Gucci Is Selling $870 Sneakers That Purposely Look Filthy

YAS KWEEN

Their new range of underwear should be lively.

You don't want to look too noveau if you wear Gucci sneakers.

r2 that is funny. These distressed shoes are nothing new. They've been around for years and other brands do it too. Not sure if Gucci was first but they've had these for years. No different than the ripped jeans fad of the 80s.

For the people who buy them, there is value. Super rich old money types like wearing very worn clothing from exclusive brands. It says "I have fuck you money but I also value it". But nobody wants to wear nasty 10 year old sneakers (which only have a lifespan of about 500-700 miles of walking anyway). so this accomplishes the look while giving the wearer fresh shoes.

r5

Wow that explanation is like going from St Paul to Minneapolis by going east.

They wouldn't be authentic high end wear without the smell of a crowded locker room.

These Gucci shoes have been around for years. There was a pair I desperately wanted a couple of years ago with crystals on them. I just thought they were super cool and different. But I just couldn't myself to spend the money, even with my discount, on something I would wear a couple of times a year. But they'd be cool to own.

I actually own these. They made me nostalgic for the long summer days of my youth playing tennis.

This is exactly what happened in the 1780s, before the French Revolution. Tired of outrageously delirant excesses in fashion and realizing that the political tide was turning against them, the monarchy and their supporters started "simplifying" things and adopted a supposedly simpler dressing style, that aspired to emulate the "natural charm" of shepherdesses and and footmen - which, for all intents and purposes, was nothing more than poor people dress up. Since absolutely nothing changed in reality, the people eventually rose against their opressors and overthrew the monarchy... We don't have monarchs anymore, but a bloody revolution is in order, as we're clearly in the similar circumstances.

Seriously, what sort of people would waste so much money on something that looks old and dirty? I'll answer that for you: pompous, stupid, overprivileged, pampered, despotic and stupid rich individuals who find it amusing to dress like and play at personifying the great unwashed. Out-of-touch degenerates, in short. I find it offensive beyond belief, not to mention tacky, tasteless and myopic.

As I've already said, I cannot wait for the revolution to arrive and literally watch heads roll.

Your head first, [R10]. You emotional six year old.

I know. R10 acts like he is the only one who should live on earth and people who think exactly like him. I get so sick of people like him attacking people for what they chose to spend THEIR money on. Those types of people need to evaluate their own lives.

r6 The fashion habits of the super rich old money types is a very specific regional and class specific thing. I think I was 35 when I learned about this. I have worked for multiple individuals with over $100 mil in net worth and they don't fall into that category. (I didn't understand why a wealthy person from NYC showed up in LA wearing polo shirts with curled, aged collars and faded shorts.) If I overexplained then I'm not sure why R10 would bother to write this:

"Seriously, what sort of people would waste so much money on something that looks old and dirty? I'll answer that for you: pompous, stupid, overprivileged, pampered, despotic and stupid rich individuals who find it amusing to dress like and play at personifying the great unwashed. Out-of-touch degenerates, in short. I find it offensive beyond belief, not to mention tacky, tasteless and myopic."

No, Grandpa. They're for super wealthy individuals who want fresh, clean sneakers unsoiled by years of foot sweat (and quality soles, which again, only last about 500 miles before they collapse so slightly you'd never feel it until your feet get fucked up) but don't want shoes that look like they are in their first 30 days of wearing. It's actually kind of brilliant because it shows a designer understanding their audience of buyers.

R10 should have used the $5000 he paid for his education on shoes for orphans so we could be spared the tripe he is spewing.

Oooh, look at Miss Manners @R11, putting me in my place! I think that the heads of superficial, venal and arrogant enablers like you, would roll much better (emptiness makes for better bouncing, dearie).

And let's not even talk about Miss Liberty Boo @R12 / R13, who chides me for daring to criticize the crass vulgarity, lack of social sensitivity and frivolousness of those who are shameless enough to waste money on this (ugly) nonsense. And she then has the audacity to call me ignorant! Sweetie, you need both medication and better taste. It isn't any wonder you're insane enough to want these offensive monuments to the worst aspects of conspicuous consummerism. You have obviously never heard about people who have more money than sense...

