whose red soles??

If you, like me, have seen these pretty (esp. the royal blue) shoes in Spring's editorials, gushed, and then prescribed an additional VAT (Value Added, T for Trademark, in this case) by virtue of glimpsing the red soles (of Christian Louboutin, NOT), then I'm afraid we've all been fooled. They're actually made by Versace, which is equally oh so lovely and decadent, but...

It seems a bit deceptive, if you think about it. I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind stealing—such an ugly word, I'm afraid—the red soles. The Versace camp can't really need to make shoe sales that badly. Smell a patent/proprietorship infringement?? I am, however, quite certain the red Loubou soles aren't patented. It's a decidedly prohibitive process. So much so, I can only think of two companies that have managed to patent their colors—Hermès (equestrian) orange and Tiffany (robin-egg) blue; and they both happened back in the middle ages. There've been none since then.

I can only think this new installment by Versace will serve solely to create the grand opportunity for confusing my little nine year old brother when he comes to visit later in the year. If I happen to snag a pair (I'm not utterly, dumbfoundedly in love with any of the shoes at the moment), then little Jr will have to figure out that those red soles aren't my "Christian" shoes as he's so lovingly dubbed any of my red soles when he's trying to butter me up. He's such a charmer, the little brat. No, he's not into shoes, but he does have three older sisters!! It's almost saddening that Versace isn't at all part of his lingo seeing as he wasn't even born during the Biggie-Versace-love era.

I wish it was all a dream...






Big kisses. It's Friday!!

P.S. No, I can't stop staring at that bag either!!
P.P.S I just had to put Gisele's butt on display...