Buy high quality the first time VS get what you can secondhand/low quality new

[LumberJesse]

Hey folks,

I debate a lot about this in my head. I grew up in Goodwill clothing (we weren't frugal, we were broke), but now that my Dad has a better job I see him moving towards buying high quality clothing and other items, and now that I too am out working and making money, I have a tendency to work towards the same.

I think my easy example is a pair of boots I bought recently. I'm a hiking tour guide so waterproof hiking boots are necessary for half of my year. I was between a $100 pair of Goretex Timberlands that would probably last for a year or two and cannot be resoled, and a pair of $200 Aku Italian, handmade leather non-goretex boots that I'd have to waterproof but can be resoled.

I went with the Aku's. My old-dude-Canadian and Yooper (UP Michigan) friends all said that Goretex sucks because as soon as the seams crack it's no longer waterproof, and because the Goretex keeps the moisture in, too. The Aku's can be waterproofed 2x/year indefinitely, dry faster, and can be resoled for $50-75 as needed (I'm guessing for my use every 2-4 years).

This seems like a pretty clear good financial decision in my head. What do you all think? Does it make sense to buy high quality that lasts some of the time, all of the time, or does it not make sense at all? When doesn't it make sense to buy a higher quality when you have the option? Do any of you think I'd have been better off buying a cheaper pair of boots, or even buying a cheaaaaaap pair from a Goodwill and wearing some bags on my feet? What are the extremes that I'm not seeing?

[Cool Friend]

I think if the Aku’s last you more than two years, you’ve saved money.  Buying the cheapest of everything is not always the best long-term cost-saving strategy.

[Cranky]

I can’t really comment on hiking boots, but in general I go for high quality thrift store clothing. I think it’s easier to see if something will wear well if you buy it secondhand.

[cats]

I think if the Aku’s last you more than two years, you’ve saved money.  Buying the cheapest of everything is not always the best long-term cost-saving strategy.

This. 

Seems like also your question was on buying two new items, the title of your thread makes it seem like you are asking about new vs. used? 

In general, I prefer to buy used items if I can.  However, if a used option is not available, then yes, buy the most durable new option and then actually use it :)

[nereo]

Cost is what you pay, Value is what you get.

Don't fall into the trap of equating sticker price with value.  To evaluate different items you have to factor in longevity, labor (e.g. self-waterproofing vs. factory), performance (e.g. does GoreTex last as long) and ease-of-use.
Often what costs more up front is a much better value - though there are exceptions.  In general I take the (purchase price + upkeep costs / weeks of use) to evaluate between purchases.

I don't cheap out on field gear, and was sorely dissapointed by Timberland boots in the past (they wore out after 4 weeks of heavy hiking and Timberland refused any replacement/repair; other brands last 3-4x as long and can generally be resoled).
Finally, don't ignore fit; if the boot is ill-fitting you set yourself up for all sorts of foot problems (read:expensive and painful), which can make them a penny-wise, pound-foolish sort of purchase. FWIW I've had good experiences with Scarpa boots, but its foot-dependent.

Parting thought:  Watch for sales.  Last year's boot @ $200 will often get marked down 30-50%, making them about the same cost as the Timberlands.

[I'm a red panda]

Best case scenario: High quality, second hand. 

People get rid of great stuff all the time.

[moonpalace]

I have a pair of all-leather Scarpa hiking boots that I got second-hand about twenty years ago. They have literally thousands of miles on them, I just resole them every several years and take reasonable care of the leather. They would've been well worth paying full price for, but getting them for $75 on consignment made it a complete win. The leather is a bit uglier now but no less waterproof than the day I bought them.

Good quality leather footwear is very close to BIFL if you care for it.

[use2betrix]

I go through work steel toes pretty fast. I tried American made Danners to see if they’d last 2 years vs my typical boots 1 year.

They have “held up” in the sense that aren’t falling apart. They look like garbage and the leather scarred up super fast and easy. Definitely not worth the money since the looked like crap so fast. Looks aren’t everything but they did look a bit trashier for me at work being in a higher position.

I’ve replaced them with American made Thorogoods. Time will tell how these last. Seems way better quality, however.