But hey! I am wise enough to see that I'm not in the right place, so I'll retire and allow sophisticated aristocrats like the two of you to wallow in your oblivious dilettantism. Enjoy, ladies!

These shoes are not for super wealthy people. You don't have to be super wealthy to afford them. Most people wearing them are quite middle class. Some even poor. They just choose to spend large portions of their money on clothes. I worked in a store where these were sold. Do people even know how much designer shoes even cost? All these girls walking around in Loubtin shoes that START at $700. Gucci, Balenciaga, Bottega, Valentino, Chanel. Look at Instagram, every other "influencer" who is still living at home with their parents is wearing these designers. These designers KNOW their audience and it's NOT the super wealthy. These are what fashion houses call "Aspirational" pieces - items for people who don't have a lot of money to buy the real pieces from a Fashion house. Chanel sneakers start at $900. Their clothing, suits go for around $7500. Their classic handbag is about $7700.

The super wealthy wear items like Brunello Cucinelli, Loro Piana, Chanel where you have no idea who made them or how much they cost, but their closests are valued over 1million. I had two clients who spent over 1 million a year on clothing. Money is the MOST relative thing in the world. They might spend 1 million on clothes but 15 million towards education and scholarships. Am I really going to say they should have spent 16 million on charities instead? One person with money CAN do more for society than all of use combined on this board can dream about doing. And a lot of them do. So who are we to say, "give more." I haven't given shit because I think I need every dime I get.

Wise, you are not, R15. It's quite clear from your use of the language. The best instruction I ever got from my education was to never use a $10 word where a $1 will do. Your post must have bankrupted you.

And by the way, R13, people who are super wealthy and have any measure of class, know that one mustn't wear tennis shoes outside of sports activities. They are not even meant for informal occasions, especially when they look dirty. If they want fresh tennis shoes that look worn, they could always wear them at home and while exercising and then oh, miracle! Wash them. This is for tacky scum who think that wearing trackies with gigantic label iconography with jewellery, makes them elegant and important.

And R16, most people do not give to charity because they cannot afford to. Most wealthy people, however, maintain their wealth at the expense of everybody else in society, and in places like the US they have the incentive of being able to reduce their tax bills by giving to charity. Whatever it is that they give, it has come from somebody else's work. They can afford to be generous up to some extent, thanks to the fact that they exploit others - this is an extremely perverse thing, in which those who are directly responsible for the poverty of many, play at being generous by returning minimal amounts of the wealth they've accrued to exploitation, to those from whom they've extracted it. Also, the bulk of money given to charities comes from the middle classes, even if most people cannot afford to make large one-off donations.

R17, your sophistication is truly stupefying. Thanks for, once again, showing me the Right Way. Soon enough, I will be able to give lessons on class and education to random people on the internet, thanks to your marvellous teachings! Which is good, because that will save me from bankruptcy... 🙄 Your generosity is beyond anything I have ever experienced, m'Lady. Thanks to your lessons, I'll soon be an Eliza Doolittle wannabe, just like you!

Thanks for the enhanced social capital and cultural enrichment, from the bottom of this Unwise, Uneducated and Unsophisticated plebeian's heart! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Dirt is so exotic!

Straight old money is not buying this crap. I could see some old queen / old money who isn't playing with a full deck -and never has- getting excited about it, though.

Such a tacky brand.

If you’re spending that much on a pair of sneakers you are an idiot and have too much money!

How much can I charge for this?

[quote] How much can I charge for this?

How much would you like?

$870

I'll dump another load in it for an even $1K, senator

Must be pre-owned.

If it doesn't smell like dirty feet...forget it. I only like authentic.

I like ironic fashion but not when the joke is about clothes or items that are associated with poorer people. So I don’t like these and I agree with R10’s point that this looks like deluded rich people playing dress up as poor people. It’s very hunger games on the nose example of deluded tackiness.

