...or are they. They're almost identical.
I don't know whether she invented them but this style of boot was virtually patented by Isabel Marant. It's perfect in so many ways: practical? Check. A slight heel for height/sass? Check. A cool style you don't find everywhere (yet the comfort of conformity: almost every girl in Paris wears a pair). Check.
But at around 320 Euros for the designer boots, are all Parisiennes wearing real Marants? I think not. After dithering for (truly) years I finally bought the 'not-Marant' pair because I'm not so sure I want to spend 320 Euros to look like every other girl in Paris. Even buying the H by Hudson quasi-Marant pair made me feel like I was joining a cult: that at some deep level I had given up my individuality.
Problem is, however good they look, I'll still know they're not the real thing. Does that mean I'll end up enjoying my boots more (the smugness of getting the look at a fraction of the price) or less (I haven't truly committed to the style via the financial sacrifice). Or am I just getting my knickers - or bottines - in a twist?
Is the real thing always the most convincing? Ask Henry.
I would be chuffed to have got such a bargain as long as the Hudson shoes are well made. Are they? I had a look at the rest of the stuff on their website and some of them look very nice. Might be just what I need to get myself out of my annual shoe rut.
Posted by: Divya | January 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM
I think you are very sensible. The boots will look great, but you'll feel smug at the saving of money! But would like to pose a question to which I've not seen a definitive answer: I've avoided the shoeboot thing because I am convinced that this style of footwear makes people with short legs (me!) look even shorter-legged than before. Tell me I'm wrong, wrong, wrong and I will invest in a pair, maybe. But not at 320 euros. And if I'm right, then think of the money I'm saving!
Posted by: adele geras | January 28, 2011 at 12:34 PM
Divya, what is your annual shoe rut? At this time of year I can only think that perhaps it's wellies... I've worn the boots for a week and am really liking them. The leather seems good (not too thin, not too inflexible, not too shiny)and the slight heel has made me get out my flared jeans again (straight down, not bootcut y'know).
Adele - you read my blog! - I'm so flattered! But I'm going to pretend I'm Hadley Freeman and give it to you straight. I don't think it has to do with the length of the leg. The 'thing' about the style I bought - aka 'le low boot'- so far as I can see (and of course each garment does, or should, have a mysterious 'thing' that makes it definitionally better than a similar style without it) is the gap between the ankle and the circumference of the boot top. If you can slip your finger in and the boot seems to stand away from your ankle it will look cute: if the boot clings to your ankle, it probably won't. Or it's another species of short boot, not a 'low boot' at all. So no low boot will ever make your legs look longer, but if you can do the aforementioned, it will make your legs look thinner. Which is something that most people like.
Shoeboots, though... If we're going to be strictly taxonomic, I think they're generally a little more like shoes with a high front (and usually a high heel or even a platform) so they probably will make your legs look longer due to the near vertical sweep converting the front of your foot into extra leg. Especially if you wear them in nude...
Posted by: badaude | January 28, 2011 at 03:21 PM
My shoe rut is simply that I find I never have any appropriate shoes/boots to wear for the season. Funny you should mention wellies, last autumn when it got too cold to wear my standard issue mumsy birkenstocks, I had to resort to my wellies as I had no other footwear (literally, not in a fashionista sense!). I'm prepared this year as I already bought a nice pair of half-price sandals ready for when the sun comes out.
BTW, glad about the gap between the boot and ankle being a _good_ thing now. I'm short but I have skinny legs and used to worry about looking stupid for not filling out boots properly. Guess it's ok now!
Posted by: Divya | January 28, 2011 at 06:24 PM
Thanks so much for that, Badaude! Yes, I love your blog and your remarks are most helpful. I guess I will now TRY SOME ON and see how they look. As for high heels, the ones on YOUR boots look okay but much higher than that and I couldn't manage them at all.
Posted by: adele geras | January 29, 2011 at 02:09 PM
Oh Adele I think that's the way to go! And I can't do heels either, which is why they feature very infrequently in my fashion drawings.
Posted by: badaude | January 29, 2011 at 06:11 PM
I'm pretty sure I left a comment yesterday but for some reason it has disappeared! Anyway, I think that the hudson boots are in fact a great alternative. Personally I did decide to go for the real thing after wearing "almost Marant's" for three years, but perhaps, had I encountered a decent taupe suede substitute, I would have passed up on the real ones after all :)
Posted by: mmr | February 02, 2011 at 10:59 AM
The H by Hudson version came in suede too. I only saw them on the website but they didn't look quite as convincing as the black ones somehow. I'm thinking of maybe investing in the Isabel Marants in beige suede sometime this summer because they'll go better with bare legs than the black. Good to have an opinion from someone who's tried both the substitutes and the 'real thing'!
Oh, and Typepad can be really annoying because it asks you to type in a code on the page AFTER you've submitted your comment. Sometimes I've failed to notice this myself...
Posted by: badaude | February 02, 2011 at 06:45 PM