We all know that animal prints come and go, right?  Right?  It’s not every season that you see stores full of cheetah spots and zebra stripes.

Same’s true for shoes, of course.  But if you’re dying to work an animal motif into your footwear without looking like a tiger impersonator, then you might try one of these.

If you’re feeling the wacked-out wedge like my fellow bloggers Shoesense and Galligator, then check out these gorgeous snakeskin patterned Terry de Havilland stunners.

They’re 380 GBP at Asos.com (yeah, that’s about $760), but they’ll put a sssssizzle in your ssssstep.  (Sorry… couldn’t help myself.)

Don’t want to pony up or hobble down with these 5.5 inch wedges?  Then snag your python print in the much more comfy Katella Tex slip-on sneaks from L.A.M.B.

Snake not your thing?  Then how about going for the understated animal print look with these tortoiseshell Alexander McQueen stilettos.

They won’t be any friendlier on your wallet (they’re 340 GBP/$680), and at 5.5 inches high, they won’t do your bone structure any favors, either.  But they sure are pretty, ain’t they?

Or skip the reptile thing altogether and go right to full-on amphibian with some fun and fishy footwear, which can be just as glam and glittery as anything snakeskin.

Take, for example, these $850 Zanotti’s.

Bet you never thought a fish skeleton could look so good.

And since fish gotta swim, what more perfect way to wear the scaly beasts than on a pair of rain boots like these fun koi-patterned ones from Chooka ($60 at Endless).

But if fish aren’t enough to make you strut your stuff, then you can razzle-dazzle ‘em in the rain with the peacock version of those Chooka boots (only $51).

7 Comments »

I love wedges. They give you height without pain (or, at the very least, they minimize the pain), they provide comfort,  padding, and arch support, and they are often quirky, innovative, whimsical, and plain ol’ fun. I don’t want wedges to go away anytime soon, but unfortunately, if trend spies are to be believed, they are gently phased out of the fashion spotlight and replaced with vertiginous, slightly chunky and/or whimsical heels. The wedges you can still find for the new season are definitely more toned down, stripped of nearly all the bells and whistles that the designers played with a mere 1-2 seasons ago.

Just so you don’t forget the fun to be had with wedges, I’ve reached into the deep underbelly of Yoox sales and pulled out a few quirky models.  Links, in the order of appearance, are below.

Alexander McQueen wedge, $344.

Alaia industrial wedge, $304.

Marc Jacobs architectural wedge, $135.

D&G Art Deco red wedges, $240 at Yoox.

Le Silla wedge with diamante orchid brooch detailing INSIDE the wedge, $168.

Parisi spiderweb wedges, $148.

6 Comments »

For those of us living in the US, where the value of the greenback has sunk in value relative to other currencies, there is a silver lining. For US customers only, Alexander McQueen as added an online shopping boutique.

You can purchase these autumn/winter 2008 Alexander McQueen lace heel pumps, which Charlize Theron wore to a Moscow Hancock press conference, at the online store. Sadly, while location will give you the opportunity to purchase the shoes, the skimpy dollar doesn’t necessarily mean you will be able to afford it. The shoes cost $850. For New Yorkers who desire instant gratification, same day delivery will only cost you $50 extra.

2 Comments »

This is what I’m talking about: you see a cute-as-a-button shoe, just adorable, and then you check the brand, and it’s some cheapo, Chinese-made, all man-made materials low-end shoe and you wrinkle your nose and say, I’ll pass, thank you, so what if it’s only $19.99, it’s not worth it to me.

And then you go into a Fendi or Louis Vuitton or Bottega Venetta boutique and you see a blah or fuglirific product that is, granted, well made (although that doesn’t mean it can’t be made out of plastic entirely) and you fawn over the craftsmanship and say, well, I know it’s $790, which is my rent for the month, but it must be really worth it if they charge so much money for it.

There are high end shoes out there I wouldn’t look at twice unless their exorbitant sticker price didn’t compel me. Just to be clear, they’re not all horrendous or anything, just something I wouldn’t be caught dead in–an example in which the otherwise world-renown taste of the designer is a little…off.

Let’s start with the “blah” range:

I know, it’s a “basic nude” or something, but honestly, $690 for this? Ok, it’s a Bottega Veneta, but that doesn’t make it more palatable.

And these boots–I find them swerving from blah to ugly:

But they’re Chloe and $775, so I’m guessing they’ll have a lot of takers among the snobbish crowd.

And the king of stilettos himself is asking for $1,575 of your hard-earned money for this fringed monstrosity:

But it’s a Louboutin, and I bet that come fall I’m going to see these fringes swaying vigorously around the ankles of many a Hollywould starlet.

Speaking of fringes (I had posted about this trend a while back, and to my horror, I notice more and more of it lately)–I find these distasteful:

And yet, they’re $1,075 because they’re Alexander McQueen. I bet you feel differently about them now, don’t you? There’s so much magic in the name of the designer! A shoe you would have only deemed fit for the 4 a.m. shift in Place Pigalle  or to go in circles around a shiny pole is suddenly a work of art worthy of an entire paycheck.

And Zanotti, you king of zany, what the heck are these?

While I appreciate their fashion-forwardness, their aesthetic is a bit…off. The balance is no good. The harmony is missing.  Plus, they’re $750.

I guess in the world of fashion, the old Shakespearean rhyme wouldn’t apply: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Sometimes, in this world, name is everything.

6 Comments »

Every once in a while I get sucked into the bizarre and somewhat amusing spectacle that is men’s high fashion, almost as bizarre and amusing as the spectacle that is women’s high fashion. Where else are you going to find smoldering nubile men devoid of body hair, squinting gravely underneath dramatic brows, strutting their stuff in strapless vinyl fringe tops or gauzy layered tunic dresses over skimpy shorts?

(Looks from the Alexander McQueen and Prada Spring 2009 collection).

On the other hand, I welcome any move towards shunning gender stereotypes and blurring the idea of gender-appropriate wear. I mean, neither masculinity nor femininity should be prisons in which the fashion czars throw us for life, right? A man or a woman is allowed the right to play and find the right mix for him or her self. Women experiment with masculine gear all the time, after all. But here’s where I get puzzled: you can put Angelina in a man’s suit and everybody would think it’s sexy, but stick a flower on a man’s suit, it’d better be for a wedding, or he’s going to scream murder! As a result, most man’s clothes (I’m talking men who are gainfully employed and are not pimps or rock stars) are conservative at best, dull at worst; sometimes elegant, sometimes just run of the mill.

Same goes for men’s shoes, whose lack of imagination I’m pretty sure The Manolo decried at one point.

Which is why I was a little tickled to see this on the runway:

Flower-embroidered sneakers from Gucci and bronze patent mandals from McQueen. Granted, not something I would see my husband wear any time soon, but something I could admire in an otherwise well-dressed man. Especially those mandals, a concept I usually abhor, but I kinda dig in this particular incarnation. And why should I not? Seriously, I’m opening the question here: WHY NOT?

5 Comments »