this morning lil g train was sad to see the weekend sunshine go, but made the best of the day and hopped through puddles wearing these:
overpriced yet really really live up to hype if bought on huge discount
but saw on the feet of a fellow commuter something closer to these:
Kate Spade Randi Rainboots
And has in the past seen examples closer to these:
Aquatalia by Marvin K, melon, $259.95
Which brings lil g train to the following query: why do individuals in fashion design positions of power continuously return to the never actually successful concept of adding high heels to inappropriate places, places that otherwise possess a perfectly acceptable and in some cases relatively ingeniously engineered autonomous existence.
Dear naysayers, please see the following examples throughout recent history:
fig 1. the platform fitness shoe:
MBT Sport2, $245and
Shape-Ups, Skechers, $115
lil g train wonders, could any potential fitness results possibly justify this aesthetic decision?
fig 2. the timberland hiking boot inspired stiletto:
"Custom Burberry Ladies Manolo Blahnik Timberland Boots," $103*
fig 3. the high fashion yet still inappropriate high heel
Balenciaga, circa fall 07, appr. $4,175
fig 4. and lil g train's personal favorite, the nike jordan stiletto
Jordan Lady High Heel, $76.99**
**lil g train has not been able to ascertain whether or not the "jordan lady high heel" is in fact manufactured and authenticated by the Nike corporation.