Walking happy

A statement by CYDWOQ, Burbank, California’s leading shoe manufacturer:

In business now for over a decade, we have grown solely through the word-of-mouth endorsement of our customers around the world. We have consciously chosen not to advertise or solicit PR for our line, preferring to focus 100% of our investment into the products themselves.

Why?

Because an ecstatic customer is the best advertisement of all.

I learned this, of course, after finding a suitably delighted customer, Patti at Not Dead Yet Style:

I might pop for a truly fun, soul-stirring pair of shoes like these, ’cause a woman has got to have a great shoe.

Liquid by CYDWOQ

CYDWOQ calls this “Liquid,” and it’s part of their Vintage line, “slightly more formal” than their Classic line. Patti considers it a spring shoe, but I tend to think of it as more of a fall item, perhaps because of its candy-corn colors. Besides, it would take me until fall to save up $308.

And about that name: it’s pronounced — almost — SIDE WALK. Nancy Friedman has yet to rule on whether that’s a Good Name or not.

Addendum: Ms Friedman rules, in Comments.







6 comments

  1. Nancy »

    16 February 2013 · 6:07 pm

    The spelling is even worse than that: CYDWOQ. I hate the name slightly less with every passing year, either because they’re wearing me down or because the shoes are pretty damn fabulous in their quirky way. (You picked a comparatively sedate style; this one looks like something Mrs. Bilbo Baggins would wear if she wore shoes: http://cydwoq.com/womens/vintage-line/vintage-shoes/luxor.html)

    The price seems high only because Americans are addicted to disposable fashion and no longer have the faintest idea what it costs to make a good pair of shoes in the United States.

  2. CGHill »

    16 February 2013 · 7:19 pm

    That one is a bit hobbit-y, yes.

    I have long since adjusted to the idea that any shoes I’d buy for myself will have a triple-digit price, regardless of source.

  3. fillyjonk »

    16 February 2013 · 8:40 pm

    I’d happily pay well over $100 for a pair of shoes that doesn’t (a) kill my feet and (b) fall apart after five wearings. (I tend to rely on SAS for “dress” shoes, which I admit are pretty un-stylish, at least in fashionista eyes – but at least they don’t kill my feet)

    The burlappy shoes though….no. I’m too prone to hives for those to be a good idea.

  4. Tatyana »

    17 February 2013 · 6:18 am

    It would be nice to ask the fans (who not only owns a pair, but actively wears it), what justifies the price? The shoe on the photo shoes hard, rigid leather (one glance, and I predict lots of blisters, especially along edges), absence of arch support, insufficient height in the front – no space for toes.
    The hobbit shoe @link in the comments is not a wearable object at all – unless you are a subway bum.

  5. Nancy »

    17 February 2013 · 10:01 am

    Tatyana: They’re extraordinarily comfortable. The leather molds to your foot, and the toe box is generous.

  6. Tatyana »

    17 February 2013 · 3:00 pm

    Thanks, Nancy, I’ll look them up (the brand) and try on.

RSS feed for comments on this post