a £100 pair?

>>4549

Sixty quid.

>>4549
This is why /*/ is bad for /poof/.

The problem with fashion is that price isn't a good indicator of quality.

I got a pair of ~£30 Red Herring shoes to wear when I worked in a supermarket. They lasted that job (about 8 months of heavy usage) and 20 months working in office jobs before they needed replacing. I replaced them with a £100 pair of Poste shoes and although I can tell it's a higher quality of leather, they're far less durable (even though they're only worn for light office usage) and it didn't take me too long to have issues with them.

>>4549

If you're buying a pair of trainers, very little. If you're buying shoes or boots, a great deal.

Quality leather is expensive, so cheap shoes are made of bicast leather - a thin layer of split leather, backed by fabric and covered in polyurethane. The leather layer is essentially a flimsy suede and the leather 'grain' is just printed on, like the foil finish on a flat-pack wardrobe. Like a cheap wardrobe, shoes made of bicast leather look alright in the shop, but age very badly. Bicast leather is much less breathable than natural leather, so shoes made from it tend to be sweaty and smelly.

Corrected-grain leather is the next step up; This is leather with cosmetic damage that has had the grain buffed off and an artificial grain pattern printed back on. Corrected grain leather is more durable than bicast and doesn't have the breathability problems, but it tends to be made from thin, poor-quality hides. Full-grain leather is the real deal - just tanned and cut, with no funny business. The best leather is thick and strong but very soft and will last for decades if cared for properly.

Cheap shoes are mainly glued together, with stitching used cosmetically on the upper. Quality shoes are Goodyear welted - the sole and upper are stitched together securely, which makes the shoe more waterproof, more durable and easier to resole. Glued shoes tend to lose their shape when resoled, but welted shoes are as good as new when properly repaired.

>>4553

What about Crocs?

>>4554

Go and stand in the corner and think about what you've done.

>>4554

They're not even hard wearing. I used to wear them for work, only took about three months to completely smooth out the treads. If you want uncool footwear stick with Birkenstocks.

>>4544
>a trainer will last a year at most before it looks like old shit no matter what state it's in structurally.

If you don't clean them. I've had a pair of white and green Adidas Classics for a few years and they're still in very good condition. Even shoving them in the washing machine will do the trick.

>>4544
Never said I wanted trainers, you shitmuncher.

>>4554

What are some nice casual shoes?

I feel like I'm too old for trainers now, but I can't fully tell the difference between casual shoes and formal shoes (apart from the cheap looking casual ones) and I don't want to look like a dickhead. What would go alright with jeans and a casual shirt? Any pointers would be appreciated.

>>4814
I just wear Doc Martens for everything. Smart enough to pass as proper shoes at a glance if you have your trousers rolled over them, and sturdy enough to kick a man in the balls at a moment's notice.

Might as well ask, what are some good highstreet shops to get casual shoes (for a young adult)? Where I live has a Sole Trader, they seemed alright but pricey on anything not trainers. I know online shopping can be cheaper but actually being able to see/hold/try on a pair of shoes is definitely worth paying a bit extra for in my opinion.

>>4816
Try them in the shop, buy online.

TKmaxx is pretty good, granted they have a big selection.

>>4817
This, a thousand times this. Just try to remember the brand and model name of what you want and search online. If they leave you alone with the shoebox you can scan the barcode with an app called Red Laser, which searches Amazon and other shops online.

I might as well hijack this thread. I want a pair of plain black Oxfords with a rubber sole rather than leather, I will also accept a semi rubber sole. These are cheapest I've seen online, but the stitching on the sole does look a bit suspect 50 is really the best I can afford at the minute. http://www.gentlemen-prefer-brogues.co.uk/acatalog/mens-oxford-shoe-rubber-sole.html

>>4819

Try looking up Stacy Adams on Amazon, see what you make of them.

>>4819

Marks and Sparks did a respectable pair for about forty last time I needed some.

>>4819
http://www.clarks.co.uk/p/20350591

If that's your spending limit you can't really go wrong with Clarks. If you can stretch to afford shoe cream and wax and look after them then they'll look better than most shoes costing 3 times as much anyway.

>>4819
Again, check out TKmaxx, can't recommend them enough.

I found a £160 pair of leather kurt geiger chelsea boots for £60 and I was well chuffed.

Saving up for those Loake brogue boots though....

>>4823
I was in my local branch on Saturday, but being anywhere between a size 10-12 depending on width, the only ones they had were far too narrow or looked like big flappy clown shoes on me.

>>4823I
Careful with those. They may be knock-offs manufactured on the cheap. Despite appearances to the contrary you're almost certainly not getting like for like.

>>4822
I spent over £80 on some of Clarks' Goretex trainers things and the padded hem under the ankle on one started to come apart in weeks of use. I was very disappointed. I've been considering replacing them with Loakes, too.

You can find factory seconds from Loake, Grenson et al on eBay. Usually they've just got a slight defect to the upper that will scarcely be noticeable after polishing, like a barbed-wire mark or patch of discolouration.

>>4826
Yeah, the last couple of pairs of shoes I've had from Clarks have been disappointingly shit. No better than the much cheaper competition.

>>4828
I haven't actually bought anything from there in quite a few years other than desert boots come to think of it. If the quality has declined that much I retract the recommendation.

>>4825

Well within the bounds of reason - I found a similar pair on Asos, for more a less the same price. Would be a shame if they were fake, but after some heavy use, they're holding very well.

Here is the thing with fake goods, sometimes the fakes are better than the original. Better build, materials, etc... So as long as shit doesn't fall to pieces after a few wears, then I couldn't care less really.

I also doubt TKmaxx, intentionally buys fakes, I'm sure there are consumer watch-dogs and other bodies on the look out for such indescrepencies.

>>4830
>sometimes the fakes are better than the original. Better build, materials, etc...
You're thinking of counterfeits. These would be authorised fakes ("outlet-grade"), which are most definitely not "better than the original".

>>4828
I was only really ever planning into Clark's to try on some shoes and get a sizing done, since I can find out my width and the fact Clark's have a relatively standard size.

I've had the same pair of shoes for work since 2017, albeit they didn't have much use between March 2020 and last summer. They're starting to look a little scuffed and the heel on one of them has worn away a fair bit.

Which brands should I consider for their replacements? I got them from Clarks, but I vaguely recall reading something about their quality declining and being taken over by the Chinese in recent years.

>>6571
What do you do? Do you want Screwfix shoes or church shoes?

>>6573
It's to go with a suit, so church shoes. I've had a quick look at the Clarks outlet and the only shoes I like aren't in my size.

>>6574
Loake are always fairly reliable, and on a similar price point to Clarkses.