Quote Originally Posted by RockyR View Post
To the Casual reader on a somewhat modest income, stating that $100 (retail) shoes are poor quality and that only shoes in the $1000 + category are real quality can come across as insulting (especially if you thought your $150 shoes WERE good quality) and somewhat 'eliteist' (even if that wasn't the intention).
<snip>
I'm not insulted by the elitism, but read that sort of statement as patently false. I've had Šoc Martens shoes and Blundstone boots that cost around $150 and have lasted ten years or more. Seems like good quality to me and, at the very least, not disposable.

Similarly, I have read reports about Rocky's inexpensive casual kilts being quite durable. There were even some pictures of one surviving the Warrior Dash and still looking good (after washing of course).

Affordable can be a synonym for cheap, but cheap doesn't necessarily mean poor quality. Sometimes it just means good value.