To expect a £425 pair of shoes to last one wear

[pigletmania]

You would be best off going to Jones the Bootmakers or Barratts for a pair of shoes, at least they last longer

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2025689/These-Choos-NOT-walking-The-425-designer-shoes-look-old-tatty-day-s-wear.html

and not to get resoled straight after buying them, whats the point in spending all that money

She should have taken them straight back to the shop and demanded an exchange or refund as they were not fit for the purpose for which they were sold

ridiculous

If you can afford to buy those sort of shoes, the only time they will be touching the ground is onto a red carpet. They are not designed for walking down the street in.

No point at all, what did the manufacturers say?
It's obviously a fairly well-known problem as the shoes are worn by thousands of women.
Although I struggle to sympathise as it's an outrageous amount to spend on shoes. I feel the same about designer bags.

oh dear professionally I do have a few well known designer bags

If they make you happy, that's fine.
If one gets eaten by a free-range toddler, and you are sobbing at the loss of a bag worth £800, then I'd find it hard to empathise and would leave you to the loving sympathy of those who understand the pain of your loss.

I'm not sure. It says they are leather soled. Traditionally leather soled shoes are sold as 'dancing' shoes for indoor use only. You take them with you and change when you get inside. Any dancer will tell you that. I have some myself (dancing shoes, not choos) and I wouldn't dream of wearing them outside. I wonder if there is some sort of confusion about what people think they are buying.

Oh no they are not nearly worth as much as that, bought through the bay pre owned professionally

no point in paying all that money than kladdkaka if you cannot get good wear out of them, and show them off in public

they are not everyday shoes and those who can afford to wear them as everyday shoes can afford to replace them too

best shoes i have had (and i wear lots of heel strappy shoes, not like those they look a little dated) are from zara and happen to be my favourite pairs too. i have had expensive and not so expensive shoes/boots and it is only boots i find tend to differ that much

I thought everyone knew that leather soled shoes should be re soled immediately. Otherwise they disintergrate in the rain.

Then what is the point of leather-soled shoes? A lot of men's shoes are leather-soled, aren't they? Presumably ALL shoes were leather-soled before rubber was invented... so what did people do then, never go out in the rain? The Jimmy Choo thing sounds like the Emperor's New Clothes to me.

The owners must laugh themselves silly every time another pair is sold. They're not even 'shoes' really, a slice of bread strapped to your feet would probably last longer.

I think you can get different types of leather. Mens shoes with leather soles usually last a lot longer.

Strappy kitten heels are not footwear for wearing on pavements and doing much walking in though.

I often wear leather soled shoes and don't have them resoled..not Choos though. LK Bennett or R&B seem to manage perfectly well

I think you might get more useful comments from the ladies in Style and Beauty.
Including why anyone would buy a pair of shoes at such an incredible price that are not fit for purpose, because I can't see the point.

Exactly professinally I am sure that Kurt Greigers are just as good but last longer, they certainly look lush in the shops.

you can get shoes for £4.25 now, wow bargain!

Sounds like the problem with society really. Women have been made to lust after beautiful looking shoes that cost £425 a pair and last for day. If you can afford it, no problem but if a woman buys them to satisfy a desire planted by marketing experts when she can't afford them then it's absurd. It all boils down to cost per wear: my Basler overcoat which is 7 years old and has probably been worn 60-80 times year for 7 years (and will do one more year) was incredibly good value for £325.00. My Russell & Bromley dainty patent sandals that cost £129.00 that I desperately wanted for a family do because they looked minutely better than a pair from M&S for £35 and which I have worn about six times in 3 years were not good value. They were a stupid purchase, they aren't comfy and the strap at the back slips. I'm pretty certain I'd have worn the M&S ones until they fell apart. It isn't an issue though because I could afford to pay the money - it is, however, an irritant. But, even though I could afford it, I would not under any circumstances pay £425 for a pair of sandals.

Is it just me or are they very average looking shoes anyway?

I was pissed off when a £25 from new look, looked a bit worn after one wear. Buy why are people having them re-heeled? surely you'd be storming back into the shop and demanding your money back?

bottleofbeer they are hideous looking shoes

Even though they are designer shoes, they should be fit for purpose, you would not expect such shoddy quality from any other shop so why a designer brand, which you pay through the nose for

My friends Jimmy Choos has lasted her 5 years.