OK, I know I said I was coming round to the idea of feathers on footwear, but these shoes are just flat-out bizarre to me. I mean, how would you walk in them without standing on the feathers all the time, and tripping yourself up on them? Wouldn’t they get absolutely filthy from trailing along the floor constantly? Do they remind anyone else of a dead bird lying on someone’s foot? Is it just me?
If it is, these are $300 at Endless, and are sold as wedding shoes, although I guess you could wear them anywhere that seemed to require white, feathery shoes. I’m just not sure where, exactly, that might be…
If Elvis was somehow reincarnated as a woman’s shoe (No, I haven’t had a bump on the head, just go with me on this one…), I’m pretty sure this is more or less what he’d look like: all studs and denim (for yes, that’s white denim on the uppers) and “look at me!” attitude. OK, maybe not Elvis. Maybe these are just the reincarnation-in-shoe-form of a country singer with a great love of denim.
Whatever you think they look like, the facts are that they’re by Dolce Vita, they’re $240, and they’re available at Saks. Just try not to wear them with double-denim and a cowboy hat…
I can’t say ballet flats are something I tend to be willing to spend a lot of money on. As pretty as they can be, the fact that the entire sole is in constant contact with the ground means I’m much harder on them than I am on shoes with heels, so they wear out much faster in my hands (or on my feet, rather) than other styles do. And I can’t say white ballet flats are normally high on my wish list, either: I almost always go for silver, gold or, er, leopard print when I’m buying this style of shoe, purely because they’re so versatile. (OK, maybe not the leopard print…)
With all of that said, though, these Chloe flats are really pretty, with their little chain-edged flower embellishments. Are they $495 worth of pretty? Not to me, I don’t think, but if they’re worth that much to you, you can buy them at Net-a-Porter.
That’s not a flower you can see on the side of these shoes – it’s a clower. So say Faith, anyway, with their “everything must start with a C” style of naming!
Names aside, these are a nice pair of evening shoes. White doesn’t tend to be most people’s first choice of shoe colour (unless you’re a bride, obviously), but the black heel, sole and flower embellishment help break up the white, and the suede flower in particular gives them a luxurious look, too. These are £80, and you can buy them here.
I swear shoe manufacturers are doing this just to torment me: everywhere I look there are gorgeous bridal styles, and I, as an old married woman, can’t wear any of them!
These ones from Dune are actually too cute to be hidden under a long dress, so I’d be tempted to pair them with a shorter style if possible, or to just make sure my toes peeked out the bottom of my dress at every possible opportunity. They’re £99, and you can buy them from the Dune website.
If I hadn’t found these sandals in the Louisa Via Roma shoe department, I’m not sure I’d have even recognised them AS shoes. That’s rarely a good sign for me, but let’s see if another angle does them any favours:
Well, OK. They’re looking more like shoes, certainly, but still a lot like a stylised ornament or… plant holder. Yeah, I’m definitely seeing “plant holder” here. I know not why. And expensive plant holders, too: these are £202 at Louisa Via Roma.
Another slightly strange looking platform sole, and by “slightly strange” I mean “it looks a bit like a rocking chair for your feet”. I’m exaggerating, of course, and I’m sure you wouldn’t actually be able to rock back and forth in these shoes, but hey, wouldn’t it be fun if you could?
Sole aside, these are a pretty standard pair of white pumps, albeit rather nice ones. The other stand-out feature is the heel, which is in two parts, and looks rather like you could pull it apart and then put it back together again. (Note: you can’t, though, so don’t be tempted to try).
These are £380 and you can buy them at Net-a-Porter.
These boots have been something of an enigma to me for quite some time now.
When the black versions first appeared last year, I just didn’t get them: and I didn’t really think too many other people would, either. But then everyone did. “Get them”, that is. Suddenly I started to read fashion blog after fashion blog, all featuring these boots and proclaiming them to be the best! thing! ever!
And still I didn’t get it.
Now, the boots are available in white. You’re probably thinking this is the bit where I go, “and now, finally, I GET IT!” But alas, no. I still struggle to see the appeal in these, regardless of the colour, and £455 still seems like an awful lot of money for what is essentially a high-heeled sneaker. But still, it’s clear that these shoes, like so many of Ann Demeulemeester’s designs, are aimed at people with very different taste from me, and, of course, there’s nothing wrong with that.
If you’re one of those people, the boots are now available at Browns. Tell me, though: what do you think of them?
OK, I know I said I was coming round to the idea of feathers on footwear, but these shoes are just flat-out bizarre to me. I mean, how would you walk in them without standing on the feathers all the time, and tripping yourself up on them? Wouldn’t they get absolutely filthy from trailing along the floor constantly? Do they remind anyone else of a dead bird lying on someone’s foot? Is it just me?
Another slightly strange looking platform sole, and by “slightly strange” I mean “it looks a bit like a rocking chair for your feet”. I’m exaggerating, of course, and I’m sure you wouldn’t actually be able to rock back and forth in these shoes, but hey, wouldn’t it be fun if you could?
