/fa/ - Fashion

>>6372084
ricks is suppose to fall apart and get damaged that's part of the vanity

those are fake right?

Here are some pics of the ripped insole.

>>6372091
No

>>6372091
youre a huge faggot

>>6372094

>>6372111

that happened on my spiral zips a tiny bit, so i put insoles in. It catches when youre taking the shoes on and off, if you dont wear an insole to prevent it. my geos arent like that though.

i talked to my shoe repair guy about it, and he says hes worked on lots of rick shoes that have that issue. He said that to fix it, he can pull the whole insole out, and re glue the whole thing down and clamp it so it wont come back up.

rick owens shoes fall apart, they are shit.
this has been known for years

>>6372094
Call Rick and I'm sure he and Michele will personally bring you another pair and Rick will cry on your shoulder.

>>6372084
>>6372094
>>6372111
>>6372121

>le you pay for quality face

>>6372123
But after two days of wearing them...
Thats quite fast.

>>6372135
you do. quality isn't the same as durability

you actually fell for this troll? lelmao, i bet you do squats while watching boco no pico while listening to ITAOTS on your gentoo

Well i wore them today for like 5 hours and already got a blister.
Also remarkable is that it happened on both shoes in almost exactly the same spot.

>>6372153
Dreambox Geos confirmed for superior quality

Happened to me as well after very little wear. I got it fixed really cheap though (below 10$). The shoes are perfectly fine otherwise and i haven't had any other problems after significant wear after. I guess the insoles are made in a stupid way.

>>6372153

also i guess it depends on the store, but i dont think most places will let you return things after youve worn and damaged them.

Can you try to recreate this shot with your real geobaskets? Do it for /fa/.

>>6372091
Looks real to me.

>>6372094
more like made in shitaly lol
#shrekt

>>6372153
For understanding the problem: its not the entire insole that ripped, but rather the thin rubber layer with the "rick owens" stamp that (i think) is glued on top of it .

>>6372158

kinda weird. i think its the new geos. I have several older pairs and this never happened except on the non dunk ones.

like my dunks that are from 2006 have never had this issue, the insole is in perfect shape, and they have a ton of wear.

>>6372168
this

>>6372181
>>6372179
So you think i should just give it to a repair guy that glues it back on and go on with my life? lel

>>6372168
Okay wait a second.

>>6372168
op plz do this

>>6372184

if i were you i would see if i can exchange them for a pair without the sole tearing. If you cant exchange them, just get the sole re glued by a shoe repair guy who is not stupid.

>>6372136
I swear to god, /fa/.
I would like to think better of this board because I spend so much time here, but god damn.

Yo fuckers, if a shoe falls apart after 2 days of wear your consumer rights have been violated.

>>6372199
It was the last pair and also on sale so i dont think they have any to replace them.
Also heres the Shot you guys requested.

>>6372208

why is the zipper tape on yours white? is that normal now?

>>6372208
I got them quite cheap so if I'd get my money back I'd have to go on the hunt for geos again, and i dont think i would get them for this price again.

>>6372215
yes it is with the new ones.
http://www.ssense.com/men/product/rick_owens/black_and_white_classic_leather_geobasket_sneakers/67780

>>6372216
where did you get them?

>>6372136
>quality isn't the same as durability

>>6372136
>quality isn't the same as durability

>>6372222
a small online shop, like pool munich.
very local.

>>6372207
>>6372223
>>6372225

thank god. I didnt reply to his reply because i wanted to see if /fa/ got really that retarded to agree with that faggot.

>>6372208
also, why did you guys want that shot? just for comparison or is there another reason behind that?

>>6372225
>>6372223

some extremely soft silks wear very quickly. they are still considered high quality because of the grade of the material, the distinctiveness of the weave, and the incredible texture they have to the touch.

durability is only one component of quality, there are other factors involved.

>>6372136
>quality isn't the same as durability

>>6372136
>quality isn't the same as durability

>>6372207
Not the guy you're replying to, but there's a reason "quality" and "durability" are two different words. If you want absolute maximum durability per dollar spent, buy the cheapest things in a thrift store without looking at the fit, size, color, etc. Get some steel-toed construction boots to wear with this outfit.

Design is an element of an item's quality. There is a reason people buy fast fashion over thrift, even though fast fashion will cost them more and is less durable. Secondly, an item can actually be high quality and less durable. See much you can wear a wool-silk blend blazer before it starts getting holes, then try the same with a duck canvas blazer. The wool-silk blazer is better quality, but duck canvas will last longer.

