Fashionista

Entry: The Sorry State of Saks

posted by bluealvarez

Dec 09, 2008 9:21AM

I think #6 and #11 both have valid points. I work in apparel, on the wholesale/manufacturing side, and I can say that some people price accordingly based on costing formulas, and some way out price based on their perceived brand value. While neither is wrong, I find it hard to believe that anyone who's been doing the latter is surprised at what's happening now.

While I'm upset at the loss of jobs this will cause in many countries, I am hoping this will be a great equalizer for fashion. Once you see that "40%" off sign next to a Marchesa, it becomes easier to realize that the name is not important - ANYONE with the right eye and skills can make something incredible. What should be setting one piece apart from the other is what you, the wearer, thinks about the quality and design, not about the name on the label.

Entry: What's Your Fashion Secret?

posted by bluealvarez

Dec 29, 2008 3:44PM

This thread was amazing, in good and bad ways of course.

As for my Post Secrets:

- I tell people I'm "over" weight loss, but I still wish I had about 18% body fat.

- My true style is really androgynous and kind of nuts, but the older I get, I hold back more because I'm afraid I'll never get a date with anyone who actually appeals to me if I rock the look I really want.

- Except for the Super-Retro-War-Time-Glam thing he did a few years ago, which was more regurgitation than new fashion, I don't get Marc Jacobs AT ALL. There, I said it.

- As if I didn't adore Karl Lagerfeld enough already, I extra love him for putting women in nothing but flats in one of his recent Spring couture collections. If high heels were wiped off the face of the earth, to say I wouldn't mind would be a gross understatement.

Entry: Jan 02, 2009 @ 11:31am

posted by bluealvarez

Jan 02, 2009 2:56PM

Karl might be a little loony, but this is a pretty sane point. He could have taken it a step further and said that in a world where we (er, America) start wars unilaterally by fabricating provocation, there's no sense in arguing over clubbing a baby seal.

Cruelty is cruelty, I think maybe some people just see the fur trade as worse because in developed countries it's an obvious extravagance, so the spotlight shines a little brighter in that corner.

As a vegan on a limited budget, I can attest to the fact that, in the US anyway, it's cheaper to live without meat, leather, fur, wool, or dairy. You'd be amazed how little shopping you do and how much more money you save feeding yourself. Guest 13's point about India is spot on, a brilliant case in point.

Entry: Dolce & Gabbana to Offend

posted by bluealvarez

Jan 14, 2009 3:01PM

"offending religion", eh? Because if I were them I'd be less worried about Catholic sensibilities and more about their target female customer. That ad looks like a stylized gang rape waiting to happen.

Entry: Feb 27, 2009 @ 11:21am

posted by bluealvarez

Feb 27, 2009 1:25PM

Oh my god, when I first read this I interpreted it as "My children are the weakest link in my chain of power", as in, they were her greatest disappointment! Yikes, goes to show how stereotypes can cloud judgment. Anyone other than Ms. Wintour and I would have seen it the other way (which I'm sure is what she meant), that her kids are *her* greatest weakness, in that she'd do anything for them.

Entry: Gareth Pugh Fall 09: The Clothes

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 05, 2009 4:01PM

It's been evident for several seasons now that Gareth Pugh's key customer is Aeon Flux. And that is why I heart his clothes. :)

Entry: What Are You Buying?

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 05, 2009 4:13PM

I just dropped $124 at Target.com on the McQ stuff and felt like that was a big deal. So, obviously it's not me.

Entry: Explain: Why Are Jeans So Long?

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 13, 2009 4:45PM

Guest 2 - I have the opposite problem. To me it seems like all designers assume if you have a tiny waist you have tiny thighs and no ass - wrong again!

Entry: Loyalty and Mascara at Kiehl's

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 18, 2009 2:09PM

I saw a sign for this in their Boston store window on Monday and was excited for it, but hesitant because Kiehl's is so expensive. But the website says it's only $16.50! Score, I just paid something like $23 for Shu Uemura (also great), which makes this look like a bargain. So now I can't wait to try it. Thanks for the review!

Entry: Adventures in Copyright: Knot So Fast

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 24, 2009 2:16PM

Guests 10 & 11 beat me to it, so I concur - the knot motif is old as the hills. Most of the time (e.g., the Hayden-Harnett sandals recently posted) your copyright segments make sense, but this one is a bit of a stretch.

