Bottega Veneta pumps, $800.

I got a funny press release last week from podiatrist Dr. Oliver Zong, forwarded to me by a friend. It basically says that there may be problems for women who frequently wear high heels. Wow! Next we’ll hear that smoking and drinking is bad for you too!

The only logical explanation for this statement is that there are people out there that have not figured out that high heels are bad for you. Which is strange, because its pretty obvious that tottering around in 5 inch stilettos is clearly not going to do any favours to your back. But smoking isn’t good for you, neither is drinking, or running marathons, but we all do those things for other reasons other than they are good for our health (well, I don’t smoke or run marathons…) I wear high heels because, well, I love them. Any further explanation into my love of shoes will need a seperate post, or maybe a novel, to fully explain.

Miu Miu pumps, $670.

Anyway, the Doctor went on to explain ““If you hold a limb in a shortened position over and extended period, the muscles shorten.” Researchers found that high heel-wearers’ muscle fibers are on average 13% shorter than flat shoe-wearers, which explains why the high heel fans experience discomfort when walking barefoot or in flat shoes.” That might explain why I always seem to trip or fall over when I am wearing flats. I can dance all night in a pair of 5 inch heels, but put me in ballerina flats or a pair of Converse and I’m close to breaking my neck.

Alaïa wedges, $2090.

Here were Dr. Zong’s tips for us stiletto-obsessed women. (With my comments, of course.)

1. Invest in good heels. That’s right, the experts say to splurge on shoes! The money you spend on good shoes will be much less than the money you would spend on visits to the doctor.

AMEN! That is the best piece of advice…ever. Mom, if you are reading this, then note that this is the exact reason why I spent thousands of dollars on shoes in the past ten years, not on a house.

2. Trade quantity for quality. You don’t necessarily need to squander your entire life savings on a collection of high heels. Expensive shoes are not necessarily better and cheaper shoes are not necessarily bad.

Ummm…is he suggesting that it isn’t necessary to have a closet FULL of gorgeous shoes? Because if that is the case, I’ll have to disagree. There is nothing more satisfying than having a beautiful collection of shoes one can caress and adore. And wear, sometimes.

Versace ankle boots, $850.

3. Don’t wait to buy new shoes.

The man is reading my mind…

4. Always stretch your lengthened legs. This tip is especially relevant for fashion addicts. You can do all sorts of leg stretches while sitting at your desk, waiting in line for coffee, or even while standing in an elevator.

A practical tip, and one worth considering. Can these leg stretches be a replacement for yoga classes?

5. Treat yourself to a foot rub! After walking in heels all day, foot massages and pedicures can do wonders for tired, achy feet.

What the Doctor really should be saying is that non-pedicured feet are scary. I am not saying that everyones needs professional pedicures, but there is nothing worse than a great pair of shoes worn with a set of rough nails with chipped nail polish. Paint them, or hide them.

Versace ankle boots, $875 (Versace is kicking ass in the shoe department these days.)

On that note, I’ll share a rather funny story that happened to me today… I am in the process of trying to buy a house in a small mountain town outside of Vancouver (more on that if and when it is finalized. I don’t want to get excited until I have keys in my hand.) I was speaking to an insurance company about contents insurance, and she was telling me that if I had a bicycle worth more than $10,000, I would need separate coverage, etc… I don’t know who in the hell would consider spending that much on a mountain bike (for 10K you could have ten amazing pairs of shoes, a 5 star holiday, or a ‘69 Ford Mustang, so why the hell would you want a bike?) I explained to her that I had a hefty clothing and accessories collection worth well over $10,000.

Alaïa sandals, $2680.

Her jaw dropped and she said I must have one hell of a collection of shoes (yup.) “But you don’t actually have a pair of shoes worth more than a few hundred dollars, right? I mean, sorry, but, can I ask how much is your most expensive pair of shoes? For the insurance?” She as beginning to stumble, either in confusion of the shoe prices, or sheer jealousy, I think a combination of both. I told her my most expensive pair of shoes was $1,500 (they were my wedding shoes…of course I’d spend that much!) and her jaw hit the floor.

I guess there aren’t many pairs of expensive shoes in the town I’ll be living in…which should be interesting. Anyway, I am not moving there for the shopping, or the fact that I could make use of a $10,000 mountain bike in the mountains nearby, as I’ll be doing neither. I caught her checking out my shoes on the way out (a pair of red Chie Mihara sandals, in case you’re wondering.)

