Crimes of Fashion

Clothes for the Chronically Undecided

Happy new year, fashion fans!

We hope you enjoyed bidding farewell to 2014, and a ready to start fighting the fashion crimes which will face us this coming year. Before we do, though, we still have some past crimes to ponder, so today we continue our blast from the past, with a look back at one of the strangest trends to hit the world of high fashion in. We called this trend ‘The Worst of Both Worlds’, however we have to salute the ingenuity of the designers who went out of their ways to provide a style solution for those people who just can’t decide what they want to wear in the morning. Will it be trousers or a skirt? Dungarees or shorts? There’s no need to decide, people: with these groundbreaking items of clothing, you can commit more than one crime of fashion at a time!

gingham jumpsuit

One long sleeve, one bare shoulder. One full leg, one culotte. What’s not to love?

 

tuxedo dress

Now you can wear a tuxedo AND a dress to that black tie event!

ugly harem pants

This item is a hybrid of… actually we don’t even know what this is supposed to be a hybrid of. Harem pants and slightly longer harem pants? Baggy shorts and leggings? What?!

midi maxi skirt

Sometimes you want to wear a mini skirt, sometimes you want to wear a maxi skirt. Sometimes, of course, you want to wear both: and that’s where this comes in.

trench coat dress

It’s a trench coat … but it’s also a dress. It’s what the world has been waiting for! [Buy it here.]

mini maxi skirt

Apparently there was a bigger demand for the mini/maxi hybrid than we’d anticipated. Who knew?!

There was plenty more where those came from, but we think we’ve seen enough for now. Have you, though? Has this evidence convinced you that this is a crime of fashion which we should all join forces to fight, or do you think it’s the (lopsided) shape of things to come?

Crimes of Fashion, Dresses

The Ugliest Dresses of 2014

the ugliest dresses of the year

We hope all our officers are having a happy holiday season, and taking the opportunity to rest up and get ready for a super-stylish new year. Right now, though, it’s still 2014, and we’re continuing our look back at some of the biggest fashion fails of the year – in our opinion, at least.

This time we’re looking at some of the ugliest dresses of the year, and, as with our last roundup, these are all items from our archive , which means you’re unlikely to be still be able to buy most of them – unless you’re very unlucky.

Here are some of our least favourite dresses of the year: 

meadham Kirchoff rubber apron dress

Meadham Kirchhoff rubber apron dress

2013 brought us one of the strangest designer collaborations known to man, when Meadham Kirchhoff teamed up with Topshop to create a range of high street “fashion” that wouldn’t have looked out of place in a sex shop. A few months later, the brand followed up with this rubber apron dress, which they wanted £2,279 for. It kind of set the tone for the year, to be honest.

sack dress

The Sack Dress

We love a Little Black Dress, and would generally argue that simple is best: this one takes that principle just a little bit TOO far, though…

ugly sheer dress

The model’s pose is EVERYTHING.

denim shirt dress

You thought it was going to be an ordinary denim shirt dress, didn’t you? If only!

rick owens dress

We recommend wearing your best undies with this Rick Owens dress: just one wrong move, or the slightest of breezes, and the world will be getting to see it, after all.

ugly maxi dress

Yes, this is a “dress”. Or so the product description claimed, anyway…

We hope you enjoyed this look back at the dress crimes of 2014. What will the future hold, we wonder? Well, we don’t have to long to wait to find out: we’ll be back with more crimes of fashion in 2015 – for now, we wish you all a very happy New Year when it comes!

– The Fashion Police

Crimes of Fashion

The Ugliest Trousers of 2014

the ugliest trousers of 2014

The holiday season is almost upon us, and, it being the season of goodwill and all that, The Fashion Police generally like to declare a fashion crime amnesty at this time of year, allowing fashion criminals to go forth and do their worst, without fear of arrest.

While our officers take a break from hunting down new crimes of fashion, however, we thought we’d take a quick look back at some of the items already in our jail. We’re starting off with the trousers section, which encompasses shorts, jeans, jumpsuits – anything with two legs, in other words. Or sometimes with just one, actually. Well, you know how these fashion crimes can be.

Here are some of what we think were the ugliest trousers of 2014:

mohair jeans

2014 will always be remembered as the year we discovered that mohair jeans exist. Nothing will ever be the same again.

jogging pants jeans

Sweatpants and jeans, together at last!

