I was given some expensive Converse shoes as a present on the 8th of August. I was going to a punk rock convention for a couple of nights and I mentioned to my mother that I needed to buy some new shoes as my Vans were worn. She then said she had bought me some for my Birthday and gave them me as an early Birthday present.
Both shoes had started to show excessive wear on the inside material by last week but I didn't but I put it down to one of those things. Tonight the outer part of the show completely ripped apart from the sole and there is now a big hole in it. The soles of the shoes still look barely warn so there is clearly a defect with them. They missuust have cost about £50 and I would expect them to last at last three months of heavy use.
I usually wear converse chuck taylors when going out, and these have lasted months without any issues.
The problem is these shoes were purchased in June as they were a Birthday present but I believe the the fact the soles still have all the their tread indicates they are not worn, plus the general condition is very good.
So what is the legal situation of taking back faulty but used shoes? I believe under the Sales of Goods Act 1974 I have a strong case (well my mother does) but they were purchased from a catalogue and I think they will just fob her off at is wear and tear.
What would you do?
|
>> What would you do?
Firstly, don't make a drama out of it.
Just contact them and see what they have to say and take it from there.
Also look in the catalogue/online site at their T's & C's and see what it says about faulty goods, returns, etc.
|
I am just a bit upset as they were a present, and now seen to buy some new shoes tomorrow as I can't drive in my Converse boots and my other shoes are too scruffy for work purposes or too uncomfortable funeral and interview style ones.
All I know is any goods have to be fit for purpose and a pair of £50 shoes that last three weeks are not fit for purpose, the fact the soles are not worn should prove they have not failed due to wear and tear. Of course I have had a couple of drinks and I suppose that made the situation seem more dramatic than it actually is.
|
>> ............. All I know is any goods have to be fit for purpose and a pair of £50 shoes that last three weeks are not fit for purpose, ........
Here's what "fit for purpose" means. tinyurl.com/d38f2as
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sun 1 Sep 13 at 07:29
|
I was given some expensive Converse shoes...
... They must have cost about £50...
To be honest, I'd no idea Converse were that cheap. One thought: are you sure they're the real thing? I'd imagine Converse is the kind of brand that attracts counterfeiters.
|
The Lad has had Converse boot/trainers. While they lasted longer than Rattle's longevity was not good - my Aldi trainers do far better.
B junior walks on his heels though which doesn't help.
|
>>To be honest, I'd no idea Converse were that cheap<<
..yet another statement which would have been better thought, but not posted.
Sometimes internet forums seem to bring out the worst in people and I really don't know why.
Pat
|
>> >>To be honest, I'd no idea Converse were that cheap<<
>>
>> ..yet another statement which would have been better thought, but not posted.
>>
>> Sometimes internet forums seem to bring out the worst in people and I really don't
>> know why.
>>
>> Pat
You have completely misrepresented the Beeste's post there Pat.
At one time a pair of converse trainers or basketball shoes could not be bought for under 90 quid, because they were such a high fashion and status item. Subsequently they became a favourite target for knockoff or copies, look the part but not at all well made. Three or even two years ago his comment would have been prudent and factual, 50 quid converse shoes probably being of the counterfeit variety. He didn't realise the status had fallen out of Converse , and subsequently the price has dropped.
The same thing is happening now with Ugg boots. People buying 60 quid pairs of Uggs, through the net or at the market, thinking they have a 30% off bargain. They are of course hooky, and you never find out till they fall apart.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 1 Sep 13 at 10:23
|
>> Sometimes internet forums seem to bring out the worst in people and I really don't
>> know why.
>>
>> Pat
They certainly do. Whose nanny do you think you are on here?
|
Mapmaker
I'm no-one's nanny and I won't back down from you either.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Wed 4 Sep 13 at 18:48
|
Pat,
Do you not feel that you're following a pattern here?
- look for personal offence where none was intended, spring to inappropriate defence usually of someone else, when questioned suddenly refuse to back down or be bullied where neither matter had been raised.
Its becoming just a little predictable.
You'll be talking about people being driven from the forum next.
|
>>Its becoming just a little predictable.
You'll be talking about people being driven from the forum next. <<
Ah yes, of course, you'd be the expert on that one, wouldn't you?
I'm flattered... after all, this thread has 136 replies, has been going for 5 days and it was a comment of mine which prompted Mapmaker to contribute!
That's some skill.
Pat
|
>> I was given some expensive Converse shoes...
>> ... They must have cost about £50...
>>
>> To be honest, I'd no idea Converse were that cheap.
They are. Loads of genuine ones available in retail outlets at around 50 quid and under. Its no longer quite the fashion statement it was, so prices have eased.
|
..yet another statement which would have been better thought, but not posted.
Whereas sanctimonious, salt-of-the-earth-me guff is always welcome, I suppose?
£50 for a pair of shoes cannot possibly provide all of
- decent materials
- skilled workmanship
- respectable compensation for the workers
- margins for manufacturer, retailer and everyone else along the chain
let alone any kind of 'brand premium' of the kind I imagined Converse could command. Z's comment suggests I'm out of date there.
|
>> £50 for a pair of shoes cannot possibly provide all of
>> - decent materials
>> - skilled workmanship
>> - respectable compensation for the workers
>> - margins for manufacturer, retailer and everyone else along the chain
Of course it can. I have bought loads of shoes at 50 quid and under, that have been smart, well made and durable.
|
>> Of course it can. I have bought loads of shoes at 50 quid and under,
>> that have been smart, well made and durable.
Durability of the product is no confirmation of margins, still less of respectable compensation for the workers.
|
>>
>> >> Of course it can. I have bought loads of shoes at 50 quid and
>> under,
>> >> that have been smart, well made and durable.
