…which at the moment is this crazy-good zebra-print Rachel Comey mule.
Share this post:
Kim France
I was born in Houston, Texas in 1964 and have lived in New York City since 1988. I had a long career in magazines, working at Sassy, Elle, New York, and Spin, and in 2000, I founded Lucky magazine, which I edited for ten years.
On the one hand, if you love them you should certainly get them. Even if you are just going to display them on the wall and admire them.
Otoh, they don’t look the least bit structurally supportive for your feet or posture. They really may be more art than shoe. When is a shoe not a shoe? See who says fashion isn’t philosophy?
I agree, more art than shoe. And, truthfully, I don’t find them that attractive–someone referenced Mrs. Roper–maybe skinny black jeans would make them look less Mrs. Roper, but maybe not. Plus, there were no photos of the shoe on a foot––hummm…does a foot look weird in the shoe? Does the shoe look weird with a foot in it?
I say get them. Wear with jeans, wear with tailored black trousers, wear with a knee length skirt, wear with…whatever! Imagine how fierce you’ll feel striding around in these.
Lol — those would be great displayed in a bookshelf, but they look as if they’d be hideously unflattering on the foot, as well as painfully uncomfortable. Besides, unless you’re traveling somewhere warm, you couldn’t wear them for months!
Am I the only who will stand up for Mrs. Roper? Caftans every day? I kind of dug her style.
Personally, these shoes=foot pain (definitely) and quite possibly a broken ankle. No shoe is cute enough for that.
I was born in Houston, Texas in 1964 and have lived in New York City since 1988. I had a long career in magazines, working at Sassy, Elle, New York, and Spin, and in 2000, I founded Lucky magazine, which I edited for ten years.
On the one hand, if you love them you should certainly get them. Even if you are just going to display them on the wall and admire them.
Otoh, they don’t look the least bit structurally supportive for your feet or posture. They really may be more art than shoe. When is a shoe not a shoe? See who says fashion isn’t philosophy?
And it’s funny bc real philosophers send me into a boredom trance within 30 seconds. It’s all so abstract, who gives a ___?
I agree, more art than shoe. And, truthfully, I don’t find them that attractive–someone referenced Mrs. Roper–maybe skinny black jeans would make them look less Mrs. Roper, but maybe not. Plus, there were no photos of the shoe on a foot––hummm…does a foot look weird in the shoe? Does the shoe look weird with a foot in it?
For me, that heel is a broken ankle waiting to happen. Much longer recovery period as a GOACA. 😉
Mrs. Roper!
Kim, your ‘cost per wear’ formula could be a great application here…
I’m sorry, I love them.
I say get them. Wear with jeans, wear with tailored black trousers, wear with a knee length skirt, wear with…whatever! Imagine how fierce you’ll feel striding around in these.
Lol — those would be great displayed in a bookshelf, but they look as if they’d be hideously unflattering on the foot, as well as painfully uncomfortable. Besides, unless you’re traveling somewhere warm, you couldn’t wear them for months!
Sorry! Have to agree. A bit too much on the »hoof » for me.
Am I the only who will stand up for Mrs. Roper? Caftans every day? I kind of dug her style.
Personally, these shoes=foot pain (definitely) and quite possibly a broken ankle. No shoe is cute enough for that.
Love Mrs. Roper as an icon. But I can’t stomp thtoughsnowbanks in a caftan.
Save them for when you move to The Villages.
I can’t help you…I want them.
Zebra print RC mules? I’m sorry, I’m powerless against those! Perhaps a stronger GOACA can help.