Shopping

Are $600 Sneakers Ever OK?

lanvin satin sneakers.jpgUnder what economic climate would it be appropriate to release $565 pink satin sneakers?

Surely not this one.

Not when magazines are folding, designers are canceling runway shows, brands are floundering, stores are going bankrupt and even Chanel is laying off hundreds of employees.

But Alber Elbaz just couldn’t resist and so today, on the seventh day of what is sure to be a fiscally disastrous year, Net-a-Porter is catering to your consumer demands with these. Natalie says the thick shoelaces are an homage to Alber’s signature bow tie but can’t understand why one would pay almost six hundred dollars to look like a bunny rabbit.

I say, but they’re not even silk. In which case Alber might offer me the patent leather ones, which Net-a-Porter calls, “achingly hip,” for an extra $30.

I mean, really?

Comments

avatar
1

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 4:29PM

Then I presume the fat laces worn by every hip hopper and skate punk since the 80s were also hommages to Elbaz's bowties?

avatar
2

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 4:39PM

i think they are kind of cute, i'm also sixteen, and think that they are in no way $600 cute, i'd pay $50

avatar
3

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 4:45PM

Whats the big deal about releasing a pair 565 dollar shoes. Its not any different then six months ago and now is the time people need to be shopping. Again I don't get why the media thinks people won't to keep hearing about "recessionistas" ugh people want FANTASY!!!

avatar
4

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 5:29PM

Actually, they seem to be selling out. Sizes already gone.

avatar
5

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 5:40PM

okay. i would NEVER pay 600 for them, but i saw them on net a porter this morning, and I have to admit, my first thought was, those are cute, i wish they were cheaper> i still couldn't afford them at 200...but I might try.

avatar
6

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 6:21PM

Chanel already has sneakers that cost about $640, and Rick Owens has sneakers that are almost a thousand.

I think the prices of sneaker are going up in general.

avatar
7

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 6:23PM

i'm a HUGE sneaker head and after getting a cool pair of Marc by Marc sneaks back in 2003 for $400, I am still willing to fork out the money...

avatar
8

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 6:24PM

Fashion is not often about affordability, or even practicality. You guys should know that.

avatar
9

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 6:24PM

It is definitely a beautiful pair of shoes, but it is not worth $600 to get dirtied.

avatar
10

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 6:25PM

Meh. It's weird that these are so underwhelming as compared to Lanvin Homme's ridiculously delicious high tops that I've seriously considered spending $800 on numerous times (I have yet to give in...). They're just kind of weak. They don't look any kind of special at all. I could buy pair of lilac/mauve plimsolls from Urban and string fat ribbon from Jo-Ann Fabrics (yes...I went there) through the eyelets to provide THE EXACT SAME EFFECT. It seems as though Alber/Lanvin is underestimating female sneaker-heads. Esp. during "these times" (bleh), if you're dropping that kind of money on something (ESPECIALLY if they're fucking sneakers) they had better be ridiculously dope.

This is what should have happened...
http://thisislavie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/lanvin-fallwinter2008-hitop-sneakers-1.jpg

avatar
11

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 6:28PM

you guys are just too much... you endorse products that retail for more but lack any function other than serving as something pretty to add to ones wardrobe. so what gives?

avatar
12

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 7:56PM

Ever since Fashionista has allowed people to post comments directly and not be moderated people have gotten so bitchy. Which leads me to believe that everyone that leaves comments now were too afraid to do so before. Which means you really serve no purpose other than to be annoying and worthless.

