Email: Playing with form


When you can’t decide between boots and sandals, try bandles soots cutaway booties! Anthropologie’s latest email offers several ways to style these curious phenoms. Consider me dubious…sandles and socks are never OK and I’m extending that bias to cutaway booties. A couple of the looks are total what are you thinking head-scratchers for me so I picked a couple that are more inspirational than delusional.


This look is called Concessions. I assume they mean that more as a nod to food and less as a nod to reluctant acknowledgment. I like this look overall however in my mind I want to swap the booties for sandals. Anthro started with the beautiful Shrinking Violets Booties ($368). I’m happy to see the Pilcro Crops ($88) look cute on though I doubt the slim cut of the leg is going to accommodate my calves. Oh well. This outfit puts the Australorp Blouse ($138) on my radar, while the Small & Mighty Bag ($98) was already there. It’s a cute look that makes me think of going to the carnival.


I guess there’s no denying that pegged jeans are back. These jeans are 7 For All Mankind’s Shore Pine Vintage Rickie ($215) and my god they just get worse as you go up the leg. These are the kind of jeans that only underfed starlets wear to look ironically cool while corrupting the style tendencies of our youth. Resist the trash, Anthropologie! Homeless hip is not cool. This look, called Jump Rope, manages to redeem itself with a really cool pair of booties. They’re the Go For Gold Booties ($245) and I adore the basketweave technique used on them. I wonder if my foot would get pinched but I am willing to take the risk. Mostly unseen in the shots but suggested by Anthro anyway are the Boursault Racerback ($48) and the Shimmering Pin-Up Cardigan ($88) that I so adore. They also suggest the Room-To-Grow Earrings ($32) as a finishing touch. Swap out those jeans Anthro and you have yourself a deal.

17 Comments

  1. Angie
    February 10, 2010 / 1:50 pm

    I am glad you are as dubious as I about the cutaways! I thought I was just out of touch!

  2. Anonymous
    February 10, 2010 / 2:25 pm

    Ya know, I hate this style of shoe/boot/sandal whatever you call it. The fact is, they chop off the legs and make ANYONE/EVERYONE look stumpy (some more than others, obviously) … this style of shoe is a What Not to Wear Nightmare. It does nothing to make the leg area look better – as in say, how a great pair of classic pumps would.

  3. February 10, 2010 / 2:50 pm

    Off topic- can you give us a Daily Gathering Dress #033031 review when it's in stock where you are?? I think i'm in love… I can see this working for hourglass figures of many sizes…

  4. Anonymous
    February 10, 2010 / 2:56 pm

    Hi Roxy,I second Meli22's request, but can you believe that Bailey 44 has ANOTHER $188 jersey dress? What are they thinking?!? Grr.Sarah

  5. February 10, 2010 / 3:14 pm

    Those shoes … all of them … just say no.::Blots the "san-booties" from her mind and goes back to ogling all the other pretty things on Anthro's site::

  6. February 10, 2010 / 3:24 pm

    I absolutely hate this style of shoe/boot, as well. Even those blessed with legs for miles cannot pull this look off very well. On those of us who are petite or average height, all these shoes do is make your legs look stumpy.

  7. February 10, 2010 / 4:09 pm

    OK, at least I'm not alone in rejecting this fad. Just say no to stumpy!Meli22 & Anon – sure, I will look for it in-store. And no I cannot believe Bailey 44 has yet another $188 jersey frock.

  8. Anonymous
    February 10, 2010 / 4:44 pm

    sale rack finds:1) Wavelet (the old gray one) in size 82) snowflower skirt in XS3) ice-capped blouse in size 6in Palo Alto, CA store!at least as of last night, when i was there around 6:40pm

  9. Anonymous
    February 10, 2010 / 4:48 pm

    I like the shoes! 😀

  10. February 10, 2010 / 5:25 pm

    Cutaway booties… MEH. If you want a boot, wear a boot. If you want a sandal, wear a sandal. This makes about as much sense to me as a wool sweater tank top. I wish Anthro's shoe buyers would concentrate more on pretty, feminine, work-appropriate pumps.

  11. February 10, 2010 / 5:38 pm

    I'm glad to see that others have the same reaction that I had when I opened the "cutaway booties" e-mail yesterday. Socks with sandals are never ok (not even on Anthro's beautiful models…). I agree with Betsy. More pretty, feminine, work-appropriate pumps, please!

  12. February 10, 2010 / 5:47 pm

    Ya'll make me sooo happy! I've been screaming "NO" to this frumpy/stumpy shoe and ripped up low-class jeans trend since it started but felt I was the only one! Thanks for the lift and laugh of my day!Now, how do we get our beloved Anthropologie back on track?

  13. Denise
    February 10, 2010 / 6:39 pm

    SOOO glad to hear others are as discouraged as I am by the frump-dump look of these shoes. I am one of the tall and lanky and I can't pull off these shoes. They make my already long/big feet look even more gigantic. I agree with the posters who want work-appropriate, fun, pumps. Look at how popular the Miss Albright shoes have been. More like that (but for summer) please. I will not buy these fugly shoes at ANY price.

  14. February 10, 2010 / 7:44 pm

    The first time I saw a pair of open toed booties I thought they were a joke, but apparently they're now a fad. Ugh… I agree, they are not flattering on anyone, I would like shoes that are pretty!

  15. February 10, 2010 / 7:44 pm

    I totally agree with everyone on this style… yuck.. Come on Anthro give us more cute heels like the budding t-straps instead of these contraptions.

  16. February 11, 2010 / 2:56 am

    Whew! I thought I was perhaps very un-hip for disliking ALL of the shoes.

  17. Anonymous
    February 11, 2010 / 4:06 am

    the only pair of shoes on my wishlist right now are the stunt double booties. they look just like a pair of marc jacobs i fell in love with. i personally like this syle (rolled jeans with booties), but i'm a casual, stay-at-home mom. i won't wear socks with mine, though! 🙂


Looking for Something?