Polyester is more durable than cotton. Acrylic is more durable than wool. Yet, the quality of garments is reversed: we'd buy cotton before polyester and wool before acrylic. The "I pay more therefore it should last many years" mentality is taken by people with a poor understanding of textiles and the marketplace.

>>6372225
>>6372223

>durability is a quality
>many other things can be qualitys
>not having durability doesnt always detract from the quality if its not a necessity to you
and for people who buy luxury, necessity isn't high up in the order of values.
welcome to luxury clothing young one.

>>6372233
I'm creating an infograph comparing fake and real geobaskets. If you would, please try to recreate this shot as well. I want to emphasis how fake Geobaskest have a really long toebox and wide shoelaces.

>>6372240
yes. but those are SHOES. SHOES you wear. Not a painting, or any other peace of art. SHOES.

It's like selling those >extremely soft silks as toilet paper and then when people compare that their hands are full of shit you go all
>HURR you dont know KWOLITY
>RICKOWNS KWOLITY TOILET SILKPAPER doesnt need to do its job

>>6372248
and they literally look like ronald mcdonald shoes painted black

>>6372240
Then it was INTENTIONAL durability.

We are talking about UNINTENTIONAL durability, like OP's insole ripping twice, brand new.

>>6372248

here is a macro pic of a legit one.

anyone have pictures of fakes with a bit of wear & tear on them?

>>6372208
The chinese have won.

>>6372254
complain*

damn it.

>>6372254
>>6372258

and some shoes have design flaws.

i personally dont mind because theyre fairly easy fixes, but i guess that opinion isnt shared by everyone.

my black pair never had this problem either, but it is definitely a frequent issue that should be addressed by the manufacturer imo.

>>6372254
Yes, because one pair of sneakers with a few stitches loose represents the failure of all shoes ever made from the shop. You don't even know for sure how the damage occurred. Could have been in the process of shipping and handling.

"they fall apart fast but i luve them"

"I love them, I feel like I am a hair away from ripping the heel open everytime i put them on. Anybody else have this problem? They fit great once I get them on. But honestly, even with a shoe horn I am pretty sure that one of two things is bound to happen: The suede on the inside of the heel is going to get shredded or the seam stitching on the heel is going to rip. Am I missing something? Is there some trick to this?"

"Me too. Once the foot is in I'm golden, but getting it there can be a hassle."

"Some of the build quality is shocking for a $1200 shoe."

"mine are absurdly uncomfortable and appear to fall apart any minute"

"i mean the materials are great but the construction is certainly suspect in certain areas."

"pip, would disagree on the current state of RO leather. there are a lot more options for buyers these days, and many of the treatments are infinitely more misses than they are hits."

"mine are most confortable non new balance sneakers ever, but are quickly going to shit"

"the leather just sucks and compared to the old ones, these are just cheap looking and fucked up."

"Anyone have issues with trainers falling apart? I know this was probably covered somewhere in this thread, but I don't have time to scour right now. Any thoughts? Got some serious disintegration issues on the sole... and only after 3 months?"

>>6372248
Okay heres your shot, although i couldnt manage to get the angle exactly the same way.
Btw I think the real ones have a quite long toebox too.

"2 staples in mine were gone within the first two weeks.."

"these should be alot more sturdy"

"my ridged boots are getting worn down...on day 3. honestly, it's like buying a home that is exhorbitantly expensive and then having to redo the kitchen."

"shows some wear after like 30 wears, and I will re-do the soles before this winter, but it's still the same that refrains me from buying more RO footwear. Not really worth what they're charging."

"Can't believe people still buy these things"

"the ridges end before the actual sole leaving the heel vulnerable, compromising the shoe in my opinion. I will post a pic."

"i don't know if there's much [or anything] at all that can be done about the trainers falling apart but i've dealt with countless clients, and heard from countless friends that the footwear just isn't holding up like it should."

"putting new heels on mines..they fall apart faast..gona go dancing tonight"

"a cobbler make your beloved last longer."

"I know a few people have reinforced the heel with rubber. As far as the heel goes, just do what I do. Walk on your tippy-toes."

"Could you please tell me what kind of glue they use at the shoe repair shop when they RE-sole a Rick Owens sneaker!! They say 'you can't glue rubber on crepe together' But nearly every Rick Owens sneaker has an other sole than the original"

"My trainers are four months old and the metal clips that fix the sole are rusty,
I'm thinking about other ways to get rid of the rusty-yellow discoloration, but I'm afraid the only way is to change the outer sole."

"They're pretty much falling apart and my cobbler is rather pessimistic about repairing them. I believe it's mainly because it's sneakers."