Saying that I think they’re nice looking and I did have a pair of similar ones (that I got resale for like $50) but I felt weird putting them on so I resold. Not for me.

That’s where the term “trustafarian” comes from. Whenever you see a twentysomething with dreadlocks and a mangy dog, you know his parents are loaded.

Agree with R10.

Me too..^^

Charlene) What would you do if you had $5,000

Suzanne) I'd buy a blouse (points to blouse in magazine)

Mary Jo) You'd spend $5,000 on a blouse? Besides what kind of blouse costs $5,000?

Suzanne) I just told you, this one.

[quote]“treated for an all-over distressed effect”

We can do that, but we won't need the treating.

Here's the thing: I don't know anything about soap operas or musical theater so I don't comment on those threads.

But people who live in the darkest reaches of Flyoverstan who have talked to two people who make over $100K/year will opine on this.

SMH

The shoes are a rip off of a brand called Golden Goose (see link) which sells sneakers that look like beat up Pro Keds for $500 and up to a certain type of high school girl and her mother who wants to be the Amy Poehler character in Mean Girls. Started off big in NY and LA and are now everywhere.

The only people who will buy these shoes are wealthy Asians and Middle Easterners who don't realize how uncool they are. That's who buys all the ridiculously overpriced clothing with Gucci and other designer logos prominently displayed on them--$800 t-shirts and $1200 cargo pants. Gucci does make some things that Americans and Europeans will buy--but they also make a lot of crap for the Asian and Middle Eastern markets and these sneakers are a prime example.

If someone I knew showed up in these Gucci sneakers they'd be mocked for years to come.

^^Golden Goose may be rip-offs of Converse All Stars- I always get those two brands confused. Google and you will see the multiple styles.

It seems they even have Golden Goose stores now, exactly in the locations you'd expect.

[quote]The shoes are a rip off of a brand called Golden Goose (see link) which sells sneakers that look like beat up Pro Keds for $500 and up to a certain type of high school girl and her mother who wants to be the Amy Poehler character in Mean Girls. Started off big in NY and LA and are now everywhere.

Golden Goose are basically converse sneakers. They are not ripping off Gucci.

Gucci is a 100 year old fashion house. Fashion Houses like Dior, Chanel, Gucci, Valentino set trends that other designers rip off. Talking about the cost of the items is ridiculous. It's not for you. It's not for most people. I like the shoes. They are not making fun of poor people just as much as ripped jeans, faded t-shirts with holes are making fun of poor people. Marghiella has been making scuffed shoes for decades. It's nothing new. It's just new to you.

The shoes themselves are replica of a vintage Gucci shoe designed in the 70s and 80s. Instead of just replicating the exact shoe, they aged it as if it's been in your closet for just as long. It's a design choice not a social commentary. And it is a nod to the new designer for Gucci who embraces more the traditional codes of the house in his work as opposed to Tom Ford who basically, (even though quite successfully) recreated the brand and it's iconography in his own image - with his style of sexually aggressive femininity.

There is a history to everything in a world that you do not belong to. It doesn't mean you should try and belong to this world. You shouldn't if you don't get it and find it silly. But it's a multi-billion dollar industry that will survive quite robustly past your opinions of it. And it's not born on the backs of the super rich. Sneakers are the new cash cow for most fashion houses that have saved many - like Balencia, from going completely under. Every designer has their version of a sneaker that costs upwards of $1000.

I have some beat up old sneakers. Who knew they were worth so much?

[quote] The shoes are a rip off of a brand called Golden Goose

[quote] Golden Goose are basically converse sneakers. They are not ripping off Gucci.

A ridiculous 800 word essay all based on an Eldergay's senile misreading

GUCCI (and Balenciaga and other brands) saw how popular Golden Goose had become (and it too is an Italian company) selling shoes that looked like beat up Converse and decided that they wanted in on the action.

It's a business, your bizarre justifications to the contrary and the business understands that newly rich Asians and Middle Easterners will buy pretty much any overpriced crap with a prominent designer logo on it, items that they could not sell to their American and European customers. (Russians most likely excepted)

y'all acting like these shoes cost $20,000.

