Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I question putting babies that are learning to walk in them, though. I worked at an early childhood center for a bit this past spring and summer, and was surprised at the non-supportive shoes that people put their just-learning-to-walk babies in. Cute, but not helping them.
"They continue to be ubiquitous where I am, but to me, they look like colourful Ace bandages on one's feet. The soles are also too insubstantial for my taste."
Exactly this.
If I have to have loafers, they'd better be Vans, they'd better be made of canvas and have black-and-white (or black-and-red) checkerboard patterns printed on them. Toms just look and seem so... cheap. (And feminine.)
If I need a slip-on, I'm picking Minnetonka moccasins (although they suffer the same insubstantial sole issue, and can't be worn for extended periods of time) or Chuck Taylor Shoreline slip-ons. I have those in cloud grey, and they get allll kinds of wear. Much more flattering on my foot than TOMS.
The company definitely seems interesting. But their shoes are just ...ing ugly. It makes me comment any time I see some hipster dude wearing them ("hey, great shoes, man. Do they sell men's clothes where you got them?").
My thoughts exactly! These shoes are an instant turn-off on women and men shouldn't even consider them.
This is more my style, but I'm not certain I'd shell out that much for a pair of flats. Nice pumps, perhaps, but to me, flats are expendable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.