Archive for the ‘Chanel Shoes’ Category
posted by: HerberWellss in Boots, Brian Atwood, Burberry Porsum, Chanel Shoes, Christian Louboutin Shoes, Dolce & Gabbana Shoes, Dries van Noten Shoes, Fall 2010 Shoes, Fashion Week, Fendi Shoes, General, High heels, Kenzo, Marc Jacobs Shoes, Michael Kors Shoes, Nicholas Kirkwood Shoes, Platforms, Pumps, Roberto Cavalli Shoes, Rodarte Shoes, Shoe Trends, Slingbacks, Victoria Beckham Shoes
With the three major fall 2010 fashion events, New York, Milan and Paris, concluding, there were a few shoe trends that recurred in several collections. This is what we saw. Mad Men curves are in. Fur is in. Many of the big name fashion houses went with classic investment pieces that were timeless looking. Several of the lesser known houses had some beautiful and interesting pieces. Let’s look at some shoes – that’s why we are all here.
Pointy toe shoes are returning, so dust off your Guess “Carrie” shoes because we will be seeing more pointy toes in the future.
Valentino. There was a flat and a kitten heel also presented in this collection.
While stilettoes were seen, typically if the heel was high - especially boots -then it was a chunky heel. I love the stability chunky heels offer. Can you imagine tottering around in the above Vuitton shoes if the heel was pencil thin?
Erdem – love the print on these boots.
Not many wedges were seen, so I am guessing we will be seeing those phased out over the next couple of years.
Bottega Veneta featured this wedge on all the shoes.
Dries Van Noten. I LOVE this half wedge.
With the retro girly-fication of the styles no tough girl platforms were necessary.
Lanvin (Arguably the best line of the season.)
But lots of platforms were presented.
Christian Louboutin for Phillip Lim
Brian Atwood for Victoria Beckham.
There must have been 10 different colors of this shoe because Mrs. Beckham likes to match her shoes to her dress. These shoes are nice but nothing to hyper-ventilate over. Her dresses were nice, wearable, and pretty.
Over the knee boots will be around for a while. We saw over the knee boots in several presentations. Since this is the fall season, we should not be surprised.
Burberry Prorsum presented some of the season’s favorite boots.
Statement shoes were everywhere.
If you are a chiropractor, you NEED these shoes.
Nicholas Kirkwood for Rodarte
Chanel. Notice the ice heel.
Chanel’s show, in my opinion was one of the goofiest ideas I think I have ever seen. Uncle Karl shipped a glacier from Sweden to Paris, had it sculpted it for the runway, put it on a swimming pool type platform, then the models walked through about an inch of melting glacier water. He presented some beautiful suits, IF you could see past the heinous fake fur that accompanied these outfits. Global warming, glaciers melting, save the furry animals was the message of this show. Here’s the thing. 1) Lagerfield used more fur in Fendi than virtually any other collection, so why use cheap looking fake fur with Chanel. 2) The carbon footprint of this show was massive and the power it took to present this show could have powered a small country. (Here is where I usually go off on my global-warming-leadership-hypocrasy tirade, but I won’t because you came here to see shoes.)
OK, I rarely look at purses, but I WANT THIS PURSE.
Forgive me for this long post, but there were so many beautiful shoes, and even more beautiful outfits. I wanted to show them all to you but that isn’t possible.
I have a long list of shoes I dream of finding significantly discounted during an incredible sale. The list includes Frye’s Campus boots, Chanel’s quilted ballet flats, and almost anything by Loeffler Randall.
Recently, I’ve found myself at Jet Set Bohemian (8049 Soquel Drive, Aptos, CA, 831-685-3156) anytime I’m on the Central Coast. Aptos is conveniently located just south of Santa Cruz and north of Monterey on California Highway 1. A few months ago I saw a perfect pair of Campus boots there for $80; it was not meant to be since the size was a 9 and I wear a 7.5. Then on a recent trip, I spotted these beautiful, and apparently never worn, Loeffler Randall shoes. The price marked was $35 (what a deal!), but when I went to buy the shoes the price was reduced to $26 since the item had not sold in 30 days! How I love a good consignment store!
Here are my new favorite shoes!
And here’s the recent shoe selection at Jet Set Bohemian. Excluding boots, nothing was marked over $50, and all the shoes were in nice to new condition.
posted by: HerberWellss in Alexander McQueen Shoes, Balenciaga Shoes, Cesare Paciotti, Chanel Shoes, General, Giuseppe Zanotti Shoes, High heels, Jimmy Choo Shoes, Platforms, Sandals, spring 2010 shoes, Walking Disasters
A ton of money goes into ad campaigns as the fashion industry tries to convince us to purchase their product. The US fashion industry alone spent $144 billion on advertising last year. Several lines have released some of their ads for Spring and Summer 2010. Some are great, some are not. Let’s have a look.
