Affordable Alternative for Christian Louboutin Lovers!
- Thread starter AlohaCA213
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Joy, my first post and I'll probably offend some people. It is not my intention.
Quick backround: 24 years old, female, working first 'real' job. Salary $40k (not incl. DBFs income or my benefits etc)
When I first started at the place where I now work, I was making around 28k. I love fashion, all aspects of the design process, the art, etc. I've been sewing since I was 8. Nobody can tell me I don't love it, and I'm fine with the fact that material things make my toes tingle more than pretty much anything except DBF and happy family time.
Back to the point: Being able to buy $45.00 shoes without feeling bad was amazing. After wearing them I clean the soles (gently), wrap them each in plastic, and place them in their tissue paper. The box is closed, and I know each box's contents as if they were a journal holding all my secrets. Over time and with salary increases I've gone as far as paying $150 - $200 per pair (my boyfriend would have an embolism on the spot if he knew how much my ankle boots cost). The last time I combed Nordstrom's clearance online I bought 8 pair for $283.00. All were originally priced $80 - $120. That's what, a CL heel? or perhaps the right shoe's last? I'm getting close to 100 pairs, and I have a pair for any outfit. I stay away from cheap plastic and obvious fake leather (there is a middle grade to patent leather and I will go no lower than that, I have an eye, mind).
I look for comfort and style. My shoe collection is kind of famous in my little part of the world, and I'm proud of it.
I once got the idea in my head that I would go to canal street in NYC and buy some fake bags, but then I realized I would be trying to be something I am not. I can afford an LV bag if I save for it. So I do. And every time I go to King of Prussia to make that purchase I wander about the mall and ask myself if I want to spend my $600+ on one bag, or a few pairs of shoes and some cute dresses.
I wish I could say I am never jealous of the wealthy. There are times, when browsing this forum, I see comments that make my already curly hair knot up. "Why buy the fake if you can buy the real thing? Save for it. 10 cheap pairs of shoes equals one pair of Louboutins. It's all about the quality."
Let me tell you about quality. If you save every day for months and buy a pair of Louboutins, and then wear them all the time because you don't have a huge shoe wardrobe to rotate with (because you saved for that pair), they will look like doodoo in a few months, weather considered. They are shoes, and they will wear, and someone on a limited budget such as mine cannot get the same enjoyment out of a pair of black patent CLs as those who have more disposable income. Do I sneer at the wealthy? No. But I have to say I think it is not only ignorant and narrow-minded, but also selfish of anyone who has a larger means to assume that those of us on our 'cheap-o easy-to-tell-the-difference' heels are classless and without taste. I admire your Louboutins. Thats why I bought the version I could afford. Do you know how devastating it would be to wear a pair of CLs and end up scuffing them on my income? I'd lay an egg! Perhaps a live chicken!
When I buy middle-brand clothes I wash them carefully and store them right. I iron my things. I take care of whatever I buy and it always looks new because I do the work to keep it that way. I consider myself smart. I don't try to hyper extend myself just because I can't have what some of you can. I don't care if there are a few hawks in the sky waiting to eyeball my feet as I trot along. Most of the people in my day-to-day wouldn't know CL from Mt. Fuji.
But I know when I put on my 'knock-off', 'imitation' CLs (red sole or shape or whatever), I'm paying homage to a person I admire in the best way that I can. You can look at it how you want. The 'more financially able-ed' do not have a monopoly on fierce.
Quick backround: 24 years old, female, working first 'real' job. Salary $40k (not incl. DBFs income or my benefits etc)
When I first started at the place where I now work, I was making around 28k. I love fashion, all aspects of the design process, the art, etc. I've been sewing since I was 8. Nobody can tell me I don't love it, and I'm fine with the fact that material things make my toes tingle more than pretty much anything except DBF and happy family time.
Back to the point: Being able to buy $45.00 shoes without feeling bad was amazing. After wearing them I clean the soles (gently), wrap them each in plastic, and place them in their tissue paper. The box is closed, and I know each box's contents as if they were a journal holding all my secrets. Over time and with salary increases I've gone as far as paying $150 - $200 per pair (my boyfriend would have an embolism on the spot if he knew how much my ankle boots cost). The last time I combed Nordstrom's clearance online I bought 8 pair for $283.00. All were originally priced $80 - $120. That's what, a CL heel? or perhaps the right shoe's last? I'm getting close to 100 pairs, and I have a pair for any outfit. I stay away from cheap plastic and obvious fake leather (there is a middle grade to patent leather and I will go no lower than that, I have an eye, mind).
