The Emperor’s New Tops by Topshop Boutique

Topshop Boutique sweaters

[All items: Topshop]

“Hmmm,” we thought, “Those are some cute sweatshirts. Bit pricey at £50 each, mind you, but still: unusual colours, inoffensive enough shapes…. Nope, no crime being committed here, that’s for sure!”

Then we clicked on to the model images, and…

invisible clothing

Oh.

It’s like that, is it.

invisible top

The visible labels are the best, aren’t they? They really make the outfit, you know? So edgy!

Now, we hate to point out the glaringly obvious here, and we do realise that these are (probably) intended to be layered over other items, but even so, there’s just no getting away from the fact that these garments are almost invisible to the naked eye. They’re just one small step away from wearing NOTHING.

And Topshop are charging £50 each for them.

This is the thing that astonishes us most about the whole “see through clothes” thing. If you buy one of these, you’ll be handing over £50 for something that barely even exists. It will perform absolutely no function whatsoever in keeping you warm, for instance, and although we don’t have a problem with that in itself – lots of fashion accessories have no practical use: they just look nice, and that’s an absolutely valid reason for their existence – they don’t really have much in the way of aesthetic value either, because they’re almost invisible. Sure, there’s a small wash of colour

(Also, and this is a purely personal thing, but one of those delicate looking scarps of thin fabric would last approximately 5 seconds here at Fashion Police HQ, because we’d probably shred it while trying to put it on –  and that’s if the police dog didn’t get to it first.)

Oh, and they’re dry clean only. Awesome.

Would you buy one of these? Do you think they’re worth the £50 price tag? Or do you think this is just yet another example of the Emperor’s new clothes? 

8 Comments

  • January 30, 2014

    lizvocal

    I want to know how the model has a bra in the front, and no bra strap in the back. Witchcraft!

    View Comment
  • January 30, 2014

    Sharon

    Liz, you beat me to the comment. Distinctly odd, but maybe they took the bandeau off for the back shot?

    View Comment
    • January 31, 2014

      The Fashion Police

      I think they probably just used the bandeau in the first shot for “modesty” purposes, and then removed it for the other ones so you could see it in all its, er, “glory”!

      View Comment
  • January 30, 2014

    Claire

    Perhaps they’re suggesting that that’s how it’s meant to be worn? I shudder at the thought …

    View Comment
  • January 31, 2014

    Annette Tirette

    Dry cleaning tends to be just as rough as a washing machine, they just use chemicals instead of water. These scream hand-wash to me!

    View Comment
  • January 31, 2014

    Kota

    And I could have seen myself wearing those too, if they’d been opaque. Speaking of, how the heck did the photographer make the ones without a model look like opaque fabric?

    View Comment
  • February 4, 2014

    Claudia

    I actually like those ultra-transparent fabrics, they were a fashion statement even during Roccoco times. But back then, they were silk – and much more intricately finished. These transparent potato bags have little to no visible appeal, and their cold colours make the skin underneath look sickly.

    View Comment
  • September 4, 2014

    Yannick

    Cool. Really cool. I mean cool as in cold. And it sure feels like that when you’re wearing it.

    View Comment