…is being hailed, as usual, by the New York Times (photo credit):

Go to the article if you want to find out more about these shoes.

I have mixed feelings about these flamboyant creations. On the one hand, they’re extravagant, surprising, and almost made me squeal with glee. Whee! Feathers! Colors! Whee! Definitely creative and the very opposite of “blah.”

On the other hand, however, I find them almost impossible to wear. Well, unless I’m working the red carpet to promote Flights of Glory: Big Bird’s Journey, or perhaps a fancy masked ball. Needless to say, the probability of my attending either events in the future is extremely dim.

If feathers became the acoutrements  du jour, I guess I’d probably go with these Louboutins:

The Rosazissimo feather shoes are $760 at Net-a-porter. But don’t hold your breath, as I don’t expect feathers to become mainstream any time soon.

5 Comments »

Sometimes maybe no words are necessary. Wandering around the West Village yesterday, I came across a small unassuming shoe store. Nestled on a mostly residential (and definitely very high end) corner of the village, it glowed with the subtly expensive air of a fine boutique that knows it doesn’t have to advertise. And it’s a good thing too, because in fact, it doesn’t. There is no obvious sign broadcasting that it is one of the premiere purveyors of fine footwear in the world. No placard detailing just how they’ve made those shoemakers’ elves look bad. After lurking suspiciously around the store for a few minutes, puzzling on this and shooting the photo below, I noticed a tiny gold-stenciled sigh on the door, bearing their name. The moral of the story: if you are Christian Louboutin, less is apparently more.

I admit that the photo might be a tiny bit crooked, but that doesn’t mask the utter lack of signage. Now, I will admit that stores that refuse to put up signs stating their name and purpose irritate me. It gives the whole store a members-only kind of feel. I feel similarly about the ones where you have to be buzzed in if you want to shop. Let’s face it, your average boutique doesn’t have much clout. Come on people, you want more people to buy stuff, not less. Of course, CL doesn’t have this issue as people will buy stuff anyway. And they neatly sidestepped my semi-irrational irritation with their tiny golden sign.

Now that we are on the subject, let discuss a specific pair of Louboutin’s. Here are the celebrity favorite Orlan Double Platform T-Strap in red suede.

I love these. Note the slightly gladiator design that caters to the trend without buckling to it. Note the graceful sweeping lines, the thicker ankle strap, the tiny peep-toe. And I am not alone. Heidi Klum wore these to major events not once, but twice, in black.

On the left, see Frau Seal on her way to the Peabody Awards. Note the almost symphonic pairing of the geometric dress with fabulous geometric shoes. And on the right, she is posing for the Project Runway Season 5 promos. Clearly these shoes are loved. If you too love them enough to spend $885 dollars, pick them up at saks.com.

7 Comments »

One of the must-have items of the season is, apparently, the good ol’ penny loafer. I’m all for that: school season is knocking on your neighborhood’s door, and even if you’re not in or around a school at the moment, you must feel the buzz of books and the studious energy in the air. No? It must be me, ahem; still, you are probably seeing a preview of collegiate fashions by now. And if you indulge one of my pet peeves for just a second: I for one would LOVE to see young women sporting an elegant, well-made penny loafer rather than a flip-flop way into November, as I often see, and which is just….wrong.

Penny loafers were named as such because they could be decorated with a penny (or often, a dime). I didn’t realize there was actually an urban legend behind this:

In 1934 John R. Bass (a bootmaker in Wilton, Maine) started making loafers and called them Weejuns (meant to sound like Norwegian). These had a strap across the upper part of the vamp that was shaped like a pair of lips (said to be John’s wife, Alice Bass, kissing each shoe on its way out the door). The mouth opening soon was used to hold an ornament (such as a penny), and thus penny loafers became a style. Penny loafers often held a dime instead of a penny. (From Wikipedia).

Edited: Correction: Allison in comments points out that it was actually George Henry Bass (and not John R.). Thanks, Allison, for pointing out again why Wikipedia can’t be entirely trusted!

In the days of yore, the penny loafer was a low-heeled shoe through and through, with a strong masculine vibe (it makes sense, since it started off as a men’s shoe). These days the penny loafer, just like the oxford, has gone through a high-fashion transformation, and the New York Times’ T Magazine is eager to present these options to us:

Clockwise from top: Christian Louboutin shoe, $1,050 a pair. Go to christianlouboutin.com. Yves Saint Laurent shoe, $770. Go to ysl.com. Tod’s shoe, $545. Go to tods.com. Nine West shoe, $99. Go to ninewest.com. Cole Haan shoe, $275, and Anna Sheffield for Cole Haan coin, $45. Go to colehaan.com.

