Are expensive women's shoes better quality? I see equally gorgeous leather shoes on oldnavy.com that I do at more expensive stores. Not sure how comfy they are though.

I don't think expensive = good. Sometimes though, if the expense is because the shoe is leather, it might be worth it. I can only wear leather shoes.

Well that's the thing. There are some $40 - $50 leather dress shoes that seem just as nice as $300 shoes.

I think once you hit the $300+ mark you're not going to see much comfort difference. They may be slightly better made than the $50 pair and probably have more finishing details, but there's no reason davka to buy a $300 pair if a $50 pair will suffice. I don't think any shoes made by old navy fall into either category though, and I don't know how well they're made. I think shoes are really mazal; some expensive shoes can be very poorly made, and some cheap shoes hold up surprisingly well (the two most comfortable pairs I ever owned were $10 and $135 respectively). I personally like to stick to brands that I know are quality, and generally pay around $60-150 per pair (I don't buy dressy shoes). If you're going to be doing heavy wearing, it may pay to stick with brands you know and trust; if not, what's the harm in trying a cheaper pair?

I think yes, but only up to a certain point. Are $600 shoes really better quality than $100? Unless the $600 are handcrafted by 3rd generation Italian shoemakers who take a mold of your foot... the extra $$ is just for the name brand and marketing right?

But on the lower end, sometimes I've seen a difference- the $40 Rampage boots broke before the winter was over, and to replace them then I bought a pair of Aerosole* boots which are still fine 2 winters later.

*not a ritzy brand, but a step up from the other teenager-ish brand

Right. Because 300 is usually for the name. But a 100, or 75 dollar shoe can sometimes be better than a 30 dollar shoe. Personally, I never found 30 dollar shoes. I have a larger size and difficult fit, and a 30 shoe doesn't give me enough support. I think that an OK quality shoe starts in the 50 range. (If you're referring to the shoes without soles (or so they seem), I know nothing about them, and to me, even a 500 dollar shoe without a sole is not comfortable.)

Cole Haan's g-series is pricier than most but outweighs competition is quality, looks (they're on their 3rd season and still look new) and being ultra comfortable without looking like SAS'

What are "shoes without soles"?

These that all the teens are wearing because they are 'so comfortable' </whiny tone>.

They look pretty similar to most ballet flats I've seen, which also have super-thin soles. I happen to agree; they're uber-comfy, and for the past few years I've pretty much lived in my ballet flats and ignored my sneakers and tennis shoes (neither of which are anywhere near as comfy).

I think it depends on your feet- I cant even walk down the aisle in the shoe store without ballet shoes falling off my feet!

depends on one's feet. when iw as wearing just flats (not even ballet flats), my feet started killing me and i was told to avoid flats.

I'll keep that in mind.

There are definitely select shoes (and other things) that are well worth the price. The problem is identifying them.

Ever tried Clarks? Pretty good quality and comfort and they sometimes have funky looking stuff. Not often though.

How about uggs shoes? Are they good? I found them in TJ Maxx and wasn't sure if they are comfortable enough.

Were you looking for dressier or more casual?

Try these: Camper, Keen, Merrell, Simple, Teva, Privo by Clarks, Rocket Dog (surprisingly), Crocs makes a line called You (never worn them, but it's worth a try), Mephisto (they only used to carry 'older' styles, not sure if they've branched out to a younger generation yet), Dansko, Tsubo, Birkenstock, Ecco, Earth, Romika. That's all I can think of off top of my head. There's for sure more.