Manolo’s Friday Miscellany

Manolo says, here are the few links which may perhaps amuse…

For me knock-offs are like tracing the images of comic books. Someone else did the hard work and you just traced it and didn’t have to come up with an original thought.

Derelicte!!!

The thing is, I have absolutely no idea WHY I feel like someone locked me in a portapotty filled with angry badgers, I just do.

2 Responses to “Manolo’s Friday Miscellany”

  1. Cynthia March 28, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    I love the Louboutin shoes, but will neve in my life be able to own a pair–never. For that reason, I am glad there are knock-offs. In no way would I buy the knock-off if there was any chance at the original. $900 shoes are not even something I could save up for. Please keep in mind the average wage in America. Quality is what you are paying for as much as design, and believe me, I would love a pair of shoes of that quality. They would last for years. I am a librarian–at a public library. If I save $900, I need to use it to pay for car repairs, plumbing repairs, health care, etc. It is such a large % of my annual gross pay, that I can not stress the level of NEVER we are talking about here.

    Let’s face it, they are platform pumps–the Louboutin’s are derivative of shoes that came before them (as is the case with much of fashion that is inspired by–how many designers are inspired by YSL from the 70s and create his pieces pretty much as closely as these shoes do).

    Yes, the knock-offs are brazen in their knock-offishness, but could be called derivative or inspired by if you wanted. I want to be stylish. I want to protect creative design and not support knock-offs (and don’t for things like a $200 purse–I save up and buy the real deal…same with $200 shoes). In this case, I am torn–but I do want you and others to understand that a $900 pair of shoes is not a reach item, or a wish-list item, it is simply not possible.

  2. The Charlotte Allen March 28, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Here’s the comment I wrote for the knockoff post:

    n my opinion it’s the “palming off” factor that makes the difference between acceptable and unacceptable knockoffs. If Madden were trying to pass off his cheap copies as genuine Louboutins (like those ripoff outfits in China), that would be wrong and also illegal. But I don’t see anything wrong with a cheap copy that doesn’t pretend to be a real Louboutin. And you can tell from the photo that the Madden shoes aren’t Louboutins: not just the lack of the signature red sole but the quality of the suede and the slight crudeness of the styling. If a young woman who doesn’t have a lot of money wants to spend $100 to achieve a Louboutin-esque look on a budget (that will look completely out of style next year), I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    I myself would never wear Steve Madden shoes because they don’t fit very well and they always look a shade cheesy–they’re exaggerated versions of genuine designer shoes made with low-grade materials. I own two pairs of genuine Louboutins (about all I can afford), and although I bought them in 2007 and 2008 respectively, they’re so beautifully made and with such elegant lines that I get compliments on them every time I wear them. They’ll never go out of style. But if I were in my 20s on a tight budget, and I didn’t mind wearing shoes that hurt and that I’d have to throw out next year, I’d say: Why not Steve Madden?