Dsquared mud spattered jeans

DSquared Mud Spattered Jeans

This year you could pay over £300 for these designer jeans, complete with designer mud spatter – or you could just jump in a muddy puddle in your OWN jeans. Your choice.

bellbottom trousers

Bellbottom trousers gone mad

No wonder the model is scratching her head in confusion.

saggy catsuit

For those whose main stylistic aim is to look as much like a cartoon character as possible, meanwhile, there was this.

pantaloons

Who said pantaloons couldn’t be stylish? OH yeah: pretty much everyone.

loose dungarees

[buy them]

Um… they’re probably really comfortable?

the ugliest jeans in the world

Back in May, we described these as “possibly the ugliest jeans in the world.” Then we found these:

fringe jeans

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new winner!

And, last, but by no means least…

fashion crime of the year

Was this the fashion crime of the year? We think it just might have been.

Sadly, as these are all items from our 2014 archive, most of them are no longer available to buy, but we’ve done our best to link up the ones which are.

And with that, all that’s left is for us to wish you all a very Merry Christmas if you’re celebrating: Happy Holidays, everyone!

Crimes of Fashion, Shoes

Prada’s ‘fake leg’ boots are now available at Yoox.com

Prada fake leg boots

Remember Prada’s infamous ‘Look! It’s a prosthetic leg!” boots? We arrested the Mary Jane version back in 2011, but it would appear these possibly weren’t the instant sellout the brand were hoping for, and you can still find the odd pair (and we mean that literally: they’re very “odd”, aren’t they?) floating around the internet.

Our officers apprehended this suede version at Yoox.com, where they’re currently selling for an ambitious £506 – although if you don’t wear UK size 4.5 or 5.5 you could be destined for disappointment. (Or a lucky escape, depending on how you look at it.) Designed to create the appearance of a bare leg with a black, ankle-strap pump on the foot, these are Footwear Impostors of the highest order, and will only achieve the desired effect if you happen to have a skin tone that’s an exact match for the leg.

If you do, then these are an easy – if expensive – way to get the ‘bare leg’ look, without  having to actually bare your legs – always a bonus at this time of year. Not being huge fans of the opaque tights everyone’s so crazy about, we can almost see the appeal of something like this, although we still reckon the main appeal would be the practical jokes you’d be able to play by leaving them peeking out from under the sofa, say, or – if you want to be really cruel – underneath a parked car.

What say you, Fashion Force? You may never again get the opportunity to own such an iconic piece of footwear, but has time made you forget how hilarious these were when they were first released, or do you still think £500 is far too much for what looks like a wooden leg? As we say, these are in short supply, so if you want to buy a pair, we don’t recommend taking too long to think about it…

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Shorts + Dungarees = Crime of Fashion

dungaree shorts

[Buy them here]

It’s hard to imagine the thought process that goes into creating something like this. By that, we mean, it’s hard not to imagine it going something like this:

IMPORTANT FASHUN DESIGNER:

“Hmmm, I think I’ll design a pair of dungarees. Dungarees have never been cool, so, in making them, I’ll enable people to brag about wearing a “difficult” piece of clothing, and that will make them seem really hip and experimental, because they’ll be eschewing the usual “rules” of flattering your figure etc, and wearing something that indicates they don’t give a crap about how they look. Which will make them look even MORE hip and edgy. Then I will be the designer who made dungarees fashionable, and my name will be made! Yes, I will make a pair of dungarees!”

SOME TIME LATER:

“Hmmm. Dungarees really ARE horrible. Also not particularly hip or experimental. Someone who was really into having fun with fashion, and being all wild and keerrazzeee and suchlike, wouldn’t wear an ORDINARY pair of dungarees, would they? They’d wear… dungarees with one leg missing! I will cut off one leg of the dungarees!”

EVEN LATER:

“Loving the one-legged dungaree look, but there’s still something missing. It’s still not quite unexpected enough, is it? I know! I’ll slash it to the waist, front and back! Finally, my masterpiece is finished!”

