Eternal Borgezie Diamond Stiletto
posted by: Shomore in General on July 30th, 2010
Got an extra $150k lying around for shoes? If so, luxury jeweler House of Borgezie has created the Eternal Borgezie Diamond Stiletto just for you. The company likens the diamond encrusted shoes, which are set with over 2,200 individual diamonds, to iconic figures such as the Mask of Tutankhamun, the Faberge Eggs or the Bugatti Veyron. It also comes with an “Eternal” Guarantee, which lasts for 1000 years. Basically, the red heart-shaped soles are supposed to be easy to remove and replace when they show signs of wear.
I actually think the replaceable soles is a wonderful idea, even if my cobbler disagrees. However, for 150k, I’m stuck with my cobbler for quite some time.
24 Comments
- Click Here to Speak Up
August 12, 2010 at 8:53 am, Fancy Diamond Shoes said:
[...] Luxury jeweler House of Borgezie has introduced the Eternal Borgezie Diamond Stiletto. Over 2,200 fancy diamonds decorate this eternal guarantee fine jewellery. The red heart-shaped soles are supposed to be easy to remove and replace when they show signs of wear. Find out more here. [...]
August 09, 2010 at 9:33 pm, plus size shoes said:
beautiful shoes! very classy!
August 04, 2010 at 2:07 pm, Jack Kolbow the Shoe said:
OMG! This shoe is nothing practical in my opinion. I don't get why fashion designers keep on making these kind of shoes in this kind of economy.
August 04, 2010 at 2:11 am, bootstrapperboy said:
Out of respect for this blog I will not respond to Valentina and I apologise unreservedly for entertaining this childish 'argument' – I should know better.
Keep up the good work shoeblog (",)
August 04, 2010 at 12:47 am, Valentina said:
@ BSB, I've no idea what you are referring to as I do not view 'rap' videos because, well, I'm not degenerate, uneducated, ghetto trash and wouldn't let them drive my dead body away in a Bentley (reulsively ghetto) . Oh, and also, gramatically speaking, the correct phrase would be "To you it's/it IS a Bentley"……NOT "it a Bentley". Also, in the vein of free speech, my theory is that those who don't flaunt it, simply cannot afford to.
August 03, 2010 at 11:35 pm, bootstrapperboy said:
@Valentina – Each to their own of course and in keeping with the theme of free speech, I for one subscribe to the notion that if you’ve got it you don't need to flaunt it – it’s not a rap video. In conclusion “…to you it a Bentley, to me it's a blue car" springs to mind!
August 03, 2010 at 8:42 am, galligator said:
Different tastes, like I say, keep things interesting. This particular pair of shoes aren't for me (even if they were just crystals & not diamonds) but I've seen enough styles that don't work for me that really look great on a woman who is completely comfortable in that style to know that as long as you wear the shoes (rather than let them wear you) that sometimes that is what makes all the difference.
Back to the shoes, (& fashion in general). I tend to be a believer that luxe details and fabrics are best suited to minimalist silhouettes & that plainer/less fussy fabrics & leathers are better when the style/cut is interesting enough that other details would simply be distractions. If you are going to do diamonds, studs, embroidery or such, than a simple style makes a great canvas to show those details off.
And, with the diamonds & gold details on the above sandals, the joke description from Beauty and the Beast "Minimalist Rocco" seems apt. Or maybe just opulent. Most of us don't get too much occasion to actually indulge in 'opulent' – where are all the fabulous formal balls we were promised as little girls, anyway?
August 03, 2010 at 5:53 am, Valentina said:
@ BSB….wow, jealous much? No presumption here, I take issue with being labeled, by you, as having a compromised sense of style simply because I find these particular shoes to be exquisite. Oh, and I do not own THIS featured pair of shoes, but yes I do own a similar pair, and the dressing room that houses my extensive ALL runway/designer/couture shoe collection rivals that of Paris Hilton, Carrie Bradshaw and all of the Kardashian sisters…combined. Envy is seeping through my monitor.
@Galligator, I have never come here to criticize others for their personal taste, I have always played nice!
August 02, 2010 at 10:57 pm, bootstrapperboy said:
@Valentina….wow, presumptuous much? Do you have a similar pair? If so I rest my case….no offense intended!
@galligator ….sorry, I'll play nice (",)
August 02, 2010 at 2:10 am, galligator said:
Well, we want Shoeblog to be welcoming to all polite opinions. I don't thing Bootstrapperboy intended his comments as any sort of personal attack – and may have felt the price tag was a bit much for a fairly simple – albeit blingy – silhouette. This is just a reminder to play nice. Tone is very hard to read in written comments & offense was most likely unintended. So, I figure that we move on & keep sharing our shoe-love & diverse (and polite) opinions on shoes.
August 02, 2010 at 12:22 am, Valentina said:
G, glad you agree, as that was precisely the point of my last post.
August 01, 2010 at 1:22 pm, galligator said:
Lets pull back just a scooch. We all have different taste, and therein lies much of the fun. Let's try to keep our differences in opinion about shoes friendly-like
August 01, 2010 at 7:09 am, Valentina said:
Um, bootstrapperboy person, you may be king of all that is 'style' in your own head…but you sound bitter, as if just by virtue of the fact that you are unable to afford these exquisite shoes you are going to label those of us who do appreciate them for their beauty as lacking in sense and style.
July 31, 2010 at 2:19 am, galligator said:
I much prefer the designs on a number of the Swarovski-adorned styles that are around. That may be, at least partly, because I avoid mules and unsupported, strapless sandals most of the time. Losing the ankle support of a slingback or ankle strap just takes a shoe out of the running for me. Plus, the super-dainty straps are no friend to someone like me who has *ahem* other-than-narrow feet. I do still like the caged effect of the heel itself, though.
July 31, 2010 at 1:05 am, bootstrapperboy said:
Interesting design but… ostentatious much??? Overly blingy, designed for those with a lot more money than sense and even less style. Take a timeless classic sexy strappy sandal, chuck some expensive diamonds at it and Viola…150k please!
July 31, 2010 at 12:23 am, Valentina said:
Galligator, yes, I AM that much of a shoe whore. Besides, 'withholding sex' usually doesn't last long at all!
July 30, 2010 at 4:44 pm, Razzmatazz said:
I don't care how many diamonds are on it, this shoe is nothing special in my opinion….
July 30, 2010 at 6:44 am, Mili Susan said:
That's very nice. I like it..
July 30, 2010 at 4:39 am, galligator said:
These are how much my 1st house cost. Eek! But wow, if decadent is what you are going for, few things say it like diamonds. My favorite part is actually the cage heel.
Valentina – I got to the 'withholding sex' part & immediately thought 'that's not a sacrifice I would make for shoes'. Even after 20 years of marriage, some things haven't exactly gotten boring or less fun – YMMV.
July 30, 2010 at 1:24 am, Anna @ShoeHunting said:
Great idea, and wouldn't these heels make for a fabulous family heirloom?!
July 30, 2010 at 12:57 am, Valentina said:
EVERY tactical measure that I have successfully used on my husband to acquire items that he may deem 'excessive' would not work on these. All the begging, pleading, eyelash batting, breath holding, foot stamping, fist clenching, storming-off-in-a-huff, refusing to eat, uncontrollable crying fits and withholding sex, in the world would be completely futile. Drats.
July 30, 2010 at 12:48 am, Valentina said:
Screams and faints!
July 30, 2010 at 12:31 am, april said:
Those…are gorgeous. Wow.
July 29, 2010 at 10:15 pm, Christopher said:
Glad you like the stilettos thanks for feature Chris