What a croc(k)

One day last week, I passed two young women (early-twenties) walking along Charles Street.

Although I am a bit old and a bit slow, I was able to pass them with ease because one of them was teetering along on a pair of flimsy stilettos, clutching on to her low-heeled boot-wearing companion as if for dear life.

Now anyone who has ever walked the sidewalks of Charles Street knows that they are a) brick; and b) full of grates. Not ideal for walking on heels.

Back in the day, when I was a bit younger and a bit faster, I occasionally wore heels - NOT stilettos, but not low chunky heels, either - walking along Charles. This resulted in heavy cobbler costs incurred whenever I caught a heel in the bricks and had to have the shoes recovered. (I was savvy enough to avoid the grates; you couldn't avoid hitting the bricks.) Eventually, I wised up and did what women folk did back in the day: I wore white sneakers and athletic socks - which looked especially fetching when paired with black or navy opaque stockings - and carried my heels to work with me. Eventually, I wised up even further and started wearing more comfortable shoes. (This coincided with the gradual introduction of business casual, which eventually did in the wearing o' the skirted menswear suit and high heels.)

The young women I passed on Charles were fashionistas. I didn't note what brand jackets they had on, but one was carrying a Gucci pocketbook, the other a shoulder bag from Dior. (They were tourists, which I could tell because a) no one in Boston dresses the way they were dressed; and b) they weren't speaking English.) I hope they made it back to their hotel before that one woman broke a heel. And I hope she had some sturdier, and warmer footwear, on hand (on foot?) for last weekend's bitter cold.

Perhaps she would have been better served, comfort-wise, if she'd been wearing a pair of Balenciaga high-heeled Crocs.

Crocs Madame - a play on the French sandwich, the Croque Madame (I prefer the Croque Monsieur, myself) - come in black, white, pink and - perfect for St. Patrick's Day - bright green. 

They're rubber and have a broader-than-a-stiletto-tip heel, so you're not as likely catch your heel in a grate.

And they only cost $625.

I have never owned a pair of Crocs, Madame or otherwise.

I don't garden, and I don't need to draw attention to my lllloooonnnnggg feet by encasing them in brightly colored rubber. (I don't mind an occasional pair of brightly colored sneakers, however.) And I don't wear heels, so so much for the Crocs Madame.

But if I were going to get me a pair of Crocs, they'd be the plain, old-fashioned ones. Not a pair of Balenciaga Crocs that cost $625.

(If you're wondering what the answer to the question 'who pays $625 for a pair of goofy looking novelty shoes?', the answer is 'NOT ME.')

I've never been a dedicated follower of fashion, but I do associate the name Balenciaga with haute couture, and as a kid likely heard the name associated with Jackie Kennedy. 

I guess Balenciaga couture is no long quite as haute as it was when Jackie was hiding her clothing bills from Jack. Although she'd probably have looked fabulous whatever she was wearing, I can't exactly picture Jackie in a pair of stiletto Crocs. Nothing timeless and elegant about those suckers.

This isn't Balenciaga's first appropriation of a lowish-rent yet iconic brand/look. A few years ago, they brought out a knock- off of the blue plastic IKEA tote bag. Only theirs cost over $2K. (Good to know that people were nuts in 2017...)

I do not anticipate seeing many/any of these Crocs Madames on the streets and sidewalks of Boston. Even though I don't spot them that often, other than on kids during the summer, the original Crocs seem like more of a Boston thing. But I'm sure that tourist girl has $625 to spend on a pair of Madames. And although they don't look all that comfortable, they'd probably hold up - and hold her up - better than the stilettos she was wearing.

Still, who spends $625 for an item like a pair of Crocs Madame???