Daylight Robbery? Markus Lupfer sheer beaded leggings

OK. Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume there IS a reason you’d want to buy a pair of flimsy, sheer leggings (which, by the way, we’re going to refer to as “sheggings” from now on. We think you know why.). Actually, come to think of it, maybe there IS a reason you’d find yourself in need of such an item. Is there? And if so: what is it?

Whatever the reason, we’d probably want to apply our usual rule of thumb to this situation: never pay three figures for something we’d be almost guaranteed to put a finger through the second we tried to wear it. In fact, scratch that: never pay TWO figures for sheggings that would very soon be EX-sheggings once we got our careless little hands on them.

Of course, we’re clumsy. And cheap. What do you think, fashion jurors: are these Daylight Robbery, at £229.99  / $359? Tell us!

12 Comments

  • February 9, 2010

    Brie

    I bought tights as sheer as these with silver sparkle to them for NYE in 2008 and put a fingernail through them pulling them on. I was being careful as well. I was glad my tighst were $4.99 due to being on sale. I did the “nailpolish dab to stop the run” since it was hidden at the waist, wore them that night, then threw them out.

    I would never, ever, spend three figures on something this sheer. They are just begging to be accidently punched through with a finger nail, snagged and runned, or otherwise ruined soon after they leave the packaging.

    They are virtually nylons, not leggings in quality/material!

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Rock Hyrax

    At Net-a-Porter they suggest wearing them with a dress … and peep-toe boots. So now we know what they are: footless tights, brought into being for people who don’t want to wear that other crime of fashion without bare toes. So you can add the charge of aiding and abetting to the list.

    I just hope this trend doesn’t spread to normal shops, or we’ll all be paying ten times more for tights “re-branded” as sheggings stuck together with sheer socks.

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Rose

    Robbery!!

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Fashionista's Daily Thoughts

    Definitely daylight robbery!
    .-= Fashionista’s Daily Thoughts´s last blog ..Life, Love, Stuff. =-.

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Jess

    Lets hope we don’t see the “leggings as pants” rule ignored here!

    View Comment
  • February 9, 2010

    Marianne

    Why is Lupfer trying to re-invent footless tights? And with embellishment, no less.

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    AJ

    DAYLIGHT ROBBERY. Nothing else need be said.

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    Diandra

    I think the idea is interesting but they just look so flimsy! They look TOO sheer, like they’re worn out or something. I don’t think i’d pay that much for leggings ever, though!
    Wait, “sheer leggings”? Isn’t that just back to pantyhose? lol

    View Comment
  • February 10, 2010

    Kate

    Sheer leggings my entire ass. Those doth be footless tights, m’dear.

    Not even particularly pretty or interesting ones either. Those things to me just look like a run waiting to happen, with the beads on them.

    View Comment
  • February 11, 2010

    Ash

    What situation could I have possibly gotten myself into where I would need sheer leggings?

    View Comment
  • February 28, 2010

    Kat

    Aren’t these just [ugly] footless pantyhose?

    View Comment
  • January 26, 2012

    Claudia

    The embellishments look as if the wearer’s lack of personal hygiene has attracted a lot of flies.

    View Comment