"cool thing about ro footwear is after 10 wearings you have the sole less ccps everyone loves"

"well, it's avoidable if you get them protected right away, which is still pretty ludicrous"

"difficult taking a liking to the idea of dropping 700-1k on the trainers if I have to resole them immediately"

"well since you'd have to be a fucking moron to wear stapled sneakers in a snow storm, probably not."

"from the front all the way to the zip, the upper seems to be getting detached from the sole. anyone has encountered such a problem? can it be repaired by the cobbler?"

"at the moment I'm so frustrated with the overwhelming lack of quality I've experienced, I'll probably stop buying rick. everything I own eventually becomes shreds, and I don't even have to wear it daily. obviously I'm not talking about the stuff that's supposed to shred, but they're whoring that "it wasn't me" card for literally everything. oh, and certain boots... glue and show off stitches? impressive, really. makes me want to throw cash at them.

obviously I'm bitter because no one else offers what rick does. it's such a shame, because when I buy something, I want it to last longer than a day or two. he should get his shit together instead of sipping coffee in his 5-story building talking about furniture couture."

>>6372276
>>6372282
Those posts stopped happening in 2008. Whatever problems might have occurred then have been fixed, apparently

"background on this is that after less than six months and only very light useage (maybe 20 days total), the zipper on a pair of rick sneaks jams COMPLETELY and I have to use force to get them off my foot. after examining them more closely, I see that the fabric of the zipper has been stretching/tearing over time as the zipper was placed when the shoe was produced, and finally it broke completely because the zipper teeth did not align.

in my opinion, a production issue and shoes should not break in this way after such a short time - even considering it is rick and the "fucked-up" aesthetic philosophy. suddenly now I can't use them at all...."

"6 months is the life expectancy of a $1000 pair of sneakers? I'd like to think it's a little longer than that."

"I think the real lesson here is stop buying rick shoes!"

"if we leave the unstable cotton out of it then i think the most egregious offender is the shoes. we pay for the look, and i am willing to pay $1k+ for a shoe, but damn shouldn't i expect them to last at least as long as a $35 pair of canvas chuck taylors? without multiple trips to the cobbler. (i have a pair now that i love. but even so, there are obvious shortcomings)"

"Your point makes sense, but unfortunately that’s not the way it is. Sometimes a designer has to sacrifice one thing to gain on another. Ricks trainers are a great example. Because he wants an exaggerated form, there are on existing lasts or presidents set which factories can work from. This coupled with the whole scale thing that we already discussed makes life very difficult. So, in this case you are paying not for the name, or the quality, but for the design/form! My opinion is that Rick chose to sacrifice the quality for the form and one day it may well pay off, but first he must address the production issues, otherwise, you say it will dent his image!"

"bottom layer of crepe sole coming off side zips after 10 wearings. crazy glue worked for me, but it shouldn't have to."

>>6372287
nope google them they are from 2010/2011/2012/2013 and there is probably more quotes since these were found two or three months ago

>>6372241
>Not the guy you're replying to, but there's a reason "quality" and "durability" are two different words.
Not the guy you're replying to, but there's a reason snake and serpent are two different words.

As >>6372240
noted, but as I'm emphasizing:
Durability is a major contributing factor to quality. Sure, it's possible to have something of "high quality" and not have it be durable; there are other factors that contribute. But for a product to not even be able to withstand it's intended purpose, i.e. walking around, that negates any talk of quality.

>>6372282

>"2 staples in mine were gone within the first two weeks.."

mine have 6 years of wear and all the staples...

"having some problems repairing my geobaskets,
anyone with experience in letting them repair or is it too late? first cobbler I asked told me...no chance."

"Rick's footwear is notorious for falling apart."

"which isn't too bad compared to Rick's prices for the lack of quality control that he seems to give... "

"I can understand beat carpes, beat guidis and poell's boots with crushed heel but this is just dunks. and they are falling apart"

"i would be a much bigger fan of this type of closure if they didnt fall apart! until them i will admire them aesthetically and shun them practically"

"Took them for a walk on the beach in Casablanca, sand got between the sole and tacked on band."

I man I let my dad use my geos and he loves them, so I let him have them for 200 USD. He wears them to work with dad core wears. He is in construction.

>>6372221
is that the 2013 fw???

i thought the zipper handle piece was flush?

>>6372273
You seem like a cool guy, so I will not go full apeshit mode.

The basic problem is that /fa/ is devided in two camps: one says that you pay for quality (read: durability) and the other says thats ro's (read: any pricy clothing) are just overpriced.
And this argument was based on how economicly smart it is to do the one thing or the other. It was never about design or anything.