Save your crappy, mean, slander for somewhere else. Like Perez.

avatar
13

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 9:54PM

It's pretty unreal to see how passionate some of you are about sneakers! I think they're cute, no - i wouldn't consider paying $600 for them; but playing off anothers comment, they are great inspiration to creating your own pair of cutesie tennies... i dig um. Fashion is very much ones personality and interests being expressed in whatever way you want to express it. That being said, if you want to pay 6-hundie for some tennies or make your own, if you feel hot in 'em, then rock it girl!

avatar
14

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 9:55PM

No, they are not OK. The design isn't even particularly interesting or original. Just another example of how the fashion industry is becoming increasingly out-of-touch with the world. Thanks for pointing this out Fashionista, it is not OK. It is almost disgusting. If you have $600 to spend, spend it at local businesses or stores or invest it in something, don't buy something pointless because you think it is an escape from your reality.

avatar
15

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 10:23PM

People spending $600 on a pair of shoes is what got us into this financial crisis in the first place.

And I completely agree with Guest 15. It truly is almost disgusting. Our so-called "conscious" fashion industry wears Save Darfur pins while we're spending that much money on some sneakers?

Disgusting.

avatar
16

posted by guest

Jan 07, 2009 10:25PM

$600 sneakers are OK, only when purchased on a 50-60% sale. Lets face it, the Dior men's sneakers can be gorgeous.
But best on sale

17

posted by vicki

Jan 08, 2009 12:24AM

Is it ever necessary to pay $600 for any shoe sneaker or high heel?!

avatar
18

posted by fay

Jan 08, 2009 9:30AM

$565?

They're on Net-a-Porter for the very barginous £279.

(p.s. I don't wear sneakers, let alone nearly £300 ones)

avatar
19

posted by guest

Jan 08, 2009 10:38AM

Those are so cute !
If I had the money I woulds buy them like asap.

dreamlovely-anne.blogspot.com

20

posted by bastylefilegirl

Jan 08, 2009 10:52AM

NO 600 bucks regardless of the economy is not okay for sneakers. But I do have the say the ones picture are super cute...still not 600 dollar cute.

avatar
21

posted by guest

Jan 08, 2009 11:39AM

I agree with guest 10.
For $565 (or £279) you want your sneakers to be special an those just dont cut it...

avatar
22

posted by guest

Jan 08, 2009 11:40AM

to be honest i am not totally sold on the designer sneaker concept, whether they are $200 or $600

avatar
23

posted by guest

Jan 08, 2009 12:07PM

I own a Lanvin necklace that ties in the back with lace. I've tied it twice and already the lace is stretching out of shape. I need to replace it.

The intensity inwhich you have to tie laces would definately cause the ribbon to start to rip after the first use. If you like this basic sneaker, take your own sneakers and add GROSGRAIN ribbon for laces from your local trim shop. That is the standard ribbon used by Lanvin. It will NOT look the same if you merely put fat Hip Hop laces in.

avatar
24

posted by guest

Jan 08, 2009 1:08PM

hmm i hate to say this but under these circumstances i'm just going to wait that some cheaper label/store makes a copy of these for less than a 100 bucks and then i might actually buy them. these are definitely NOT the most special sneakers i've seen. and it's just your own fault that people buy copied ones if you sell sneakers for 600 dollars. there's this thing called common sense which comes in handy every now and then...

avatar
25

posted by guest

Jan 08, 2009 2:55PM

Those are so impractical! Well, maybe not for those who light their cigs with $100 bills.

avatar
26

posted by guest

Jan 08, 2009 5:02PM

do you folks not about sneaker culture?? people upwards of $600 for non designer sneakers, like nike and adidas.

avatar
27

posted by guest

Jan 09, 2009 1:43PM

p.s. They're sold out!

avatar
28

posted by guest

Jan 09, 2009 1:44PM

p.s. They're sold out!

avatar
29

posted by guest

Jan 10, 2009 6:55PM

I don't understand why a designer sneaker is so unlike a designer shoe that sells (in any economical climate) for 600+. Furthermore, sneakers (namely limited edition Nike Jordans)for similar prices for years now. I don't see this is anything to blink twice at, nor am I surprised.

avatar
30

posted by guest

Jan 10, 2009 7:01PM

typo for 29 - sneakers have sold ***

Post Your Comment