OK, so it probably didn’t go anything like that at all. Seriously, what would we know? We buy our clothes on the high street, and one of our basic rules is that if it has legs, it must have two of them, or its no deal. But, of course, we’re not hip or trendy, and we definitely couldn’t be described as “experimental” (wouldn’t really want to be, either…), so this item is presumably not aimed at the likes of us. But there are people out there who are paying £123 for one-legged dungarees, and then they’re going out and they’re totally ROCKING that look.

More power to them.

Crimes of Fashion

This dress is ‘armful

dress with four sets of arms

[Buy it here]

It’s not often we get to make the same bad joke twice in quick succession, but having recently shown you the ‘armless coat, we couldn’t resist pointing out its opposite – the ‘armful dress. (As in, it’s full of arms…)

Yes, Fashion Force, this dress has twice the usual amount of arms (Although, in its defence, only two of them appear to be functional), and the model looks every bit as confused by that fact as we are. Her facial expression in the second image says it all: she’s all, “Seriously? You want me to WEAR this thing?” Never forget that Modelling Is Hard, people.

In addition to the fact that the dress basically has a sweater attached to the front of it, the back is also longer than the front, creating even more of a mish-mash of different hem lengths. While you work out what you think of that (or maybe you don’t need any time to work that out?), here’s another question for you to ponder:

see through flared trousers

[Buy them here]

Why are these sheer flares £1,303? (Other than the fact that they’re by Balmain, we mean.) Why do they even exist? How could you walk in them – especially in spike-heeled stilettos – without ripping the delicate fabric to shreds? Assuming that the model is the usual height for a model (i.e. taller than average), can you imagine what these would look like on someone of average height, or less? And again: how on earth could you wear them without falling over? Would you have to buy shoes like these?

ugly trousers and flatform shoes

[Buy them here]

OK, so that was quite a few more questions for you to ponder. Sorry about that. These questions need answers, though, so if you think you have an explanation for the existence of any of these items – or would like to have a go at telling us when and how you’d wear them – you know what to do: call the Fashion Police!

Crimes of Fashion

Skirt, Sandals, Socks

Birkenstocks with socks

[Buy here]

Back in the summer, Birkenstocks (or Birkenstock-style sandals) all of a sudden became the height of fashion, and every edgy fashionista dutifully rushed out and bought a pair. There they all were, clomping around in hideous shoes, declaring that they’d “always” loved them – even although they had never even mentioned them before that moment, and actually wouldn’t have been caught dead in them until they were officially declared “bang on trend.”

Meanwhile, all those people who actually HAD always worn Birkenstocks – mostly for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with being “bang on trend” – silently seethed at unwittingly being made to look like fashion victims, just for continuing to wear what they liked. These were mostly people who really couldn’t give a toss about fashion, and yet suddenly there they were, at the vanguard of style. Funny how that happens sometimes, isn’t it?

The Fashion Police decided just to wait the whole thing out. We personally hated the Birkenstock trend (By which we mean “people wearing Birkenstocks in an attempt to be fashionable, not just because they’re comfortable”), and had a sneaking suspicion that all those women pairing ugly sandals with delicate dresses, and claiming they’d “always” loved that look, would look back at photos of themselves in 10 years time (or maybe even sooner) and wonder what the hell they were thinking. It was the kind of trend that you’ll one day find yourself having to explain to your grandchildren with the words, “Well, you know, EVERYONE wore them back then. It was important to us to be “edgy”, and the easiest way to work out how ‘edgy’ something was, was by working out how ‘ugly’ it was. So we wore really ugly stuff, and that made us edgy, and everyone praised us.” And they’ll look at you pityingly and back away slowly, saying, “Yes, grandma, time for your medicine…”

It’s sad but true that “edgy” is often just another word for “ugly” these days. It’s also sad but true that someone thought it was a good idea to pair this perfectly nice skirt with the kind of saggy grey socks and sandals combination that will get you instantly arrested for crimes of fashion – and that someone else will copy it, too.

Crimes of Fashion, Outerwear

How much would you pay for a beat-up denim jacket?

overpriced denim jacket

[Buy it here]

Can you guess how much this denim jacket costs, Style Sleuths?

No cheating, now: don’t go clicking on the link and pretending you knew all along. Just give us your best guess, taking into account the fact that the style is dated, the denim is busted, and it looks suspiciously like its been cobbled together from a pair of jeans.

Any guesses?

OK, we’ll tell you: this denim jacket will set you back £1,735 British Pounds – or roughly $2,700.