To quote someone from this thread:
>There is a reason people buy fast fashion over thrift, even though fast fashion will cost them more and is less durable

that is all there is to know. Like I said, nobody fought about how you would pay for the design, or how the design was overpriced: just people saying it is smarter to buy more expensive stuff because it lasts longer arguing with people who say otherwise.

"But after a dozen articles stocked in my closet and a couple of years of intense wearing, I have to say that for the price, there is better out there. Almost all of the items, as for the RO ones, are falling apart... What's wrong with quality those days ?"

"hey, how long could i expect a pair of ricks with reinforced heels to last?"

"The so called improved sneakers really look as if they're going to fall apart on the first wear"

"^^ yep, i haven't seen the quality, but i'm hopeful they won't fall apart like some of dick's shoes.."

"Rick Owens is slowly but steadily reaching that realm... while the clothes are nowhere near the same workmanship)"

>>6372290
>Not the guy you're replying to, but there's a reason snake and serpent are two different words.

This is a terrible analogy and doesn't refute any of the points I made.

>>6372290

>not even be able to withstand it's intended purpose, i.e. walking around

it started to happen in my boots, but i still walk in them all the time, unimpeded. i dont really understand why youre acting like its impossible to wear them because the leather peeled on the insole.

but i agree that is a design/construction flaw that should be addressed.

>>6372297
sorry for my missing knowledge, but what do you mean by flush?

>>6372223
>>6372207
>>6372243
>>6372238
>>6372225
oh god. i'm the guy that said that and i guarantee there's at least 3 samefags here and yeah quality=/=durability. durability is a factor in quality but there's more to quality than simply durability; design, concept, fabric composition, construction, actual fabric quality, and when it comes to more "avant-garde" (ugh) designs there can be a lot of thought put into the cut execution behind a garment and whether it fits a body as intended - durability at times takes a back seat especially for innovative designs. for example i own a silk/rayon rick tee that was quick to acquire holes even with the utmost care, does that make the quality "bad"? obviously not, it makes it a fragile garment

>>6372308
pic related

>>6372273
>i personally dont mind because theyre fairly easy fixes
What the fuck? So, just because it's easy for you to fix a ripped insole, it's "okay"? Even though that is a MAJOR design flaw?

Yeah, it should be addressed with the manufacturer. That's some fucking snake oil if you believe an insole destroying itself was intentional.

>>6372311
>people being this retarded
>huehue i dont care if my clothing falls apart its not like im going to wear it

>>6372304

>The basic problem is that /fa/ is devided in two camps: one says that you pay for quality (read: durability) and the other says thats ro's (read: any pricy clothing) are just overpriced.

i think that is overly simplistic. there arent just those two "camps." There is definitely a "camp" here of people who spend money because they like the design and other attributes of a product outside of durability (not that durability isnt considered).

>just people saying it is smarter to buy more expensive stuff because it lasts longer arguing with people who say otherwise.

im not sure who says that, but its basically a flawed point of view, and naive at best. The idea that just because you pay more for something, that it will last longer is ridiculous.

>>6372300
>doesn't refute any of the points I made
That's because I'm not exactly disagreeing with you.

>This is a terrible analogy
That's exactly right; it is terrible. That's because I'm trying to show you how foolish it is to move from the observation that there are two different words, to the conclusion that they are necessarily two different things, for some unknown "reason".
>Here's "A" and here's "B".
>We call them two different things.
>Voila, they must be two different things!

>>6372314

>What the fuck? So, just because it's easy for you to fix a ripped insole, it's "okay"? Even though that is a MAJOR design flaw?

Yeah to me personally it isnt an issue.

>Yeah, it should be addressed with the manufacturer.

I completely agree.

>That's some fucking snake oil if you believe an insole destroying itself was intentional.

I dont believe its intentional. I believe it is a flaw in construction.

>>6372320
learn a bit about the clothes you wear if you're going to respond to conventional accepted knowledge (outside of /fa/, apparently lel)

>>6372316
Well, then the new ones arent flush

>>6372318
How new are you man ? I even quoted someone saying exactly what I meant.

Just lurk more and you'll see. Or you know what: Wait a few days and then open a thread with just this in it "Why would I spent thousands of dollars in expensive clothing if I can have all that for cheaper at H&M?":

95% of the reply will be
>have fun with your h&m shit itll fall apart soon
or
>not knowing that its cheaper to buy ro because it lasts longer
or
>stay poor by buying the same things over and over again. rick owen durability masterraec reporting in

>>6372339
>asking how new user is
>user being one of the few knowledgeable trips on /fa/

>>6372333
eerrrt

wrong

what did i tell you bitch nigga

>>6372339
more like 5%

major replies will be
>stay pleb

>>6372322
You're moving goal posts. The first post that got the reaction image-deploying dilettantes going was:

>quality isn't the same as durability

My post elaborated on this point. I was not making a point about semantics or the nature of language, as you are right now, in an attempt to backpedal. Rather than deal with the substance of my argument (and others presented here) you just have pulled it into a debate about abstract language. The only way you can disagree with me is to say that quality and durability are in fact the same thing.