Charlotte Olympia pump, $715.

(The images above are all from Net A Porter, and are a selection of shoes I’d like for Fall. In case I decide to spend money on shoes instead of a house.)

I just finished reading Deborah Ball’s House of Versace. I prefer fiction when I am on holidays, so I wouldn’t say all of you should run out and buy this book for your summer vacation, but if you are at all interested in the history of the brand, it is definitely worth a read.

The book tells the story of the Versace siblings’ (Gianni, Donatella, Santo, and the others) upbringing and story of the Versace brand up to the present day. You can’t help but love Gianni, respect Santo, and despise Donatella, although I know the author has a great impact on how we feel towards them, since she definitely describes Donatella as a megalomaniac who nearly ruined the Versace brand after Gianni’s death. (By the way, Santo is the brother who controlled Versace’s finances.)

Alice Drake’s The Beautiful Fall had a similar tone. Her book, which traces the history of Karl Lagerfeld and Yves Saint Laurent, clearly favoured the latter. I am not surprised that Karl Lagerfeld kicked up a legal fuss and managed to get the book off the shelves temporarily, because she definitely portrays Karl as the lesser designer. Personally, I think Karl Lagerfeld is more of a legend than Yves Saint Laurent. They both played an enourmous role in forming the way women dress today, but Karl has had the longevity that Yves did not, which has meant his genius has spanned several decades.

Anyway, back to Versace. The company has been on the brink of bankruptcy for the past few years, and it seems pure luck that they have managed to stay afloat, no thanks to Donatella’s refusal to hand over the reigns to a qualified creative director. She is no Gianna Versace, and will never come close. Also, I feel sorry for Allegra Versace, Donatella’s daughter, who inherited Gianni’s share of the company upon his death. In fact, Gianni was quite idiotic to do that, who gives leaves their “favourite niece” 50% of a multi million dollar company, meanwhile leaving the rest of his nieces and nephews almost nothing? No wonder she suffers from anorexia, that’s not fair to any child.

So if you like a bit of fashion history and hearing about other families’ drug habits, eating disorders, insane spending habits, and murder, this is the book for you. I highly recommend The Beautiful Fall, which is also wonderful read about two of the fashion geniuses of the 20th century.

Versace is saying rockabilly influence, I’m saying they have been inspired by the guy who writes the Kate Loves Me blog. Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of the blog, and the guy, but he looks good because he has a great body, but he’s not hugely buff. There’s a fine line here, you can’t put a skinny boy into a sleeveless top, and you can’t but an overly buff guy into a rockabilly outfit. Anyway, the collection has some great pieces, and looks pretty cool, but its the styling and casting that disappoints a bit.

I love…

a great suit turned rockabilly with the accessories.

great shirt detailing. That's what menswear is all about.

cool accessories. In fact, I'll take that whole outfit for my husband.

the contrast between the double-breasted tuxedo blazer and the skinny trousers. A well-dressed man.

I loathe…

Jersey Shore goes rockabilly for the Versace catwalk.

skinny arms.

mesh tops on men, especially when there is exposed nipples.

throwing in punk references when the inspiration was supposed to be "rockabilly."

See the rest of my menswear spring summer 2011 coverage here.

All images from Style.com.

Fashion Moments… unforgettable style stories.

D&G Spring Summer 2007, the studded shoe on the catwalk had much longer studs than the version in store.

Some of you have already heard this story, since I have mentioned it in my blog and told it to almost everyone I have ever met that has complimented me on the aforementioned shoes…but I thought I’d write it up properly. It is a story about a woman on a mission, to get a great pair of shoes.

Once upon a time I saw a pair of black patent studded shoes in an issue of UK Vogue. This was before THE Rodarte Louboutin shoes, and around the time where studs were still a rarity on fashion accessories. Not everyone was doing them, quite yet. These shoes were insane, a peep toe shoe with giant 2 inch studs coming out in all directions. They were priced at 350 pounds, and for some reason I thought they were Versace. I had a feeling they were press shoes, but I wanted them anyway, even the diluted, commercial version. So the mission began.

THE Christian Louboutin for Rodarte shoes.