Surprised? We were. But then again, not really, because, you know, FASHUN. Only in the wonderful world of high fashion does something become more expensive the worse it looks. If it looks like something you wouldn’t be able to GIVE away (We’re guessing here, but we suspect most of the charity stores around these parts would turn this down…), then you can pretty much guarantee you wouldn’t be able to afford it anyway. It’s like raaaaaiiiiin, on your wedding day…

We definitely don’t think this would pass the eBay test, then, but we’re also wondering if it would pass the “Could You Keep a Straight Face?” test, too. Like the ‘would it sell on eBay?’ test, this one is also fairly simple, and involves asking yourself whether you’d be able to keep a straight face if a friend turned up wearing this, and casually informed you she’d paid £1,735 for it. How would you react? Polite interest? Serious envy? Shock and horror? Howls of laughter? if it’s either of the last two – or any similar reaction – you’ve failed the ‘Could You Keep a Straight Face Test”. On the plus side, the likelihood is that you’ve just correctly identified a Crime of Fashion. On the minus side, you’ve also probably annoyed your friend. In the latter case, we recommend developing a Fashion Crime face: it’s the same as a poker face, but you use it when faced with a fashion crime, and at least you get to keep your friends…

Outerwear, Style On Trial

This coat is totally ‘armless

sleeveless coat

This coat isn’t a crime of fashion: or not in our book, anyway.

Actually, it’s quite nice: we love the colour, like the slim, unfussy shape… nope, no issues with THIS coat. Well, other than the lack of arms, obviously. This coat, you see, is totally armless (GEDDIT). It’s not particularly a sartorial issue, you understand, because as we say, its appearance is perfectly inoffensive. So we guess our main question with this one is whether or not you’d pay £89 for a piece of winter outerwear, which would require you to buy/wear other items in order for it to fulfil its purpose AS outerwear.

This isn’t a new concept, obviously. We submit into evidence the humble body-warmer, which is also sleeveless, and which is generally teamed with a chunky sweater or fleece in order to render it serviceable. Bodywarmers are causal, country-side attire, however. They can get away with it. This coat is more of a “city slicker” shape. It would look odd with a hoodie or super-chunky sweater underneath… we reckon your best bet would be a pair of long leather gloves, which could make for an interesting look, but even the longest ones tend to only reach just above the elbow, so you could be looking at a bit of a cold shoulder. God, we’re so punny today!

What do you think: totally ‘armless, or a bit strange, really?

Style On Trial

Honey, I Shrunk the Fashion Models…

 

oversized white shirt

oversized grey sweater

shirt / sweater

So, the over-sized look is “in”, we guess. And, just in case the giant orange dress from our last post wasn’t enough of a clue about that, ASOS helpfully bring us the type of shirt and sweater that make the model look like’s she’s been the victim of some kind of hilarious “shrinking” experiment, but hasn’t had time to shop for clothes in her new size yet.

We present these more as a ‘Style Trial’ or a simple trend alert than as a fashion crime as such – although we certainly think there are ample opportunities for this particular look to stray into fashion criminal territory. In the shots above, for instance, the items in question aren’t so much “overisized” in a cute-n-comfy kinda way, as they’re oversized in a “they were actually designed for adults, but they’re being worn by children” kinda way. Or a “they got reeeeeaallllly stretched out in the wash, but I’m wearing them anyway,” kinda way.

That makes the effect more comical than casual for us, but we think many of you will disagree, and it’s true that there ARE ways to make this look work. Done right, it should create the same kind of effortless, “I just threw on my boyfriend’s sweater because it was the first thing I could find: I can’t help it if I automatically look amazing in everything!” kind off effect that you’ll also get with a good pair of boyfriend jeans (Note: we said a GOOD pair of boyfriend jeans. Unfortunately, a REALLY good pair of boyfriend jeans is hard to find, and all too often, THEY stray into fashion criminal territory, too). It’s all part of that “I totally don’t care about my appearance, I was just born beautiful” effect that’s so very on trend at the moment, but which so few people can pull off.

Done wrong, however: well, you end up with a ‘Honey, I Shrunk the Fashion Models’ scenario.

What do you think of this look? 