>>6372111
return that shit fuccboi

>>6372311
That's intentional durability.

Rick's sneakers falling apart is not because it was intentional. It's footwear. It could be meant to wrinkle/discolor/age, but that doesn't mean you're PAYING for the god damned insole to rip in half.

Jesus Christ man.

>>6372351
What about the ones from ssense then?

>>6372332
So enlighten me, please. Tell me how it is completely ok for everyday wear to fall apart after a small amount of time. Like I said: Everyday clothing is everyday need and not art you faggot.

>>6372339
>calling user new.
guy's a patrician.

>>6372351
those are old mang

>sold out

>>6372322
>>6372348
Also, your reading comprehension skills weren't up to snuff. When I said "analogy" I wasn't just talking about "snake : serpent." You need another two things to complete the analogy.

What I pointed out was your
>snake : serpent as quality : durability

doesn't work out. Neither in a linguistic sense nor a substantive way.

>>6372339

ok then we agree. i dont understand why you are arguing with the viewpoints of people that arent even posting in this thread though.

there are certain things that h&m makes that will last longer than certain things that rick owens makes. there are also things that rick owens makes that last longer than certain h&m products. it depends. my only point was, that is only one factor of why I, and many people will buy a product.

>>6372361
ffs i keep doing that

here
>>6372357

>>6372358
please read the post you responded to because i feel as though you haven't. your point has nothing to do with quality being or not being the same as quality. geobaskets aren't "everyday" clothing, nor is the example i used. it's designer, a luxury, step back if you can't afford it or otherwise at least don't deny accepted standards. quality=/=durability, durability is simply a factor of quality as i pointed out here >>6372311

>>6372367
being or not being the same as durability*

>>6372084

Same shit happened to my pair. I might just rip them out and use an insole.

>>6372370

>I might just rip them out and use an insole.

do not do this, just get a cobber to glue it back down.

>>6372255

They look like Iron Rangers.

>>6372370
So why didnt you return them?

>>6372295

Nope, they're mostly talking about the old crepe soles.

>>6372084
>>6372370
should have just bought dreamboxes lel

>>6372379
do you have to "rip" the sole out? cant you just pull it out like in any other shoe

>>6372354
you're also not paying for a tee to get holes even if it's bound to

>>6372385

no, its glued down. the issue is that the front lip of the insole is pulled by your sock when youre taking your foot out of the shoe and the glue isnt strong enough to hold it.

the solution is for a cobbler to put glue at the edge of the lip, and clamp the whole insole down so it is fasted with a much stronger bond than before.

>>6372381
>crepe
Found: "crepe" twice on this page, only including quotes
>staples
Found: "staples" once on this page, only including quotes

Nice try. You're not very smart, dude.

>>6372367
But I can afford them. And I never said quality equals durability. But it seems like we're on the same page after all: If you think that Rick Owens work should be considered art and not everyday clothing, than I completely understand that durability shouldnt be too important.

>>6372364
But that guy posted in this thread, man. As I stated above, as long as you dont see someones work as 'everyday clothing' it's ok that is has bad durability. Because in your eye it isnt meant to keep you warm/dry/whatever.

I just have a problem with /fa/ggots who think that even though something has bad durability (for everyday need) it is comlpetely ok, because it's design/fabric/whatever is good instead.

>>6372376

Too much of a hassle. I tried super gluing it back on, and then threw in an insole, but I decided to try them again without insoles to see if the glue would hold up, then the other insole came off.

>>6372388
You mean the whole insole is glued down? and not just that rubber layer on top of it, that ripped on mine?

>>6372208
>>6372259
>>6372277
Thanks for the pics.

>>6372410
dude

>>6372410
those look exactly the same dude

>>6372393
Is there something you're not getting?

>>6372410
so what i'm gathering from this image is
they are nearly the same product and the only people who could tell the difference from more than three feet are rick and michele themselves

>>6372402
well the quality equaling durability is what i was refuting/the point of my post. i think rick owens' clothing is most certainly art, as well as a lot of what is put on a runway. durability is important to an extent, however, i don't expect my geobaskets to last longer than a pair of timberland boots solely because they were more expensive, because they don't and won't. when i buy clothes i personally buy for aesthetics, cut, and fabric composition and i have no problem pushing durability to the side, fashion is a vain hobby.

