Page 1 of 1
Shoe Non sequitur
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 8:42 pm
by christie1111
I hope I spelled that right!
I saw some ridiculous shoes on GMA this morning. 'Heel' was under the toe area.
Really dumb looking.
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:41 am
by tlynn78
I saw some ridiculous shoes on GMA this morning. 'Heel' was under the toe area.
These?
http://www.random-good-stuff.com/2007/0 ... rds-shoes/
I would be on my ass before you could say look at those stupid shoes.
t.
Yup
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:08 am
by christie1111
Those are them.
Sorry, dumb beyond description.
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:19 pm
by Bixby17
I have to say that a ton of Marc Jacobs clothes and shoes are awful.
Seriously, when I go shopping and see his stuff, I can't imagine who would wear it. They are so fashion victim and ill-fitting. It makes me think he hates women.
barf.
Re: Shoe Non sequitur
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:30 pm
by MarleysGh0st
christie1111 wrote:I saw some ridiculous shoes on GMA this morning. 'Heel' was under the toe area.
Thanks for that embedded photo, Bix, which explains what I wasn't about to click on the link to see. So, actually, this "heel" is a horizontal support, presumably running under a diagonal reinforcement for the arch?
From the initial post, I was imaginign some exaggerated earth shoe thingie and wondering how anyone could possibly endure that.
These shoes are clever, for those too-much-money-for-their-own-good shoppers.

Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:48 pm
by hermillion
Ooh, look. The purse comes with its own auxiliary purse!
Can I get it in any other colors??
And you are right, Bix. This designer has some serious female body issues.
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:50 pm
by SportsFan68
They look horrible on the models. On a normal-size person, it would be times ten.