Crimes of Fashion, Dresses

We’re, like, totally obsessed with this orange Valentino dress

orange Valentino dress

Valentino orange silk dress, $3,700

We’ve always hated it when people use the word “brave” to describe someone’s fashion choices. Not only is it something of a back-handed compliment to give someone, (“Oh, that’s such a BRAVE choice!” is generally fashion-speak for, “Wow, what a hot mess!”) it also leaves you with no way to describe things that are ACTUALLY “brave”. If wearing clothes is “brave”, how do you describe someone who runs into a burning building to rescue a kitten, for instance? You’d have no words, would you?

(See also: people who use the word “OBSESSED” when what they actually mean is “I glanced at this, and I quite like it, but I’ll have forgotten all about it by the time I’ve moved onto the next photo on my Instagram stream. “OMG, I am, like, SO OBSESSED with this jacket!” No, you’re really not. And if you really ARE obsessed with a jacket: seek help. Seriously. But we digress.)

Where were we? Oh yeah, this dress.

So, we hate it when people use the word “brave” in connection with fashion, but we’re nothing if not inconsistent, so we’re going to do it anyway, and declare that you’d have to be pretty brave – or at least to genuinely not give a damn what people think of you* –  in order to wear it. For one thing, everyone’s going to assume you’re pregnant, you can take that as read. Now, that might not matter to you  – we’ve read that it’s unfashionable to care about whether your clothing is flattering or not – but we reckon most non-pregnant people probably DO care just a little bit when people repeatedly ask them if they’re in the family way. For another thing, people are probably also going to assume you’re a Buddhist monk who’s lost their way – or are in costume as a Buddhist monk, which could be just as awkward. (Not that there’s anything wrong with being a Buddhist monk, obviously, but if you’re NOT one, the constant questions could get old after a while…). For a third thing, you’re going to be the centre of attention aaalll night. Because you’ll be the person in the giant orange dress, obviously.  (You might like that, of course. It’s hard to know why you’d wear something like this if you DIDN’T want to be the centre of attention.)

Oh, and finally: your bank account will be almost $4,000 lighter, and this is what you’ll have to show for it.

So, whaddya think: would you wear it? 

(*This is as opposed to the type of “not giving a damn” in which the wearer of the clothes works very hard to cultivate a “don’t give a damn” attitude/appearance, whilst actually caring very much indeed what you think of their outfit. Fashion: it’s like a whole different language, isn’t it?)

Crimes of Fashion, Skirts

The Story of a Skirt

bucket shaped skirt

So, here’s what we think happened: it was The Clothes Ripper. Yes, AGAIN.

This poor model was obviously just walking around, minding her own business, as you do. In a $160 bra. Well, we’ve all been there, haven’t we? Maybe everything else was in the wash that day, who knows? Anyway, she’s minding her own business, as we said, when out he pops: THE CLOTHES RIPPER! And he makes off with her trousers/jeans/skirt/whatever she was wearing before this skirt took over.

So there she is, poor thing: alone on the street, with just a powder blue bra for cover. What does our quick-thinking model do? She pops into the nearest convenience store, buys herself a cheap plastic bucket, a pair of scissors and some string, and there you have it – a cleverly made skirt, which, OK, doesn’t exactly LOOK great, but which will, at least, protect her modesty until she can go home and change!

OK, that ISN’T what happened. Actually, the skirt costs $570, and is inspired by “children’s cut-out drawings”. So, if you were to say it was designed by a child… you’d be wrong: but you’d be on the right lines.

Absolutely nothing about this outfit looks even remotely comfortable to us (and, again, we’re left wondering what kind of occasion it would be deemed appropriate for), but, of course, that’s presumably not the point, and we’re definitely not the target audience, so what would we know?

Given the choice, though, we’re not sure we wouldn’t choose the outfit above over the one below:

model in toddler outfit

Toddler attire at its finest. Or NOT at its finest, as the case may be. Will the Dress Like a Toddler Trend ever end? Not while there are people willing to spend £370 on things like this, it won’t. And, looking at the height of that crotch, we’re not sure how comfortable THIS would be, either…

Crimes of Fashion, Outerwear

Can’t make up your mind which winter coat to go for?

asymmetric coat in two colours

[Buy it here for $928]

For most of us, winter coats definitely fall into the category of “investment purchase” – and that means choosing one can be tricky.