This style is a classic that’s been around for decades and is bound to stay in style for a long time; in theory at least, you can’t go wrong wearing a pair of well-made penny loafers. I do admit to having misgivings about the 3+ inch height of the models shown in T Magazine; but again, I also have misgivings about models that look so masculine I have no desire to wear them. Therefore, I have also scoured teh interwebs for more pleasant AND easier on the feet loafer-options and found a few. Behold:

From top to bottom:

Marc by Marc Jacobs patent loafers (available in other colors, too), $264 at Zappos.

Marc by Marc Jacobs high-heeled loafers (2 & 3/4″, also available in other colors), $354 at Zappos.

Kate Spade Lindsay loafer (also available in other colors), $199 at Zappos.

Givenchy gold calf loafer, on sale for $204 at Zappos.

Tory Burch Clayton Loafer (also in red), $275 at Nordstrom.

Celine tasseled low-heeled brogue, $460 at Yoox.

MariaCristina low-heeled loafers, $178 at Yoox.

L’Autre Chose tasseled loafer, $68 at Yoox (only one size left!)

12 Comments »

LEANNE WAS ROBBED!!!!  Robbed, I tell’s ya!

How beautiful and classy and chic-with-a-(literal)-twist was this outfit?  It’s a blouse and skirt, and I would wear both of them, together, separately, any which way I could.  And she accessorized it perfectly with that gold necklace and the Gucci Eva wing-tip inspired platform pump.

On the other hand, the actual winning outfit (Kenley’s) did indeed look like it was made with… what did Joe call it?  Ft. Lauderdale pool furniture cushion fabric.  From the 80s.  Not in a good way.  I’ll give it that it was interesting and well-made and a good interpretation of the photograph on which it was based.  And it gave us our first double shoe usage (the emerald green Robert Cavalli sandal from episode 1).  But I can’t put this dress in the top 3 at all, let alone give it the win.

Who would I say was deserving of more love (and perhaps a spot in the top three instead of either Kenley’s or Terri’s (which was also interesting, but the dress over pants thing is old hat, and hers seemed to have a lot of extra messy fabric that made it look flouncy rather than streamlined sexy)?

Once again, Jerell.  He made a whole gown, for chrissake!  And it’s perhaps more limiting in what kind of “night on the town” you can wear it to (a black tie gala?  a flamenco performance?), it’s beautifully made and a gorgeous dress.  And worn with shoes that are not quite the Kenneth Cole Hit or Miss, but pretty close.

I’d also give a shout out to Kelli for this rocker Mad Max number, which went perfectly with the Gucci Ebony sandal, which isn’t available anymore, but I remember well from Chris March’s Hershey outfit last season.

I mean, I even didn’t hate Blayne-licious and his neon frills.  Though I didn’t much like the blah shoe choice (something along the lines of the Charles David Devin pump).

Emily’s losing “little black dress with a corsage” (Tim Gunn is always right, people.  Listen to him!) wasn’t great, and one could argue that the Gucci Eva maryjanes (guess it was the night for Gucci Eva shoes) were the most fabulous part of the outfit.

But in this, too, I think the judges went wrong.  Because I swear to you that I would much sooner be seen in public wearing that dress—which is at least kicky and has an energy to it—than Jennifer’s dowdy and depressing silk charmeuse number, which looks like maternity wear for a ladies club luncheon rather than a dress for a night on the town.

The shoes are VERY DEFINITIVELY the best part of this outfit.  They’re the secret love child of the Stuart Weitzman Vanity and the Christian Louboutin Caberet, and I love them.  Unlike the dress.

5 Comments »

 Rihanna’s August photoshoot for In Style features some awesomely fierce shoe choices. Behold:

First up, some uber-tall Louboutins, the epitome of sexy in deep, sinful red suede and towering stiletto heels (the Declic pump, if I’m not mistaken, $685 at Saks):

Next up, some generously-studded open-heel booties from Gucci’s “Babouska” fall line:

And finally, the tallest and fiercest of them all, these eelskin heels from the Emanuel Ungaro fall collection:

…and here’s a close-up:

I’m pretty much convinced that the only thing  you can really do in those heels is lean against a chair, look sexxxy, and hope you won’t tip over. But hey, that’s the whole point, right?

6 Comments »