“But Ms. Lohan’s arrival at a 45-year-old Paris house known for $1,500 dresses and a tradition of couture craftsmanship is entirely different, something akin to a McDonald’s fry cook taking the reins of a three-star Michelin restaurant.” —The New York Times’ Eric Wilson in his review of Emanuel Ungaro.

Super Models! Paris gets all Comic-Con with their show packages. Iselin, Vlade, Hanne Gaby, and Iris will save the world from evil henchmen! {Fashionologie}

Panty Raid: Eric Wilson’s number three trend of NYFW, Spanx. Well, really briefs, outside the clothes. Linda Wells finds it “perfectly insane”. We’ll respectfully agree to disagree. {NY Times}

To Milan They Go: Apparently it’s sweltering, but Mr. Armani really brought the goods to kick things off. Think flouncy dresses and lots of flats. And then came the D&G cowgirls. Yee-haw! {Joe Zee’s Twitter}

Hair God: Bumble’s Jimmy Paul is often the person behind the runway’s coolest hairstyles. You’ve probably copied something he created more than once. Here’s how he spent NYFW. {Vogue Daily}

“You want to be understood by the sophisticated few, but you also have to be more loud, somehow; otherwise, your message doesn’t go through.” —Miuccia Prada in the new Another Magazine via Eric Wilson’s NY Times piece on defining this decade’s style. On a separate note, are we really going to have to call it the “aughties”?

Bend it Like the Other Beckham: Heidi Mount plays Posh Spice in this on-line only editorial from V. Though “chasing her kids all day,” really? {V}

Not So Fast: Gen Art, the nonprofit organization known for supporting emerging designers (including at points Zac Posen, Sari Gueron and Phillip Lim) is having serious financial trouble. This tipster says, “Gen Art deserves to die.” {Gawker}

Biba-licious: Biba’s up there with Halston as one of the brands we can’t quite keep track of. It’s just been announced that online retailer Marisot will launch Biba for fall using inspiration from past collection. Um, okay. {VogueUK}

Made Over & Under: Trinny and Susannah, the British makeover artists extraordinaire, are coming to America. Actually, they’re already here, taking Eric Wilson shopping and plucking poor souls out of Times Square and into Zara, including one woman who’d never heard of Elle MacPherson. {NYTimes}

In today’s Thursday Styles section, NY Times writer Eric Wilson reveals the identity of someone that many of you are very familiar with, even though you never knew his real name.

Regular readers and commenters will well remember Fluff Chance who has regularly stirred up trouble here on Fashionista, though trouble with a voice that indicated he knew the industry well.

Today we find out he is Eric Gaskins, a designer himself for the past 22 years. He has chosen to reveal himself now as he is closing his design business, but will keep writing The Emperor’s Old Blog.

“A new store, WHO.A.U., sells frayed cargo shorts and appliquéd T-shirts that are displayed next to black-and-white portraits of hunky shirtless models, ahem.” —Eric Wilson tackles Abercrombie and American malls in The New York Times today.

“These are clothes so absurdly trendy that shoppers might think they were at Forever 21, or even Bang Bang, if it were not for the higher prices, with dresses often costing $100 to $150, and the marketing of Topshop as a destination for cool design. The creative style of the sales staff helps to create that illusion.” —Eric Wilson weighs in on Topshop in The New York Times.

The New York Time’s Thursday Styles section has been more about botox and babies than Balenciaga lately.

But today, Eric Wilson answered a question that we’ve been asking since we were old enough to pick up a magazine.

He offers an in-depth explanation of that annoying credit listing, “Price Available Upon Request,” which we always assumed meant way too expensive unless you employ someone to make phone calls for you.

But it’s actually more interesting than that: Most of those pieces, aside from the jewelry, aren’t even manufactured, “Out of 30 items for which prices were requested, 21 were not available at the stores at which they were listed.”

Fewer and fewer runway pieces are going into production, while retailers focus on pre-season collections. Which means that ready-to-wear is like the new couture - a vision of the designer’s ideas and themes which get watered down into slightly less expensive, less fashiony, and more wearable clothes, which, given the current economic state makes a lot of sense.

But it also makes us nervous because at some point, some investor will say, “Hey, why should I pay for an extravagant runway presentation when these clothes won’t make a single penny back but serve just to satisfy your creative whims and fill the pages of Vogue?”

Because the fact is, those clothes aren’t couture, which actually can be bought anyway. And as high fashion brands make an increasing percentage of their money off of it-accessories and pre-season tank tops, it’s only a matter of time before ready to wear goes the same way as couture.

And that makes us want to cry.

“Mr. Tansky has projected that the fall season will end up with lower margins and higher leftover inventory than normal. (This did not dissuade Neiman from mailing its Christmas Book last week, an annual exercise in excessiveness that includes a $10 million thoroughbred racing stable in Kentucky alongside a $1,995 Prada lace bag.)” - Eric Wilson in The New York Times.

Eric Wilson profiles Marc Jacobs in the Times today, just after Amy Larocca prints a similar piece in New York’s new fashion tome, The Look.

Both gloss Marc’s collections in favor of something else:

His relentless stun-then-shun of the press.

The story - called “Loving and Hating Marc Jacobs” - comes on the heels of some major Marc antics. It’s not that his show started late, because seriously, what else does anyone have to do on Fashion Week Monday than watch Marc Jacobs?

It’s more his go-fuck-yourself tirade in Women’s Wear Daily, followed by a tongue stuck out on the Louis Vuitton runway, followed by a comment on Cathy Horyn’s blog, followed by a Daily interview that’s not even out yet where he says, ““The only opinion that matters around me is my own.”

Again, we agree - don’t mess with Marc - but what’s with all the fuss?

We always thought your works speaks louder than anything else. If Marc’s clothes are the best, and they are, then what else is there?

Maybe this:

Eric Wilson observes, “Mr. Jacobs is drawing from his own tabloid existence in creating clothes, as he did with his spring collection with underwear hanging out of undone dresses, that reflect the disjointedness and randomness of the contemporary culture of celebrity worship.”

Well, that’s razor-sharp and partly plausible.

Or maybe Marc just likes undies, and everyone else likes to talk…