I am weary of the pouting, leggy girl, wearing nothing more than lingerie, heels and a come hither look, sitting or laying on a sofa/chair, with soft focus. Virtually every shoe, handbag, fragrance, lingerie, and cosmetic advertisement features at least three of these components. Snore.
Alexander McQueen’s ad is visually striking. It took me a while to find the shoes, then the girl. It’s a great ad, but the only thing I see is snakes.
Humor in ads almost always attracts me, which is why this Giuseppi Zanotti is one of my favorites. I can’t decide which is cuter, the boy or the shoe.
If the product is not attractive, such as the Alexander McQueen or Balenciaga shoes, then a striking advertisement will make no difference. I’m not buying it. With the Paciotti and Choo shoes, the ad is tiresome, but it does let me get a look at the shoes. The Zanotti ad is able to feature a shoe and not annoy me. That boy is SO cute. It does it’s job. Which ads work for you, which ones don’t?
Update: Here’s Chanel’s Spring 2010 which was shot by Karl Lagerfield.
I took my time in showing you the Chanel Couture line because I thought it would grow on me. I am ambivalent about it. Lagerfield used silver and pastels-a nice combination, but overall, I don’t get it. The shoes are silver rococo heel booties, but they aren’t anything I would obsess about. Let’s take a look.
Here is a formal dress outfit. I have a niece getting married in February. When I sent this photo to her as a suggestion for what the groom could wear, she removed me from her facebook friends.
Here are the shoes.
A less formal look.
the shoe close up:
Maybe I am missing something. Do you see something I don’t?
At first glance, Chanel’s Spring 2010 shoes seem to have a bit of a split personality. The preponderance of chunky clogs and wooden platforms plays as quite a contrast against feminine, textured, cone heels and layered floral-vamp sandals.
But, this strange variance in footwear make sense when taken with Lagerfeld’s 2010 show as a whole.
As noted in the runway review at Style.com:
Lagerfeld was on a roll. Digging into a theme can sometimes throw up some embarrassing puns, and the effort to be youthful has occasionally had off-beam results at Chanel. But with this collection, Lagerfeld’s summing up of the season’s tendencies—beige, ivory, and black; rough textures; transparency and lace—was spun into a collection so masterfully balanced between classicism and current fashion affairs that the whole thing felt delightfully sure-footed.The knack was that he didn’t rush it—just let the thing keep bouncing out in a sustained variation of caramels, taupes, and ecrus, all logically adapted to the house’s nubby tweed suits, frothy blouses, and fluttery chiffons. The editing of everything to short lengths looked sweet without being chichi—the test being that every teenage girl looked naturally at home in the little thigh-split skirts (that’s what has happened to the bottom half of the Chanel suit), as well as in the mini-crinis and ruffled dance dresses.
What is interesting to me is the one descriptive phrase that dominated my thoughts in looking at this runway collection is conspicuously absent from the above review.
That phrase? Gothic Lolita.
(Image c/o wikipedia.com)
Someone’s been paying attention to the underground fashion scene, boys and girls.
Chanel’s chunky clogs and elegant sandals would normally have felt as if they belonged on two separate runways. But, Lolita fashion successfully matches both ultra-feminine as well as goth-chunky choices in footwear, so it is not a surprise to see it working here.
What I found remarkable was how successful the collection was in merging the extreme frothiness of Lolita with signature Chanel textured bouclés. It really does add an unexpected youthfulness to otherwise conservative materials.
But, you can see this for yourself with some selections from the Spring 2010 Chanel Runway (all photos sourced from style.com unless otherwise credited):
Frilly Lolita styles matches with feminine heels:
School-girl Lolita, matched with chunky clogs:
Most successful, for me, were the styles that managed youthfulness while still capturing a the core feel of the Chanel identity. Less overtly Lolita and more of a ‘Hip Chanel’; these, to me, really captured the sophistication I tend to associate with the Chanel brand while staying accessible and relevant to chic, young, professional women.
Other shoes of note:
Ultimately, if you are looking at the shoes alone, you are probably going to find yourself in a love or hate relationship to the clogs, no matter how dolled up they are. But the decorated pumps – heaven.
So, if these ultra-feminine, gothic-Lolita influences trickle down into mainstream fashion, that’s a trend I can really get behind.
I recently read (can’t recall where) that it used to be a counter-cultural statement to dress casually. Now it’s the norm. If it is now a counter-cultural act to dress up and try to make the world a little bit more beautiful through fashion, then bring it on.
What’s your take?