>>
>>
>> Durability of the product is no confirmation of margins, still less of respectable compensation for
>> the workers.
depends on where in the world you base "respectable compensation". The cost of living in Vietnam is considerably less than here, subsequently so are the wages. The margins must be there, or they wouldn't be sold, and the shop selling them would be shut.
|
>> Of course it can. I have bought loads of shoes at 50 quid and under,
>> that have been smart, well made and durable.
I dare say the manufacturing is in Asia now. Stuff like this can be a couple of £ a pair FOB in China. They are canvas and rubber plimsolls, pumps, two boab sliders ( thanks to Wiki for that one), not Church's replicas.
Even allowing that 90% of the price is marketing and distribution, £50 is dear. I look for things like Clarks, Seibel, Rieker in the sales at £50 or less and nobody is losing money on those.
They should be very well made at £50. But I'm no expert. He must be falling off his bike in a wood somewhere.
I got a nice pair of Eccos, look like football boots without the studs, the other week for £60 in Rogersons at Rothbury. I'd expect a lot more life out of those.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 1 Sep 13 at 10:06
|
That is just it, these shoes by my standards have had light use. Not used them on my bike or anything. I have had very similar converse shoes before which have lasted much much much longer, in fact I have a pair that are two years old, I had about 7 months wear out of them, but now look very scruffy and the sole has started to wear but 7 months is great considering the use they got.
|
Returning faulty footwear for refund or exchange can be an uphill struggle. Your local shoe shop may well refuse for no good reason, so it may be best for you to contact the quality manager at their head office. If this fails, a letter or email to the chief executive informing him that you will be contacting your local newspaper if a refund or exchange is not forthcoming within 14 days.
It's worked for me on two occasions. On a third, a pair of faulty trainers, also about £50, were exchanged without question.
|
>>Whereas sanctimonious, salt-of-the-earth-me guff is always welcome, I suppose?<<
No, WilldeB, it isn't, but on the other hand a bit of balance should be.
We have all followed Rattle's exploits and battles with his finances and expensive is a relative term anyway.
There is a great divide between those of us who can afford to buy good quality and those who have to have the best they can afford....two totally different things.
To point out that great divide when someone is not as well off as you is neither necessary or welcome.
Rattle and I have a lot in common and probably have a better understanding of 'make do and mend' than most on here....but that isn't to say that most shouldn't be aware of how the other small percentage has to live, does it?
Pat
|
I had no idea they were so expensive. I'd have guessed at £30 until I saw some in a shop recently. They were about £50.
I don't think I'd want to wear them constantly. I had something similar for playing out as a child, and they did ferment the feet a bit.
Take em back. Just think how short a time they would have lasted had you actually been playing basketball in them.
Are they still made in the USA?
|
>> Take em back. Just think how short a time they would have lasted had you
>> actually been playing basketball in them.
No NBA player now wears converse on the court, such is the downfall of the brand.
>>
>> Are they still made in the USA?
No.
|
>>To be honest, I'd no idea Converse were that cheap.
Ditto. No. 1 just turned a pair down on the basis that they weren't worth the money. I assumed that therefore they were damned expensive.
£50 is not damned expensive.
|
Just do the simple arithmetic,
£50 retail
Take off the £10 VAT which goes straight to HMRC
Now you have £40
Take off the proportionate costs of the shop ( rent, rates, insurances, staff, heat and light, fixtures fittings, financing the stock etc etc ) some profit ( they need to make some or they wouldn't bother being there )
Take off the wholesaler's margin ( they need some or they wouldn't bother either )
Take off the shipping costs half way around the world, the import duty, the proportionate manufacturing costs ( plant, machinery, premises etc ) the small profit for the manufacturer ( they wouldn't bother either unless there was some margin ) The raw materials costs ( including an even smaller profit for the producers of those ) the wages for the factory workers...
Not a right lot left is there?
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 1 Sep 13 at 15:44
|
>> £50 retail
>> Take off the £10 VAT which goes straight to HMRC
If the retail price is £50, then the VAT is £8.33 (rounded down)
|
>> Not a right lot left is there?
If you are looking at one pair of shoes it looks horrific. BUT The shop sells hundreds of pairs of shoes a month. Don't need much profit per shoe to make it look decent.
The wholesaler (those retailers that use them) moves on Tens - hundreds of thousands of shoes, dont need much per shoe to make them money
Shipping costs are the lowest they have been for 20 years (ship brokers are going bust, there is a huge oversupply of tonnage) They ship tens of millions of shoes, (add peanuts to the cost of the shoe)
At the end of the day, if money wasnt being made out of them, they wouldn't be on sale at that price.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 2 Sep 13 at 01:09
|
Also take the analogy of my cheap Ryobi drill £45.00, it was made in China, it is heavy and well made, far more engineering goes into that than a pair of shoes. Of course you can buy a drill for £10 too, and I assume they still make profit on it.
|
|
Except Humph they were bought from a catalogue that won't have shop premises or costs, will probably sell their stock before they have to pay their suppliers and will also make margin on those who choose to pay up their purchases.
|
>> I was given some expensive Converse shoes ................
We need to know more about them ~ what style etc. www.office.co.uk/view/category/office_catalog/1?BRAND=Converse
|
>> I usually wear converse chuck taylors when going out, ...........
Which ones? www.office.co.uk/view/search?search=chuck+taylor
|
>> I have bought loads of shoes at 50 quid and under, that have been smart, well made and durable.<<
I would have expected very well made daps for £50.
|
>> I would have expected very well made daps for £50.
>>
I'd never heard of "daps" so I had to look it up in the dictionary. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=daps
|
Am i missing something here.
Never heard of them, but thanks to L'es's link i see some dubious looking training style shoes, worn presumably for sporting events or by old men mincing down to the post office.
You don't really wear things like that when going out do you Rattie?
....wanders off shaking head in despair...
:-)
|
|
I must look up the word 'mincing', as I thought it related to the manufacture of cottage pies and suchlike.
|
>> I must look up the word 'mincing', as I thought it related to the manufacture
>> of cottage pies and suchlike.
