I’ve been trying to catch up on the men’s shows before Paris hits and it’s always interesting to scroll through everything at once.

I’m clicking through the boring suits with contrast lapels and short shorts that won’t work on any guy who hasn’t been to the gym every day for the past month and I’m noticing what might be the oddest trend ever: Socks.

My inner fashion demon, the ones from way back, like second grade, have always told me that socks and sandals are the biggest, most absolute NO ever.

But now, post-hours on men.Style.com, I learn that Stefano Pilati thinks they’re OK, Dean and Dan think they’re grand and even Consuelo Castiglioni over at Marni channeled “Grandpa with his pants down” when she decided that loafers paired with knee-highs and boxer shorts make an acceptable outfit.

And now my fashion compass is all sorts of off.

—KYLE HAYES

Given our Gossip Girl obsession, I felt the need to weigh in on the situation that is NYC Prep, fashion news or not.

While I anxiously await Daily Intel’s highly specific (and sure to be hilarious) recap, I’ll just share a few quick thoughts.

I was obviously expecting an abundance of egregious behavior and inflated egos from these privileged youth…they were worse than expected. It was kind of nauseating to watch. Fictional romps on GG = good. Real kids acting like a-holes, not so much. Note: PC, sir, you are no Chuck Bass.

Plus, I was less than impressed by the clothing—which is supposed to be one of their “things”, yes? Personal shoppers do not a stylish girl (or boy) make. And Sebastian, really with the hair? We think Rolando could give you some serious advice.

Blair, Chuck, Serena, and even Little J would be so disappointed.

Fashion quote of the show for sure was from Jessie’s friend, Zoe: “I wear clothes that are less than $20 sometimes.” I don’t even have words…

Are these kids giving their private school counterparts across the country a bad name? Or just our fair city of New York? I, for one, have never been more proud of my public school diploma.

Yet, I know I will still watch every episode of this silly show. What does that say about me? Are you with me? Or are you a more culturally sound person?

Michelle Trachtenberg’s danced around the fashion crowd for a bit now without actually attaching her name to anything (except for her stint as one of the faces for Candie’s at Kohl’s which she’d probably like us to forget.)

But now she’s throwing a party for Guess.

They’re re-opening their Soho flagship store at the end of July and Georgina Sparks, along with Marie Claire, will host the bash.

Which of course makes us wonder, will Michelle grace an upcoming cover of Marie Claire or join forces with Guess’ sultry models?

It also makes us wonder what went wrong in the world of Gossip Girls-turned-campaign faces. We’re still not over Leighton for Reebok or Ed for K Swiss, and Michelle for Guess is just as disturbing. They all have faces worthy of high fashion campaigns and Michelle and Leighton both have curves we’d love to see in runway clothes.

Make us proud Blake.

Let me just say that I love Elle, lots. It is one of the few American fashion mags that I actually read cover to cover every month.

I’m a huge fan of EIC Robbie Myers and Creative Director Joe Zee.

That said, I’m somewhat perplexed by their June cover girl, Megan Fox. One of these things is not like the other one. Granted, the girl is beautiful and the Alexei Hay shots I’ve seen look equally so.

GQ, sure I get it. But does starring in two Transformers movies plus being smoking hot really warrant an Elle cover? Not so much in this girl’s opinion.

What credit crunch? London’s a hotbed of fashion retail growth.

This past week, Rick Owens and Marc by Marc Jacobs opened doors on South Audley street in Mayfair. And a walk down New Bond Street revealed workers near completion on Michael Kors’ new store, set to open later this month - all of which suggest both designer and brand faith in shoppers.

And if they’ll find that loyalty anywhere, it’s London. There’s a palpable difference between shoppers here and in the states. I spent a Saturday afternoon walking from Barneys to Bergdorf in New York just a few weeks ago. Racks of clothes went untouched and bored sales staff milled around. It was like a museum of clothes in which more than one salesperson told me, “No one is shopping in New York right now.”

But then I spent this past Friday doing some spring shopping in Harrod’s and the store was bumper to bumper, can’t-get-a-salesperson-to-help-you packed. Sure, London’s an international shopping hub, but so is New York.