>>6372402

>I just have a problem with /fa/ggots who think that even though something has bad durability (for everyday need) it is comlpetely ok, because it's design/fabric/whatever is good instead.

But it is completely ok. If the "because it's design/fabric/whatever" outweighs the durability in my opinion, i would, and do absolutely buy products because of that. Its based on personal preference.

>>6372408

Yeah, the whole thing.

>>6372410

Sure, thanks for making a little chart.

>>6372136
>quality isn't the same as durability

>>6372424
i think there's something you're not getting.

>>6372410
those look identical

hell even in the model picture for the fakes they look authentic

>>6372417
>>6372433
>blind niggers

>>6372441
please point out the differences

>>6372439
>thinking it is

>>6372400

Well, guess what? 99% of those quotes are talking about the pre sawtooth sole geos.

>>6372435
>you're also not paying for a tee to get holes
Um.. yes you are. You just said "durability at times takes a back seat especially for innovative designs". Now you're contradicting yourself. You're doing a bad job trying to compare sneakers falling apart to it being "fragile".

>>6372433

in the third set of pics, its extremely obvious that the leather has different textures, and the curve where all the eyelets are on the fakes ones is a much more gradual curve.

>>6372443
Okay but it will take me a few mins in photoshop.

>>6372451
so the guy was pretty much right?

>>6372450
"holy fuck! that's a lot of (shitty) quality shoes. but, it's nice that someone is obviously not having problems with their RO footwears"

"Man, if you rotate 50 pairs they are going to last."

"Speaking of retarded: I mean, let's be honest - if these were $200 Nike's we'd be back in the shop complaining about them. Some of the build quality is shocking for a $1200 shoe. Still, we buy them, then put protective soles on them because otherwise they wouldn't last 6 weeks. So there... suckers, the lot of us."

"Really? I checked them out at A and they just feel so freaking cheap to me. Totally not worth dropping a grand for an oversized tongue."

"i own a decent amount of rick owens. s/s 2012 geobaskets, one sheer tank top, a leather jacket, and a pair of dropcrotch sweats. i own two long sleeve sheer shirts from ann d. i'm not talking about leatherwear. the geobaskets are shit quality for 1000 dollars, and that's fine."

>>6372451

also the stitches on the fakes are much larger. the real ones have very small stitches.

i bet if you measured the stitches per inch on real and fakes youd get a much different number.

>>6372451
Those are not Dreambox and the guy who posted it admitted it.

>>6372452
just because it's likely to get holes doesn't mean that is what you're paying for. you're using words way too loosely and i never made the comparison you're talking about.

>>6372455

>the only people who could tell the difference from more than three feet are rick and michele themselves

are you implying that im rick or michele?

thats very sweet

>>6372467
>from more than three feet

>>6372471

in real life its even easier, on a bright day the differences in the texture of leather in real life is much more visible than a photograph on the internet.

>>6372468

are they like a different brand of fakes or something

>>6372443
Stitching, texture, curvature on the eyelets, and just look at the heels.
Small differences, but together the difference is pretty obvious.

>>6372452
Couldn't you then say you also ARE paying for geobaskets soles to fall off since it's public/well-known knowledge that Rick has those issues?

>>6372469
You made the comparison when you replied to "le you pay for quality face".

>>6372440
lel you could point out fakes on a phone cam pic. can you really not see that one is literal plastic and the other is leather?

>>6372494
dreamboxes use leather though

>>6372485
Don't think it is well known knowledge, people think all these issues were "fixed in the new version".

>>6372454

>>6372491

OP you should be able to return them even though they're worn, in my country under consumer law if an item isn't of reasonable quality it can be returned even if its been worn, think of it as like if a phone breaks after three days of use you'd still return it even though you'd been using it

>>6372505
saved for all future dreambox threads

Then let's start over:
>>6372241
>There is a reason (i.e. design) people buy fast fashion over thrift, even though fast fashion will cost them more and is less durable.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, fast fashion is high in design and low in durability.
Some high fashion is high in design and low in durability as well. So what separates the two?

>Yet, the quality of garments is reversed: we'd buy cotton before polyester and wool before acrylic.
Granting that it is as you say it is: why? What is this thing called quality if it is removed from durability?

>>6372348
> into a debate about abstract language
It's not just abstract language: it's reasoning.
>The only way you can disagree with me is to say that quality and durability are in fact the same thing.
Again, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you. I'm saying that there are multiple factors contributing quality, durability being one of them. You've hinted at two others as far as I can tell: design and material.
>>6372362
>analogy
https://www.google.com/search?q=analogy+definition&oq=analogy+definition&aqs=chrome.0.57j5j0l2j62.2811j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>Noun
>A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
But I won't press the point. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's not the best analogy. How about this?
>cat:kitten::quality:durability

>>6372494
>literal plastic
top lel

>>6372503

Leather that's comparable to a pair of shoes you can buy at Walmart.