>>
Since this is a thread about cool dudes in cool shoes, you should look up "mincing" in the Urban Dictionary. www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mincing
|
Mincing does relate to cottage but not pies, so you're on the right back track there.
so i'm told..;)
mmm, cottage pie, just had words with SWMBO, cottage pie it is tonight, thanks for the thought.
|
I have had plenty of Converse before and would expect to get 3-4 months out of them. I had a £30 pair of Vans which lasted me three months but they got extremely heavy use.
Converse have been around for about 100 years now, but the company is now owned by Nike and of course now made in pleases like Indonesia. I personally think £50 is a lot of money to spend on a pair of shoes, for this money I don't expect to be just paying into a brand but also some level of quality. I have a £45 Ryobi hammer drill which I have used to drill into bricks and all sorts of heavy use and it is a very well made piece of kit (not pro level but great for DIY use) and the amount of engineering involved in it for the price is amazing. So I fail to see how you cannot make a decent pair of shoes for £50.00
As people will know I am into the local alternative scene and Converse along with brands are two of the most popular brand of shoes. My mother bought these online but from one of the big catalogues, so I would be very surprised if they were fake.
|
|
What's the plan then, Rattle?
|
got the receipt? take them back demand a new pair.
No receipt? shrug and move on.
|
|
Got a receipt etc, the problem is my mother bought them an online catalogue, and two months before they were given to me, but the fact the sole still looks virtually new will show they do not have 3 months of wear, the shoes still look almost new apart from where they have ripped.
|
>> Got a receipt etc, the problem is my mother bought them an online catalogue, and
>> two months before they were given to me, but the fact the sole still looks
>> virtually new will show they do not have 3 months of wear, the shoes still
>> look almost new apart from where they have ripped.
Exactly. Don't concede the battle before you've had it. They might see it your way. It's a manufacturing defect which must have been present at the time of purchase.
|
|
Well I need to buy some shoes today, but I think I might contact Converse (Nike) directly and see what they say, I realise the contract is with the retailer but I think they will just fob us off. I think Converse might be quite concerned to know that this particular design of show has failed after a few weeks. I suspect they may have been subcontracted to do a different factory. I have no quality complaints about my Chuck Taylors at all and they were only £45.00 (from Office, so genuine).
|
|
Bought my daughter a pair of Converse too. £5 for the canvas, rubber and laces. £45 for the logo.
|
Just to clear things up - especially with Pat, to whom in my pre-breakfast fractiousness I may have offered the wrong end of the stick - I wasn't trying to score any richer-than-you points. Quite the opposite, really, and Rats is quite right that shoes that cost £50 and last three months are expensive. And while wearing through might be acceptable, falling apart is not, and that would be my angle when returning them.
As Z has shown, I'm not really au fait with matters trainer. I'm about to retire a pair of Eccos that I bought in a sale for £65 in 2006, and that have been my spring/autumn scruffy staples ever since. I was mildly disgruntled at wearing through the soles of a lightweight pair by Pikolinos that lasted me two summers, but perhaps it's me that needs to reset expectations.
Anyway, Rats, focus on the specific manufacturing defect, relate that to your previous experience with the brand and how long they ought to last, keep your cool and stand your ground. "I know you're good and this isn't up to your usual standard" has usually worked for me when I've had a problem with something. It did last week, in fact.
|
You are lucky Sheikha. Three whole weeks!
I used to know a couple of Algerian brothers who among other things had a small shoe factory. One of their latest models was a slimline pump sort of thing with mid-blue leather - not suede - upper and rubber sole. I said something like, oh, those are cool, and they immediately gave me six pairs in my size.
I said, thanks, but I don't need all these.
They said, oh yes you do. These shoes are crap. It's those useless workers.
They were crap too. The sole would come unglued from the upper before you got out of the door sometimes.
Three weeks? Luxury!
|
Bought some cheap Lee Coopers converse copies for £10.00 will do for now, and if they fall apart after three weeks so be it.
I have noticed my other shoe is also falling apart in the same place and I think this gives me more backup that they are faulty either by design or manufacturing error.
|
I parked outside a sports shop in a small town and noticed they had a pair of Hi-tec trainers in my size (12) in the window for a fiver!
They fitted and I suspect they're a bit faded from sunlight, but I don't care.
They asked if I knew anyone they could sell the size 15's to.
|
>> These shoes are crap. It's those useless workers.
Just in case anyone thinks I agreed with these cats about everything just because I knew them, and because they had been almost oppressively hospitable to me in the Arab manner, I didn't. Indeed I was a bit shocked by the thuggish and reactionary way they treated the workers, in an Algeria that still called itself socialist. And it was perfectly clear that the technology being used, which worked extremely badly and could hardly fail to do so, was their responsibility.
The weird thing was, they didn't give a damn. I still don't really understand it. Funny old place, the world.
|
>> especially with Pat, to whom in my pre-breakfast fractiousness I may have offered the wrong end of the stick <<
Ok WilldeB, how about a truce!
My pre-breakfast fractiousness was caused by the fact that the day ahead consisted of decorating once again so I could afford to buy a pair of Reikers which fit my arthritic feet very comfortably instead of a pair of pound shop flip flops!
I would love to have taken up the quote of £385 plus materials the decorator gave us but doing it ourselves over two weekends, is the reason for my conclusion that you all have staff.
Pat
|
>> I would love to have taken up the quote of £385 plus materials the decorator
>> gave us
Methinks your landlord is a fortunate fellow.
|
>> So I fail to see how you
>> cannot make a decent pair of shoes for £50.00
You'd be surprised at all the costs involved in design, development testing, manufacture, marketing, sales, distribution, overheads etc etc.
|
Wouldn't stress on it Rats. Can't imagine the retailer giving you any grief if they're genuinely faulty. On average, up to 4% of footwear sold in the UK is in some way sub-standard. While QC in shoe factories is quite good, some faults can't be easily detected until the product has been worn.