Emperor’s new clothes situation with these fuckers.

I don't know what you are saying r39. The major fashion houses were NOT influenced to make sneakers from Golden Goose. That is so absurd. Golden Goose cost as much as an expensive Nike shoe. The major fashion houses started making sneakers because of the rise of Athleisure in fashion itself. I dumb company selling $200 shoes at the time is completely in a different league than a fashion house that's selling sneakers for $700. Valentino is not going to look at Golden Goose and say - WOW he need to do that too. Two completely different markets. Golden Goose eventually became HUGE because people could not afford the real designer sneakers.

[quote]Super rich old money types like wearing very worn clothing from exclusive brands. It says "I have fuck you money but I also value it".

Is that what they taught you in Imagination School? And you believed it?

For your information r39, Chanel released their first sneaker in 2011. Golden Goose at the time was not being sold at Nordstroms, Neimans, Saks, Bergdorf, Barney's or even Bloomingdales. Dior followed suit as they usually do with Chanel and it was off to the races. At the time Tom Ford was reining at Gucci but soon to leave. Tennis shoes were definitely not part of is repertoire. When Alessandro Michele took over Gucci in 2015 he added sneakers to the line. The major department stores started carrying Golden Goose well after the sneaker craze was underway as a cheaper alternative to the top designers. Balenciaga came along and changed the game with their hyper designed "Dad Sneaker" simultaneously releasing their minimal Sock sneaker. After those two shoes saved Balenciaga from oblivion every designer from Chloe to Bottega started creating sneakers. To say that Golden Goose influenced the decisions of the major fashion houses is very misguided.

And super old money is NOT wearing any of these label's sneakers. Maybe their 14 year olds are. But they are still wearing Ferragamo, Bertolucci and Hermes.

[quote] And [R16], most people do not give to charity because they cannot afford to.

Nope, the poor give a larger percentage of their income to charities.

Ew Ferragamo, can you imagine? Those loafers 🤢🤮

Tell me you’re a pompous moron without telling me you’re a pompous moron.

R48 DL has always battled with fashion. For a board of queens, I find it quite interesting actually. It's not being pompous. I am not saying it's a good thing that this has happened. Actually this sneaker craze, while a cash cow, is destroying a lot of great fashion houses. I am not saying you have to care about it. BUT if someone is going to create a thread talking about it, it should at least be informed.

This was clearly "inspired" by my groundbreaking [italic][bold]Derelicte[/italic][/bold] range.

R49, with all due respect:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Agree that these are for Asians, Iranians, and Arabs.

Well I own these Onitsuka Tigers so I won’t get hit by a car while walking my dog in the evening. I’m sure they’re mocked:

Those shoes would look great with my Che Guevara t-shirt.

I wish all rich people would die.

There are almost 8 billion people in the world. I am sure you live better than 7 billion of them. You are rich.

^ for R55

I love these fashion threads because there's always someone who chimes in with some secret, inside info, unknown to the hoi polloi, about how uber rich people spend money, as if the spending habits of anyone or any group are completely rational and predictable (e.g. R5 and R13). Like anybody on the planet, rich or poor, whoever buys these shoes will be someone who wants them and sees value in them. It's a simple, pithy, rather stupid statement, but that's really all that can be said with any certainty. They're not priced at some astronomical amount that only a wealthy tech billionaire could afford. And most designer fashion is pretty affordable to those in the middle, and even the lower, economic classes. That's not to say they don't have to go through some additional hurdles to obtain these items, and of course there are those people who may want these but simply can't afford the multi-hundred dollar cost because of little to no disposable income. But acting as if most luxury designer goods are out of reach of everyone except the uber wealthy is absurd and putting way too much social cachet on these types of items.

One thing I will say, as a former luxury retail shop bottom (I miss those days): if you want good shoes on your feet, don't buy a high end designer pair. They're all outsourced and poorly made, made in Italy or not.

People who bought Kanye's shoes will buy these.

It reminds me of the 2017 Clickhole spoof article about the "Skechers Monstrosity".