The Lipstick Page Forums Fashion Blog: July 2005

The scoop on all things stylish--from couture to ready-to-wear to handmade.

· Blog Home
· Profile

Articles This Month
· Cuttin' teeth...
· Random jewelry thoughts
· Fall Couture 2005

Archives
TheBroadroom.Net's Fashion Blog (archive)
· April 2005
· May 2005
· June 2005
· July 2005
· August 2005
· September 2005
· October 2005
· November 2005
· December 2005
· January 2006
· February 2006
· March 2006
· April 2006
· May 2006
· June 2006
· July 2006
· August 2006
· September 2006
· October 2006
· November 2006
· December 2006
· January 2007
· February 2007
· March 2007
· April 2007
· May 2007
· June 2007

Comments
· 4:53 PM by

Cat

Posted by Dain, Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:31 AM (Eastern)

I've bought my first pair of designer shoes, with the first of the money from my first job. At first, I was awash in a sea of ugly shoes (not a fan of Fall/Winter 2005), but then, I thought, wait... aren't there massive sales right now for the Spring stuff? And sure enough!

They are a pair of pumps from Christian Lacroix. Christian Lacroix is better known for his exquisite (there is no other word for it) couture collections, but I like his cheerful, pretty shoes as well. As my two favorites, Christian Louboutin and Dolce & Gabbana, were sadly lacking in interesting shoes (as far as my taste was concerned), this seemed like a perfect way to toast my first paycheck.

They're just fucking fabulous, or stupendously hideous, depending on your taste. Like any shoe that inhabits aesthetic extremes, there are no two ways about it. As far as I'm concerned, they're perfection. And utterly unique. So fancy and quirky at once. Black velvet (there is also one in violet, but I thought the rainbow color enough!), with the rainbow lucite details and... a pink gumball. The shape is classic, the details are mod. A scion of Audrey Hepburn and Elton John (as implausible as that sounds), chic with a sense of the absurd. It's an eccentric shoe, but not disharmonious, for all that. I'm not one for wallflower clothes anyway—I like each and every piece to have its own distinct character. Most women aren't comfortable with that notion, except with shoes or bags, and these are an outfit unto themselves. And better still, they were on sale, $149.95 from $423, with free shipping at www.zappos.com. How? Well, they're from the Fall 2004 RTW collection, two seasons old. And not worse for the wear, I think.

I hope this isn't the beginning of a lifelong addiction, but... [shrugs] I figure my minimalist philosophy will hold me steady (the same as for makeup, but perhaps with less conscious involvement). I'm eyeing a pair of flats from Valentino, as well as a pair of sandals, a gold leather/cream and chocolate snakeskin pump from Dolce & Gabbana, and those amazing platform loafers from YSL in plum velvet... But, in all likelihood, it shan't be so (except for the Valentino flats, they're also on sale). Like I said, I don't like to buy things I don't love. Admiration is not enough, not at these prices.

Images courtesy of www.zappos.com and www.style.com.

Labels: christian lacroix, fashion, personal, shoes, style

0 comment(s)

Post a comment (NO SPAM)

Permalink . del.icio.us . Stumble

Posted by Colleen Shirazi, Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:17 AM (Eastern)

Jewelry is one of those girly things that has always held my interest. I don't care for shoes...I mean I like shoes, and I wholeheartedly concur with anyone who considers that well-made shoes are worth the money (good shoes show as do cheap ones; besides, you have to walk in them all day). But I don't gravitate toward shoes the way I invariably end up checking out the jewelry stand.

My philosophy regarding jewelry is pretty much the same as for clothes or even makeup. It's good to own some expensive pieces. These can be worn whenever it's time to bring out the expensive pieces. But none of these things is ever worth going into hock for. You have to decide beforehand how much you want to spend, based on, basically, how much you have.

When I was growing up in the 70's in Virginia, East Indian styles were still the height of fashion. I adored the Indian textiles, clothing, scarves and jewelry. But much of it did not exist to me outside of magazines and movies. You couldn't find much locally, and of course there was no Internet. The only sources were mail-order catalogs, but then the prices were high.

In that regard, it's taken me a fairly long time to develop much of a jewelry style. Is it important? Well, I think jewelry reflects one's identity more than clothing, hair, or makeup, if only because jewelry is entirely frivolous and non-functional (even makeup arguably has a function, if a secondary one, such as protecting your skin or moisturizing your lips). Jewelry really does nothing unless you are playing one of those Iranian drums. :D (There is a part where the person playing it can use his or her ring to bang on the drum.)

So...there is a part of me that desires the expensive stuff. That is more the Asian side of me. But I also admire the American style of wearing stuff that is not expensive...of finding something interesting and attractive, that has no real intrinsic value. That is the very point of it; that there is no intrinsic value, that it is...simply...a pretty thing.

So...blending those influences...the East Indian lush jewelry style, with the American style of costume jewelry...I think I have settled on costume jewelry that is largely made in India, or Thailand (some is made also in Indonesia)--the semi-precious, sterling silver jewelry of those places.

Mind you some of it is pricy. It depends on where you buy it. There are tons of importers here in California...probably most of them are concentrated here in Northern Cal (I suspect Southern Cal has more "bling" style :) ).

That is one thing I like. The other is handmade jewelry, the kind someone makes and sells at a fair. This can be very good depending on the skill of the jewelry maker. Two of my favorite pieces were handmade. One is a pair of earrings that are so simple, yet perfect...thin golden hoops with a little string of colored crystals dangling inside each hoop. The crystals are different shades of blue with a green crystal thrown in.

I'm embarrassed to admit how affordable these were, yet something about them...the golden hoops, the vivid blue of the crystals...so...Californian really.

The other piece is a bracelet made of pink vintage glass, rose quartz, and small greyish-blue crystal beads. Again--simple yet perfect. The beads are arranged in a symmetrical pattern rather than a plain old series of beads. I have a choker that sort of matches it (made by the same person) that is pinky-orange and smoked vintage glass beads...quite pretty, but it's the bracelet is sublime.

Labels: fashion, jewelry, personal, style

0 comment(s)