As for what represents a fair price, frankly any item of footwear which has a full retail price of less then £100 in today's UK has almost certainly caused someone some privation somewhere in it's life cycle of arriving at the end user. We just choose, rightly or wrongly, to ignore these realities in our quests for a "bargain". The whole industry is like an economic bumble bee. It oughtn't to fly, but somehow, through supreme effort, it does.
|
>> Can't imagine the retailer giving you any grief if they're genuinely faulty
I think it's more likely that Rattle will have to jump through a few hoops before a refund or exchange is given, but I'm sure he'll get it sorted eventually.
|
>> On average, up to 4% of footwear sold in the UK is in
>> some way sub-standard.
I don't doubt what you say, but I'd be interested in the source of that information. For what it's worth, none of the footwear I've ever bought has been sub-standard.
|
>> As people will know I am into the local alternative scene and Converse along with
>> brands are two of the most popular brand of shoes.
Only with those blokes who cant pull the women......
|
>> I have had plenty of Converse before and would expect to get 3-4 months out of them.
Crikey, I get years out of my shoes and I go running in them.
|
>> I have had plenty of Converse before and would expect to get 3-4 months out
>> of them. I had a £30 pair of Vans which lasted me three months but
>> they got extremely heavy use.
Good grief!!! I get at least 2 to 3 years wear out of my HiTec Trail II walking boots, which are worn most days. And when they start getting tatty, they become my dirty job footwear. I've only ever paid approx £30 for them.
What ever are you doing to only make them last a few months?
|
>> What ever are you doing to only make them last a few months?
>>
They are only pumps. Hardly even outdoor footwear, not that I dispute any one's right to wear whatever they like on their plates. The tops are cloth, the soles rubber. A bit more durable than a pair of slippers, but not much.
Rattle uses public transport a lot, much marching about. I wouldn't expect more than a few weeks out of them, worn constantly.
Or maybe it's all that dancing!
|
>> A bit more durable than a pair of slippers, but not much.
My Church's slippers last for years.
|
>> >> A bit more durable than a pair of slippers, but not much.
>>
>> My Church's slippers last for years.
As do my atheist ones. But I don't wear them for the march to the paper shop.
|
>> As do my atheist ones. But I don't wear them for the m̶a̶r̶c̶h̶ shuffle to the
>> paper shop.
>>
Fixed that for you. ;-)
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Mon 2 Sep 13 at 07:53
|
>> My Church's slippers last for years.
So do my Marks & Sparks ones.
|
I agree with GB...my trotters wouldn't like to be seen dead in stuff like that. Man up, Rats and get a nice smart pair of plain black Riekers like mine. Bull up like a guardsman's and have the girls gagging for your attention !
They last for years as well, even if you walk round in them.......reminds me, must get another pair, in brown for a change.
Ted
|
|
Next time get some Clarks shoes from their Xmas sale, £40 and good for 18 months or so!
|
Dear me some are easily pleased.
My Sargeant's Dundee boots must be well over 12 years old now, been rubber soled 3 or 4 times, rubber heeled maybe twice, show no upper or mainsole wear whatsoever and if they don't last another 12 or preferably see me out i'll have something to say on the matter...cost SWMBO £150 if i recall correctly for a birthday present.
That reminds me, i must see about another decent tweed jacket and waistcoat, will try a dry clean first though and see how the shmutter comes up, no sense in chucking money about is there.
Need some decent new cords though, none of that Indian/Chinese sweat shop rubbish mind, its not cheap when its lifespan is measured in weeks if that.
|
>> Dear me some are easily pleased.
>>
>> My Sargeant's Dundee boots must be well over 12 years old now, been rubber soled
>> 3 or 4 times, rubber heeled maybe twice, show no upper or mainsole wear whatsoever
>> and if they don't last another 12 or preferably see me out i'll have something
>> to say on the matter...cost SWMBO £150 if i recall correctly for a birthday present.
>>
>> That reminds me, i must see about another decent tweed jacket and waistcoat, will try
>> a dry clean first though and see how the shmutter comes up, no sense in
>> chucking money about is there.
>>
>> Need some decent new cords though, none of that Indian/Chinese sweat shop rubbish mind, its
>> not cheap when its lifespan is measured in weeks if that.
I get the old fob watch and chain cleaned up first. Do you swap the patches on the elbows of your jacket for winter ones?
|
>> I get the old fob watch and chain cleaned up first. Do you swap the
>> patches on the elbows of your jacket for winter ones?
Don't forget the monocle, the handlebar moustache and plus fours Zero.
It's all part of being a chap.
GB is like Fred Dibnah - he was born in the wrong century.
In case you were wondering, I meant that in a nice way GB :)
Last edited by: corax on Sun 1 Sep 13 at 21:20
|
Fully agree C, i am out of kilter in this strange new world, was raised in an old fashioned lifestyle which i won't bore you with and i have no regrets about, quite the opposite in fact.
|
Bin doing a root-out of me wardrobe this evening on the Dragon's orders. Took a load of ' formal ' shirts, most of my ties apart from some with sentimental value and a pair of black brogues to the re-cycle bin up the road..
I've had them for about 15 yrs. I was going to hoof a pair of black Grenson Oxfords which I've had for about the same time, but they're too good so I'll keep them for funerals as my generation are knocking on a bit now.
I've had a pair of brown Clarkes for a long., long time which I alternate with the Riekers.......no real visible wear to either yet. Both about £60. Bought these last week for more casual wear...Gore-Tex, comfy, nice
www.clarks.co.uk/p/20356157
I've often bought shoes from the Premier Man catalogue, I've got two pairs of slip ons, brown and black which I've had now for about 3 years. £10 a pair, delivered free. Reasonably good shoes !
