« Lara Stone for French Vogue: Confirmed

Explain Dec 10, 2008 @ 12:46pm

The Shoe With the Fringe on Top

by Britt Aboutaleb

the ugliest shoe in the history of mankind.jpg We were going to do a shopping for others.

Something like,

Dear Uptown Pocahantas,

We found these shoes for you. Actually, we hope you found them for yourself because really, no one else can wear them, let alone afford them. You probably can’t run with the wind in them, but you can at least make it into a cab in which case we suggest you stay in the cab so that no one mistakes your feet for Cousin It.

Love,
Fashionista

And we thought that’d be ok because if Monsieur Louboutin can make a 5 inch platform peep toe with three layers of suede fringe crawling up your calf (it’s actually called a “cut out boot”) we can make up whatever shopping characters we want.

But then we thought we’d just ask you, if you had a spare $1,795.00 would you consider these an investment?

If so, please explain.

« Lara Stone for French Vogue: Confirmed

Fashionista Main

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 12:56PM

i would not consider that an investment. the point of an investment piece is that it is worth the money you spend because you can keep it forever. investment pieces should be classic, like the chanel 2.55, not shoes that will probably go out of style in a few months.

plus, those shoes are ridiculous.

posted by sarahchivonne

Dec 10, 2008 1:13PM

those are hideous. it would be like having a faux hairy leg in heels.

posted by etoilee8

Dec 10, 2008 1:27PM

My super duper worn in triple fringe Minnetonkas, I always refer to as my Chewbacca boots. Cousin It is a good one too.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 1:27PM

Honestly, you couldn't pay me to wear those shoes.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 1:30PM

they are crazy. i love them.

posted by jadejag

Dec 10, 2008 1:33PM

I bought his black full boot with the three layers of fringe because, for me, it was major. A cultural marker. I love.

This one is maybe ok for editorial.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 1:41PM

I would cut the fringed shaft off, and then wear them together when it's cooler out - kinda like leg warmers. The leg warmers should be worn lower though.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 1:42PM

i think you would have to have a VERY LARGE discretionary spending budget to buy those just for a cheap thrill. and i think that's kind of the point of trends, no? to prove that you can drop 1800 on a pair of ridiculous shoes you will never wear again. i say, there is at least one brighton beach princess who is begging daddy for these RIGHT NOW

posted by formerlyknownasguest

Dec 10, 2008 1:59PM

Hmm, given that I'm a man, naturally I wouldn't purchase women's boots for myself. With that said I don't believe that these are an investment piece. There's no versatility, they are bold and not in a subtle way. They would be too difficult to camouflage into ones wardrobe - which would pose a problem to those who are pretentious and simply can't afford them. They're a one night (er day) only affair. I also love the juxtaposition and irony of the cut outs with the suede fringe (very ambitious boots).

posted by andremichael

Dec 10, 2008 2:21PM

aside from the hideous shoe - when I read "uptown pocahantas," i literally LOL'd & then had 2 cough 2 mask the random outburst.

posted by AmandaMichele

Dec 10, 2008 2:48PM

I would rather invest in a great pump that never goes out of style then buy if you want to change the look, buy spats!

posted by mpw

Dec 10, 2008 2:50PM

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I think they are kind of fabulous.

They look like a very high end version of those faux fur leg warmers that someone was selling at the young designers market on Mulberry a few years ago. (I bought a pair to wear when it was freezing out but I still wanted to wear a skirt, and they actually looked pretty cute with heels.)

So, I think these Louboutins would be a nice way to keep your legs warm when it's cold out, but it would be a lot cooler if you could take the fringe off when you get inside.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 2:52PM

What exactly is an investment piece when talking about purchasing clothes, shoes, or accessories? I never got the concept.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 3:07PM

mpw,

how would those keep you warm. the leather around your calf would help, but most of your feet are exposed. they're definitely not appropriate for cold weather.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 3:14PM

exactly when could these shoes/boots/ridiculous thingamabobs possibly be worn?

not on a warm day - that long, long fringey cover would have your leg sweating up a storm.

not on a cold day either - your pants wouldn't fit underneath them, and your poor exposed toes and the whole top of your foot would be freezing!

posted by ani

Dec 10, 2008 3:25PM

I think those boots are targeted towards fashion forward women who have everything and who are not concerned with buying basics. These boots fill that unexpected and novelty factor that will be passé after being worn once or twice.

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 4:09PM

ew. It's not so much the design of the shoe because actually, I'd love to have coffee with whoever could/would pull these off and I can't decide if they're tacky or fun. And it's not really fringe in general that I have a problem with either (even though I think they would KICK ASS minus fringe in almost any color). It's the fact that they are Louboutins. Whoever DOES/CAN choose to buy these won't be intuitive enough to find a way to do them justice they will just look ridiculous. If there was no sole, a very different type of gal/Native American drag queen would be wearing them.

posted by abby_kate_lee

Dec 10, 2008 4:33PM

I wouldn't consider these an investment, because fringe will proabably go out of style in a couple of months. Yes, they are ridiculous-looking, but I'm sure once they're on your feet they look fab. If someone were to give to them to me as a gift I would definitely rock them with a pair of shorts...actually I wonder if they would be able to fit over some skinny jeans.hmmm...

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 5:53PM

forever 21 already knocked them off anyway... only less fringe. there ya go. #5 can go get a pair now!

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 5:54PM

even if i had the money, i wouldn't buy them

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 5:54PM

even if i had the money, i wouldn't buy them

posted by guest

Dec 10, 2008 5:54PM

even if i had the money, i wouldn't buy them

posted by guest

Dec 11, 2008 3:02AM

I saw these "Ugg" wannabes, with fringe on the side, at Ross today. I thought those were rather bad, but these, well...they're not BAD. They are simply the type of thing I could never perceive practical because you could only wear them with leggings or bare legs, and the heels are so high they aren't practical for walking distances in. That's what I always consider since I'm a student.

posted by guest

Dec 11, 2008 12:26PM

I actually like these shoes. If I had the spare money I would definitely buy them, not as an investment, but more as a grand medium for my feet to bask in. If I want an investment, I'll buy some plain black patent leather pumps. Sometimes we lay investing down by the wayside and just buy what we think is hot!

Rae
www.seasofstyle.blogspot.com

posted by guest

Dec 11, 2008 5:53PM

Where's the Adventures in Copyright for these and the lovechild of Minnetonkas + those Margiela quasi-boots?

posted by guest

Dec 11, 2008 8:00PM

Oh dear, Christian Louboutin.

posted by guest

Dec 13, 2008 1:27AM

em i the only one who got the oklahoma reference?
probably

posted by guccigirl77

Dec 29, 2008 3:03PM

no freckin way i would feel like pochaontas the whole time wearing them and if i had that much money loaded i wouldn't think twice about buying those leg warmers