Because winter coats tend to be one of the more expensive clothing purchases you make all year, and also because you know you’re going to be wearing whichever one you choose every day for weeks, you really don’t want to make an expensive mistake. But what style to choose? Should you go for Dull-But-Sensible black or navy: the workhorse coat, which will go with everything, but never really make you excited to wear it? Or should you go throw caution to the wind, with the Pop-of-Colour coat? Sure, it might clash with some of your wardrobe, but it’ll be a statement all on its own, and it’ll cheer you up ever time you look at at.

Of course, you COULD always get both, but if that seems a little too extravagant for you, rather than buying two separate coats, why not buy ONE coat in two different STYLES? Genius!

This orange and navy mix combines both the Dull-But-Sensible and the Pop-of-Colour Coats described above. It’s just… you only get HALF of each style: so one half of your body will be wearing the long, navy coat, and the other half will be wearing the short, orange version. It’s a compromise, in other words.

Is it a compromise you’d actually settle for, though? Well, considering that you could actually buy two cheaper coats for the price of this single hybrid coat – and wouldn’t end up looking like a victim of The Clothes Ripper in the process – we’re going to guess many of you will answer “no” to that one. Then again, many more of you are “edgy” and “unexpected”, and might just love the chance to prove it, with this unusual, and undoubtedly creative coat. And we have to say, we kinda like the navy strap on the back: does anyone else think it looks like the coat is putting its arm around the model’s waist? Awww!

Fashion Police

Would you buy a £600 bra?

Agent Provocateur bra

Agent Provocateur bra, £595

“Heeeeey, nice bra!” we thought, when this gold lace number popped up in the “new in” section at Net-a-Porter. And then, “Whoooaaa! Expensive bra!”

Normally the lingerie section is one of the few parts of the Net-a-Porter website that we might actually have a chance of affording something. Not this time, though. At £595 (Which works out at around $950), Agent Provocateur’s Soirée Zarrinia metallic beaded lace underwired bra is as expensive as a pair of designer shoes, a leather handbag, or many, many other items we could name  – both fashion-related and otherwise.

This leaves us with the obvious question: can a bra EVER really be worth £600? To be clear, this isn’t one of those “made from solid gold and diamonds” gimmicks that the likes of Victoria’s Secret produce once a year: it’s an actual, designed-to-be-worn bra, and the colour may be gold, but the composition is actually 50% viscose, 33% polyamide, 11% metallized fibers, 5% silk, 1% elastane.

Now, don’t get us wrong: it’s a really nice bra, and given the showgirl tassels, we’re fairly sure it’s the kind of lingerie that’s designed to be seen, as opposed to tucked away under a sensible jumper. Ditto the matching thong  – which is only slightly less expensive at £395. So, in other words: £990 for a set of undies. To justify that price, we’d have to wear it OVER the rest our clothes.

Here’s what else you could get at Net-a-Porter for £595:

mulberry handbag

A Mulberry handbag. Not quite as exciting, perhaps, but a timeless classic which you could easily own for the rest of your life, and use every single day.

Christian Louboutin shoes

A pair of Louboutin heels.

cashmere sweaters by J Crew

Three cashmere sweaters.

Of course, while these items would possibly be a little easier to justify than the bra, they’re all pretty extravagant in themselves, so perhaps you’d prefer to spend your £595 on something else? A mini break, perhaps? A down payment on a new car? Your rent?

What would you spend £595 on today, Fashion Force? This bra… or something else? 

Crimes of Fashion, Trousers/Pants

Help fight these terrible trouser crimes

Please note, Fashion Force: this is not a drill. These are not simply expensive Halloween costumes – even although they look like they are. These are actual fashion items, designed to be worn in your day-to-day life. Tell us, though: would you wear these?

sheer trousers

[Buy them here for £432]

It’s testament to the length of time we’ve been in the fashion crime-fighting business that our first thought upon seeing these wasn’t, “OMG, see-through pants!” but “Well, at least they’re not TOTALLY sheer…” And they’re not. There are some embroidered sections to, er, protect your modesty. Just make sure you wear your best undies with them: we’ll know if you don’t.

ugly ripped drop crotch jeans

[Buy them here for £165]

We’ve been fighting the good fight against dropped crotches and heavily distressed denim for many years now: these drop crotch capri jeans combine both of those crimes, in an appalling double-whammy. In related news, we’re also thinking of issuing an amnesty on Birkenstocks. If you wear them for non fashion-related reasons, you can feel free to keep at it, but if you bought a pair of Birkenstocks just because they were “trendy”, and you can’t stand the thought of not being “bang on trend”, surely you must be wondering if you’ve been the victim of a long-running practical joke by now? We’ll set up a safe place, you can all bring your ironic Birkenstocks (“But they’re so comfy!” you will cry, just as people did with Crocs and Adult Onesies…) and we’ll say no more about it: deal?