I went to the Versace store on Sloane street. The guys in there were ASSHOLES. I told them about the shoe, and they told me “Three hundred and fifty pounds? We don’t usually sell pumps THAT cheap. You must be mistaken.” I then explained that the magazines don’t always have the correct price listed, but they weren’t interested. I stormed off.

A few weeks later I was having drinks with some friends, and I met someone from Kurt Geiger, the company responsible for importing most luxury shoe brands into the UK. He told me that the shoes were Dolce & Gabanna, and that my best bet was to get them at Harrods’s since Harrods often got the most interesting shoes, sometimes even better than the brand’s own store. I called the Harrods’s shoe department the next day and befriended the guy working in the Dolce & Gabbana concession. He told me deliveries arrived on Wednesday mornings, and that I should try calling on a Wednesday. I called every Wednesday for the next three weeks, and to my disappointment, the shoes never came in.

I had given up by then, but one day popped my head into the Dolce & Gabanna store on Sloane Street, in the hopes of a miracle. The sales assistant told me the shoes weren’t Dolce & Gabanna, they were D&G, and they had already been in store for a few weeks. Panicked, I got the number of the nearest D&G store from him, and called them RIGHT AWAY.

The sales assistant at the D&G store told me that they had arrived a few weeks ago, and there were only a few shoes left in gold and silver. I told him I wanted them in black, with silver studs, and he said there might be a 36 or 37 in gold (I was a 40.) He told me to hold on. Then he came back… and said the best six words I have ever heard in my life: “I think it’s your lucky day.”

Mission complete.

Someone had returned a pair of the black patent shoes in a size 40 the day before, and they hadn’t put them back into stock. He said he could hold them for me, but not for too long. I told him I’d be there in 10 minutes. I hopped in a taxi, went to the store, and tried on the shoes. They were a diluted, commercial version of the catwalk shoe, but still amazing. They fit like a glove. My sales assistant, who was now, in my mind, the greatest person in the entire world, told me they looked great. They did. I bought them, at the bargain price of 270 pounds, almost 100 pounds cheaper than I had planned (see, the magazines don’t always have the right price!) I hugged them on the way home, in fear someone would rip them out of my hands (seriously. I am sad. I know.)

A few months later I walked by the D&G store, and I saw the sales guy who had sold me my shoes. He smiled at me, like he would with anyone, because it is good customer service. I smiled back and silently thanked him for my blessed shoes. I was with my friend Nora at the time, who said “Don’t tell me that’s the guy that sold you those studded shoes.” My face had given it away, I was probably staring at him dreamily or something. She said “You’re ridiculous.”

Wow! These are AMAZING. I’d be happy to accept any free gifts from Versace at this time (hint hint…)

Images from Tooklookbook.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art Costume Institute Benefit took place last night. You would think that in this day and age, there would be someone, at least ONE person, who was actually wearing something dramatically interesting on the red carpet, rather than boring evening wear. (I am not a big fan of evening wear, its the most overrated fashion product.) I am not saying there wasn’t anything nice on the red carpet, there was, but it’s all the same repetive, boring tat.

I Love…

Anne Hathaway's fairytale Valentino dress. Yes, she looks a bit psychotic in this photo, and possibly too thin, but if you are going to wear a puffy, strapless, shiny evening dress, this is the way to do it.

Bee Shaffer in this Balenciaga dress. It is classic and flattering. But who the hell is Bee Shaffer? Has she done anything other than BE Anna Wintour's daughter?

Blake Lively in Marchesa. I was a bit torn on this one, but she looks great tanned with her hair slicked back, and she can get away with crazy dresses like this.

Carey Mulligan in Miu Miu. She always looks good, and it is really nice to see a young actress dressing appropriately young.

Chloe Sevigny in Proenza Schouler. It's a bit stuffy, and a bit weird, but at least she is making a statement that is not just "boring evening gown."

Diane Kruger in Calvin Klein. Fantastic, beautiful, and she is the best dressed of the evening.

January Jones in Yves Saint Laurent. OK, her hair and makeup look weird, and why is she standing like a robot? But at least the dress is beautiful

Jessica Alba in Sophie Theallet for Gap. I don't understand how this is very Sophie Theallet, or Gap, but it is a beautiful evening gown.

Jessica Biel in Ralph Lauren. Another classic one that looks good.

Oprah Winfrey in Oscar de la Renta. Only Oprah and her bust can get away with this OTT dress.