>>6372127
>i talked to my shoe repair guy
who is your shoe repair guy I must know

>>6372524
>Some high fashion is high in design and low in durability as well.

>So what separates the two?

Quality of materials (hardware, fabric, thread, glue, fusing, etc) and construction (smaller stitches per inch, no shortcuts taken to make the process super fast), overall buying experience, how the product ages, how it holds its value. Also how you personally feel about the product.

>>6372525
those are real though.

>>6372515
Do you acknowledge that Rick is shit durability?
Then we're fine.

>>6372542
look at the toebox

>>6372542
no hahahaha

you fuccbois cant even tell the difference

>>6372542

The sole isn't even the right shape.

>>6372562
>>6372542
obvious samefag, trying really hard to prove your point but they're still obviously fake whether they're plastic or just shitty leather.

>>6372524
>A comparison between two things

Again, you're trying to misdirect with semantics. Nothing you wrote down or looked up disagrees with or refutes what I said. There are four objects, but only two pairs. The "thing" we are comparing is hairsplitting.

Notice how a common form of analogy is the following form:
>x is to y what a is to b

I was not making an analogy about quality and durability. That alone is not an analogy. Your logic attempts the following: "because snake and serpent is terrible, it means quality and durability is similarly terrible." It doesn't pan out, there is no connection here. I did not make an analogy, YOU tried to make one, and it doesn't make sense.

But try not to get bogged down here. The important overall point which I supported is what you and the reaction-pic half-wits find incredible: quality ≠ durability.

In order to argue against me, you must defend the position that quality = durability. This is obviously mistaken for many of the reasons I elaborated on in my original post, which you didn't, and still haven't engaged with. You just mentioned snakes and serpents and washed your hands of the whole thing, as if you made a clear and well-supported reply. You didn't.

>>6372410
>>6372505
Improved.

I don't think there's actually anything wrong with the square patch on the tongue.

>>6372551
>>6372562
>>6372565

gee I'm glad this is an anonymous image board. because I feel like a twat right now.

the lack of puffy patches on the toe and the black thread overlapping the white bar through me off, dreamboxes fuck up on both these points.

What faggotry is this? I'm going back home. Cheers guise.

It's your punishment for spending $800 on a pair of shoes

>>6372542
>>6372648
this shows that most people wont even be able to tell the differences between the two

>>6372311
>>6372431
This.
I think you would have to value function over form to think quality is the same as durability, which there's nothing wrong with. But this is /fa/, a fashion board, and when watered down fashion is in fact art (well, particularly the fashion discussed here). And there is much more that goes into designing clothing than simply pondering how to make the clothes last as long as possible. There are many aspects that make a piece "high quality".

>>6372679

Well, most people don't even know who Rick is. What really matters then, is your opinion. Are you okay with knockoffs that use cheap materials and construction? If so, go ahead and buy them; no one here can stop you.

>>6372692
not like real dick ovens have decent construction anyway

>>6372696

The only problem that I'm aware of is the one OP and I have. Other than that, the construction should be much better than a pair made in a sweatshop.

>>6372679
utmost lel no it doesn't. even given that they're blatantly cheap most people wouldn't know that anything is being faked to begin with, but given the two to compare it's not hard to differentiate. especially if you're actually into fashion and have handled a lot of leather.

>>6372410
non fuccboi edition

>>6372648
>black thread overlapping the white bar
Where?

>>6372084
that thing next to them, thats like a tote bag or something, right?

can i please have it

>>6372808
>kateupton.jpg

>>6372760
What's the difference in the Rick-pic on the fake vs real Geos? Are they both of Rick?

>>6372808

I've seen some on eBay for $50. Maybe I should sell mine.

>>6372084
It's a half insole, isn't it? These things come up all the time on shoes. I just had my cobbler make me a full leather insole, never had a problem again.

>>6372913

Yeah, the leather lining on the insole only goes halfway.

>>6372362
The analogy makes sense to me

Not all serpents are snakes but all snakes are serpents

Not all quality items are durable but all durable items have quality

whats not to understand?

>>6372887
>>6372887
>>6372887
pls

>>6373069

idk, here is a real one. if someone has a fake one post a macro pic of the tag

>>6373100
Real looks almost the same as the fake

>>6373100

You can tell some major differences between reals and fakes just by looking at the description pictures.

http://www.ioffer.com/i/rick-owens-2012-new-leather-high-top-shoes-524712532

/fa/ just copped a pair of Geos yesterday, they look in order but the leather is completely different to previous Geos. Not plastic like Dreams but not waxy like other Geos? Also the top part of the zipper is gold? Dumping Pics.

