|
|
Archive for the ‘Crimes of Fashion’ Category
|
 |
|
Thursday, November 19th, 2009
Sometimes we think Ugg have an awful lot to answer for. When they became popular, it was like the floodgates were opened for new varieties of ugly boots to come surging in. “If they’ll buy one brand of bug-ugly boots, they’ll surely buy another!” the shoe manufacturers seemed to say, and the shoe manufacturers were right. Years down the line, not only do we still have Uggs in our lives, we also now have Mou boots, made from goatskin. Just in case there was any doubt about that, look, they left the tails on!
(Note: probably not ACTUAL tails. But still.)
These are certainly plenty ugly, and we’re just not convinced that the chunky sole will do anything AT ALL to prevent that cream fur turning the colour of mud once you’ve been out in them for more than a couple of minutes, but just to make matters worse, Net-a-Porter suggest these are “weekend staples” which should be worn with “trackpants”. We can only hope they just forgot to type the words “IN THE FASHION POLICE JAIL, SUCKERS!” at the end of that sentence.
What do you think, readers? Could you be seduced by these? If so, they’re £255 at Net-a-Porter.
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
Fancy wearing someone’s teeth on your fingers, readers? Oh, come on! Around your neck, then? Still no? Well, Australian silversmith Polly van der Glas is giving us the opportunity to just that with her selection of rings and necklaces featuring real human teeth (donated and sterilized), and other items, including pendants and earrings made from human hair.
Well, they’ll certainly be a talking point, won’t they?
For more information, or to enquire about purchasing one of these, visit Polly’s website here.
[source]
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
 $713? Seriously? 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.
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009
 Sheesh.
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.
[source]
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009
 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.
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009
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?
Names Dress by Emma Cook, £65, Topshop
Monday, November 16th, 2009
 Oh, Marc. Marc, Marc, Marc. Look, if you absolutely MUST stick shoes to boots, in a devlish bid to convince us that the wearer is, in fact, wearing a pair of black court shoes (and we’re not saying you SHOULD, by the way), you could at least make the boot part have the same approximate shape as a leg. Because these don’t look like shoes and tights/socks -they look like shoes and SACKS. Sacks, Marc. Who wants to wear sacks on their legs? WHO?
Is it you, readers? Do you want to wear sacks, but be able to say they’re “boots”? If so click here, and have £258 at the ready.
Marc Jacobs boots, £258
Monday, November 16th, 2009
 Something missing? Following on from the Dion Lee blazer we showed you last month (you know, the one that didn’t have any elbows?), The Fashion Police are saddened to report that attacks on defenceless jackets are continuing, across the world. The latest victim is this Cynthia Rowley jacket, which appears to have had part of its back removed by an un-named attacker.
What was the motive for this crime? We’re dammed if we know. We do realise that a nice pair of shoulder blades can be sexy, but the grey t-shirt you can see under this jacket? Not so much. And if you did wear it with nothing underneath, in a bid to show off your shoulders, well, you clearly have a better tolerance of the cold than we do.
The jacket in question is currently recovering from its ordeal at a Fashion Police safe house. If you’d like to offer it a more permanent home, you’ll need to cough up $365 to Shopbop.
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009
At first we were confused by this item (which, by the way, comes with long sleeves, too. You know, to keep you warm?), wondering what on earth could be its purpose. And then we realised: it’s to allow you to show off your black bra, whilst still claiming to be wearing “clothes”. Genius! And also: classy!
We had hoped this was an isolated incident, but our policing of the retail world this week suggests that we are, in fact, dealing with an outbreak of the lace bodysuits, probably as part of the larger “must show your underwear at all times” movement. If you want to be part of it, this is £11.99 at Ark Clothing, and apparently best worn with acid wash jeggings.
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009
 A denim jacket with a hoodie underneath: it’s not exactly a fashion crime, but then, it’s not quite the cutting edge of style either, is it? Unless… unless the denim jacket is actually ATTACHED to the hoodie. That’s a different matter. In fact, that’s £525 of “edgy” fashion right there - or so we’re led to believe, anyway.
If you’re convinced by it, it’s by Alexander Wang, and it’s available at Browns.
|
|
|
