|
|
Archive for the ‘Skirts’ Category
Thursday, March 11th, 2010
Just in case any of you were thinking – or perhaps hoping – that the “trend” (We use that word in its loosest sense, you understand) for totally sheer items of clothing had finally died, and that designers had stopped trying to charge us hundreds of pounds for clothes that barely even exist. we present evidence to the contrary, courtesy of Red Valentino. Well, at least the skirt could come in handy as a slip, albeit a pretty expensive one. As for the shress, well, we can only hope no-one would actually try to wear it like that, hmm?
We must admit, we’re really curious to know who’s actually BUYING sheer clothes in a big enough quantity to justify the continued production of them by so many designers. Surely Lady Gaga can’t be keeping them ALL afloat?
Miu Miu are at it again. They tried to convince us that aprons were skirts once before, and even although we didn’t buy it then, they’ve decided there’s no harm in trying to pull the wool over our eyes again, and are marketing the item you see above as a “skirt”, while charging £455/ $684 for it.
Miu Miu, NO. That’s not a “skirt”. That’s a belt with a couple of bits of material hanging from it. It reminds us of nothing so much as a makeshift dressing room, or those curtained-off cubicles you get in hospital wards. What it DOESN’T remind us off is a SKIRT, and when your clothes don’t even REMIND you of clothes, you know you’re probably in trouble with the Fashion Police.
This is your second warning on this issue, Miu Miu: please, let’s end this madness now! It doesn’t have to be like this!
Way back in 2008, we asked the question “How short is too short?” in relation to skirts. We got a variety of different answers to that, but personally we’d draw the line right at the point where the skirt in question could easily be mistaken for some kind of frilly halter-neck bra top.
Or at the point where it’s suspended from your waist by a braided belt:
What about you, readers? Would you wear this? If so, it’s £1,080 at Browns.
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
It’s a mini skirt! But it’s also a maxi skirt! For those days when you just can’t make up your mind!
Of course, it’s ALSO a “mullet skirt”. And a crime of fashion. (Which begs the question: what no peep toe boots?)
If neither of those points bother you, though, it’s £558 and you can buy it at Louisa Via Roma. What do you think?
Friday, February 12th, 2010
 So, we guess these are probably what you’d call “skorts” – in other words, a combination of a skirt and a pair of shorts. The “skorts” we’re used to seeing, however, are different from this, in that they generally have the skirt part at the front and the shorts at the back. Rick Owens has basically turned the concept on its head here, putting the shorts at the front, with the skirt dangling at the back, like a train on a dress. Or like a mullet.
Is this what the world has been waiting for, readers? Or is it just an attempt to try and detract us all from those shoes? Oh God, THOSE SHOES…
[product page]
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010
Well. That’s… interesting. We guess this follows on from the hilarious “Look! Someone’s grabbing my boobs!” sweaters and shirts that started to pop up last year. Hmm. It would seem that the “hands” movement is more advanced than we’d at first suspected, although this example isn’t quite as bad as some we’ve arrested: at least the belt on this skirt does look more like a pair of gloves tied around the waist than a pair of actual hands. That has to be a good thing, no? No?
If you like it, this skirt is $32 at Forever 21.
[Thanks to Adrienne for the report!]
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010
 This is what happens when you allow the skirts with windows we showed you last week to exist unchecked.
First there was Boutique’s maxi skirt, with a “window” from the knee down. It was ugly, but not indecent. We decided to let it live. Then there was Karl Lagerfeld’s mini skirt with window on the thighs. It, too, was ugly, and it also started to ring the alarm bells, because once you’ve allowed something like that to exist, you’ve just paved the way for … Topshop’s mesh seam skirt! Which is basically just all window, not so much skirt, isn’t it? Topshop obviously looked at the other two examples, thought, “We can do better than that!”, and this is what they came up with. It’s funnier when viewed from the back, but the front is exactly the same:
Of course, if this was meant to be an UNDERSKIRT, that would be a different matter altogether. That’s what we thought it was, at first, and we were OK with that. It’s not, though: it’s in the “skirts” section rather than the “lingerie” one, and, well, it’s the kind of thing Topshop do, isn’t it? How do you think they expect us to wear it, though? Presumably NOT as shown on the mannequin, but … HOW? Gwyneth Paltrow style, perhaps? We shudder to think. If you have a way to wear it, though:
a) Please, do tell!
b) Buy it here, for £22
Thursday, January 14th, 2010
We thought that yesterday’s Boutique skirt crime was an isolated incident, the work of a solitary madman, but we’re sorry to report that we were wrong about that.
Readers, there are more of them. They’re out there. They seem to be labouring under the illusion that you can make a very short skirt seem more respectable by adding a sheer panel to the bottom of it: they’re wrong.
This particular offender is by Karl Lagerfeld, and costs £365. We’re hoping this isn’t the start of a new trend: be vigilant, readers!
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
Well. It’s certainly “different”, isn’t it? We think that’s probably the kindest thing we have to say about this Brian Lichtenberg skirt, but the fact that it costs $2,100 leads us to suspect there probably won’t be too many people buying and wearing it, so at least it won’t take up too much space in the ol’ cells.
We have issues with the shoes, too, but one crime at a time, folks, one crime at a time…
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
The Accused: Organza ruffle skirt
Found at: ASOS.com
Arrested by: Selina of Pretty Clever
Alleged Crime: Selina points out that this skirt? Appears to be covered in tumours. Or growths of some kind at least – and the fact that it’s the colour of (some people’s) flesh doesn’t really help, does it?
Verdict: Guilty! Or is it? What do you think, ladies and gentlemen of the Fashion Police jury?
|
|
|
