You know what puzzles us most about this case, readers? The fact that, at $70, the Bakers shoes are:
a) Not exactly “cheap”.
b) Only $10 less than the sale price of the Betsey Johnson originals.
We’re assuming there are enough points of difference for Bakers not to get in trouble over this, but there aren’t enough for it not to be blatantly obvious what they’re up to, hmm?
The price thing is something that has already puzzled me, too.
I noticed it with “Chucks”. The originals cost about 65,- € over here, which is quite a bit, so I can understand that other companies make cheaper copies.
What I don’t understand is that some of them cost up to 59,- €. I mean, why shouldn’t I spend the missing few Euros to get the originals then?
It’s the same case here. You can’t really call the Bakers version a bargain, and they’re not noticably different, either.
I don’t get it.
I prefer the ‘Bakers’ shoes. The colours clash more and the bow seems to have more structure to it. Also, there is none of that strange leopard print inside the shoe.