Cowboy boots are very much not my thing, but those are badass.
K-Mart, Target, thrift stores, local shops. I rarely buy shoes and hate shopping for shoes or anything else.
It’s not that I don’t understand the advantages of a higher-priced well-made pair of shoes, but I don’t need them for any aspect of my life, and I’d rather spend my money on movies.
I’m with Victoria Williams who says in her delightful song “Shoes”:
Er… so you don’t view a woman as an adult unless she’s wearing heels?
Do little kids wear heels? No. They are grow-up shoes. Or at least that’s what my mom called them when she finally gave in and let me buy a pair of low heels to wear to my 8th grade graduation. Like it or not, for many people wearing heels is a rite of passage associated with growing up and grown up activities.
I can look a touch on the young side, and frankly my career is not quite where it could be at my age. When I put on a pair of flats with my suits, it screams “intern” or “I borrowed my Mom’s suit for my first interview out of undergrad,” not the air of professional competence I try to convey. Heels help that.
I guess it’s just cultural differences, then - my mother always referred to heels as "stupid shoes for people who want to wreck their feet " (admittedly, that is a bit extreme) and while she acknowledged that in some circumstances they were effectively required, one should not wear them any more than absolutely necessary, and use the lowest heels possible one could get away with. I can’t ever recall them being referred to as “grown up shoes” in my family, which is why the phrase struck me as odd - not so much as a right of passage but that you weren’t an adult unless you were actually wearing them, or, on the flip side, any other footwear for a woman is childish, even if required for the activity in which she was engaged.
Thank you , Diana.
I have 4 pairs of Vogs (3 pairs of shoes, one of boots), and I got rid of an incredible number of other shoes. They are not fashionable, they have a character of their own which makes them timeless-- and I hope to wear them until I’m 100 years old, they’re that comfortable.
This. I’ve worn out two pairs, working in agriculture & forestry. They are totally awesom, keep your feet happy under any and all conditions.
SS
The most I’ve ever spent on footwear was about $70 on a pair of steel-toed work boots. They lasted less than a year before they started to tear open. I replaced them with a $40 pair, which about as long. I’ve since had a series of $40 pairs, each with about the same life span.
It’s possible that if I splurge for a $100 pair, they may fair better, but I suspect the only real difference between a $70 pair and $100 pair is the same difference between a $70 pair and a $40 pair. About 30 bucks.
I respectfully disagree. I am on my feet for 2/3 of my work day, which varies in length. In addition I am difficult to fit. (short, wide,impossibly high arch )
Shopping for shoes is an odious chore for me. I am happy to pay more for a well made shoe that will last longer.
For a basically decorative shoe for a specific outfit I try and keep it under $100. Shoes have a lot to do with why I stopped wearing dresses and skirts.
Only once. It was a pair of knee high leather boots - flat, the kind you see women wearing over jeans or with skirts and tights in pretty much every cold-ish weather city in the US & Europe.
I spent hours trying on cheaper pairs in about 10 stores, but I have chicken legs so they were all too big and saggy in the calf. By the time I found a pair that fit my scrawny legs I was willing to pay $210 with tax to be done and just have the damn boots.
I do like shoes and often spend $70-$100. Dress shoes often cost this, if I want both attractive and comfortable. I run, and cheap running shoes kill my feet, so those are around $100. But $200 was an anomaly brought on by over-shopping and unwillingness to admit failure and come home sans boots 
Yes, a pair of gorgeous cream suede Zodiac boots.
Presumably not the canvas shoes though, right? 
No. But I generally wear shoes that retail for well over $200. That’s because I live near the Allen-Edmonds shoe factory, and can get great discounts at the right times.
If I couldn’t get the discounts, I’d pay full price.
You might already know this, but over the last couple of years the Danish shoes that used to be sold as Danskos were rebranded as Sanita clogs in the USA. Now what’s sold as Dansko is made in China and some people don’t feel they are the same quality.
My most expensive shoes are some Sanita clogs in fact, and I love them. They are very comfortable and sturdy.
I have two pair of winter boots that were each (accidentally) over $200. I bought them online from a UK store and expected to pay SOME duty but when they arrived the duty was almost the same as the cost of the boots.
I also have a pair of cowboy boots that were well worth the $300 they cost.
No. But the shoes I have paid $60 for, were much more expensive shoes than that.
Someone mentioned they were in troubles now that Filene’s Basement is closed. In the spirit of being an educated consumer, I give you this link.
My brand? Eccos. Eccos oxfords are as comfortable as any sneaker.
No. I bought a pair of steel-toe work boots last year for $170, but my employer put $150 towards them, and I probably wouldn’t have spent that much without the stipend.
I paid $100 for my favorite pair of dress shoes back in the fall of 1982. While that’s nominally a lot less than $200, it’s also true that $100 in 1982 > $200 now.
Only once have I spent over $200 on a pair of shoes, and that was for a pair of soccer cleats (on sale–the regular price was over $300). Well worth it.
I’ve gotten close to that for dress shoes, but never quite to $200.