I look for comfort and style. My shoe collection is kind of famous in my little part of the world, and I'm proud of it.
I once got the idea in my head that I would go to canal street in NYC and buy some fake bags, but then I realized I would be trying to be something I am not. I can afford an LV bag if I save for it. So I do. And every time I go to King of Prussia to make that purchase I wander about the mall and ask myself if I want to spend my $600+ on one bag, or a few pairs of shoes and some cute dresses.
I wish I could say I am never jealous of the wealthy. There are times, when browsing this forum, I see comments that make my already curly hair knot up. "Why buy the fake if you can buy the real thing? Save for it. 10 cheap pairs of shoes equals one pair of Louboutins. It's all about the quality."
Let me tell you about quality. If you save every day for months and buy a pair of Louboutins, and then wear them all the time because you don't have a huge shoe wardrobe to rotate with (because you saved for that pair), they will look like doodoo in a few months, weather considered. They are shoes, and they will wear, and someone on a limited budget such as mine cannot get the same enjoyment out of a pair of black patent CLs as those who have more disposable income. Do I sneer at the wealthy? No. But I have to say I think it is not only ignorant and narrow-minded, but also selfish of anyone who has a larger means to assume that those of us on our 'cheap-o easy-to-tell-the-difference' heels are classless and without taste. I admire your Louboutins. Thats why I bought the version I could afford. Do you know how devastating it would be to wear a pair of CLs and end up scuffing them on my income? I'd lay an egg! Perhaps a live chicken!
When I buy middle-brand clothes I wash them carefully and store them right. I iron my things. I take care of whatever I buy and it always looks new because I do the work to keep it that way. I consider myself smart. I don't try to hyper extend myself just because I can't have what some of you can. I don't care if there are a few hawks in the sky waiting to eyeball my feet as I trot along. Most of the people in my day-to-day wouldn't know CL from Mt. Fuji.
But I know when I put on my 'knock-off', 'imitation' CLs (red sole or shape or whatever), I'm paying homage to a person I admire in the best way that I can. You can look at it how you want. The 'more financially able-ed' do not have a monopoly on fierce.
meemoo- wonderful post, I'm sure there are many many people who feel the same way that you do and I applaud you for speaking your mind. I can afford designer bags like Chanel and LV, but with shoes I feel the way you do. None of my shoes are over $200 a pair because I know that in time they will wear and start to look a little tired.
Good news for our love: Christian Louboutin was granted a US trademark on his red soles...
http://news.agendainc.com/wp-content/loub0108.pdf
:boxing:
http://news.agendainc.com/wp-content/loub0108.pdf
:boxing:
Okay, I am not a big fan of fakes...but there are times when a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do. I needed some black satin peep-toed pumps with a covered platform to go with a floor-length satin formal.
Of course, I was in love with a pair by CL...but I just paid almost $1500 for my dress, and I wasn't up to dropping another $700-900 on the shoes. First runner up was by Dior--$575. Uggh. I don't wear satin shoes often enough to justify that...
I looked on bridal sites for dyeable shoes, hit NM's Last Call, Nordstrom at the Grove, Saks, Barneys, Bloomingdale's, Macy's, etc...couldn't find anything. And then I found this on zappos:
I am a happy camper. It's a decent knockoff, IMHO. The brand is RSVP and the style is "Jess." $65 and free overnight shipping. Whee!
Of course, I was in love with a pair by CL...but I just paid almost $1500 for my dress, and I wasn't up to dropping another $700-900 on the shoes. First runner up was by Dior--$575. Uggh. I don't wear satin shoes often enough to justify that...
I looked on bridal sites for dyeable shoes, hit NM's Last Call, Nordstrom at the Grove, Saks, Barneys, Bloomingdale's, Macy's, etc...couldn't find anything. And then I found this on zappos:
I am a happy camper. It's a decent knockoff, IMHO. The brand is RSVP and the style is "Jess." $65 and free overnight shipping. Whee!
You're so right. I looked at all of Aloha's (the OP) posts, and about half of the 10 of them have a link to this blog.
