Archive for the ‘Chloe Shoes’ Category
posted by: brianka in Cesare Paciotti, Chloe Shoes, Flats, Givenchy Shoes, High heels, Jimmy Choo Shoes, Kenzo, Michael Kors Shoes, Michael Kors Shoes, Oxfords, Pumps, Sandals, Trend Alert, Vegan Shoes, Walking Disasters, Wedges, Zappos
Oh My! The Eighties are upon us.
I knew my high school fashions were considering re-surfacing last year when I began catching early glimpses of puffer vests on teenagers around town. Now, with more kids looking like Madonna-as-Material-Girl, Eighties Style is having a serious fashion renaissance.
As evidence, I present Jelly Shoes. A fashion choice in that I actually never indulged in the last time around – having at that point in my teenagedom already have moved into kitten-heeled pumps and the plotting of how to get a pair of sturdy-heeled (cobblestone appropriate) knee-high boots for my 17th birthday.
But I digress. Probably out of an avoidance instinct.
Oh yes, Jellies. Always a style that makes me think of 8-year old girls in pink shirts and floral embroidered jeans; perhaps because they have not gone out of fashion with that age group? I simply wonder how grown ladies pull these off. But hey, if it helps you keep a sense of play in your life, go for it.
So, while these are obviously not a trend that is calling to me, perhaps there is something in here that some of you folks reading will find to your liking. One thing I can tell you, designers this time out have not limited their styles to sparkly pink jelly flats and flip-flops.
We have sandals (including the still-hot gladiator silhouette):
Oxfords (And you thought that this trend was on the way out!):
And, of course, Heels:
Oh, and in case you are wincing just a little bit at the not-so-humble prices being charged for colorful pieces of molded plastic (or is it flubber?) there should be Payless versions soon enough.
Well, it’s official, Michelle Obama is going to be the next First Lady of the United States of America. And, regardless of what you may think about her husband’s politics, you’ve got to admit the lady’s got style. Just look at the Spring 09 Narciso Rodriguez dress she wore on the night of the election. Sure, it’s gotten mixed reviews from the fashion critics (I come down firmly on the side of “She’s Working It!”), but it’s not a boring choice, that’s for sure.
Me, I’m over the moon that the soon-to-be First Lady of the USA has an interesting fashion sense, as you can see from a few examples here.
Boogying with Ellen DeGeneres.
In a dress from Thakoon’s Resort ’09 line.
In J. Crew separates and a Moschino shirt dress… both with super cute shoes.
And that brings me to what we love most over here, of course… shoes.
Because, yes folks, you’re eyes do not deceive you. That is Michelle Obama wearing flats. She’s a flats kinda woman. She’s more often shoes under 3″ than in anything higher. And I couldn’t be happier about it!
A curious reader wrote us asking about Ms. Obama’s footwear choices, and… well… to be honest, I have yet to figure out what those black flats she wore on election night were. But the woman has some seriously cute pairs of low-heels and flats.
Might I suggest she stick with this plan of comfy and attractive shoes. Much like Carla Bruni-Sarkozy has done (with great elegance and panache). We need more high-profile women who know they can be confident and stylish without the super-high heels.
Since those look like they’re only at the UK version of Netaporter, here’s a Taryn Rose alternative: the Bion.
Or maybe these Chloe purple pointy-toe numbers that are cool and classy, but with a nice hit of style at the same time.
There’s a classic Tod’s skimmer (the Biscuit, in this case) … can’t go wrong there.
Or, for something a wee bit more daring (and yet, totally still something I could see her wearing), there’s this totally adorable Joey McMakin pump.
Tahari’s got these Tessa flats.
I could go on and on and on. But instead, I will leave with one more suggestion. Because, for something sporty and supportive, she could go for these Keds skimmers, just one of many Obama shoe designs available here, for those so inclined.
posted by: brianka in Celebrity Shoe Style, Chloe Shoes, Christian Louboutin Shoes, Gucci Shoes, High heels, Michael Kors Shoes, Michael Kors Shoes, Platforms, Pumps, Sandals, Sergio Rossi Shoes, Spring 2008 shoes, This week in shoes, Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) Shoes
Now that the Video Music Awards are over, let’s look at some shoe highlights.
First up, Britney Spears was the apparent darling of the evening; winning 3 awards as well as the approval of fashion critics with this sensational Versace gown and perfectly matching strappy heels. If anyone knows who made these lovely shoes, please let us know.
Jordan Sparks accessorized her flirty Betsey Johnson dress with black Sergio Rossi sandals. ($695 Net-a-porter.com)
I love Miley Cyrus’ whole look. This cute cocktail dress is perfectly matched by what appears to be the Michael Kors ‘Berkley’ gladiator sandal ($128.95 Nordstrom.com).
And what Red Carpet would be complete without a classic pair of Christian Louboutin Stilettos, worn here by Ciara? At a guess, these look to be at least a 120mm heel height. You can come very close to this look with the 110mm Decollette ($575 Net-a-porter.com).
These Yves Saint Laurent Tribute Platforms ($995 Saks.com) worn by Lindsay Lohan are fantastic. Unfortunately they may not be enough to save her in this strangely puckered dress.
I’m not really a fan of Heidi Montag’s off-the-shoulder shift-dress. However, these ankle boots look suspiciously like the Gucci Fall-Winter 2008 Babouska Studded Ankle Boots. A woven version is available online ($1195 Saks.com in black; $1295 pre-order in gold leather at Neimanmarcus.com)
Finally, I don’t hate Tara Conner’s black and white outfit, but it seems almost too conservative for the VMA. However, these Chloe Peep-toe Leather Shoe Boots ($387 Clearance at Net-a-Porter) are one fantastic and trendy set of kicks.
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.
Last night was MoMA‘s annual benefit, Party in the Garden, which was less star-studded than it usually is (perhaps because the wealthy glitterati are feeling the pinch of the purse what with the volatile economy), but not lacking in noteworthy shoes.
A friend of mine works at MoMA, so I headed on over to the party with her last night and brought my camera along for to snap away at the most outlandish, beautiful, or hideous shoes. So here are the fruits of my photographic labor.
First up: these gold snakeskin slingback peep-toes. Pretty. Not terribly outrageous, but pretty.
Next: some beautiful satin platforms. They look a tad big on her feet, and I bet they hurt like hell, but they were gorgeous with the pinkish-creamy satin contrasted with the purple cap toe.
Next is a pair that’s hard to see from this angle (blame my surreptitious photo-snapping), but were probably my favorite shoes of the night. They were gorgeous and silver and shiny and had the wide ankle-strap thing going on that we’re seeing all over the place this season.
Here’s a photo I took for the shoes on the right (the metallic heels). But upon closer inspection, they’re actually the least interesting of the three.
The next two photos are shoes as worn by my friends (and therefore falling into the actually affordable category). First off, we have shoes by Bandolino via DSW:
And next (from left to right) shoes by Payless, Seychelles, and Aerosoles:
But in the end, what fun would a swank party be without a few high-profile (and high-pricetag) numbers, like these pink-and-cork numbers from M. Louboutin.
Or these clunky platform wedges that look like they’ve come from the Chloe runways. [ETA: Attentive reader Yowza has identified most of these, and twigged my memory of this shoe on the runway last year. From Marni, of course. Not Chloe.]
So there you have it, dear readers. Eyewitness report on the shoes of the New York modern art set.