Post pics of your shoes

excuse me for being poor.

Id sooner give 15 hundred quid to charity than spend it on shoes.

See, the thing is, that's not a functional shoe. It's a conspicuous consumption "art" piece that's meant to look "authentic" and "hand-crafted" despite the fact that any self-respecting craftsman would take the time to rubber dip a sole properly/carefully and to clean up the slag, rather than just show off the shoe's authentic handcraftedness by making something unwearable. But whatever, different strokes for different fucking trust fund kids.

it's not about having money or not, they are cool shoes. I think you missed my point..

  On 2/7/2011 at 8:46 PM, Bambi said:

 

 

 

also in black

 

Carol Christian Poell object dyed rubber dipped trainers

Seriously those look like the worst shoes ever. They look like they were made in some farmer's log cabin like 150 years ago. Dipped in rubber wtf? Yeah I like having little dangly rubber nipples on the bottom of my shoes, sure.

yeah. they look great. they have an aesthetic appeal. would i pay £1500 for them? fuck no, that's as much as i earn in a month. would i look down on someone who COULD afford it for buying them, or make judgements about their "authenticity"? no. because i'm not chippy about it.

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:22 PM, baph said:

that's not a functional shoe.

plus, i suppose this means you only wear strictly functional undyed cotton sneakers and untanned leather boots? there are plenty of unfunctional shoes in this thread - look at all those nike swooshes. that's not functional. look at all those different colours. definitely not functional.

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:23 PM, rixxx said:

it's not about having money or not, they are cool shoes. I think you missed my point..

Nah, I mean, aesthetically I'm not into them (primarily because I've seen too many dead, skinned things IRL [don't ask [my dad's a serial killer]])but if you think they look cool there's no harm there.

Iain, I just meant you couldn't actually, like, walk a mile in those shoes without destroying them or tripping.

they look like shoes a poor painter would have

i only wear steelie walking boots now, pretty much

Those shoes dont belong on someones feet, they belong on a wall. Theyre clearly someones art.

Anyone who thinks they would look good to wear either has awful taste, or has some sort of twisted thing to prove to fashion sense. Either way, I dont think Id have time for them.

yeah fuck those faggy pussy arty shoes

hahaa such controversy with shoes.

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:30 PM, baph said:

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:23 PM, rixxx said:

it's not about having money or not, they are cool shoes. I think you missed my point..

 

Nah, I mean, aesthetically I'm not into them (primarily because I've seen too many dead, skinned things IRL [don't ask [my dad's a serial killer]])but if you think they look cool there's no harm there.

 

Iain, I just meant you couldn't actually, like, walk a mile in those shoes without destroying them or tripping.

i don't know, i don't wear sneakers... but they look like they'd fit/react like a pretty standard pair of leather converse to me. sure, the rubber drips would wear off the soles pretty quickly. i still reckon they'd look pretty cool beaten up.

anyway, £1,500 is definitely crazy money for shoes, don't get me wrong. but considering they're hand-made from what looks like very decent materials, and that a lot of thought and creativity has clearly gone into their design, goes some way to justifying the price - if you're rich enough and into that sort of thing. people spend ten times that amount on a car or whatever, which i personally think is totally unnecessary a lot of the time. different strokes for different people i guess.

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:29 PM, Iain C said:

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:22 PM, baph said:

that's not a functional shoe.

 

plus, i suppose this means you only wear strictly functional undyed cotton sneakers and untanned leather boots? there are plenty of unfunctional shoes in this thread - look at all those nike swooshes. that's not functional. look at all those different colours. definitely not functional.

Darlings, woman for centuries have enticed men into bed with shoes that are not functional.

If a shoe costs 1500 quid, it would want to last me 30+ years.

Shoes generally last me ~4 months.

This gives me an idea, though

WATMM makes shoes in tribute to Alexander McQueen by using pieces of his corpse

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:42 PM, chassis said:

If a shoe costs 1500 quid, it would want to last me 30+ years.

 

Shoes generally last me ~4 months.

get a good pair of boots. my last DM's lasted me a good 7 years or so, and i could probably get them repaired if i had the inclination. i expect my current red wings to last the same or longer - and look better and better with each passing year.

too soon?

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:45 PM, baph said:

too soon?

no i get it, it's really funny because he died.

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:45 PM, Iain C said:

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:42 PM, chassis said:

If a shoe costs 1500 quid, it would want to last me 30+ years.

 

Shoes generally last me ~4 months.

 

get a good pair of boots. my last DM's lasted me a good 7 years or so, and i could probably get them repaired if i had the inclination. i expect my current red wings to last the same or longer - and look better and better with each passing year.

The boots (posted last page or something) are the first such Ive even bought. I reckon they'll last a good while.

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:45 PM, Iain C said:

  On 2/7/2011 at 10:45 PM, baph said:

too soon?

 

no i get it, it's really funny because he died.

That's not funny at all, you asshole.

lol

the cool ones that hurt or the shit ones comfortable?

funny this topic should come up as......

and if in doubt these are way too silver to be gay look.....