Open Poll: Clog Exception?

Just a few days before Jael Paris posted about the horror of the clog trend, I received the new Anthropologie catalog which features several "clogs" that break the traditional clog rules--they aren't backless, they aren't all horribly clunky, and some even look like you could walk in them gracefully. I stared at the catalog wondering if they were weird, interesting, ugly, cool or simply meant for the right person to come along and wear them. I also wondered, "Are these even really clogs at all? Is Anthropologie just trying to cater to a trend without really giving in to it?"

What do you think readers? Are these an exception to ugly clog rule, are these not really clogs, or are they just plain ugly? Does it even matter because they're so expensive? Also, are there any good clogs out there? (Give us links!) Cast your clog vote in the comments.


Ru said…
My opinion: these ARE clogs (it's the bottom, not back or no back, that makes them clogs), and these particular examples are pretty ugly!

However, I am not averse to attractive clogs. I have these (random link just to show what they are) in their lovely bronze metallic, though I've had more traditional looking ones in the past (quite far in the past, heh); these just happen to be a little more "Western" in construction.

PS, those are ridiculously overpriced. I got mine at DSW on sale for $40. $150-350 for clogs?? PLEASE. Not necessary.
Jael Paris said…
Only the grey ones are passable as they flowers help cover the toe box.
Monica said…
I like the grey ones too. I'm on the fence about clogs in general. I did spy some cheapy mary jane clogs at Target for $24.99. Since they were so comfy, I decided to get them. I couldn't decide if they were really cute or really orthopedic looking! But I'm having fun with them as an inexpensive transitional shoe into fall.

Popular posts from this blog

Happy 10th Anniversary... and goodbye.

Shop: Green Tree Jewelry

Dramatic Makeup