It’s a weird concept, honestly. I mean, a *huge* part of the Louboutin appeal IS the flash. It’s that little (or, you know, GIANT, depending on how many studs they’ve slapped on) red sole screaming, “Hey, I’m expensive! Look at me!” Take that away, and you’re left with… a shoe. And, yeah, probably a really well-constructed, beautifully designed shoe. But a shoe nonetheless.
I was reading some stuff online (because, duh, where else would I get my info?), and it seems like the logo itself is, well, the red sole. So, technically, can you *really* have a “No Logo Louboutin”? I guess we’re talking about getting rid of the embossed “Christian Louboutin” on the insole, maybe? Or, like, a super minimalist version with the red sole practically invisible?
See, here’s where my brain kinda goes all squirrel. If you’re paying that kind of money, wouldn’t you *want* people to know you’re wearing Louboutins? It’s like buying a Ferrari and painting it beige. Sure, *you* know it’s a Ferrari, and maybe the engine sounds amazing, but nobody else is going to get it. It defeats the whole purpose, doesn’t it?
On the other hand… maybe that’s the *point*. Maybe a “No Logo Louboutin” is for the person who’s so ridiculously wealthy they don’t *need* to flash their status. They know they’re wearing a Louboutin, and that’s all that matters. It’s a quiet flex, a subtle “I’m so rich I don’t even need to tell you I’m wearing designer shoes.”
Or, you know, maybe it’s just a shoe. A really, REALLY expensive shoe. And hey, if you like the design and don’t care about the logo, more power to ya. I’m just sayin’, for that kind of money, I’d kinda want people to *know* what I was wearing. Plus, imagine the confusion! People would be all, “Oh, nice red soles…are those…Target?” The horror!
