posted by syako
Apr 22, 2008 3:33PM
eek. I don't know how to say this without sounding rude - but a friend of ours recently came to America from Russia, and she wears these floral print leggings/tights - it's really odd and very unattractive even on her cute small figure!!
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 3:59PM
overkill. I love printed tights like paisley or sth, but these r just plain weird. you'd look like a geriatric
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 4:09PM
I think they look really cool as part of the window display. However, much like couture outfits, when worn off the runway (or in this case out of the display window), they just don't work.
I really can't see anyone with any body type pulling those off.
posted by fay
Apr 22, 2008 4:36PM
Awful. I doubt they'd look good on anyone (other than a mannequin).
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 4:42PM
Is it just me or do the flowers kind of look like grapes upside down?
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 4:43PM
they look just like my sister's laura ashley bedspread circa 1994.
florals for spring, how original.
posted by adristar
Apr 22, 2008 4:45PM
those tights are great! maybe with a black or heather grey minidress, and small flats.
and then you could wear a really wild, mismatched bag.
love it
and since when don't couture outfits work off the runway? they don't work because people jump all over it when someone wears something "strange"
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 5:29PM
i love wolford, but those stinking things probably cost over $200 and are a pain to clean.
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 6:11PM
ew! those hideous curtain tights make even the mannequin look ginormo!
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 6:37PM
ugh. overkill... i love tights with prints but the floral is too much.
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 8:27PM
I kind of like them.
I can see wearing them with something black on top; like a black cotton mini shirtdress.
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 9:35PM
i think they might work with some towering, chunky black heels and a gray minidress
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 9:46PM
I still have nightmares about my mom dressing me in leggings with that same print on them. It hurts.
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 9:54PM
AMAZING i have been pining after valentino for wolford since the end of march, they are $400 though, and that IS overkill.
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 9:55PM
I am all about the spring florals....but this is overkill sad to say.
What about a nice semi sheer purple /pink tight instead?
~Danielle
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 10:26PM
I personally love them, but whether or not I could actually pull them off is an entirely different story...
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 11:44PM
....i can never say never. odds are i'd end up wearing them somewhere with some 90s minimalist dress.
posted by jillj
Apr 23, 2008 12:30AM
NOOOOOOOOO.....please tell me who will be wearing these. They are making a statement for us to talk about........ like we are....but can't deny the inspiration factor! Love the pic!
posted by guest
Apr 23, 2008 12:54AM
Are those opaque white tights, or are they sheer hose on a white mannequin?
Printed tights were so popular in the 80s. If they are opaque, they look like they came from some flea market where they were unloading 20-year-old hosiery for $1 a pair.
If they are sheer, the print is all wrong. I can't imagine a pale lavender print looking good on any skin tone. They have to do bolder colors on a sheer hose that lets the skin tone show through, and it might look cool and fresh.
posted by guest
Apr 23, 2008 9:47AM
I love florals but not on tights. These make the mannequin look like it has a skin condition. Not flattering!
posted by guest
Apr 23, 2008 10:53AM
They totally stole this idea from Marc Jacobs' Victoria Beckham ads.
posted by guest
Apr 23, 2008 6:59PM
uuugh, serious overkill. though I do think that floral print is pretty..just not on tights, please!
posted by guest
Apr 29, 2008 9:22AM
It would've been cuter if they'd just done some accent flowers, like one on the thigh and a few on the opposite ankle.
posted by guest
Apr 30, 2008 8:04AM
eeeeeeeeeeew!!! definitely one of those things we'll look back on and go, eeeeeeeew!!
posted by guest
Apr 22, 2008 3:32PM
LOVE!