Sarah Jessica Parker in Halston. I am not a fan of SJP, but she looks naturally beautiful in this dress, with her lovely tan and the flower in her hair.

I Loathe…

Andre Leon Talley and Whoopi Goldberg. This is just bad, and are those women's shoes he is wearing?

Anna Wintour in Chanel Haute Couture. This looks a bit trashy, but also too "mature" (in this case, "mature" is a bad word.)

Coco Rocha in Zac Posen. A hideous gown, and as a model, shouldn't she know how to pose nicely for the camera?

Donatella Versace in Versace. Predictable. Wouldn't it be amazing one day if she wore Prada?

Emma Roberts in Burberry. The slit is WAY too high.

Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen in Alexander Wang. Even though she is back in shape, it just seems a bit trashy that she is wearing this tight, fringed dress.

Karolina Kurkova in Altuzarra. An apron dress gone wrong.

Kirsten Dunst in Rodarte for Gap. How is this Rodarte, or Gap? And it makes her look 20 years older.

Kristen Stewart in Chanel. Gosh, it's Chanel does goth, really badly.

Maggie Gyllenhaal in Louis Vuitton. Meringue dresses are evil unless you are acting in The Wedding Singer.

All images from Coutorture.

Robert Duffy and Marc Jacobs. Photo from thecut.com

Robert Duffy, President of Marc Jacobs International, made a very interesting comment during a Business of Fashion interview a few months ago, which has stuck in my mind. He had been using Twitter for the two weeks leading up to the Marc Jacobs Fall Winter 2010 show (he has since then been replaced by someone else on the Marc Jacobs team) and during that time, he was quite efficient at responding to questions from his followers, who were primarily fashion students wishing to get into the industry.

“BoF: Why have you found these tweets from students so inspiring?

Robert Duffy: Because I’ve been there. I don’t want these kids to give up, you know? I can see how discouraged they are. And I know that if Marc and I weren’t together we would have probably given up too.
And I want to say to them, especially the ones that have talent (they send me pictures and stuff!): Don’t give up. Find a way to do it. I had to. Marc had to. We are still working two jobs to support this. But, don’t do it to become famous or to become a celebrity or it because you think it’s easy. It is not.”

His comment about working two jobs really made me think. Yes, I know that like many designers (John Galliano, Alexander McQueen) Marc Jacobs also spent many years building his career, when he was barely known and designing collections with tiny budgets. But now we all assume he is doing super well, having built Marc Jacobs as one of the leading luxury brands of the world, hugely influential, and touching a very large market with his lower-priced Marc by Marc Jacobs collection. But here Duffy explains that the Louis Vuitton gig is a “second job.” I never thought of it that way, but on reflection, I am sure that Marc Jacobs would definitely prefer to focus his energies on his own collection, rather than having to travel back and forth between Paris and New York, in order to fulfill his duties as Creative Director of two of the most well-known luxury brands in the world. A tough job, and maybe not as glamorous as it seems.

So on that note, I’d like to dedicate this Fashion 101 post to explaining why designers like Marc Jacobs, Jean Paul Gaultier, Karl Lagerfeld, and many others are able and allowed to work two design jobs for different companies.

Fendi Spring Summer 2010 designed by Karl Lagerfeld. Photo from Fendi.com

Let’s start with why any designer, who is attempting to build their own brand, would then take a second job with a very well-known brand. Marios Schwab is a great example. An established young designer based in London, Marios has had a lot of media attention in recent years, and has built himself up to be quite a well-known, respected designer. But what are the figures behind his brand? I am sure he takes a decent salary and can afford to pay a small team of people, but knowing the expense involved in running a fashion company, I am pretty sure he will soon realize he can’t properly expand his brand without more capital. How does he get capital for his business? He can get an investor, or he can take a second job, or he can do both.

By taking the job as Creative Director at Halston, he not only improves his profile as a designer (which means his brand automatically gains more credibility, which will lead to sales and the increased possibility of securing more capital for his business) and he also takes a hefty salary from them, which will mean he has more to re-invest into his own business. A fashion business these days needs to sell more than just clothing to succeed, they need to sell fragrance, accessories, footwear, eyewear, a diffusion line, etc… and all of those things require money to develop. That’s probably why he took a second job.

Halston Fall Winter 2010 designed by Marios Schwab. Photo from Style.com.