Finally:

ugly trousers

[Buy them here for £55]

If these were pyjamas, we’d wonder who on earth would buy them, given that there are so many other, cuter, options out there.

They’re not pyjamas.

Our question still stands.

What do you think of these crimes of fashion? Are there any you’d wear? 

Crimes of Fashion

The Foot Snatcher Strikes at Haider Ackermann

The Foot Snatcher is a dangerous fashion criminal who snatches the feet of unsuspecting fashion victims. The Snatcher’s usual weapon of choice is a pair of overly-long pants, however, as these poor models discovered, there are other ways to snatch feet, too:

foot-snatcher

Buy it here for £1650

We THINK that’s a skirt, but it could also be long pants. Or it could simply be a blanket wrapped around the model’s waist. What we DO know is that it surely has to be hard to walk with all of that fabric swirling around your feet ,no? Hard, and also kinda filthy. Imagine the hems of that skirt/trouser/whatever it is after a short stroll along the average city street. Now imagine them after a quick trip to the average public restroom. We hope you weren’t eating while you were reading this.

(We guess people who can afford to spend £1650 on an item of clothing probably don’t use public restrooms, OR walk along city streets, for that matter. They’re probably carried everywhere on a litter or something. Nice work, if you can get it…)

The same issues apply here:

too long pants

[Buy here for £1245]

This image at least solves the mystery: they’re definitely trousers. And they’re so long the hems protrude far beyond the tips of the wearer’s toes, for maximum ‘I’ve Had My Feet Snatched’ effect.

Now, look: we don’t object to long coats, maxi-length dresses, or trousers that just about touch the floor. We do, however, have a problem with having to actually walk on top of our clothing, which, apart from anything else, can’t possibly be good for it, can it?

If Foot Snatching is your jam, however, you may be interested to know that The Snatcher has a new accomplice these days. Introducing The Hand Snatcher!

oversized sweater

[Buy it for £460]

For that slouchy, relaxed look. And also for those days when you don’t actually have to use your hands, we assume…

Crimes of Fashion, Knitwear

Not Your Average Sweaters

It’s sweater weather! No doubt you’ll have already seen a million fashion editorials, and a million-and-one blog posts helpfully informing you of this very fact. Gone are the days when the humble sweater was the “sensible” choice for a cold day, however. No, today’s sweaters are fashion-forward, edgy and unique. And probably not much use on a cold day, come to think of it. Take a look at this suspect, for instance:

strange cutout sweater

Costume National Wool Vest, $999

We guess you could layer something under it if you actually wanted to beat the chill in it? You’d still look and feel like you were in a cocoon, obviously, but maybe that’s the point?

Along somewhat similar lines, but with fewer cutouts, and a much brighter colour, we have this suspect:

Christopher Kane neon sweater

Christopher Kane neon sweater, £995

We’re so blinded by the colour we almost didn’t notice the strange, ruffled cut-outs on the arms, but when we did…well, it didn’t make it any better, let’s just put it that way. Of course, if we were a REAL police force, we’d declare anything in this particular shade of neon green to have automatic fashion crime status.We’re not a real police force, though, so moving on…

ashish sweatshirt

Ashish tulle and cotton jersey sweatshirt, £665

This one seems almost tame in comparison, doesn’t it? We’re soothed by the soft grey jersey and the, er, bright pink tulle. And if you want to pay £665 for a cotton sweatshirt, then that is, of course, absolutely up to you.

Finally:

stella mccartney sweatshirt

Stella McCartney rope-detail sweatshirt, £610

We’re filing this one under ‘Craft Project Gone Wrong’. Also under ‘Snakes On a Sweatshirt’, because that’s what this looks like to us from a distance. Oh, and maybe also under Those Tassels Look Ticklish. Because they do, don’t they? £610 gets you this one – but you’ll have to be quick, because it’s almost sold out!

