Designer Shoe Deja-vu: Marc Jacobs vs Robert Clergerie Red Patent Wedges

So, which one would you rather wear? These Marc Jacobs red patent ankle-strap wedges:

 …or these Robert Clergerie red patent ankle-strap wedges ?

The former is $320 at Nordstrom, the latter is about $600 at Zappos. I think they’re both quite cute, but I just can’t make up my mind yet…

What’s with all the skull shoes?

I thought they were a one-time gimmick or a passing fad, but they’re everywhere!

 Jeffrey Campbell Mimi Skulls Flat boot. And this:

Chooka ‘Tattoo City’ Rain Boot (there are several variations on this theme). And:

Jeffrey Campbell ‘Sienna Skulls’ Flat

And finally:

Loeffler Randall patent leather flats. Honestly, these ones are quite attractive. Are you in with the skull trend or not? Just wondering what kind of following this trend has…

Friday Shoe History Corner

I’m fascinated by the history of the shoe and I can’t help being amazed at the beautiful creations masters of the past have produced, some of them bolder and more innovative than any pair of designer shoes today. And some other times, I marvel at the kookiness or even downright cruelty of a model. So, let’s reserve a little blog corner every week for a piece of shoe history.

Without further ado, here’s today’s shoe:

Delman vintage red and gold satin platform booties with instep hole and lace and bow detail, circa 1938-1940. Uncomfortable–perhaps, but also daring, exotic, stunning.

Fantasy Foot Ball 2007

Did you know about this? I didn’t. And now, oh, boy, I want to be there pretty badly.

If I were to go, I would try to hobble around in something like this:

Cute but wildly sexy ankle strap peep toe with embroidered cork upper from Lesilla. Knowing me, though, I’d be back in my flats before you can say ‘stiletto’–probably something like this Sergio Rossi number with metallic pipe trim:

Seriously now, if anyone goes there, I hope you tell us all about it in the forum!

(found via The Manolo)

Would you wear missmatched shoes?

I stumbled across this article in Financial Times, Walking all over fashion, and let me quote you from the shocking intro:

[In Rome], apparently, the very latest thing is to wear two completely different shoes. Glossy-pictured proof is a red suede mule and a green patent pump sold as a set for women or for men, or a boot and a dress shoe in matching brocade.

The author goes on to argue that this is the new trend in fashion, and quotes and/or invokes a few shoe designers or executives to that end, but I’m not entirely convinced. For example, the only line of shoes that I know to be specifically designed as non-identical are Camper’s ‘Twin’s collection (prominently featured in this article). But I wouldn’t call these exactly missmatched:

On the contrary, they’re perfectly coordinated, same color scheme, same shape and last. They’re non-identical, but nevertheless quite recognizable as the same pair of shoes. The type of missmatching the author talks about is, however, deeper than that: boot with pump? red suede with green patent? Now, that’s taking it a little farther than I’m comfortable with. Apart from a Camper spokesperson, the other evidence brought in this article is the designers’ love of assymetry and the alleged content of a tourist brochure to Rome.

But maybe she’s on to something and I don’t know it? What do you think? Would you wear missmatched shoes, and how far would you be willing to go? Can you–or anyone–pull it off? Meet me in the shoe trends forum to discuss it!

(found via Miss Meghan)