These have no useful function really - are they a trainer? Are they a shoe? Are they a shrainer?

Posted by: Deb | May 30, 2007 1:42 PM

Nay - as much as i love them, and their cute summery look there is no way i would pay almost $600 for them!

Posted by: Gem | May 30, 2007 1:43 PM

Yay. I like them, but I wouldn't pay very much for them.

Posted by: Kay Kay | May 30, 2007 2:29 PM

Truely the original "meh" shoe. I guess if they came in black with white trim from Payless for $19.99 US I might liked them back when I was twelve. But I don't hate them either. They have a certain pathos to them, as if they would be worn by a knock-kneed skinny young woman who never wears make-up or does her hair and is very shy in crowds but who has sweetness of character and a nice smile, even if she is too fond of calendars with a cute kitten for every day.

Posted by: Sarah Mae | May 30, 2007 3:05 PM

Hmmm... I think they're cute. They remind me of the keds obsession, but the little bit at the top adds an interesting twist which I think would look absolutely great on. But I'm picturing with a little white miniskirt and a polo so they really do look like tennis shoes. Then again, tennis is getting very fashionable - I believe Maria Sharapova was wearing personally-designed Stella Mccartney at this year's Australian Open. So I guess its a yay from me

Posted by: Sha | May 30, 2007 4:57 PM

If I had to play tennis (which I hopefully never will) in a stifling heat, then I guess these'd mean my feet would be slightly less hot - so they could be seen as a practical sports shoe. However, I think they suck, so nay.

Posted by: arnez | May 30, 2007 5:49 PM

Cute shoes, but not $500+ worth of cute. I'd say $60 tops. Also, I'd want them in a different colorway. You wear 'em twice and they'd look like crap (especially in damp and muddy Seattle).

Posted by: Sil | May 30, 2007 6:15 PM

These are Pucci? For almost $600? The post above who refered to the Keds is correct, they remind me of shoes my mom bought for me at the supermarket for $3! NAY NAY NAY and they should be ashamed and punished for charging so much!

Posted by: lilimj | May 30, 2007 9:12 PM

I think it was last week's that was Pucci and $600!!!

These for me are a yay! They're cute and practical for summer when you want to wear plimmies but want to be a bit more girly (my general summer thing!)

Posted by: SelinaC | May 30, 2007 9:15 PM

Yay - i do like them, but wouldn't pay much for them. There are plenty of other similar style shoes on the market that are much cuter.

Posted by: veronica | May 30, 2007 10:08 PM

I'm pretty sure it was last week's shoes that were $600, not these. And I don't think they're ugly or offensive at all.

However, I like to keep my trainers low-fronted because that's what looks best on my legs and feet. But I also like an instep elastic, to be sure the trainers stay on. The fastening at the top would keep them on, but I think they cancel out the benefits of the low front.

Therefore, I'd say nay to these for myself, but yay in principle. I certainly don't see anything silly about them.

Posted by: H. | May 30, 2007 10:25 PM

It's a nay for me, they are just too much of nothing, and for 'practical' looking shoes, the colour and fabric just isn't.

Posted by: Mrs Áthas | May 30, 2007 11:22 PM

Nay. They're just too odd looking.

Posted by: melanie | May 31, 2007 12:13 AM

Nay. The strap across the top is awkward.

Posted by: NikkiH | May 31, 2007 12:45 AM

Is it me, or do those shoes look like they're from the future? Potential to be cute. Yay if they're cheap.

Posted by: Whitney | May 31, 2007 9:52 AM

Oh, i see - the $600 is for last weeks! In which case i change my vote to a big fat YAY!! Sorry about the confusion!

Posted by: Gem | May 31, 2007 3:19 PM