not ready for this jelly

I'm taking a trip to Costa Rica in a month and have started to panic about the fact that I'm really not equipped, wardrobe-wise, for such a thing. I'm a black leather and layers kind of girl, I don't think I have ever worn a flower in my hair except as a joke, I never wear flats, AND I have an undying personal vendetta against the maxi dress.

But I've kind of resigned myself to buying a pair of sandals in preparation for this trip. And if I have to buy a pair, I'm buying jellys, which remind me of running through sprinklers and summertime and the smell of Bonne Bell bubblegum lipgloss. (Remember how they used to sell them in those giant bins? Like rubber balls? Loved that.)

Of course, jellys these days are a lot more grown up and a lot more effing expensive. Ever since Marc Jacobs made the cute and overpriced $95 gladiator version a few summers back, labels from Givenchy to Gucci have been hopping the jelly train. It's a great way to get people to spend $100+ on an item specifically known for being cheap to produce, totally disposable and easily mangled, right? Anyway.

I thought the black versions of these new $150 Gucci Marolas that just hit stores were kind of cute from the bottom with their ghetto-fabulous logo stamp. Perfect for walking in the sand. But they're kind of fug and matronly on top. And, did I mention, $150? But it did get way worse. There were these $160 stunners below that I initially just assumed were from the Shauna Sands Sensible Shoe collection for QVC:

Things were not looking up, but after my exhaustive search for the least-offensive jelly, I ended up finding a pair I genuinely liked. They are See by Chloe. Hot pink. Not totally flat. Thong free. (Hate that feeling.) And they remind me of a pair of neon-pink Givenchy heels I drooled over for months. Sandals I actually want to wear? Apparently anything is possible.

images via Nitrolicious and Bloomingdales