So that answers the question of why a designer would want to work for two different companies, but why would a brand want a designer who can’t be one hundred percent committed to their brand? Halston hired Marios Schwab (and Louis Vuitton hired Marc Jacobs, Hermès hired Jean Paul Gaultier, etc…) because they are designers who are already very credible and are already in the spotlight. Halston’s first designer, Marco Zanini, came from Versace, and although I have no doubt he was a talented designer, the average follower of fashion has no idea who he is. The fact that he wasn’t already getting a lot of attention in the media made it more difficult for the relaunched Halston brand to be successful (there were other factors involved in that too, but that’s another story…)

These days, its harder to make a brand successful without a very well-known creative director at the helm (although not at all impossible…) Many brands choose to hire a designer who already has a name for themselves, because they will be better known to the public, and they have proved their own worth (being a successful designer for a big brand is very different than being a successful designer for your own brand.)

Hermes Fall Winter 2010 designed by Jean Paul Gaultier. Photo from Style.com.

The last subject is about competition, if Karl Lagerfeld designs for Chanel, Fendi, and his own collection, aren’t his bosses at Fendi and Chanel concerned that he is designing for one of their competitors? Probably not. Brands will hire well-known designers as creative directors only if the brand does not directly compete with the designer’s label. Marc Jacobs and Louis Vuitton are two very different brands, so are Hermès and Jean Paul Gaultier, Marios Schwab and Halston, Chanel and Fendi. There may be a tiny bit of crossover between customers, but those are also customers who, as fans of Marc Jacobs, may choose a Louis Vuitton bag over a Gucci bag, because they know Marc Jacobs designs for Louis Vuitton.

On a final note, when brands within the same conglomerate compete with each other, which sometimes happens, it is referred to as cannibalism. For example, LVMH’s brands include Louis Vuitton, Céline, Marc Jacobs, and Givenchy and PPR’s Gucci Group brands include Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Alexander McQueen, Balenciaga, and Stella McCartney. There may be times where those brands are effectively competing with each other. Conglomerates try and avoid this as much as possible, by choosing a portfolio of brands that do not directly compete, but at the same time, there are times when cannibalism occurs within a group of brands.

Further reading: There is a great DVD about Marc Jacobs and Louis Vuitton entitled “Marc Jacobs & Louis Vuitton“, which I feel is the first fashion film to correctly portray the behind-the-scenes and the process involved in researching, designing, and showing a luxury fashion collection. So if you’d like to get a better understand of the process involved in getting that amazing handbag from concept to prototype to press piece to retail bestseller, watch this amazing film.

Read other Fashion 101 posts:

Fashion 101: Where do Fashion Trends Come From?

Fashion 101: How Haute Couture Works

Fashion 101: Magazines and their Advertisers

If Christopher Kane is trying to create a younger, hiper, more fun version of Versace for the Versus collection, then this show is spot on. It feels like fun versions of the Versace brand, little mini dresses that are the younger sister of the Versace brand. They are colourful, fun, and cute. (But please stick to the cocktail dresses, the day wear looks a bit too high street for me.)

I Love…

a bright colour and great details on a fun cocktail dress.

a sexy straps dress.

great little details on a perfect LBD.

I Loathe…

that this is Topshop, not Versus.

boring daywear for Versus. Stick to the dresses!

All images from Style.com.

Versace is in big financial trouble at the moment, and considering the state of this collection, I am not surprised why. (Speaking of which, I have just had an email from Amazon that my House of Versace book is on its way, so I’ll be able to comment on all of this a lot more in the next few weeks.) The collection was full of tacky bright colours, ridiculous leather pants, and boring sexy dresses. There were also way too many mini skirts with front slits. It just looked cheap.

I Love…

sexy, shiny dresses. What Versace is all about.

bright coloured evening wear.

I Loathe…

a boring dress, verging on slutty. Do we need to go to Versace for this?

hideous colour combinations, a cheap shiny slut skirt, and a terrifying coat. Versace needs a new creative director.

hipster flared, chap-style leather pants? Why? Worn with full length gloves? I don't get it.

All images from Style.com.

Here’s an example of a fashion video that looks hot without making an attempt at being controversial, philosophical, or pornographic (unlike the YSL video by Bruce Weber that I recently trashed.) It just looks hot, its only 30 seconds long, and it helps that we all love Lara Stone.

<