>>6373384

>>6373389

>>6373396
it's the new 2013 model m8

chill

>>6373384

The leather looks the same to me, but that zipper looks kinda ugly.

>>6373384
see
>>6372351

the new zipper is flush

So you guys drop 1k on a fucking pair of mediocre quality sneakers

then they break right away

then you have to pay a fucking cobbler to fix them

lmao

I swear buying geos is like the darwin awards of fashion

>>6372121

>>6373406
no1 care :B

>>6373396

r these fake

>>6373406

but they're art man! don't you get it? bad craftmanship and/or poor design is part of the experience

>>6373410
this thread cares

>>6373406
its amazing how much hype can influence a mind

>>6373415
No, real, just 2013 model.

Those shoes $700? You could cop a custom pair of Vibergs for that much.

>>6373415
holy shit
they are made slightly differently dude

>>6373416
lol ur dumb

>>6373425

No way m8, do they make one that looks just like geos?

>>6373421
>>6373424

i was jk boo

>>6373396
Close up of leather.

>>6373441
Nah they mostly make high quality boots that will last decades.

>>6373446

>>6373446
dude, they look great
i personally love the new improvements

i think you are forgetting the fact that you now have geos

>>6373450
New zip.

>>6373454

What differences are there besides the new zipper?

>>6373459
dunno, but i bet they are made better

i think the new zipper looks great

it's very "rick"

/r/ing pics of those rick collab sneakers with the gothy elaborate silver accessories

>>6373476

Chrome Hearts

>>6373477
ok that works thanks

>>6373477
oh man i'd love to see these worked into a waywt

>>6372696
Rick stuff has fine construction. You would know if you actually handled it.

>>6372913
Yes, my older dunks have them. They curl up a little when I take them off but never have they ripped.

And they are 4 years old.

>>6373396
how did you cop the new ones by luisaviaroma?
their website says PRE-ORDER > IN ARRIVAL BY SEPTEMBER 15

>>6373450
the sole isn't one solid piece?

>>6373447
so you can look your dad for the rest of your life? sick

>>6372084
I have another question, when I'm trying to get a refund should i rather say the sole was
>ripped when i got them,
>or that i just noticed it after two days and dont know when it happened,
>or it tore after two days.

>>6374025
don't lie
they make a quality check before they get shipped out

>>6374025
There's nothing wrong with the shoe, just have a cobbler fix it.
It's not the sole, either. it's the insole. It's a half insole. Have a cobbler glue it down or replace it altogether.
Nothing is wrong with the shoe.

>>6374030
>nothing is wrong with shoe
>requires work after three days of wear
OP just say shoe was not of reasonable quality

>>6374030
but im afraid i dont know any good cobblers...
and if the whole insole is glued down he might have to rip it out to glue the top back on, so im afraid he might damage the shoe.
Also where i live nobody knows RO, not even the cobblers.

>>6374036
read their return policy
tell them the truth
ship them back

>>6374036
It doesn't matter, it's a common thing in a lot of shoes, just have it reglued or consider getting a new insole made.
This doesn't operate any differently from any other kind of shoe repair, it's not like the cobbler needs to take the thing apart, it's a tiny half layer of leather, you'll see it in lots of women's shoes and it's not really a signifier of terrible quality.

>>6374034
A ripped half insole does jack shit to change how the shoe is worn. Nobody sees it, you don't feel it.

>>6374093
Lel

Op, I work for Rick Owens distribution on the west coast. If you haven't already engaged with the retailer or us, then go ahead and shoot me an email and I'll help you out.
Terribly sorry for the inconvenience.

Reflection77@gmail.com

>>6375820
get a trip dude
also post sick rick fit

>>6374093
>A ripped half insole does jack shit to change how the shoe is worn. Nobody sees it, you don't feel it.

>>6372226
fuck you fuckin faggot you stole the deal from jades24 you asshole

>>6372477
yes, they are made out of plastic. the dreambox ones are real leather

>>6372646
the top pic could most likely be fixed by making the laces tighter.

The third pic isn't exactly accurate because they are taken at different angles so you can't directly compare the shapes/proportions.

>>6372248
might just be the size of the shoe

>>6372226
lucky I didnt buy it. actually was this close to buy it.
thanks for taking the fall op. lol

>>6372226
you got it from jades24. why didn't just mention it?

>>6375859
those are fake right?

>>6376536

No. The lighting is just shitty.