Buy “nude” tights: they… don’t. Ever noticed how so-called “flesh toned” hosiery is only ever available in ONE shade: and how it’s a shade that’s only really “flesh toned” or “nude” on people who have mid-toned Caucasian skin? The models above in the image above, for instance, are not wearing tights.
Now they ARE:
It’s not great, is it? Sure the two women on the far right ended up with legs which look more or less like their own skin, only smoother. It’s a different story for the two on the left, however, who now look like they’re wearing someone else’s legs. (The girl second from left is wearing someone else’s shoes, too. She clearly drew the short straw on this assignment.) This is a bummer, especially now that Kate Middleton has single-handedly (or should that be single-leggedly?) made nude hosiery fashionable again.
Don’t worry, though, for help is at hand, in the shape of Debenhams new “invisible” skin tone hosiery, which they’re claiming is “a first for the high street” in that the tights are available in a range of different shades, including “bronze” and “coffee” along with lighter tones such as “beige” and “honey”.
Here are the same four models wearing tights from the new range:
Much better.
Now we just need the same thing to happen with the “nude” shoe: sure, there are some ranges which include “nudes” for different skin tones (Christian Louboutin does this, but not everyone can afford his prices), but when it comes to high street shoes, if it’s “nude” it’s normally a pale beige. But that’s another story for another day. For now, Debenhams’ new tights range is priced at £3.50 per pair: they don’t seem to be available online yet, but you’ll be able to find them in store, and hopefully online soon.
Speaking of bad Halloween costumes, here’s Nicki Minaj at the 2011 American Music Awards Nominations Press Conference in LA last night. Nicki actually has no connection whatsoever to the subject of Halloween costumes, bad or otherwise: these are just her regular clothes. Which makes us wonder how many Mini Minaj clones will be walking the streets on October 31st, along with the Little Monsters? Time will tell. In the meantime, is it wrong that we really like her eyeshadow? Because if it is, then we don’t WANT to be right.
So, it’s that time of year again: the time where you spend weeks trying to come up with a great idea for the most creative Halloween costume ever, only to end up picking up some devil’s horns or a witch’s hat at the supermarket on your way to the party.
That’s not what these people did, though. No, the people in this gallery went that extra mile to create a Halloween costume that no one would EVER forget. And while The Fashion Police generally exempt costume parties from our usual strict rules of style, we have to warn you that some of the Halloween costumes in this gallery are:
Well, we guess at least this dress will make an easy Halloween costume for the girl who really doesn’t give a crap about the whole thing, and just wants to make a token gesture towards “ooh, scary” for the obligatory costume party.
On the other hand, though, it’s £120. And we can’t really imagine paying that much for a costume. Or, indeed, getting much use out of a £120 skeleton dress at any other time of the year. Maybe one for the more gothic dressers among you?
How about this one, though?
Ah, the old “hands are on my boobs!” shtick. It makes The Fashion Police cry, you know. Not because it’s tacky, in a trying-to-be-funny kind of way, you understand, but because it’s a £65 t-shirt. Who pays £65 for a t-shirt? If you would, CONTACT US: we’re pretty sure we could rustle something up for you…
If you don’t want to wait for The Fashion Police, though, just click here to buy it from ASOS, which is where you’ll find the skeleton dress, too. We hate this time of year.
For as long as we’ve been arresting Stuck Together Clothes, we’ve also been wondering what depths the designers of such items will be willing to sink too. So far, we’ve seen socks attached to shoes, shirts attached to jeans, underpants attached to sweatpants… there is no item of clothing, it would seem, which cannot be attached to something else. What’s the strangest example of Stuck Together Clothing, though? Well, we thing this t-shirt with attached bag – yes, BAG – has to be somewhere near the top of the list.
This is actually a three-way attachment, and possibly a four-way one. There’s a cardigan attached to the t-shirt, which is attached to the bag, which may or may not be attached to the scarf. In related news, there is no God: there just CAN’T be, or a mess like this wouldn’t exist.
We have so many questions here: how would you get it on, for one? How would you get it off? WHO CARRIES A TOTE BAG AROUND THEIR NECK? Why does it cost £520? OK, so that’s only four questions, but we think that’s more than enough for one item of clothing, don’t you?
It’s tights season: what better way to celebrate than by making your legs look like they have fins? And lacy fins, at that!
The presence of the fins isn’t the worst thing about this picture, though. Nor is the fact that the model appears to be wearing a fur coat, shorts and a pair of patent workboots. No, the worst thing about this photo, and the main reason this counts as a SOCK HORROR is the fact that these tights? These tights are £129. One. Hundred. And. Twenty. Nine. Pounds. That’s over TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS. For tights. Ugly tights. Ugly, finned tights. And yes, we know they’re OMGWOLFORD, but seriously, this whole “Oh, but Wolford tights are SO worth $200!” crap has to stop. No tights are worth $200. In fact, no tights are even worth $100. Especially not sheer tights, because let’s face it, this is not an investment that will pay you back over a period of many long years. In fact, in the clumsy hands of someone like the Chief of Police, say – or anyone who owns a cat/dog/small child/other being liable to ladder your sheer hosiery – we’d estimate the cost-per-wear of something like this to be around about, ooh, $200.
A quick reminder:
Do these look like something you’d pay $200 for? Click here if you answered “yes”…
Can you spot the difference between these two shoes, readers?
Nope, we can’t either. In fact, a few subtle shade variations (which could easily be explained by differences in photography and lighting) aside, we don’t think there are any. The only difference, then, would seem to be the brand names – ASOS and Jessica Simpson – and the price points: the ASOS shoes are £75 and the Jessica Simpson ones are $78, which works out at around £56.
Looks like someone’s been a bit naughty on the “inspiration” front, then, but who is it? Well, Shoeperwoman wrote about the Jessica Simpson shoes last month, and the ASOS version only appeared on the site last week, so we initially suspected ASOS of being the guilty party. The copy seems SO blatant, though, that it doesn’t really seem like ASOS – in fact, we were so confused by it that we actually contacted them on Twitter to ask if the shoe they have listed as “ASOS Handfull” is actually by Jessica Simpson, and they’ve just neglected to add the brand name to the product description. (We know, it doesn’t seem likely, and they don’t normally stock shoes by JSim, but hey, benefit of the doubt and all that.) We’ve yet to receive a response, but we’ll update if we do.
In the meanwhile, what do you think: is this taking “inspiration” a little too far, or are you so used to this kind of thing now that it doesn’t really bother you?
Is anyone seeing a pair of reeeeaaaaallly high-waisted trousers, here? Like, Simon Cowell high? Or is it just a very small model, wearing the trousers which were meant for a very tall model? Alternatively: are Viktor & Rolf just messing with us here?
The $1,495 price tag on these makes us suspect the last option is the correct one. It would be awesome if there were teenytiny models and also ten feet tall ones, though, wouldn’t it?
Click here to buy these at Shopbop.Don’t blame us when someone asks you if you’re wearing someone else’s trousers….
It’s not great, is it? Sure the two women on the far right ended up with legs which look more or less like their own skin, only smoother. It’s a different story for the two on the left, however, who now look like they’re wearing someone else’s legs. (The girl second from left is wearing someone else’s shoes, too. She clearly drew the short straw on this assignment.) This is a bummer, especially now that Kate Middleton has single-handedly (or should that be single-leggedly?) made nude hosiery fashionable again.
Much better.
