Does this work?

Rebecca Taylor shoes, I thinkThis particular combination was spotted at the Rebecca Taylor show in New York, and I’m the very picture of mixed emotions here. The shoe, presumably from Taylor’s Fall ’09 line — it’s not in her online store, and I couldn’t locate anything similar at Zappos — is quite lovely, with that random lace, or whatever the heck it is, effect; however, I’m not so sure about the accompanying legwear. Similar reservations were expressed at Shoe Blog:

Me, I wouldn’t pair these pumps with trouser socks, but you know … whatever floats your boat.

Perhaps it requires a certain tolerance for the sort of bedazzlements that prevailed in the 1980s to endorse this combination. Or maybe, if your legs are good enough, you can wear this and not care about grumblings from the peanut gallery.


  1. Tatyana »

    22 February 2009 · 8:35 am

    not lace, more like an animal skin print.
    And the sox hsould be absolutely verbotten, the reason perfectly illustrated above

  2. Anne »

    22 February 2009 · 9:52 am

    While I’m not fond of the high-heels-with-socks look from a purely appearance point of view, I have to say that although pantyhose look terrific, years of dealing with pantyhose turn many women into socks fans. (This instant wysiwyg thing is very cool…)

  3. fillyjonk »

    22 February 2009 · 1:37 pm

    High heels with socks is way too 1980s for me. (And at any rate: mannish socks plus feminine heels is too much of a semiotic mashup.)

    I tend to follow the rule of “If you’re old enough to remember the trend when it was first popular, you should not be following it when it comes ’round again.” Even trends that make sense, this one does not.

    I will admit that I wear socks with clogs and even Birkenstocks, but that is different. TOTALLY different.

  4. GradualDazzle »

    22 February 2009 · 1:55 pm

    The socks don’t really work for me, either, but the shoes are nifty.

  5. Fetiche Nouvelle »

    22 February 2009 · 3:58 pm

    You might be able to get away with that if you’re 17, look 13, and are utterly adorable, but for anyone else…no.

  6. JC »

    23 February 2009 · 1:47 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post