MAY 8th, 2025
by Bella Blue Bloss
VOL. 006
"Bella Blue Bloss is a writer from London. She has a 2 year running Substack blog called Fragmentary Girl where she posts monthly essays and articles on feminism, art, culture and fashion to over 500 subscribers. Bella is currently working on her first book, an anthology of essays by herself and other up-and-coming feminist writers, set to be released in 2026. You can follow her on Instagram and Substack @bellabluebloss for more updates on her blog and book."
When I was younger, my best friend's mother wore a pair of pink wedge mule heels all the time. They were her signature shoe, instantly recognisable and a symbol of her identity. I always liked the idea of a signature shoe and it wasn't until I bought a pair of white Tabi ballet pumps 4 years ago that I felt I had truly accomplished this mission. I wore them everyday, with every outfit, through summer, autumn, winter and spring. They had a small block heel, high enough to feel fabulous but low enough to be able to walk miles in them. It felt powerful to have a shoe that was instantly recognised as mine. Recently, however, I lost my signature shoe. Over time the leather stretched so much that they became unwearable and are now sitting on my shoe shelf, unused but still my most loved.
The signature shoe throughout the industrial era of the 1800s would have been practical, durable and a simple, classic design; functional for the working environment and for everyday use. People would have only one, maybe 2 pairs of shoes, they would be well made and last a long time, able to be repaired at the cobblers and unlikely to have to be replaced. Footwear has since evolved rapidly, now shoes are often made from cheaper materials and are constantly replaceable for new, more stylish shoes due to the ever changing trend cycle. For an everyday shoe from the late 20th century to now, people gravitate towards trainers which have transcended their intended purpose of professional sportswear into the majority of peoples staple everyday footwear. Many would now consider a signature shoe as a comfortable and trendy shoe like a trainer not necessarily a shoe that is made to last like a workman boot or a leather brogue.
I believe, however, that the concept of a signature shoe has shifted. Instead of an everyday shoe, fashion media promotes luxury shoes and their celebrity partners, selling the idea that a signature shoe should be expensive and worn on special occasions. In recent fashion news, Zendaya has made fashion history with her Christian Louboutin So Kate’s. Allegedly, she has been training and molding her feet to the shoe since she was 14 years old and now exclusively wears this style to red carpet events. Louboutin has since released the Miss Z (named after Zendaya), their first pair of heels with a padded insole and everlasting red sole; supposedly very comfortable. They are almost identical to the So Kate’s but are sold as a more wearable alternative. Despite being inspired by and named after Zendaya, it is unlikely she will replace her So Kate’s. Instead these were made so that everyone else can achieve the Zendaya look without the long and hard commitment to making them comfortable. Aligning with trend cycles and consumption, we are now witnessing someone's signature shoe being replicated effortlessly. Sure, anyone can buy a pair of So Kates if they have the money for them, but not everyone will push through the pain of training our feet for comfort. You just pay extra for the Miss Z and have a pre-trained pair of shoes to strut around in like Zendaya.
This isn’t the first time a high heel has been highlighted as a signature shoe. In the HBO series Sex and the City, the character Carrie Bradshaw exclusively wears heels. She became iconic and envied for her ridiculously large collection of Manolo Blahniks; she had a signature shoe maker. Carrie’s desire for many shoes aligns significantly with the state of fashion consumerism today where any shoe you can think of is at your fingertips. Carrie’s character promoted the idea that a signature shoe can come in an abundance of styles yet still be instantly recognised as yours.
When I was younger, my best friend's mother wore a pair of pink wedge mule heels all the time. They were her signature shoe, instantly recognisable and a symbol of her identity. I always liked the idea of a signature shoe and it wasn't until I bought a pair of white Tabi ballet pumps 4 years ago that I felt I had truly accomplished this mission. I wore them everyday, with every outfit, through summer, autumn, winter and spring. They had a small block heel, high enough to feel fabulous but low enough to be able to walk miles in them. It felt powerful to have a shoe that was instantly recognised as mine. Recently, however, I lost my signature shoe. Over time the leather stretched so much that they became unwearable and are now sitting on my shoe shelf, unused but still my most loved.
The signature shoe throughout the industrial era of the 1800s would have been practical, durable and a simple, classic design; functional for the working environment and for everyday use. People would have only one, maybe 2 pairs of shoes, they would be well made and last a long time, able to be repaired at the cobblers and unlikely to have to be replaced. Footwear has since evolved rapidly, now shoes are often made from cheaper materials and are constantly replaceable for new, more stylish shoes due to the ever changing trend cycle. For an everyday shoe from the late 20th century to now, people gravitate towards trainers which have transcended their intended purpose of professional sportswear into the majority of peoples staple everyday footwear. Many would now consider a signature shoe as a comfortable and trendy shoe like a trainer not necessarily a shoe that is made to last like a workman boot or a leather brogue.
I believe, however, that the concept of a signature shoe has shifted. Instead of an everyday shoe, fashion media promotes luxury shoes and their celebrity partners, selling the idea that a signature shoe should be expensive and worn on special occasions. In recent fashion news, Zendaya has made fashion history with her Christian Louboutin So Kate’s. Allegedly, she has been training and molding her feet to the shoe since she was 14 years old and now exclusively wears this style to red carpet events. Louboutin has since released the Miss Z (named after Zendaya), their first pair of heels with a padded insole and everlasting red sole; supposedly very comfortable. They are almost identical to the So Kate’s but are sold as a more wearable alternative. Despite being inspired by and named after Zendaya, it is unlikely she will replace her So Kate’s. Instead these were made so that everyone else can achieve the Zendaya look without the long and hard commitment to making them comfortable. Aligning with trend cycles and consumption, we are now witnessing someone's signature shoe being replicated effortlessly. Sure, anyone can buy a pair of So Kates if they have the money for them, but not everyone will push through the pain of training our feet for comfort. You just pay extra for the Miss Z and have a pre-trained pair of shoes to strut around in like Zendaya.
This isn’t the first time a high heel has been highlighted as a signature shoe. In the HBO series Sex and the City, the character Carrie Bradshaw exclusively wears heels. She became iconic and envied for her ridiculously large collection of Manolo Blahniks; she had a signature shoe maker. Carrie’s desire for many shoes aligns significantly with the state of fashion consumerism today where any shoe you can think of is at your fingertips. Carrie’s character promoted the idea that a signature shoe can come in an abundance of styles yet still be instantly recognised as yours.
Perhaps your signature shoe doesn’t need to be something simple for everyday or an extravagant shoe you become known for wearing, but simply the shoe that your friends immediately think of when they think of you. The other day my friend said that my signature shoe is a pair of Margiela turquoise blue block high heels which I have worn once and could barely walk in by the end of the night. I disagreed at the time but since writing this piece I think maybe she was right. Even with only one wear, they are me in a shoe. It’s not the same as when my Tabi’s were my signature, as they were practically glued to my feet, but it seems that there is no one definition for the signature shoe anymore.
1. The catch is, they're more expensive…
1. The catch is, they're more expensive…