Ted
Last edited by: Ted on Sun 1 Sep 13 at 21:56
|
>I'll keep them for funerals as my generation are knocking on a bit now.
They'll take 'em off before they put you in the box Ted.
|
They can leave 'em on, K. Me feet are cold enuff as it is !
Ted
|
When visiting my colonial friends earlier this year I went to a Vans outlet store.
Not a Transit in sight.
But seriously, buy 2 pairs, get one free, so @ $29.99 a pair, + CA state tax
Over priced at £15 a pair but ok for pootling around. No idea what they sell for in the UK, but probably considerably more. Barely worth 15 quid IMHO
|
|
Ted, don't put them in the recycle bin, hand them into a charity shop please!
|
Too late..........but it was a charity bin outside the post office. One of those secure ones where people can't get at the stuff.
Ted
|
>> Dear me some are easily pleased.
>>
>> My Sargeant's Dundee boots must be well over 12 years old now, been rubber soled
>> 3 or 4 times, rubber heeled maybe twice, show no upper or mainsole wear whatsoever
Same story with the shoes on my feet as I type. Bought in 2001, resoled and heeled a few times. £50 from M&S. Italian made leather (upper) shoes.
|
|
Perhaps the sheikh would be better orf with a pair of these: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiekh_Shoes
|
Just going through something similar, but with Mrs C. She bought some boots from Clarks last November, and paid (to us) an eye watering £120. Obviously I know you can pay a bazillion for womens' boots, but I thought they ought to be fairly good quality at that price and make.
In June the upper parted from the side. Shoe repairer man says he can't fix it as "health and safety means you can't use the glue any more", which sounds a bit odd. So I took them back to the shop, but they would only offer me half the value in gift vouchers as "it was a hard winter". Hmm.
Clarks themselves now want us to send them back to them for "a second opinion". I dread to think how much the postage will be.
Anyway hoops it is, and we're off Clarks as this is the second time we've had issues with early failure.
|
>> I bought a pair of these booties about 2 year ago, I live, die, and
>> sleep in them and, they are as good as the day they were born:
Yes D and on your recommendation i bought a pair, agony rubbed my ankles raw, i wanted a replacement pair of simple desert boots and had great hopes for these, what a mistake to make, passed them onto my lad to see if he could manage them, haven't a clue if he still uses them.
Most comfortable boots i've ever worn happen to be safety boots, DeWalt Challenger 2 waterproof goretex jobbies, light flexible and will last donkeys years, even the laces last years, useful for rough stuff as the steel membrane whilst extremely flexible won't allow nails thorns etc to pass, never needed breaking in either, around £70.
I used them on the transporters, most standard safety boots ripped the soles apart on the decks in 3 to 6 months, Challengers lasted between 18 months and 2 years before the sole wore down enough, never known a pair fail through poor build.
|
>>Most comfortable boots i've ever worn happen to be safety boots, DeWalt Challenger 2 waterproof goretex jobbies
I did buy a pair of those back in the previous century gb, I found them a tad too heavy for what I want but, I wore them out walking once and happened to tread in some manure from a field.
Gawd knows what the stuff was, probably human manure by the stink of it and, I could never get rid of the smell for some reason so, I slung em away.
|
|
I've become a fan of Skechers too Dog, not hard wearing boots but casual shoes. They fit me well and if you hang around you can often get quite good prices on Amazon - sometimes prices just seem to drop like a stone on a particular pair for a few days. As a result I own more casual shoes than ever before. I couldn't say if the casual shoes are especially hard wearing, but most importantly they are comfortable.
|
>>I've become a fan of Skechers too Dog, not hard wearing boots but casual shoes
I wear boots most of the time and I've thought about buying a pair of Timberland boots, but what would they do that the Sketchers don't I wonder, apart from being more expensive that is.
|
These are an arf decent boot that I've bought before, might go for another pair - in due course.
www.magrigg.co.uk/caterpillar-colorado-boots.html (£78.44 from Amazon)
|
>> These are an arf decent boot that I've bought before, might go for another pair
>> - in due course.
>>
>> www.magrigg.co.uk/caterpillar-colorado-boots.html (£78.44 from Amazon)
>>
Cool. But according to your link they're £86.11. (plus postage)
|
>>Cool. But according to your link they're £86.11. (plus postage)
Aye, that's from a local outlet in Cornwall but they are available for £78.44 inc. pp. from Amazon.
|
>> Clarks themselves now want us to send them back to them for "a second opinion".
>> I dread to think how much the postage will be.
>> Anyway hoops it is,
As the company have asked you to send the shoes back, why don't you ask them to arrange collection at their expense?
I really did have to jump through hoops to obtain a full refund for a sub-standard pair of trainers bought from one of the sportswear sheds, but at least they didn't expect me to pay the carriage costs involved in returning them to their head office for their 'second opinion'.
|
|
Footwear from Arco looks fairly durable. tinyurl.com/nunlx2l
Last edited by: L'escargot on Mon 2 Sep 13 at 09:03
|
Rattle,
Going back to the original topic, a suggestion from a friend who was in retail:
Contact the website the shoes were bougth from. Say they've had under three months of occasional wear and have failed. You're disappointed that this has happened with a reputable brand bought from a reputable supplier. Keep the tone calm and reasonable. Ask for a replacement pair - that scotches any argument that you've already had some use from them so can't have a full refund.
If she'd rather you don't know how much they cost, give the above script to your mum and have her send it in with a copy of the receipt.
You see, sellers are reluctant to accept returns in 'fashion items' like clothes, jewellery and furniture (I'm told) because some sharp operators buy an item on Friday, wear it (or show it off to the visitors they want to impress), then decide on Monday they don't really like it and send it back. Hence asking for a replacement, not cash back, shows good intent on your part so there's no reason for the seller not to meet you half way.
