Oh, Dolce & Gabbana, STOP IT. Please. You’re killing us here. You’re also fast becoming our Most Wanted “Shress” Offender – we’ve caught you in “Emperor’s New Clothes” style offences several times this year, and now we’re starting to think you’re just doing it to make fun of the people who’d hand over $713 for something that looks a lot like a pair of flesh coloured tights worn on the body rather than on the legs.
Of course, unlike other “shress” crimes we could mention , you have at least thoughtfully provided a bra with this one. It’s stuck to the dress, of course, but at least it’s there. The knickers, however, are the model’s own. We’d hate to think how much D&D would’ve had to charge for a pair of knickers AS WELL.
Think nylons would make an AWESOME dress, readers? Well, you could make your own, or you could pay Dolce & Gabbana $713 for this one. If that sounds like value for money to you, go here.
For our last Style Challenge we posed the question: what would you wear with jeggings? And not just any old jeggings, either: acid wash ones. Yes.
It was a tough challenge, to be sure, but did you rise to it? Of COURSE you did! It would take more than a pair of jeggings to defeat the Fashion Police readers, so here’s part 1 of our results roundup: enjoy!
Now, we’re guessing most of you have probably noticed by now that your Fashion Police aren’t averse to the odd bow or two. Or, you know, seven. This Kate Spade necklace, though? Too much. Even for us. And we tend to think it’s enough to decorate your tree and gifts this Christmas – you don’t have to decorate yourself, too. Or not in the same way you’re wrapping your parcels, anyway.
Do you agree? Or would you just love to wrap yourself in this? If you would, it’s $125 from the Kate Spade website.
Good news, readers! For just £390 / $654 you can look like you’re wearing a saggy pair of shorts and a white t-shirt!
OR, you could… but no. No, that’s just silly. Who would want to go to all of the trouble of just buying a saggy pair of shorts and a plain white t-shirt, and then have to work out how to wear them together when someone has done it for you? OK, sure, you’d save… well, probably around $350, but the fact is, they wouldn’t be DESIGNER saggy shorts and a DESIGNER plain t-shirt, would they? Didn’t think so.
These ones are, and the fact that they happen to be stuck to each other, well, that’s just part of the fun, isn’t it? This is by Alexander Wang, and you can buy it at Net-a-Porter.
Anyone remember that Beautiful South track, Song for Whoever? That’s what we think of when we look at this dress. “Jennifer, Alison, Phillipa, Sue…” or, in this case, “Nancy, Sheena, Shona, Janet…”
Yes, it’s Emma Cook’s ‘Names’ dress, and even if one of the names happens to be yours, we still think it would set you up for an evening filled with people walking up to you to make “hilarious” jokes about never forgetting names/not being able to remember your own name/whatever. And of course, that may well be the point.
Just to confuse people further, though, you could always go for the sweater version:
It’s covered in men’s names rather than women’s ones. Which is… definitely a conversation starter, we’d imagine.
What do you think, readers? Want to walk around with some strangers’ names on your chest?
Would you all mind just talking amongst yourselves for a few minutes? We’re busy gazing at these shoes. Both of them. Sure, the Louboutins are shinier and sleeker, but the Dune versions are only £85, which is a big saving on the circa £400 you’d have paid for the Louboutins, if they were still in stock.
Of course, quite apart from anything else, these are a good example of Shoe Porn, which means we’re going to have to confiscate them. Poor us. It’s a hard knock life, sometimes.
Sheesh.
Good news, readers! For just £390 / $654 you can look like you’re wearing a saggy pair of shorts and a white t-shirt!
