I’ve spent almost three of the past four weeks in California which means I’ve worn pretty much nothing but old Levi cut-offs, white James Perse tees and my red Saltwater sandals.
It’s been wonderful.
But yesterday it was back to reality, which means gearing up for fall, for fashion week, for September issues etc. and while dicking around online, I changed my mind. Now, I want, need, must have a pair of thigh high boots. The problem is a) which pair and b) will anyone make a pair for under $1000 that don’t scream Pretty Woman and then of course c) what do I wear them with?
The thing is, while they were on almost every runway, I half expected them to elude the actual market given the state of the economy, as if fashion would pay attention to a reality other than its own. Sure enough, the boots are everywhere. Ideally, of course, I’d have a spare $1,470 for the Brian Atwoods which I’m tempted to call the originals. And if those didn’t fit over my slightly-larger-than-LSD-thighs I could always go for a flat version from Chloe for $1,235. But I’m barely 5’4” so I’d probably do better in something like these Pradas. In my dreams though, I’m wearing the Louboutin-meets-Catwoman version (though they might me higher than thigh) because I don’t know if the Nicholas Kirkwood for Rodarte masterpieces are even being made. The only high street ones I’ve spotted are suede, Topshop, and called the Brittany - a sign?
Maybe, but as of this morning they’ve already disappeared. What’s a girl to do?
Fact: When pieces are borrowed for a photo shoot, they are usually just that - borrowed, unpaid for, and are meant to be returned as soon as the shoot is over (unless someone on set has sticky fingers).
Fact: Many of these items, if returned, come back to their showrooms damaged.
Fact: So, designers are forced to consider the value of having their dress lent to a shoot for, say, ELLE against the loss of the garment itself (plus, just because something is shot doesn’t mean it’s actually going to make it into the pages of the magazine).
So James Perse is now making editors pre-pay for any borrowed items, minus a 10% discount, which they can only refund (minus the 20% restocking fee) once the items are sent safely back, no later than ten days after they’re borrowed.
WWD seems to think this is a bad idea (they posted this under the heading “Good Luck with That”). But here’s another fact: Back in the day when we used to assist on shoots, we saw many, many James Perse items shot on many starlets, later to be credited as part of the basics collection of designers that actually advertise.
So yeah. We don’t think James Perse is losing much on this one.
Sometimes designers make outrageous things that make us go, “Um, really?”
We’ve been scrolling through Shopbop all morning, (because all tops are 20% off and we have a crush on James Perse), and we found these Alexander Wang waffle shorts. They have little buttons and look like they’re probably saggy in the butt and the model is seriously wearing them with black patent heels.
We thought, “Those are kind of weird.”
But then we found the onesie version.
It’s not so much a question of would you wear a onesie, because it could be kind of fun to run around a log cabin in a waffled onesie with a fur hat and hot chocolate, in theory anyway, but more about how a onesie should never, ever, cost $302.
In fact, Wang himself sums it up pretty nicely on Style.com today: “There’s no point in creating clothes so out-there, so special that no one can wear them. I try to stay in touch with the customer.”
We’re repeatedly told it’s best to splurge on a pair of luxury shoes or an it-bag - but in our office, some would rather spend serious money searching for the perfect white tee.
While a nice bag can last a lifetime, a white tee will never last more than a year, (you might still have it in your closet, but there’s no way it looks good). However, the satisfaction of finding the best-fitting, softest, most flattering t-shirt to be the blank canvas for everything else in your closet is enough to validate its short life span.
Britt guesses she has about twenty white t-shirts ranging from $7 Hanes undershirts to a $100 James Perse linen tee, (the most she’s ever spent). But then again that’s pretty much all she wears, whether with a brocade skirt or ripped jeans. She’s currently lusting after this Alexander Wang version, and would like you to justify the $138 purchase.
Natalie is in the same boat (shoe…ha!), although she usually just stocks up at American Apparel (still overpriced remembering the price of those Hanes.) She’s bought a few James Perse items in her past, but she doesn’t feel so bad about it, because she knows that you’re not just paying for cotton, you’re paying for the perfect fit and the ability to practically triple your wardrobe via strategic layering and other slights of fashion.
When it comes down to it, buying a $100 t-shirt might be as ridiculous as buying a $5,000 handbag, except it’s more within reach, it’ll actually be on your body rather than just to the side, and it’s less of a commitment.
Which makes it OK, right?
