/fa/ - Fashion

>>9744573
I own them. I've been wearing them off and on for a month and they still look good.

Honestly I don't even care if they fall apart in 6 months. They were $49. I'll just buy another pair. Way more reasonable than a $800+ pair of Maison Margiela when they look and feel almost exactly the same.

I tried on more expensive shoes that looked almost exactly the same and found they weren't noticeably better. Obviously an $800 pair is going to have slightly better quality, but when it comes to plain sneakers that look so minimal and normal, it's just not worth it to me. My friends thought my shoes were designer, and I figure the average person who doesn't have the time to really investigate the way my shoes look would think the same.

In 6 months both the MM and Zara white sneakers are going to look beat up. The difference is the that the MM will stay together and the Zara ones will fall apart. As someone who doesn't like the look of beat-up, dirty sneakers, I'd argue you'd be better off buying cheap-ass sneakers and replacing them every 6 months.

This pic is of a Saint Laurent pair for $600. Both the Zara pair and the SL pair achieve the same look. Given the way the fashion industry works now, I would argue that isn't a large difference in quality. /fa/ needs to get over its snobby designer fetish, defending outrageous purchases on the grounds of "MUH QUALITY." "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster" by Dana Thomas outlines really well why luxury brands aren't really as "quality" as we assume them to be. If you can blow $500+ on a pair of sneakers, go right ahead. I just think your money could be better spent, no matter how much disposable income you have.

However, I wouldn't buy Zara or H&M dress shoes because they look horrible after a couple wears. I'm a size 11 so I just go the discount rack at Nordstrom, the Bay, and other department stores because $500+ shoes often sell at 80%-off in my sizes