Don’t forget to follow our editor on Twitter!
Crimes of Fashion

Would it sell on eBay?

We’ve been here before, we know:

Jeremy Scott patent lace-up trousers

Jeremy Scott patent lace-up trousers, £1110

Well, not here EXACTLY, obviously. Thankfully we don’t see too many pairs of pants like this as part of mainstream fashion collections, (When we do, though, Jeremy Scott is often responsible…), but there was a trend for patent skirts last winter, and it looks like some factions of the fashion world are attempting to resurrect it for winter 2014.

The trousers at the top of the page are a fairly extreme example of this look, but here’s another version, this time from Christopher Kane:

patent leather coat

Christoper Kane coat, £3,460

This isn’t nearly as bad as the pants (although the fact that we can’t help but imagine them together will surely give us nightmares tonight), but… look, here’s the thing: on this post, Claudia commented that if she’d listed the suspects in question on eBay, they probably wouldn’t have attracted any bids, and that basically sums up our feelings on a lot of what passes for OMGDESIGNER fashion these days. We’re thinking, not only of this patent/plasticy look, but of things like the cereal packet handbags, and almost everything Jeremy Scott has done for Moschino lately. These items had RRPs which sometimes run into the thousands of pounds, but we’re willing to bet that if you removed the designer labels and stuck them on eBay, or put them into a thrift store, without telling anyone what they were “worth”, you’d have a hard time selling them – other than as Halloween costumes, that is.

Are there REALLY many people looking at this stuff and thinking it’s worth investing thousands in? That it’s the kind of clothing they’ll own and wear for years? Or is it really all about the designer label, and the wish to have the latest thing – regardless of what it actually looks like? Taste is subjective, style is personal, and everyone has the right to spend their money on whatever they like. We, however, can’t help but wonder if blindly following fashion blinds people to the idea that this £1,500 dress

plastic look dress

… looks like it’s made from plastic.

Would it sell on eBay? Would you buy it if you found it there? Its a handy way to work out whether you REALLY love that item of clothing, or whether you’re in danger of becoming a fashion victim. Thanks, Claudia!

Jeans, Style On Trial

Style Trial | Unusually embellished denim

We realise we’re fighting a losing battle here, but we firmly believe that denim is almost always at its best when its kept nice and simple. We don’t object to a bit of distressing, and it might surprise you to know that we don’t even TOTALLY hate the look of ripped jeans. (Just as long as it’s not taken to ridiculous levels…) What we can’t really bring ourselves to love, however, is THIS kind of thing:

House of Holland ripped jeans

House of Holland ripped jeans, £195

Now, we’ve seen worse, we’ll give you that. Especially from House of Holland. In fact, to be completely honest, these are really quite restrained from House of Holland. They’re also veering dangerously close to ‘subtle clown costume’ territory, and that’s certainly enough to trigger our fashion crime radar, although whether it’s enough to actually get them arrested is up to you.

Also up on trial today are these £535 pearl-embellished boyfriend jeans:

pearl studded jeans

Tu Es Mon Tresor pearl studded jeans, £535

For us, the main appeal of boyfriend jeans is that they create a “not trying too hard” look. Stitching hundreds of pearls onto your legs would definitely count as trying quite hard, as we think it kinda ruins the simplicity of the look, but if you disagree (and plenty of people obviously DO), these ones are selling out fast despite the high price tag, so you better grab ’em fast.

Finally:

marc by marc jacobs cartoon jeans

Marc by Marc Jacobs cartoon jeans, £370

We’re guessing many of you will be too young to remember the late 80s/early 90s (lucky you!), but there was a trend during that time for “cartoon jeans”, which, as the name suggests, had giant, tacky cartoon figures stuck to them. (In a plasticy, applique material, which would gradually start to peel off with each wash: nice!). The Flintstones were popular, we seem to recall. Anyway, they looked almost exactly like these Marc by Marc Jacobs creations, and were also worn with high-top sneakers, complete with giant, puffy tongues, which had to stick straight up in the air, as in the image above. We’d hoped those times were gone for good. We were wrong.

What do you think, fashion force? These items are all On Trial: are they guilty or innocent?