Entry: Mar 27, 2009 @ 10:46am

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 27, 2009 12:15PM

I'm too busy laughing about the super ridiculous line of his today in WWD that magically (and, in fairness, probably inadvertently) reduced women to the level of pets to be placated with treats: “Next to chocolate or a rose, I think the only thing that can make a woman happy is maybe a pink dress."

Even if he meant to say "happier", it's still pretty WTF.

Entry: Adventures in Stealing

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 30, 2009 10:20AM

I think this is the sort of thing that gives Etsy a bad name. There are scores of artists (disclosure: myself included), pumping out original designs on Etsy, and when this sort of thing pops up it's really disheartening. It's sad when designers try ride the coattails of established labels via knockoffs and stealing their brand-thunder - not to mention horrible karma.

It's one thing if she said "I repurposed pieces from an old Chanel jacket, added prints of Coco, and came up with this homage brooch - great for any lover of Chanel's classic style". That's different, albeit subtly, than what she's done here, which is market this piece as a replacement for the brand's original items, including illegal use of their trademarked logo. If she had instead created this without the double-C, as a complement (and/or compliment) to the work of the actual house, it would have been endearing and appealing instead of obnoxious.

Entry: Adventures in Stealing

posted by bluealvarez

Mar 30, 2009 10:24AM

@

"Of course we'd be up in arms you moronic imbecile - obviously because a corporation is expected to have its own creative originality"

Why is this expectation any different for an independent designer? Because they are struggling more financially? Because they are not in the spotlight? This is relative morality, from which nothing good has ever come.

Entry: Solid Perfume: A Love Story

posted by bluealvarez

Apr 10, 2009 9:17AM

Chanel's Les Exclusifs, especially Sycomore. So sad that I fell in love with this very expensive fragrance yesterday. But they only make them in EdT! Kind of strange, would be nice to see a solid, especially since it might be more affordable!

Entry: Apr 09, 2009 @ 11:00am

posted by bluealvarez

Apr 10, 2009 9:47AM

I never got the Topshop thing, as I'd always understood it to be the UK version of Urban Outfitters. It's an okay store, on par with what Zara has become - which isn't really a compliment. (Lord, Zara was so amazing when it first broke in North America, much higher quality designs.)

I visited Topshop for the first time about 5 years ago, when I was in London for a friend's wedding. And I was all hyped up to see what the fuss was about and left thinking "Cute stuff, nothing special, would rather blow all my money on one bra at Agent Provocateur" or one of the little shops up by Portobello Rd.

So, I can't imagine the watered down NYC version is going to be much better, unless they've somehow improved by leaps and bounds since then, Kate Moss' project notwithstanding.

Entry: Adventures in Copyright: So Meshed Up

posted by bluealvarez

May 29, 2009 9:24AM

Agreed that copying rips money out of the hands of hard working designers. But you know who's fault that really is? Wang's, for making a dress that costs almost $1K and then wondering why people would want to buy a copy of it, even a far lesser copy, for one TENTH of the price.

If designers could find a way to translate some of their more original and sensational ideas into more affordable, more wearable, designs, copying would not be as widely spread as it is now because competition would be stiffer - more people could afford the original and so there would be less demand for the knock-off.

Entry: But Would You Actually Wear OTK Boots?

posted by bluealvarez

Jun 03, 2009 12:01PM

I'm with #22 et. al. on this one: the flat heel is key. Then you look more Aeon Flux or Terminator than anything. Tall boots are my first fashion love from childhood, if I could find more pairs that fit over my huge calves, I'd have a whole closet full of them!

Entry: Would You Wear an Earlace?

posted by bluealvarez

Jul 29, 2009 4:36PM

Looks like it would be more attractive hanging down the back, rather than in front.

Entry: W Gets Thematic

posted by bluealvarez

Oct 29, 2009 1:13PM

That would have worked better if each item/ad/editorial piece had a text # next to it - text that number, then get a reply with a direct link to purchase the item online. Much simpler. Even with iPhones, who's really going to take a picture of the page in the magazine and email it? Too much effort for what are, in most cases, impulse buys.