I'll preface by saying that I own a ton of Louboutins, but that I could care less about what other people buy. We all spend our money differently and who am I to judge how others spend it. I sure as heck don't want judgment of how I spend my money. Regardless, here is a post I made on this subject a while back on the red sole issue.
"The following excerpt is taken from an article I read:
'In Louboutin's words: In 1992 I incorporated the red sole into the design of my shoes. This happened by accident as I felt the shoes lacked energy so I applied red nail polish to the sole of a shoe. This was such a success that it became a permanent fixture....
The shiny red color of the soles has no function other than to identify to the public that the shoes are mine. I selected the color red because it is engaging, flirtatious, memorable, and the color of passion. It attracts men to the women who wear my shoes....'
1992 is when Louboutin opened up his "flagship" boutique in Paris so if these shoes came before 1992, then I'll believe it. If not, I'm going to say that Mr. Louboutin was probably the first one that chose to do red soles and has become recognized for doing so.
I remember reading in another thread, where somebody stated that Carlos Santana also came up with the supposed red sole, but that is definitely NOT the case as the brand started by the famous musician did not get introduced until 2000.
This subject is exhausting and has been discussed in SEVERAL threads, but I just thought I would clear up a few simple facts.
"
"The following excerpt is taken from an article I read:
'In Louboutin's words: In 1992 I incorporated the red sole into the design of my shoes. This happened by accident as I felt the shoes lacked energy so I applied red nail polish to the sole of a shoe. This was such a success that it became a permanent fixture....
The shiny red color of the soles has no function other than to identify to the public that the shoes are mine. I selected the color red because it is engaging, flirtatious, memorable, and the color of passion. It attracts men to the women who wear my shoes....'
1992 is when Louboutin opened up his "flagship" boutique in Paris so if these shoes came before 1992, then I'll believe it. If not, I'm going to say that Mr. Louboutin was probably the first one that chose to do red soles and has become recognized for doing so.
I remember reading in another thread, where somebody stated that Carlos Santana also came up with the supposed red sole, but that is definitely NOT the case as the brand started by the famous musician did not get introduced until 2000.
This subject is exhausting and has been discussed in SEVERAL threads, but I just thought I would clear up a few simple facts.
I'll preface by saying that I own a ton of Louboutins, but that I could care less about what other people buy. We all spend our money differently and who am I to judge how others spend it. I sure as heck don't want judgment of how I spend my money. Regardless, here is a post I made on this subject a while back on the red sole issue.
"The following excerpt is taken from an article I read:
'In Louboutin's words: In 1992 I incorporated the red sole into the design of my shoes. This happened by accident as I felt the shoes lacked energy so I applied red nail polish to the sole of a shoe. This was such a success that it became a permanent fixture....
The shiny red color of the soles has no function other than to identify to the public that the shoes are mine. I selected the color red because it is engaging, flirtatious, memorable, and the color of passion. It attracts men to the women who wear my shoes....'
1992 is when Louboutin opened up his "flagship" boutique in Paris so if these shoes came before 1992, then I'll believe it. If not, I'm going to say that Mr. Louboutin was probably the first one that chose to do red soles and has become recognized for doing so.
I remember reading in another thread, where somebody stated that Carlos Santana also came up with the supposed red sole, but that is definitely NOT the case as the brand started by the famous musician did not get introduced until 2000.
This subject is exhausting and has been discussed in SEVERAL threads, but I just thought I would clear up a few simple facts."
Thanks asha. We've had many discussions in the CL forum that he does have his red soles trademarked so if anyone is doing the soles just like his, then they are violating the trademark and are subject to a lawsuit from the CL company.
For anyone interested in the history of red soles. The originals were worn by men - French aristocracy - and forbidden to the lower classes:
http://www.shoeiq.com/blog/seeing-red
http://www.kipar.org/baroque-costumes/costumes_male_footwear.html
Quote: Since Louis XIV was rather short, he wore heels and soles which were raised with cork, and were then covered with red leather. These red heels and red edged shoes remained a privilege for the French nobility until the French Revolution.
http://www.shoeiq.com/blog/seeing-red
http://www.kipar.org/baroque-costumes/costumes_male_footwear.html
Quote: Since Louis XIV was rather short, he wore heels and soles which were raised with cork, and were then covered with red leather. These red heels and red edged shoes remained a privilege for the French nobility until the French Revolution.