PS: You can be sure the duff shoes (or the cost of replacing them at least) will go back to the supplier. Manufacturers with a reputation to protect like to get failed product back, so they can solve whatever the problem that caused the failure was.
|
"Going back to the original topic," and sticking with that theme ..........
I find that irrespective of wear, the soles on my Clarks shoes self-destruct at about ten years. I believe that the rubbers used deteriorate with time. In Ratt's case, the shoes may have been old stock, or simply an iffy batch of rubber.
Until last year, my black Clarks only came out 2 or 3 times a year for funerals - they looked like new, though they must have been 10 or so years old. At the wake following my uncle's funeral last year, my feet started to feel uncomfortable and when I looked down, the uppers had come away from the soles which had completely disintegrated; my toes were poking out from the side of the shoe. Not very dignified!
A couple of months ago, my son bought a, seemingly, very nice pair of shoes from a charity shop. They were unworn, but old stock donated by a local shoe shop. Over the first weekend, the soles completely disintegrated - which I put down simply to the age of the rubber.
I am informed that rubber car tyres behave similarly ....................
|
>> At the wake following my uncle's funeral last year, my feet started to feel uncomfortable and when I
>> looked down, the uppers had come away from the soles which had completely disintegrated;
At my Dad's funeral my shoes fell apart before we had left the chapel.
I remember Humph explaining a while back that the rubber needed to be exercised. So if you bought two pairs of the same shoes the soles would last longer if you alternated use.
|
|
I don't think that's what Humph said. He explained that shoes need a day unworn to dry out thoroughly. This (a) prevents bacteria getting established and causing the condition known here as Bobby, and (b) prevents the additional wear caused to leather soles by wearing them still damp. It's the latter that improves durability - unless I missed something about exercising rubber, but I'm still not sure what the physics of that would be.
|
This is all a bit of a worry!
I thought I probably had enough shoes to see me out, but if they're all going to fall apart...!
Better them than me I suppose :)
|
I'm currently looking for a pair of driving shoes with thin soles so I can feel the pedals.
Any recommendations at sensible ££?
I had what seemed a decent pair from ASOS on-line, at forty two quid, but their size 10s were impossible for me to put on - I have wide feet and a highish arch.
|
>> I'm currently looking for a pair of driving shoes with thin soles so I can
>> feel the pedals.
This season's best driving shoes. tinyurl.com/5sy6poj
|
This season's best driving shoes.
Quite the snail about town, eh, l'Es?
}:---)
The Pikolinos Ricardo pair I mentioned above were lovely to drive in, although the combination of lightweight leather upper and thin, glued-on rubber sole inevitably had its effect on durability. They're too knackered even to wear indoors any more, but I expect I'll buy another pair.
|
>> Quite the snail about town, eh, l'Es?
Slither, Spook, you'll all be doing it tomorrow.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PewDGpXXcto
|
This is what you really need for driving :)
tinyurl.com/oz2dv6q
|
>> This is what you really need for driving :)
>>
>> tinyurl.com/oz2dv6q
Cool. The red colour matches my car.
|
>> Better them than me I suppose :)
I seem to remember reading somewhere that dugong hide was very good for something, perhaps the manufacture of hard-wearing waterproof boots...
But no, it can't be true.
:o}
|
The Fullchat juniors have just produced some amazing GCSE results and I had promised them some remuneration if they did well. Well it cost me big time! :(
Just come back from a weekend in London and of course Oxford st beckoned.
They wanted shoes for school (6th Form) and can now wear civies. Converse were the choice and I still maintain that they are vastly overpriced 'pumps'. As a consequence they will soon look shabby and fall apart as quickly as something much cheaper.
|
>> Converse were the choice and I still maintain that they are vastly overpriced 'pumps'.
Absolutely. I'm sure that "bumper boots" from my youth would do just as well.
If its any consolation, No. 1 tells me that they are now becoming a bit passé - Goodness only knows what the next fads will be though.
I remain eternally grateful that so far the girls seem to have loads of interest in clothes, but little or none in labels.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 2 Sep 13 at 15:17
|
"I thought I probably had enough shoes to see me out,"
What a depressing thought. Chuck them all away and go and choose some new ones tomorrow.
|
>> This is all a bit of a worry!
>>
>> I thought I probably had enough shoes to see me out, but if they're all
>> going to fall apart...!
Its ok, dont go to funerals.
|
>> I don't think that's what Humph said. He explained that shoes need a day unworn to dry out thoroughly.
Humph used to say a lot about shoes. I think he used to work for Primark.
But maybe in his absence that new guy Runfer may have something to say. He posted something quite insightful up-thread.
|
Thats a good point, maybe the resident Primark exec could point Rattie to some of their best baseball boots.
:-)
|
>> So if you bought two pairs of the same shoes the soles would last longer if
>> you alternated use.
You should never wear the same pair of shoes on two consecutive days, to allow time for the perspiration to dry out.
Other footwear tips ........... www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/footwear_tips.htm
|
Looking down at my feet, I see that the 30 quid driving shoes I have been wearing most days for the past three or four years have moved suddenly from 'stylish but a bit louche' to what the French call 'crevé', meaning beyond a joke and unsuitable for civilised company. They haven't been usable in damp conditions for more than a year and both now display a lot of sock on the outer bottom edge.
God knows when I will get another pair as good, or as decent looking (once they were run in and not quite so glaringly white). A pilgrimage to Portobello road soon I suppose. But have I got the thirty quid? I'm worrying already.
|
"You should never wear the same pair of shoes on two consecutive days, to allow time for the perspiration to dry out."
Yeah - it's the same with underpants!
|
|
Shoes are harder to turn inside-out - although Rats's plimsolls may be an exception.
|
I have a pair of Vans California shoes, also a pair of Adidas Foray's. These are both the same sort of design as Converse's. Both suede uppers.
I'm not hard on shoes, but I wouldn't expect the above to last very long at all if worn all year. I see them as summer shoes only. In winter they go back in the cupboard and the goretex liner stuff comes out, built to withstand nasty conditions.
