Comments on: Save or Splurge: Studded ballet flats by Daniblack and Giuseppe Zanotti

By: Marie

Marie — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:48:28 +0000

I really like cost-per-wear formula presented by Elizabeth, but flats are not my thing, so I’ll pass.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:45:02 +0000

Try the cost-per-wear formula on the shoes. Usually you want to wear them until you reach the point where it costs you only $2 per wear (well, that’s what I do when I make purchasing decisions.) If you absolutely love the look and know you’ll wear them at least 325 times across the lifetime of the pair, then by all means get the upscale Zanotti (they’re quite likely to be better quality too). But if you break them out only once in a blue moon, then go for the less expensive pair where you’ll recoup your fashion investment a little more swiftly.

By: Rock Hyrax

Rock Hyrax — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:34:18 +0000

The Daniblack ones are much nicer.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:31:43 +0000

I prefer the cheaper version but $150 is still too much to pay for flats.
Sigerson Morrison for Target has a pair of flats that look reasonably similar to these and they only cost $29.99.
http://www.target.com/Sigerson-Morrison-Target-Glitz-Crystal/dp/B001BA95R2/qid=1223389783/ref=br_1_13/602-9331528-8998209?ie=UTF8&node=689276011&frombrowse=1&rh=&page=1

By: Am

Am — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:34:01 +0000

Well, I actually prefer the cheaper version here. But, I can’t ever see myself spending even $150 on ballet flats, let alone $650.

By: Natasha

Natasha — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:25:26 +0000

Shoes are actually the only fashion item I could picture myself paying 650 bucks for. However, flats are just not my thing, and, in most cases I don’t see a very big difference between cheap and expensive ones. Actually, in this case, if I were deciding between these particular two options, I think I’d choose the cheaper ones – they seem less girlie kitsch.