[RetiredAt63]

Total cost/use is always a good calculation to make.  I'm still wearing walking shoes I bought 8-10 years ago, they are just about done .  I did get them at a sale though, sales are always worth watching for. 

Does anyone remember the Terry Pratchett line about the boots?  Never mind, I stopped begn lazy and looked it up:

 “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

[nereo]

Does anyone remember the Terry Pratchett line about the boots?  Never mind, I stopped begn lazy and looked it up:

I had to look up Terry Pratchett.  Oh well.

[big_slacker]

I've gone through so many miserable outdoor experiences with 'bargain' gear that these days I almost always buy the higher quality stuff. It is important to be able to discern the difference between things that are expensive because of fads vs expensive because of quality and reputation.

[kendallf]

Does anyone remember the Terry Pratchett line about the boots?  Never mind, I stopped begn lazy and looked it up:

I had to look up Terry Pratchett.  Oh well.

The horror! 

The answer is 42.

[LumberJesse]

I think if the Aku’s last you more than two years, you’ve saved money.  Buying the cheapest of everything is not always the best long-term cost-saving strategy.

This. 

Seems like also your question was on buying two new items, the title of your thread makes it seem like you are asking about new vs. used? 

In general, I prefer to buy used items if I can.  However, if a used option is not available, then yes, buy the most durable new option and then actually use it :)

You're right, it does sound like that! I've changed it to reflect a bit better what I meant.

[o2bfree]

I wouldn't cheap out on thrift store boots for serious hiking, unless you happen to find high-quality, like-new boots that fit perfectly --no compromises because "they're only $10" or whatever. Same with any other sports gear where inconvenience, pain, or injury are possible with low-quality gear.

Regarding getting boots resoled, I tried to save some bucks last year by getting a pair of Asolo boots resoled. They were (supposedly) good-quality boots, extremely comfortable, and the uppers were holding up fine, but the soles started peeling off after a short time. I spent $60 + shipping to get them resoled. Unfortunately, the new soles changed the flex and feel of the boots by bending in the wrong place and making the boots feel stiff and clunky. They're now relegated for yardwork, and I had to shell out more to get some good boots for hiking.

[LumberJesse]

Total cost/use is always a good calculation to make.  I'm still wearing walking shoes I bought 8-10 years ago, they are just about done .  I did get them at a sale though, sales are always worth watching for. 

Does anyone remember the Terry Pratchett line about the boots?  Never mind, I stopped begn lazy and looked it up:

 “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

I like that a lot!

A man used to go to church with has been wearing the same two pairs of Johnston Murphy's for 40+ years. He has resoled them many, many times. He is also (now) a multimillionaire, after running a few successful car dealerships for a few decades. He's been wearing more or less the same shoes and clothes for a long time.

[nereo]

Does anyone remember the Terry Pratchett line about the boots?  Never mind, I stopped begn lazy and looked it up:

I had to look up Terry Pratchett.  Oh well.

The horror! 

The answer is 42.

I thought that was Scott Adams...?

[kendallf]

Does anyone remember the Terry Pratchett line about the boots?  Never mind, I stopped begn lazy and looked it up:

I had to look up Terry Pratchett.  Oh well.

The horror! 

The answer is 42.

I thought that was Scott Adams...?

LOL!  Actually Douglas Adams, not the Dilbert guy, but I did screw it up!

[Linea_Norway]

I also support the practice of buying good quality stuff, if you need it. But don't overdo it for stuff that you would only use occasionally. E.g. for technical tools, it often pays off to have good quality stuff, versus cheap crap stuff.
Also on a hiking trip, you want boot that don't fall apart during a trip. DH and I both have good quality backpacks, both purchased second hand. The oldest one is I think 40 years old and only had some minor repairs. Quality lasts.

Buy second-hand where you can and whenever it is sensible. Like when getting new hobby gear that doesn't wear out. You can often get good stuff for half the price. Or get twice the quality you planned for, for your predefined budget.

[Imma]

While of course it makes sense to buy quality items (both for financial and environmental reasons) sometimes people use the "superior quality" argument to defend extremely spendypants decisions. Buying the very best available quality item can become a trap. In many cases, there's a reasonably priced durable option.