If I was retired the last thing I would want to subject my feet to is a pair of clumpy old work boots. They are for people who still have to work.
|
I never paid over £30 for a pair of shoes!
The best ones are those bought for £10-£15 on sale (usually at 50%+ discount).
I also discovered that cheaper shoes tend to last longer than more expensive ones.
|
Just ordered a pair of these, makes £50 pumps look expensive.
Probably not what the young man about town wants to go clubbing in, but they'll be fine for an old buffer to knock about in.
I've had several pairs of this make, all have been very comfortable and durable.
goo.gl/RCfBsK
|
tinyurl.com/samba-special
I wear these day-in day-out, have done for over 10 years.
A pair lasts 18 months or so, and costs about £45.
I keep my old pair for garden/car stuff so the 'good ones' don't look too wrecked at work.
|
|
I had you down as a Brogues, Chinos and blue shirt type of guy. All finished off with a stethoscope draped round the neck :)
|
I didn't. These shoes are fine for a GP and Lygonos especially. Why stereo type? :-)
If I was near Lygonos I'd hope to be able to buy him a beer to ask his opinion on a few things. But this is a motoring forum but you can't ask your own GP about something that doesn't affect yourself?
|
Summer - www.bamers.cl/producto.php?prodid=267&colid=769
Winter - www.bamers.cl/producto.php?prodid=242&colid=711
About £15 a pair, I've never worn a pair out, although I do lose them. Pretty much never wear anything else.
|
I had my HGV medical last week at one of those practices in Peterborough which do them for £40. My own doctor wants £120.
I was pleasantly surprised to find the doctor wearing a pair of pink jeans and trainers, along with a T shirt. He was charming though and told me my BP was excellent, so he'll do for me!
Pat
|
>> I had my HGV medical last week at one of those practices in Peterborough which
>> do them for £40. My own doctor wants £120.
>>
>> I was pleasantly surprised to find the doctor wearing a pair of pink jeans and
>> trainers, along with a T shirt. He was charming though and told me my BP
>> was excellent, so he'll do for me!
>>
>> Pat
>>
Don't trust anyone in red trousers.
|
>> ........... told me my BP
>> was excellent, so he'll do for me!
My blood pressure is excellent, but there's more to good health than that.
|
HGV medicals are to ensure you can see, and won't die/black out/fall asleep/go mad while driving.
HGV drivers, on the whole, are some of the most unfit human beings I have ever met (who manage to remain in employment) - many are very fat, many are heavy smokers, many are both. Those that are not very fat are usually very very heavy smokers.
/generalisation
|
Say what you like about generalisations, they are very useful.
More useful than the more PC approach of catering for the lowest common denominator anyway.
|
>> drivers, on the whole, are some of the most unfit human beings I have ever met (who manage to remain in employment)
Short of F1 racing, professional driving doesn't seem to be very good for people, truck drivers and (old-style) minicab drivers alike: long hours sitting down, constant low-level stress, random diet of pies and chips and very likely drink, tobacco and substance habits too. I guess some delivery drivers are kept fit jumping in and out and humping the goods around, and that might apply to some lorry drivers too (I've read Pat's accounts of roping down tarpaulin over mixed loads etc.).
Apparently these Tour de France cyclists live a lot longer than average. I find that amazing, but I suppose the people who get to do that are genetically perfect for it. I reckon it would kill most normal people.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 4 Sep 13 at 14:57
|
>> Apparently these Tour de France cyclists live a lot longer than average. I find that
>> amazing, but I suppose the people who get to do that are genetically perfect for
>> it. I reckon it would kill most normal people.
>>
The opposite in fact. They might be ultra fit, but like many endurance athletes they are far from healthy. The damage done to the body is reckoned to account for a good few years off the lifespan.
|
Geezer that delivered my 1 tonne of Welsh anthracite today was very obese AND he damaged 8 of my bags o'coal!!
:o}
|
|
What prompted your move away from Taybrite, oh Doggish one?
|
>>What prompted your move away from Taybrite, oh Doggish one?
Almost missed this, you can't rely on those new post thingies.
Ideally I like to burn wood all the time, but the amount of wood I'd need to do the job of 1 tonne of anthracite would be probably 6 - 7m3 which I'd have to store in a wood store whereas I tonne of coal takes up little room really.
Taybrite burns slowly and is easy to light, but it seems to leave quite a lot of ash, so I'm just trying the Welsh anthracite 'small nuts' this year, to see how it performs.
Eh, I purchased it from an eBay seller in the shire of Gloucester btw.
www.awparkercoalmerchants.co.uk/
|
Why does my GP insist upon a fee of £120 Lygonos, when another can do it for £40?
I have managed to lose 2.5 stones since stopping driving full time though I am far, far less active so I suspect that's the reason for the fall in BP...my smoking habits have not, and will not change though:)
Pat
|
>>Why does my GP insist upon a fee of £120 Lygonos, when another can do it for £40?
£40 is way under the going rate - presumably the doctors do not have or cannot get better paying jobs for whatever reason (possibly personal choice).
I think we charge £90 for HGV medicals.
Takes about 30 minutes for a going over (mostly answering questions and ticking boxes, but I record the findings on the GP record also - eye exam/visual acuity, height/weight, BP, chest/heart/abdo exam [to exclude aortic aneurysm], smoking/drinking habits)
Urine dipstick is no longer part of the exam which is good because it tends to throw up oddities that ultimately turn out to be meaningless (traces of blood/protein in a healthy person's pee are usually unimportant - compared to actually seeing blood in your pee which needs investigated).
In common with the generalisation that HGV drivers are often unfit specimens, they are infrequent attenders to the GP and sometimes they appreciate a bit of sensitively (or sometimes brutally honestly) offered lifestyle advice.
Easy money?
Well yes it is, but £40 is unusually cheap.
