Marc Jacobs Spring 2013 vs. Nasty Gal

You're killing us, Nasty Gal. Look: We appreciate the fact that fast fashion retailers and e-tailers alike work tirelessly to bring those of us who can hardly imagine being able to afford actual designer wares some decent, much cheaper alternatives. Taking inspiration is one thing--but sometimes, they go a little too far. This is one of those times.
Avatar:
Nora Crotty
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
77
You're killing us, Nasty Gal. Look: We appreciate the fact that fast fashion retailers and e-tailers alike work tirelessly to bring those of us who can hardly imagine being able to afford actual designer wares some decent, much cheaper alternatives. Taking inspiration is one thing--but sometimes, they go a little too far. This is one of those times.
Image Title1

You're killing us, Nasty Gal. Look: We appreciate the fact that fast fashion retailers and e-tailers alike work tirelessly to bring those of us who can hardly imagine being able to afford actual designer wares some decent, much cheaper alternatives. But taking inspiration is one thing--sometimes fast fashion retailers go a little too far. This is one of those times.

While we were doing our usual online perusals recently, we came across a stripy scallop-hemmed dress on Nasty Gal that we just loved. Namely, because it was a carbon copy of a Spring 2013 Marc Jacobs look we've been coveting since it clomped down the catwalk last fall. The only discernible difference is that Nasty Gal's version is about three inches longer, rendering it more of a mini-mini dress than the undies-exposing Marc Jacobs original. Oh, and at only $68, the dress costs hundreds of dollars less than its near-identical designer counterpart.

In the past, Nasty Gal has publicly apologized (albeit snappily) for selling blatant rip-offs--which we'd certainly consider this to be. Perhaps the site should start preparing a sympathy note for MJ...