I wear good quality winter boots, one of the best pairs I've ever had, and they were "only" €80 (a lot of money but not for good shoes). My €50 Eastpak backpack still looks great after more than 10 years of heavy use.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Depends what it is. If I think I might want one of the latest shiny kitchen appliances, I buy a cheapie second hand online first. If I use it a lot I might buy a more expensive version, if the extra expense would make a difference. On the other hand, if it's something like paint or carpet, I will buy the best quality I can afford, after much research.

[sequoia]

I wouldn't cheap out on thrift store boots for serious hiking, unless you happen to find high-quality, like-new boots that fit perfectly --no compromises because "they're only $10" or whatever. Same with any other sports gear where inconvenience, pain, or injury are possible with low-quality gear.

imo wife and I do not compromise on anything related to our health.

Shoes (not just hiking boots) is one of them. I would rather spend extra money for comfortable pain free shoes/boots. I do agree not to overdo it.

$10 boots is not the best value if it cause you from slipping while hiking, hitting your head on a rock and end up with several grand worth of medical bills :)

[EnjoyIt]

Price doesn't aways equal quality and sometimes a much higher price only gives a tiny incremental improvement in quality.  But in general I prefer to pay a little more for something once as opposed to buying it over and over again because I cheap out on quality.  This is especially true for items I use regularly. 

I am wiling to buy used as well if I am getting the quality I want.

[RetiredAt63]

Price doesn't aways equal quality and sometimes a much higher price only gives a tiny incremental improvement in quality.  But in general I prefer to pay a little more for something once as opposed to buying it over and over again because I cheap out on quality.  This is especially true for items I use regularly. 

I am wiling to buy used as well if I am getting the quality I want.

The trick is to recognize when the higher price is buying better quality and when it is buying something in the way of social status (famous initials, whatever).  And of course there is always a point of diminishing returns, if we can just manage to see it.
I remember when DD was small, we were buying fabric and the Lion King fabric was $2/meter more than similar fabric with generic prints, not because it was better, but because it had a Disney character.  She understood that when I pointed it out.  We can learn this at a young age.

[Cranky]

And I think that it’s especially hard to correlate price and quality in shoes and clothing, because such a large part of the price of those things is about marketing. The more expensive item is very often no better made.

[use2betrix]

When I was building my wardrobe I created a note with all the brands and clothing items that seemed incredibly well made. 99% of people have probably never heard of most of these brands, so you really aren’t paying for the “brand.” The brands also don’t really have any logos except for maybe something really small on like a leather denim patch on jeans or something.

Here’s the note, unedited. Again, these are not cheap but the quality is at a different level.

Iron Heart jeans/denim shirts
Outclass attire casual jackets
Self edge denim shirts
Shockoe Atelier Jeans
Vermilyeapelle waxed canvas and leather duffles
Wotancraft.tw waxed canvas bags (olive green)
Bravestar selvedge 21 oz
Schott NYC Leather bomber and black redwings
Nigel Cabourn backpack

Knives:
Randall knives
Pohl Force Knives


Mifland - basic leather bags/rucksacks
SOSO - custom made denim, shirts, etc
Unionmadegoods.com
Blueowl.us
3sixteen
Nudie Jeans - Curduroy jacket
Smith leather balm
Quoddy - boat shoes
Studio D’Artisan - relaxed tapered fit
Hamilton watch
Maine moccasin
Withered fig - Virginia retailer of good brands
Indigo fera jeans (dressier) - nice vests
Iron hearts 21 oz denim pea coat
*  for denim shirts as well
Truman Boots (Colorado)
Animas code - dress shoes
Red Wing Heritage Line
Pigeon tree crafting leather goods
Tanner goods leather products
Oak street boot makers (nice boots and Mocs)

[OtherJen]

@use2betrix , thank you for bringing up the Red Wing Heritge line here and in another recent thread. I didn’t know that Red Wing made anything other than workbooks, and the women’s Chelsea boots are exactly what I’ve been looking for. I’ll plan to buy a pair for next fall.

I’m willing to pay good money for shoes that I wear regularly and will only buy them new (so that they’re broken in around my feet). I’ve owned a pair of Frye Harness 12R boots for 6 years now and they’ve held up SO well with regular (Frye is another good-quality brand). I will need to resole them this spring, but the leather is in great shape. I paid $260 for them and plan to wear them for at least another decade.

However, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy cheap or second-hand shoes if I didn’t plan to wear them frequently (e.g., shoes to match a bridesmaid dress).

[use2betrix]

@use2betrix , thank you for bringing up the Red Wing Heritge line here and in another recent thread. I didn’t know that Red Wing made anything other than workbooks, and the women’s Chelsea boots are exactly what I’ve been looking for. I’ll plan to buy a pair for next fall.

I’m willing to pay good money for shoes that I wear regularly and will only buy them new (so that they’re broken in around my feet). I’ve owned a pair of Frye Harness 12R boots for 6 years now and they’ve held up SO well with regular (Frye is another good-quality brand). I will need to resole them this spring, but the leather is in great shape. I paid $260 for them and plan to wear them for at least another decade.

However, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy cheap or second-hand shoes if I didn’t plan to wear them frequently (e.g., shoes to match a bridesmaid dress).

I have a pair of Frye leather sneaker type shoes that are good quality. The leather is soft, which is nice, but there’s something to be said for the “hard durable leather” of the red wings.

Keep your eyes peeled on Amazon! I’m not sure about women’s, but I’ve bought some men’s red wings about 20% off msrp with free returns and free shipping.

I just looked at the women’s Chelsea and they look very nice. I LOVE the women’s Clara, however they are a bit “dressier” with more of a heel.

A few years ago I bought my wife some winter Sorel “Joan of Arctic” wedges and they have been very comfortable, high quality, and great winter traction.

My wife’s not into that stuff like me, but I still like buying it for her because I appreciate the quality lol

[OtherJen]

@use2betrix , thank you for bringing up the Red Wing Heritge line here and in another recent thread. I didn’t know that Red Wing made anything other than workbooks, and the women’s Chelsea boots are exactly what I’ve been looking for. I’ll plan to buy a pair for next fall.

I’m willing to pay good money for shoes that I wear regularly and will only buy them new (so that they’re broken in around my feet). I’ve owned a pair of Frye Harness 12R boots for 6 years now and they’ve held up SO well with regular (Frye is another good-quality brand). I will need to resole them this spring, but the leather is in great shape. I paid $260 for them and plan to wear them for at least another decade.

However, I wouldn’t hesitate to buy cheap or second-hand shoes if I didn’t plan to wear them frequently (e.g., shoes to match a bridesmaid dress).

I have a pair of Frye leather sneaker type shoes that are good quality. The leather is soft, which is nice, but there’s something to be said for the “hard durable leather” of the red wings.

Keep your eyes peeled on Amazon! I’m not sure about women’s, but I’ve bought some men’s red wings about 20% off msrp with free returns and free shipping.

I just looked at the women’s Chelsea and they look very nice. I LOVE the women’s Clara, however they are a bit “dressier” with more of a heel.

A few years ago I bought my wife some winter Sorel “Joan of Arctic” wedges and they have been very comfortable, high quality, and great winter traction.

My wife’s not into that stuff like me, but I still like buying it for her because I appreciate the quality lol

The Clara boots are very nice! If the heel were a bit lower, I’d probably choose them.

I can see that the leather on Frye shoes would differ by style. My boots are fairly rugged and made of a thick, somewhat stiff full-grain leather. They appear to be near-indestructible. I’d think that the softer, dressier boots might not be quite so durable.

My next pair of winter boots will be Sorel, once my current LL Bean boots give up the ghost (might be a while).

[nessness]

My leather Goretex boots lasted me ten years. I'm not a hiking guide, but probably did a few hundred miles in them, plus some field work. But in your case, I think you made the right choice with the boots.

However, I think things like hiking boots for a hiking guide (where quality and fit are REALLY important) are the exception, not the rule. A $50 t-shirt isn't going to last you ten times as long as a thrifted $5 shirt, especially if you pay attention to quality when thrifting. You can get some nice high quality furniture for $100 or less on Craigslist, while most furniture you can buy new for $100 is total crap. And so on. Buying used comes out ahead of new the vast majority of the time. Buying a cheap new item vs more expensive one probably varies more depending on what the item is, how often you plan to use it, and the differences in price and quality.