Why, in the midst of this global economic crisis, do London’s stores feel like the circus and New York’s a mausoleum? And is the answer to that question the same as why designers continue to open stores on this side of the Atlantic?

—REBECCA SUHRAWARDI AUSTIN

This morning, among emails from people we actually know, our inbox was filled with notes from Abercrombie & Fitch, Barneys, Bergdorf, Michael Kors, Neiman Marcus, Tiffany & Co., and Pottery Barn - and it’s only 9:00.

Is it just us, or do you delete these immediately and move on? We could just click ‘unsubscribe’ at the bottom of each one, but we let them keep coming with the hope of learning something earth-shattering.

We do occasionally find a golden nugget of goodness in the subject line - free shipping on whatever or amazing new shoes with our name on them. But usually it’s things that we couldn’t care less about like post-collegiate Abercrombie sweatshirts or floral frilly bikinis from Urban Outfitters - all because we bought a t-shirt from them five years ago.

So to those responsible for mass emailing, may we suggest asking our product preferences? Something as simple as are you a boy or a girl? And perhaps a comments section in which we can give a thumbs up or down?

We understand the rationale behind bombarding us with information to see what sticks, but it’s getting ridiculous. We read Net-a-Porter’s Wednesday emails religiously, and look forward to Colette’s monthly newsletters because their content’s worth reading.

If you really need to reach us everyday, why don’t you start a blog?

—BRETT KANE

The downward spiral began when Victoria Beckham wore it.

Then we read that Moscow housewives are “shipping them in by the truckload” - the official death knell.

We’re talking, of course, about Balmania - the fastest spreading fashion virus ever.

Let’s talk about the “design genius” that made Christophe Decarnin famous in the first place: Very suspect looking shoulders on Michael Jackson jackets. And how about the ten, eleven thousand dollar price tags? We didn’t understand until we decided that editors rave and obsess because mere mortals simply cannot have them. And really, neither can actual journalists - unless of course they’re married to a tycoon. So they fawn over Balmain, even though Decarnin makes his darlings look like fashion robot victims.

A point driven home at Selfridges this morning when three very cool London girls stood over the (full) Balmain rack and squealed,”Ewww!”

—CHARLEY B.

Lindsay Lohan’s about to make zillions selling the spray version, and Rachel Bilson’s just been signed by Jergen’s to help promote their Natural Glow lotion via a campaign about sun safety, but we’re still confused - why do some people persist in pursuing the fake tan?

From girls readying themselves for junior prom all the way up to Valentino, there is a huge population of fake tanners even though a fake tan is kind of like too-dark foundation cracking over acne - totally obvious, and therefore, totally besides the point.

Which begs the next question: What exactly is wrong with being pale? Because from the Karen Elsons to the Alek Weks of the world, the only skin tone that’s ever made us utter “ew” is the shallow orange of a Hollywood Tans devotee - and even that faint brown of fake tan dabblers doesn’t make them look like they just spent a week in Florida so much as an hour in front of some light bulbs.

Some people cite the slimming effects of a tan - but is looking like a cuticle stick really worth looking like a spring breaker?

So if it never looks real, seldom looks good, and pretty much always looks cheap (not to mention that some states are looking to ban the tanning bed version altogether for minors for fear of a link to melanoma), why do people do it?

About one minute into my trip to the new Paige Denim store in the West Village yesterday, I was a little miffed. Not because some guy muttered something about “artfully destroyed jeans” to me as I walked in, but because I went there specifically for the Petites Line, which takes up about 1/16 of the store.

Which brings me to my greater question: Why exactly are jeans so incredibly long? My “petite” jeans I bought yesterday came with a tag that reads, “This collection offers perfect proportions for the petite. Rather than simply cropping the length, this garment has been rescaled and tailored to accomodate [sic] the woman who is 5’4” and under.” Which is interesting, seeing as how the average height for the female American woman is 5’4” (and that statistic doesn’t take into account all the still-growing teenage girls who probably buy more jeans than all the rest of us combined).

It’s not that I’m naive about these things. I stare at and mull over fashion for a living, so I am fully aware that most designs are intended for people that don’t even exist. But you’d think that such an ordinary item wouldn’t be subject to the idea that everybody’s 5’10 and 85 pounds (and I won’t even bother to present the argument that making people-size jeans would help the cost since less fabric should equal less money - my petites are always the same price as their foot-longer counterparts).

