In her comment to this post, Sara writes:Do you have opinions about women's shoes? Specifically, if I was going to buy a "20 year" pair of shoes, I don't know what would even last that long, style wise. Ballet flates. Tennis shoes. Loafers, maybe. But fashion drives so much of the styles in women's shoes (even more classic ones), and if one was to look back 20 years and see what still looks wearable...I will confess that I know next to nothing about women's shoes, but lack of knowledge has never stopped me from having an opinion about anything before! As Sara notes, women's shoe styles are much more ephemeral than are men's (where virtually no worthwhile style has been created in the last 60 years) and that what is stylish today may not be so stylish two years from now, to say nothing about twenty years. Women's shoes are ephemeral in another way, too: they're not as sturdily-made as men's shoes, and most, even if you wanted to keep them for twenty years, could not possibly last that long. Dress shoes especially try to look slim and dainty. The way to achieve this look is to use a thin leather sole and to glue it to the upper. The sole won't last very long, and it's hard to imagine how such a shoe could be resoled. If you want those cute little Blahnik alligator strappy sandals to last very long, don't wear them very often.
The way that you get women's shoes to last as long a time as quality men's shoes is to make them as quality men's shoes, men's shoe manufacturers have for quite some time been attempting to branch out into women's shoes. The results haven't always been good. The picture above is from an Edward Green catalogue from the late '80s or early '90s. I think that you'll agree that no matter how well-made the shoes pictured are, they are hideous. Edward Green is a bit of an outlier, of course, but their efforts here are typical in that they're selling exactly the same designs as they sell for their men's shoes, only in smaller sizes and with some element included that they think will "feminize" the shoe. Regardless of the manufacturer, the result is usually dowdy at best and utterly revolting at worst. Most men's dress shoes simply don't work for women.
There are, however, a couple of models in the men's shoe canon that work very well for women. One is the penny loafer. The second is the Chelsea boot. Any woman could use at least one of each, neither one is going to go out of style, and both are designs conducive to being made as men's shoes typically are made, which means that good examples can last for many, many years. Consider this example of a Chelsea boot from Crockett & Jones. Wouldn't it be perfect for any variety of casual outfits?
2 comments:
Where's the Edward Green shoe?
I think you make a good point:
20 year shoes are "manly" shoes that are classic in style. What that means in my personal style is that 20 year shoes are boots. :) Cowboy boots. Motorcycle boots. Riding Boots. Hmm. Guess I need to do some research into those shoes, and figure out how to find the well made versions of those.
A corollary to a 20 year shoes? You should be able to find them used/vintage and still have a high enough quality to pay good money for them.
The same argument is often made for women's suits; women want fashionable suits, so retailers can not make fitted suits for women as they do for men. Shoes or suits, both are an unrealistic argument to me. A basic pair of black pumps or city boots don't go out of style just as a black suit doesn't. Women don't know what quality shoes could be available. I didn't realize that I was buying inferior clothes and shoes until I started buying clothes and shoes for Floyd.
Post a Comment