These shoes confuse me – mostly, I think, because the two stand-out elements of them are in such direct contrast to each other. The rope-tie at the heel looks like it belongs on a deck shoe, or some other kind of nautical style, and would be out of place on any black court, let alone one with a large ruffle on the back of it:
See? If it didn’t look so much like a shoelace, it might have worked. Might have. What do you think?
Chloe ruffle back shoes, £379
Hideous. Looks more East End Market than Chloe.
.-= dressjunkie´s last blog ..Suited & Booted =-.
The ties would look really nice if they were black or red ribbon instead of ugly trainers’ shoe laces
I think they needed to pick either the frill or the laces. With just the frill they’d be stunning but the laces cheapen the look.
Frill: definitely a big selling point.
Laces: Someone wasn’t focusing when they were designing expensive shoes and accidentally spliced two shoe concepts together.
I can kind of see the idea behind this, with the heavy contrast between expensive and feminine vs. sporty, but I don’t think it was executed well. I think if they had done it a little differently it could have been interesting.
No thankyou. I don’t like either detail.
.-= Tracey´s last blog ..Poor Huffle Mawson =-.