So does anyone have the missing piece of information to this mystery? Because it would really help my weekend.

There’s a battle brewing in the Fashionista office - is it normal, as in do you, receive compliments differently based on who’s dished them?

For example, if it’s Fashion Week and I’m surrounded by ridiculously well-dressed editors and buyers and one of them takes a moment to acknowledge something I’m wearing, it means a lot.

But someone else in our office was recently regaled with a shower of compliments in regard to his style by someone who makes Mary-Kate circa 2004 look polished. While he wanted to mean his “Thank you” with all his heart, he couldn’t help but take a second, rather confused look at his J.Crew meets Trovata outfit.

So, is a compliment a compliment no matter what? Or does its relevance change based on who’s doing the complimenting?

And before you jump to say this is ridiculous or snobby, think about something particular to you (if you don’t work in fashion). If you’re a writer, you’d take comments from your favorite author or journalist to heart more than one from the guy you’re dating who can’t take the time to spell out “your” over g-chat; If you’re an artist, you’re going to pay a lot more attention to what a curator or gallery owner says than your little sister, right?

And if someone whom you don’t necessarily want to love your style does, will you actually go so far as to change it?

Pop Quiz!

This really weird video that starts out with Taylor Momsen and ends with an equally bleached blonde stunt double is:

a) Part of Nike’s new underground campaign - note gratuitous shots of Little J’s sports bra’s swish and insanely bright Nike sneakers.

b) Part three of Gossip Girl’s sneaker invasion, Ed for KSwiss, Leighton for Reebok? (Can Chace land Puma? Will Blake follow up her Vogue cover with an Adidas campaign? Will someone on Gossip Girl actually wear sneakers?)

c) The missing part of Taylor’s awkward Teen Vogue gym story (in which she’s also rocking Nikes)?

d) Part of something we don’t know about, and you’re going to tell us…

Fred Flare named this skirt “The Miuccia” because:

a) They wanted to honor the designer in some way and roller skates just wouldn’t be appropriate.

b) They know she’s into color blocking and think this could be a great winter alternative to her luxe Italian fabrics.

c) When one thinks of skirts, thinking of Miuccia’s inevitable.

d) They want customers to feel like they’re buying into something special and they’d probably get sued if they named it the Prada.

The end of the year is always full of wacky lists, but this one tops them all.

Company Editor Victoria White, Pearl Lowe, Amiee Berman and Brit PR king Ian Johnson have named the twenty coolest women under thirty in Britain and Lily Cole’s topped the list.

In fact, there are seven models on the list, including Alice Dellal, Alexa Chung, and Daisy Lowe, who came in six places above Agyness Deyn.

Apparently, the judges made an effort to steer clear of the “uber-successful” ladies like Lily Allen, Keira Knightley and Sienna Miller which led to Lily being “the unanimous winner”.

“Everyone on our list has done something incredible with their lives, whether it’s combining a modeling career with university studies, or transforming a hobby into a luxury range.”

Um, ok, sure. But unanimous, really?

We’d have bet money Pearl voted for her daughter.

—BR(IT) BOY

We were going to do a shopping for others.

Something like,

Dear Uptown Pocahantas,

Love,
Fashionista

And we thought that’d be ok because if Monsieur Louboutin can make a 5 inch platform peep toe with three layers of suede fringe crawling up your calf (it’s actually called a “cut out boot”) we can make up whatever shopping characters we want.

But then we thought we’d just ask you, if you had a spare $1,795.00 would you consider these an investment?

If so, please explain.

While reading Vogue UK this morning, I tripped over the casual use of “stylista.” The editors refer to Emma Watson as one in their boring non-story about how she doesn’t use a stylist. I meditated on the possible meanings while walking to work, and it went something like this:

1. Would I call someone a stylista? Isn’t that almost derogatory? As in, “Haha you look like someone on that show” ?

2. Do they have Stylista in England? Do they know how icky it is?

3. Why didn’t they call her a fashionista? Is this a case of elevator/lift translation? Or something more sinister?

4. Would I even call someone a fashionista? Or is that kind of wannabe, too? Is it only acceptable for blogs (hah)?

5. Ooh, I really want those shorts from Marc, are they on sale somewhere?

—BRETT KANE

IMG’s changed their website.

