|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Monthly Archives: July 2009Pan E Tulipani flower-front sandals
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Tweet |
2 |
New Look’s shoes are inexpensive (to say the least) at the best of times, so when the sale starts, well, it’s always going to be worth a look. The summer sale started today, and has everything from strappy gladiator sandals to nauseatingly girlie floral peep toes, and just about everything in between. I’ve been surprisingly restrained, and have managed to resist the temptation of shoes-as-cheap-as-£7-per-pair, but if you can’t (and I don’t blame you), click here to take a look at what’s on offer.
|
| Tweet |
Unlike the Alexander McQueen boots I showed you earlier today, these boots DO appear to have socks attached to them, albeit the “socks” in question are covered in sequins.
The “stuck together” look makes these an automatic “do not want” for me, although admittedly the black court shoes/boots on the left of the picture are at least a little more acceptable to me than most footwear of this genre. As for the grey flats, though, those just puzzle me: the sequins seem to suggest that these are supposed to be worn on an evening out or other special occasion, but the shape and colour of the shoe part just doesn’t say “special” to me at all. Which I guess is a lesson to us all that you can wear a pair of sequined socks with your sensible grey flats, but it still won’t turn them into a party shoe.
Both of these styles are available from Colette, where you can expect to pay in the region of $650 per pair. Ouchie.
|
| Tweet |
I almost called The Fashion Police when I found these boots at Far Fetch yesterday, and assumed the socks shown in the picture were actually attached to them. As it turns out, though, that’s not the case, and the socks are just provided with the boots, for the benefit of anyone who struggles to know what kind of socks go with a pair of black boots. I’d call them “free” socks, but given that you’ll pay £720 for the lot, you possibly won’t feel like you’re getting TOO much of a bargain. Nice thought, though, Alexander McQueen!
Anyway, the socks are removable, and so are the “spats”, actually: as you can see from the image above, you can add or remove them at will to change the appearance of the boots. I’m not adverse to the look with spats attached, but the ankle boot on its own is just too ordinary for me to want to pay £720 for. If you would, though, you can buy yourself a pair here.
|
| Tweet |
Drawstrings aren’t my favourite thing to see on boots, but I was actually relieved to know that these at least had one, because at first glance they looked like boots for giants.
Now I know they’re not, however, I’ve reverted back to hating the drawstring. I’d need to see them on an actual leg, of course, but a drawstring on a boot that wide just seems like it would look a little odd: like your leg was encased in some kind of leather inflatable. Or like your boots were so large you had to actually tie them to your leg.
Of course, I could be totally wrong, and if you think I am, you can buy these from Louisa Via Roma. Be ready to cough up $1,470 for the pleasure, though.
|
| Tweet |
I doubt anyone is going to mistake these for Balmain, but they certainly seem to be heading in the same direction as the designer’s famous strappy sandals, which were one of the “It” shoes of last season. The studs and straps are the same, but the execution isn’t, and neither is that platform, which was absent from the Balmain versions.
These are just one of the many “inspired by” versions of this shoe, of course, but if they happen to be your favourite, you can buy them at Barratts, where they’re £65.
|
| Tweet |
Yellow is a colour a lot of people seem to dislike, or at least have trouble wearing, but I’m quite partial to it at this time of year, and the lemon and green combination on these Harajuku Lovers slingbacks is certainly very fresh looking.
Really, though, it’s the tiny little red hearts on the front of these shoes that I like: very cute, but not sickeningly so, and the simple shape of the shoe makes it much less fussy than the words “four hearts on the toe” would suggest.
These are a relatively affordable $80, and you can get them at Zappos.
|
| Tweet |
I have to admit to being a little bit biased against Paris Hilton’s shoes because… well, because they’re by Paris Hilton. I’m not a fan.
In the interests of fairness, then, I will say nothing about these ‘Madrid’ sandals, other than that, as well as the two colourways shown here, they’re also available in gold, and that they’re $94.99 from Heels. com. The rest is up to you, so go on, readers: have at them!
|
| Tweet |
|
|
“You’ll feel like throwing a garden party when you slip on these adorable 