Monday, August 25, 2008

This one's for the ladies, men may be mildly uncomfortable

This past weekend I discovered that a friend of mine was in town on vacation from New York, so I bopped downtown to get some lunch on Saturday and catch up over pad thai and white sangria*. After doing that for about an hour, we walked up along the magnificent mile, stopping in to various stores and what not while he played tourist.

I should say at this point that my friend works in investment banking, so he has to wear clothes that I rarely even think about (i.e. suits). But, the nice thing about him is that even though he likes the “nice” brands, when we were facing shelf upon shelf of Ferragamo shoes, he was still able to look me in the eye and honestly say that he thought $1800 was a ridiculous amount for a pair of shoes. Because it is.

The funniest sight of the day was in the Zegna store, when I happened to pass by a display of men’s underwear. Because it was Zegna, each paid was in a separate little box – no doubt to ensure that your underwear has not been sullied by other human hands. And each box showed the traditional picture of the body-image-problem-inducing male model wearing a pair of underwear, presumably the pair contained in the box.

All, that is, except this one (the box on the left, the one on the right was included for comparison to show that indeed, they didn’t *all* look like this):



Now, I’m no fashion expert, but doesn’t this seem to be sending mixed messages? It’s a box of underwear, but the model isn’t wearing any…in contrast to the one on the right where it is quite clear that man-hunk models still make the big bucks modeling boxer briefs. Am I supposed to believe that the box is empty? Are these “The Emperor’s New Underwear”? I picked up one of the boxes and there was *something* in it, but I didn’t open it**.

Maybe it just contains a tube sock…

* Which I am now even more confident doesn’t count as alcohol so much as “liquid candy”
** After all, I wouldn’t want the Zegna guards to think I was trying to sully their new man-underoos.

5 comments:

towwas said...

I just can't imagine what makes a $1800 pair of shoes better than a $300 pair of shoes. Up to $300 or so, sure, I bet it improves in quality. But what can you really do above that?

grrrbear said...

I don't know, but I'm not even sure that $300+ shoes are necessarily all that much better. My one really expensive pair is one of the least comfortable pairs of shoes I own. But that was before i started shoe-buying at Nordstrom Rack.

towwas said...

Yeah, you can pay $500 easy for uncomfortable women's shoes, for sure, but I think at the $300ish point, you can get super comfy and cute, if you go for the right brand. Actually one of the sights I want to hit in Chicago is the Fluevog store - perhaps I can drag you along and make you try on expensive boy shoes.

grrrbear said...

Tell you what, the GF would *lurve* to go with you on that one. She loves those shoes.

Although, I'll admit I like the store because it used to be an old movie theater and still has a bunch of the hold architectural trappings.

towwas said...

Old movie theater? SWEET. I can't wait. I bought my one & only pair through the magic of the internet. (The GF is a woman of taste and discernment, I tell you.)

After all, Elmo seems equally disinterested in both...

I have a hard time believing that Elmo was traumatized by Katy Perry's decollatage after discovering that he had already "been arou...