We’re kind of indifferent to colors and fonts, but we’re enthralled with their new “Welcome to the World of Beautiful People” video.

Before, one was greeted with an almost perfect trifecta - Kate Moss, Daria Werbowy and Gemma Ward - now you get more, but one less.

The black and white slideshow gives screen time to Naomi, Hilary Rhoda, Stephanie Seymour (in that ridiculous POP come-back shoot), Heidi Mount, Lara Stone and Angela Lindvall, but where oh where did Gemma go?

Just because she’s disappeared from life and runways and campaigns and everything but The Black Balloon doesn’t mean she’s lost her modeling spot.

Does it?

We can’t get Madonna’s green shag Louis Vuitton outfit out of our mind. Not because it’s hideous, but because it’s a total look from the Spring 09 Louis Vuitton runway. So instead of reacting with, “What the hell is that?” like our boyfriend did, we said “Who the hell wears practically a whole look?”

We love the runway - the innovation, the style, the down-to-the-last-detail polish. And we love integrating the pieces we can into our wardrobe, even the inspired-by steals. But a head-to-look isn’t just the total yawn it is in editorials - in real life, it kind of feels like cheating, too.

And think about it - Madonna is Madonna, obviously, and even she’s washed out by the runway reference (not to mention said shag), so we can’t imagine how even a regular person wouldn’t feel like some Burberry impersonator if they wore a total Burberry look. Besides, isn’t it more fun to make designer pieces (or ideas) work with what you have to create your own version of something everybody’s already seen?

The outfits we admire are always those that seem to have the most genuine personality - take Kate Moss, or the Olsens, for instance, who have yet to be photographed in a head-to-toe look (other than when on the runway).

But what do you think? Are total looks totally acceptable? Or total cop-outs?

—HAYLEY PHELAN

The other day, my mother told me about this book called The Necklace, which follows the story of thirteen women who buy a diamond necklace to share - they couldn’t afford it individually - and find that their perception of value and luxury changes drastically.

The concept is provocative; enjoying the glamour and fun of a diamond necklace at a drastically lower price, and bonding in the process. Sign me up.

I think it would be amazing to go in with your best friends on something like Goyard Luggage, or a Rick Owens fur, or a Nina Ricci gown. In short, something super expensive that you wouldn’t use everyday, and thus wouldn’t miss.

But Natalie went straight to the practicality factor: What if one person loses it? Or breaks it? Or you all want to use it at the same time?

But realistically, just like a timeshare, if someone did lose the item then I suppose they would be responsible to pay everyone back, just like if you borrowed anything from your friend and broke it. Here at least, you have the innate trust that it belongs to you all.

Plus, there’s the fun factor, as Britt called it, a sort of “sisterhood of the traveling necklace”. But she also thinks it complicates what should be a very simple process - getting dressed - with issues like timing, calling, e-mailing, texting, etc, which adds too much time to something that may already take some people half the morning.

This all seems very green, and fun and exciting to me (not to mention a potentially genius solution to everyone’s dwindling shopping funds), but what about you guys?

Could you deal with part ownership of a bracelet the same way you could for a private jet?

—BRETT KANE

The art world’s refusing to let go of their auctions, regardless of how tough times might be.

We get it - as if the fashion industry would ever relinquish Fashion Week.

But wouldn’t it make sense to postpone things a bit, especially after Christie’s disastrous auction at the beginning of this month?

Yet, they’re forging ahead with an impressive auction of Jeanne Lanvin’s mostly Impressionist paintings, including works by Degas, Pissarro, Renoir, Vuillard and a lone Picasso as the cherry on top. They’ll go up for sale on December 1st and are expected to bring in at least $25 million despite today’s economic state. Christie’s will follow that, of course with the highly anticipated auction of Yves Saint Laurent’s art and valuables.

Is it the nature of these auctions - both collections developed by famous people and both connected to the fashion industry which could bring in an entirely different kind of buyer - that makes Christie’s think they’ll be more successful? Or do the auction houses believe that things will just get worse and therefore aren’t willing to hang on to the art for ten or so years while the economy rebuilds itself?