Louboutin Article In Sun Newspaper

[Womer_uk]

Wouldn't mind going with my neice to the Science Museum, London in March to have a look at the display8-)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/fashion/3860833/High-art-Louboutins-hit-design-museum.html

Just done a pair of 5" green snakeskin pumps with a tin of GPO red colour aerosol on the sole (and a fine artists brush for the sides) for my neice, She's over the moon with them

[ilikekicks]

Something I just cannot understand.. 1000$ for a pair of ' shoes '? Roughly 15% of my country is unemployed, Europe is having financial issues and people buy things like this? 100$, 200$.. sure. Some leather boots for 400ish.. fine.. But a grand for a pair of 39$ pleasers with the bottoms colored red? Its nothing more then a ' Status Symbol ' IMO. Guess, NineWest, Aldo and others make just as good a shoe with just as much function/fashion for 1/10th the cost.

[Jkrenzer]

There are three cultures out there, those that have (and they buy these type of things so we all know it), those who don't, and then the rest of us. I'll take being in "the rest of us" category all day long and live comfortably in my Nine West's.

[euchrid]

Wouldn't mind going with my neice to the Science Museum, London in March to have a look at the display8-)

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/fashion/3860833/High-art-Louboutins-hit-design-museum.html

:

It's gonna be at the London Design Museum --- different place entirely!!!

[Tacchi Alti]

Something I just cannot understand.. 1000$ for a pair of ' shoes '?

Roughly 15% of my country is unemployed, Europe is having financial issues and people buy things like this? 100$, 200$.. sure. Some leather boots for 400ish.. fine.. But a grand for a pair of 39$ pleasers with the bottoms colored red?

Its nothing more then a ' Status Symbol ' IMO. Guess, NineWest, Aldo and others make just as good a shoe with just as much function/fashion for 1/10th the cost.

Look at it this way: target customers have more money than they know what to do with, but their buying goods takes the money out of their bank account. The banks get rich by having money which they get interest on while not paying interest to their customers.

The money they pay for these shoes (or any other goods) therefore goes back into the economy, and there are a host of people down the supply chain who benefit, and it is thriving businesses which help the economy and contribute to a fall in unemployment.

So, most people can't (or don't want to) afford them, and buy goods which may be of equal quality at a fraction of the price, but there are people who will pay silly money for anything, so why not shoes?

[Gudulitooo]

Tacchi Alti, You are right, but it has a perverse effect : lazyness and decadency. Indeed, if an individual sells a pair of shoes ten times its actual price, that redistributes the money that's all. But it also means he only needs to work one tenth of the time. So what he is doing the nine tenth of the time left ? holydays ! You will say he spend its money during this time, thus still feeding the economy. But what food does he grow for his children ? None. How does he use the potential of its brain ? For entertainment. Sad. Worse : if he speculates with the money.

[Tacchi Alti]

You're still saying a tiny minority of the population, and a little question comes to mind - if we were in that position, with more money than we know what to do with, would we complain about what others did? I expect there are some incorruptible altruists here, but ... Also could you really say that someone, for example, choosing to stay on benefits rather than work is any less likely to be lazy and decadent, or more likely to grow food for his/her children or use his/her brain than is a playboy? Note 'choosing': I know there are many unemployed people who would choose to work but can't find a job.

[Dr. Shoe]

I disagree. Why is it that some people buy a Rolls Royce or a Bentley when a Lexus would do just as well? Why do some people buy Heinz beans when supermarket own brands are perfectly good? The answer is Quality! Let's face it, Louboutins are rather more than pleasers with red soles, this is a bit like saying that a BMW is a Lada with a BMW badge... Louboutin's styling is unique, you will always recognise a Louboutin copy, red sole or not. You cannot say the same about Pleasers or any other brand. Some even market themselves as "Pigalle Lookalikes" or whatever. Another reason to buy a pair of loubies is because they'll last you a lifetime. You get free repairs for life (should you need them) and they send them back to their own factory and not have some local cobbler do it.

[SArmeah]

If you had asked me 4 years ago if I would buy a pair of these I would have said "Are you fucking nuts?" I mean they look hot but... that much? However, after being educated by the Gf and actually trying a pair on, I now know why they are that much, what makes them valuable and what it means to me. I personally own two pairs. But the main point is, what is the value to me. That will be different for everyone.

[benno]

I wrote this a while back on the same subject. Sorry for the cut and pasting.

The thing with designer heels is that they have been designed and conceptualized from the start. Yes they might seem overpriced to some, but to me they are works of art that you can wear. I don't see how people could berate Louboutin because some have copied his red sole. To me the red sole is almost irrelevant. If they had 'normal' soles they would still be beautiful. Don't get me wrong, there are many Louboutin shoes that I don't like, but surely one can see that he did something new and put a rocket up the shoe industries bottom. For that alone he should be celebrated.

I believe that Mr. Louboutin started designing shoes because he had a passion and desire to do it. The money and fame was and probably still is secondary to his love of designing shoes. It's just the icing on his cake.

Jimmy Choo is another case in point. The real Jimmy Choo started hand making shoes in London many, many years ago. He was rather unknown to the public and it was the fashion magazines that started to feature his shoes. He then got snapped up by socialite Tamara Mellon and she went mental and created the monster that the Jimmy Choo Corporation has become today. He was probably happiest when he had a little workshop and could do his own thing. Again the money helps but I thik he just had a desire to make lovely shoes.

Manolo Blahnik is another example. He wanted to become a theatre set designer and started to make some quite theatrical shoes after being pushed into it by others.

Yes there's hype around some fashion designers, but maybe that hype is more about the celebs that are wearing them rather than the shoes/clothes alone. The magazines, both high fashion and gossip style, need to sell magazine and create and manipulate people own to perpetuate the hype.

Surely all of us would prefer something truly thought out, designed and handmade by craftspeople than something mass produced.

So in summary I feel that it's the very nature of humanity that creates the hype around designers, rather than the designers setting out from day one with the sole aim of becoming rich and famous.

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed...