Fashionista - Fashion Designers, Models, Shopping, Style

Mar 19, 2008 @ 10:40am

The Marc Jacobs spoofers may still be anonymous and the Anya Hindmarch thieves haven't been found, but at least one good fashion mystery has been solved this morning.

Yesterday, Racked had a minor freakout when photos from an "unnamed Target collection" surfaced on their website. The photos were labeled "Go! International Private Label" and Racked suspected they were secretly from Richard Chai.

They're not - which is sort of a relief because most of these clothes are not so cute.

Instead, the clothes were created by Target designers in an attempt to "bring top apparel trends to Target in between each limited-edition GO International designer collection."

It's cool that Target's designers are now being given the edict to go for trendier, cooler creations for their customers, and we adore well-made dresses for $40, but we also can't help but sigh and know the truth:

"In between each limited-edition GO International designer collection," we're searching for the actual designer collections on the sale sections at Net-A-Porter, Barney's Coop, and Bluefly.

posted by guest

Mar 19, 2008 11:17AM

and after reading about searching at barney's coop, I sigh and know the truth: paying tuition beats out shoes when the sale price is still in the triple digits.
hopefully the new target designed stuff will be decently made (unlike the erin fetherson too short trash bag dresses).

posted by etoilee8

Mar 19, 2008 11:21AM

Thanks for clearing this up. When I checked Target's website I was completely confused and couldn't find any information about this mystery label.

posted by shinyredthermos

Mar 19, 2008 11:36AM

some of that stuff isnt too bad. we can count on it being made awfully and fitting terribly though.
sometimes i think they need to try a tad harder.

posted by missryanm

Mar 19, 2008 12:45PM

Kudos to the first poster for articulating why this post rubbed me the wrong way at first glance.

Well, that and the faux contrarian straw man into. Why must so many posts start with airs of solving mysteries that don't exist, correcting hypothetical minomers that were never asserted and drawing connections or parallels that are an irritating stretch at best? Have faith and be confident: the thesis is usually good enough to stand on its own.

posted by Faran Krentcil

Mar 19, 2008 12:58PM

Maybe I'm missing something.

The main issue of the first comment was the yawning idea that every woman in america must choose between her education and a pair of italian leather pumps.
'
The neglected underside of it: That cheap clothes are often produced in cheap conditions, and fall apart quickly, causing environmental harm and general frustration.

Shopping vintage and shopping sales can certainly stem a big part of this.

And a lot of those Target clothes are not very cute.

The end.

Mar 19, 2008 2:47PM

Oh get over yourselves...fashion isn't a green industry. It doesn't matter if its fast fashion or expensive shit from Barneys. Both are about excess, just different types.

Mar 19, 2008 4:17PM

The post's inference that the only difference between shopping Target and shoping Net-A-Porter, Barney's Coop and Bluefly is authenticity comes off obnoxiuosly priviliged.

Mar 19, 2008 5:59PM

There really is no need to take things so seriously. Maybe it's just proving an important point about the GO International collections and why they have worked so well, especially from a designer's perspective: how many people know about or actually buy Jovovich-Hawk (or Erin Fetherston or Luella) before they collaborated with Target--hello, great marketing! But let's face it, no matter who designs for Target it won't be near the quality of the designer's actual line.

To be fair, when I was in college, paying for it was my first priority, but when people are working in fashion, well... it's their first priority.

posted by dumbbrunette5

Mar 20, 2008 12:38AM

you're right, some of the stuff isnt really that cute at all. however, id like to point out that while yes, cheap clothes are cheaply made they dont fall apart fast if you take care of them well. i can barely afford fast fashion, even sometimes when its on sale and i dont usually have access to vintage stores or second hand shops (except when i visit my family in the us over summers) so my entire wardrobe is fast fashion. but all of my clothes have lasted quite a while because i dont buy many of them and i take good care of them. although id like to point out that i am in no way saying that people who shop at barneys and such are spoiled, if i had the money id do the same. i just think that people wouldnt have to worry about the clothes being cheaply made if they took good care of them.

Mar 20, 2008 12:40AM

wow...that was a much longer post than i had planned on...oops

Mar 20, 2008 2:05PM

Personally, I thought some of the pieces were cute and in my price range.

When will they be be available to purchase?

Mar 20, 2008 3:52PM

none of the clothes were cute...