There may well be a couple of practices who offer their own patients free HGV medicals as most GPs (including myself) don't really like charging patients.
Once we start taking money for doing things it becomes easy to chase the money (like with the current Quality payments) - if I get more money for seeing you more often, why wouldn't I engineer you to come more frequently.
How do you think chiropractors and homeopathists can earn a living? Without repeat attenders they wouldn't.
|
|
£40? I'm off to find out why my doctor charged me north of £300 for basically the same thing.
|
>>my smoking habits have not, and will not change though:)
Assuming you don't have a strong family history of emphysema/chronic bronchitis in lifelong smokers(ie. where folk in their 60-70s spend their last few years gasping for breath, finally ending up vegetables hooked up to oxygen at home) then good for you.
If there is such a history make sure you have had spirometry done to ensure you lungs don't show signs of such disease.
If there's no sign at your age (tee hee) you can be fairly confident you won't develop the condition.
The increased risk of stroke/heart disease/cancer remains, of course, but that's the gamble and I imagine you'd rather than a rapid decline than years of invalidity when the end comes.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 4 Sep 13 at 19:41
|
>> I've had several pairs of this make, all have been very comfortable and durable.
>>
>> goo.gl/RCfBsK
I had a pair of their slippers ( tinyurl.com/opcqt7t
). Lasted absolutely donkey's years, with daily use. I suppose 5x 10 pound pairs would have lasted just as long, but these were supremely comfortable too.
|
|
Ugh! Those are truly appalling. At least you only wear them in your own house, but Mrs Beest wears them in ours. Ugh! Ugh! Ugh!
|
|
Heavens. What have simple, inoffensive slippers ever done to you? Too much attention from your old House Master or something?
|
But those aren't slippers, they're clogs! The clue is in the name: slippers are unobtrusive, subtle, even elegant; clogs are, well, like that - heavy, clumpy and damn painful on an unguarded big toe.
At least she has stopped short of her father's enthusiasm for the sort with a wooden sole. I stand by my ugh!
}:---)
|
|
Well I find them utterly comfortable and practical as they can be worn on short outdoor excursions around the, er, grounds of my house. I give not a fig's fingy whether they are considered elegant or not. Much like most things, as it goes.
|
>> I had a pair of their slippers ( tinyurl.com/opcqt7t
>> ).
I've got a pair of Josef Seibel outdoor mules similar to those. I change into them from my Church's slippers when I want to go out into the back garden.
|
|
Just an update on this, the supplier has now issued a full refund the shoes :).
|
>> Just an update on this, the supplier has now issued a full refund the shoes
>> :).
>>
Excellent news!
|
...and thanks for the nudge. Note to self: Must get boots sent back...
Hmm. Using Siri, apparently it's "just wet, balderdash". Oh, well, I suppose it will remind me anyway.
|
>> Just an update on this, the supplier has now issued a full refund the shoes
>> :).
See, I told you right at the start not to make a drama out of it and just contact them to see what they have to say and take it from there.
|
Really didn't think it would be a problem Rats. Most decent retailers ( whatever their platform ) and most reputable brands in turn don't want unhappy customers. If a product is genuinely faulty and of course that does happen sometimes, they are highly unlikely to quibble and will in fact want to make things right. Generally speaking, the times they become difficult are when there is reasonable doubt as to whether the consumer has abused the product. In your case clearly that was not the situation. The shoes had a manufacturing/raw material fault by the sounds of it and the retailer has accepted that. Job done. In turn they will make a claim against their supplier.
I am and have been very close to this type of situation all my working life and believe me the benefit of doubt is almost always in favour of the end consumer. If you'd have been taking the wee wee they might not have been so sympathetic but clearly you weren't. I'd wager it's a known issue with a bad batch of production. These types of product failure are rarely an isolated case. A bad batch of raw material or adhesive or a machine not set up quite right can lead to a rogue production run which may escape QC inspection.
A brand like that will have addressed any such issues very quickly and it's not in my view a reason to mistrust their products in future.
Footwear is still a very hands on manufacturing process and where you have human beings you get mistakes. Not all of those are visible to the naked eye until the product has been worn. Brands accept an amount of product failure as a reality of being in the business.
|
Mrs B bought a pair of fairly expensive leather boots from Javari (part of amazon) I cant remember the exact cost but they were into three figures.
Being of a winter style they went back into the wardrobe for a while then came back out at about 9 or 10 months old. After being out in the rain she complained that they leaked and her feet got wet and she was dissapointed given the cost and lack of wear.
Anyway, turned out Javari have a 365 days returns policy - they just asked that they were sent back and then sent out a new pair, and also refunded the cost of the return postage.
As a result we have both made further purchases through them as they exceeded my expectations
|
That's one reason I will use Amazon in preference to another retailer selling the same product at the same price.
I think I have only used their returns system twice, but each time it has been without question or hassle.
|
Garmin are about to replace my 2 1/2 year old gps foc because of a software fault, no questions asked
Mind you, it's their update procedure thats wiped the software off the flippin' thing in the first place, so it's a good job they are.
|
>> That's one reason I will use Amazon in preference to another retailer selling the same
>> product at the same price.
>> I think I have only used their returns system twice, but each time it has
>> been without question or hassle.
Same here, infact we are happy to pay a (very) small premium to buy the same item from Amazon.
And, yes, their returns system is excellent.
|
Clark's Shoes return policy is A!, too.
I bought a pair of shoes from them for £45 and as soon as I got them home i realised "wattamistakatomaka". Buyer's remorse!
Took 'em back next day and a refund was made with no argument whatsoever.
Bought a pair of Hotter Energizer shoes: tinyurl.com/m3ygqso £71.00 +£3.95 postage, but inc. a fiver discount code, instead - Perfecto!
Hotter shoes are not the most stylish, but boy, are they comfy.
|
Legal advice - three week old shoes have failed. - VxFan
