Perhaps not for standing

We haven’t had a shoe on display in a while, so I jumped at the chance to show you this one, even though it’s pricey — it’s at Neiman-Marcus, after all — and it’s pointy, which sometimes is a turnoff.

Just the same, here we go with Reed Krakoff’s “Academy”:

Academy Colorblock Point-Toe Pump by Reid Krakoff

The pitch on this collection:

The Reed Krakoff collection juxtaposes utility with femininity; it’s both functional and poetic — a new look of sophistication, but one with an unequivocal American ease and confidence.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I love the idea of a blending of functional and poetic. And I’m keen on this colorblock stuff: it gives you more ways to coordinate. (Or, if you prefer, miscoordinate.) That little bit of padding around the (4¼-inch) heel looks like it might actually help.

Neiman’s will charge you $595 for these, which is presumably what they charged known sneaker-wearer Wendy Davis for the pair she wore in this month’s gargantuan-sized issue of Vogue.







6 comments

  1. Bryan »

    16 August 2013 · 10:56 pm

    The first linked article about Wendy Davis was interesting. I would report on what a male politician wears in that they so often seem to have been spit out by a cloning machine,but I don’t understand how ‘simply noting what a woman is wearing’ hurts the prospects of women in leadership. What if the writer mentions the men’s clothing as well, including the “almost neon” ties mentioned in the article?

  2. CGHill »

    17 August 2013 · 12:07 am

    It’s now a Standard Political Trope. For instance:

    New York magazine once asked Kirsten Gillibrand (yes, the Senator) about a pair of flats she was wearing, and she dismissed them with “You would never write about Chuck Schumer’s shoes.”

    Given Schumer’s rep, I figure somebody gave him those shoes as a, shall we say, token of their esteem.

  3. Tatyana »

    17 August 2013 · 9:46 am

    Well, $2000 for a dress and $600 for pair of shoes still far removed from 35,000franks handbag, so Wendy has a specious handicap.

    The shoes: the color combo looks unusual, if not immediately attractive; the sharp “nose” – boring and as a wearer I am suspicious of structural appropriateness of the heel. When it’s placed 1.5″ away from the natural spot I fear for a support for my arch; I think even standing, not walking, one’s foot will tend to slip forward.

    Btw, “juxtaposing” something means putting two things side by side, not blending them…unintentional truth about this shoes!

  4. CGHill »

    17 August 2013 · 5:15 pm

    Point taken on the (lack of) blend. I assume the two qualities are not actually miscible. (Last actual chemistry class: 1970.)

  5. canadienne »

    18 August 2013 · 12:56 am

    I have a feeling she wore the trainers to the shoot, and just changed into the heels for the photo. They look uncomfortable (what Tatyana said).

  6. CGHill »

    18 August 2013 · 1:09 am

    There is precedent for that, and also for the reverse of that. See, for instance, this Sarah Palin incident, anent which I said, “Having looked at the other pictures in the offering, some of them very carefully, I am reasonably certain that this is purely photo-shoot garb.”

RSS feed for comments on this post