Your closet isn’t good enough

You might quite reasonably question the need for an automobile that costs as much as a house, but clearly the demand exists.

Now comes a pair of shoes that costs as much as a house:

Luxury jeweler House of Borgezie has created stilettos that cost $155,000 per pair. Dubbed the Eternal Borgezie Diamond Stiletto, the bespoke shoe, which comes with a 1,000 year guarantee, is comprised almost entirely of diamonds and gold.

Each shoe is first handcrafted by a goldsmith and then handed off to a diamond setter, who encrusts the shoe “with over 2,200 individual sparkling diamonds.” Total diamond bling factor: 30 carats.

It looks like this:

Eternal Borgezie Diamond Stiletto

Now who’s going to buy these? The Daily Mail hazards a guess:

Cheryl Cole, Victoria Beckham and Paris Hilton, whose excessive tastes are funded by a bank balance to match.

Posh had a bad case of bunions recently; she might actually be able to resist these, though frankly I doubt it.

(Via the Consumerist, which dismisses them as “an overpriced pair of hooker heels.”)





15 comments

  1. fillyjonk »

    1 July 2010 · 7:52 am

    I vaguely remember reading somewhere some fashion-person or someone who had this hypothesis that there was a certain subset of the female population who felt the need to be made to feel UNWORTHY of the stuff that they were buying, that the clothes or shoes or whatever were “too good” for them.

    Perhaps that’s the idea that went into a $15K pair of shoes. I don’t know. There’s not much shoe there considering the price, but perhaps that’s part of the idea. (The Empress’ New Shoes?)

    (Personally, I’d be afraid to wear them. Afraid that I’d trip or catch my heel in a grate and damage the shoes. Then again, I suppose if you can afford $15,000 heels you’re not going to be walking very much out-of-doors in them, or you can hire someone to carry you around…)

  2. Nicole »

    1 July 2010 · 9:45 am

    Overpriced hooker heels indeed.

  3. unimpressed »

    1 July 2010 · 10:46 am

    You slipped a digit there, fillyjonk.

  4. fillyjonk »

    1 July 2010 · 11:09 am

    Holy cow, you’re right. I think my brain just resisted seeing the $155,000 price tag.

    $155,000? Dear God, that’s more than twice what I paid for my entire house. Ain’t no way I’d ever wear shoes that cost more than a whole house.

  5. Tatyana »

    1 July 2010 · 11:37 am

    fillyjonk, you paid &80K for your entire house? do such places really exist?
    that’s more shocking than 155K sandals

    i recall seeing similar news items periodically; once it was a 50-carat bra, another – panties….yawn.

  6. CGHill »

    1 July 2010 · 11:42 am

    I paid $73k for my house, but it’s smaller than hers.

  7. CGHill »

    1 July 2010 · 11:51 am

    A zillion-dollar bra.

  8. fillyjonk »

    1 July 2010 · 12:26 pm

    Tat, I paid just under $60K. But that was during a time of economic depression here, the house needed about $5K worth of work put into it (some of it was my own sweat equity), and I bought direct from the owner – not getting real estate agents involved can (sometimes) save money.

    Also, my house is smallish (1300 square feet), older, and only has 2 bedrooms and one bathroom – therefore is generally less-appealing to be a “rent house” or even a house for a typical sized family.

    But I love it, in part, because it’s MY house.

  9. Laura »

    1 July 2010 · 4:03 pm

    The shoes are ugly. Srsly.

  10. Tatyana »

    2 July 2010 · 2:04 pm

    Guys, you both astonish me.

    Confidence for confidence: my apartment is about 600sf, I pay $1200 a month, and it’s rented. The rate is average in my neighborhood, which is not the best, although not the worst – and it’s in Brooklyn, “the other borough”. In my 4 years and 4 months here I spend $55,200 on rent …a tad less than the price of your FJ’ entire house!

    But…but…I don’t drive. Living here is my only option.

  11. CGHill »

    2 July 2010 · 2:28 pm

    Things have a way of evening themselves out. You probably wouldn’t make the same kind of money on the Plains you would in the Tri-State Area.

    Not so far mentioned: The recession of 1982 caused a major collapse in real-estate prices here. We (I was married back then) bought a house in ’79 for about $41k, sold it three years later for $60k – and next time it sold, in ’89, it brought less than $29k. (It’s worth somewhere in the 80s now, says the assessor.)

    Houses in the lower-priced end of my neighborhood (typically 1200-1300 sf, 3 bedrooms, single bath, one-car garage) fetch $800-900 as rentals. A lot of them can be bought for just about the same monthly outlay, though of course there are Other Factors Involved.

  12. fillyjonk »

    2 July 2010 · 3:50 pm

    Where I live now is probably one of the relatively few places in the US where I, as a single-person college prof, could afford to own her own house. I have friends who live in more “attractive” (in the sense of not having to drive very long distances for certain things, in the sense of there being more museums, concerts, shopping, whatever) areas but they are living in apartments or houses with one or more roommates.

    I prefer to have the avoidance of roommate drama, over the possibility of having some kind of exciting cultural opportunity (which I would probably be too tired to take advantage of any way) every night.

  13. Tatyana »

    2 July 2010 · 5:28 pm

    Chaz, I wish you were right, in terms of income – but Im sorry to say the difference (at least in my profession) is not so big to justify the gap. Even by median income (see this table) NY ($55,980) is not so far above national average ($52,029) in 2008, when recession started. Not everyone in this city works on Wall St – and many financial sector jobs are gone with the wind. I saw official number of reduction of workforce in architectural firms in the city of 31%; in reality it’s about 55%. The jobs that were compensated at $40/hr level 2 years ago (and rightly so, per scope of duties and level of required training) are now posted as $15-20/hr – and gather up to 200 applications in the first 3 days.

    FJ,
    I am ashamed to tell you I don’t use the advantages of my place of residence nearly half-enough. Thanks for reminding me; I’ll fight inertia and go out now, with my camera.

  14. CGHill »

    2 July 2010 · 6:14 pm

    Well, the unemployment rate has risen in these parts, but at least in this town, it hasn’t broken over 7 percent yet, and real-estate prices are pretty much stable.

    In terms of construction, we have a few very big jobs (the biggest is Devon Tower, which will top out somewhere around 850 feet, unheard-of for this state), lots of very small ones (new homes are still being built, and old ones are getting refurbed), and not a whole lot in between. Design firms seem to be keeping busy, but we don’t have an enormous number of them.

    Culturally, my part of town is not picturesque, but I’m only five miles or so in any direction from the ostensible Good Stuff.

  15. Walk my streets with me « Скрипучая беседка »

    2 July 2010 · 10:16 pm

    […] Fillyjonk reminded me, I live in a lovely place. Tonight I walked all the way to the Narrows and Botanical Garden; past […]

RSS feed for comments on this post