|
|
Archive for the ‘Sock Horror!’ Category
Monday, February 15th, 2010
 Stuck-Together Daylight Robbery These criminals were reported to us by Robyn, who says: “Anyone else think that $380 is too much to pay for what is basically a sock attached to a foot bed? Anyone think calling this a “boot” is quite the stretch, dear Tobi? Because I do.”
We do too, Robyn. YOU ARE NOT ALONE! And we’re actually quite concerned about this, because where do we even start? It’s a sock stuck to a flip-flop. It’s a boot pretending to be a shoe. It’s a peep toe boot. It’s Daylight Robbery. It’s sock horror! It’s all these crimes of fashion, rolled into one, and you just never know where that kind of experiment will end, do you? A peep-toe harem pant attached to Crocs with a $1 million price tag, perhaps? The mind boggles.
Tuesday, December 29th, 2009
 Sock Horror! Well, folks, it’s official: it’s no longer enough for all of your other clothes to be ripped to shreds this season, now even your socks have to look like they’ve spent 20 years lurking at the back of a drawer, before being chewed vigorously by the dog.
Rather than just wear an ACTUAL old, tattered pair of socks, it’s also necessary to buy a brand, spanking new pair, that have been made to LOOK old and tattered. Because that makes sense, totally.
In the defence of Free People, who are selling these socks, they are only charging $10.86 for these (Comme des Garcons would probably charge ten times that), but even so, would you pay to look like your socks are in need of a good darning/ditching? If so, you can buy them here.
Tuesday, September 29th, 2009
Nope, it’s no good: we’ve tried (not that hard, though, admittedly) but we just can’t get on board with the whole “pre-laddered” tights thing. Especially not when it’s taken to the extent of the pair shown above: they’re £8 from Miss Selfridge, but if you wanted to save money, you could always just find a spool of thread and wrap some of that around your legs instead.
Even if we DID like this look, the thought of pale blue flesh, mottled with the cold, peeping through the “threads” would be more than enough to make us want to throw these in jail – probably while saying something like, “Ooh, you’ll catch your death in those, young lady!”
What do you think, readers? Will you be embracing tights-that-are-barely-tights-at-all this season, and handing over your cash for hosiery that looks like it’s seen better days? If you will be, you can buy these ones here.
Tuesday, September 1st, 2009
Apologies for bringing another Daylight Robbery report so soon after the feather headdress, but we have another DIY project for you all:
- Get a pair of knee-high socks
- Sew a bunch of sequins and maybe some little buttons etc onto them
- Sell them for $400*
- If anyone challenges you on this, explain that you are an “artist” and talk a lot about “craftsmanship”. Finish by telling the person that they “obviously don’t understand art”.
- Laugh all the way to the bank
Got that? Great!
And right at this moment, shoe designers all over the world are kicking themselves at the thought that they’ve been spending all that time carefully designing and crafting shoes when they could’ve just stuck some sequins onto socks and sold them for almost the same price…
Miu Miu embellished cotton socks, £245, Net-a-Porter
* We rounded the price up a bit – it was actually only$398 at time of writing.
Neither socks, nor tights, nor leggings, nor legwarmers, these are VPL's Knee Lows Socks.
At various points in The Fashion Police's history, we've shown you pictures of items similar to these, and you've posited lots of theories, and, indeed, excuses, for their existence.
But we still think they look like the kind of surgical garment you'd be given to wear if you strained something in your leg.
And if you could just refresh our memories on the whole "why they cost $55" thing, that would be grand…
Back in the days before leggings became commonplace again, and sock horrors had yet to achieve the sheer level of ugliness they so easily attain these days, came the stirrup tights. Note the phrase "tights" – these aren't leggings you're looking at, they're hosiery. Flesh coloured hosiery. With a stirrup on the bottom.
Presumably designed to allow us to keep our legs respectably covered (perhaps for the office?) while still allowing our feet to breathe, The Fashion Police were unconvinced that there could ever be a good reason for them to even consider wearing this. And we still are – unconvinced, that is. Are you?
Thursday, June 18th, 2009
This guest post was submitted by Deka of That's Hideous!. Deka writes…
I enjoy fun, colorful stockings and leggings as a way to add character to an ensemble. But, who knows what type of fashionista UpFactory had in mind when creating these anatomically-inspired stockings. I have a hard time picturing them being worn outside of a Halloween celebration. If these stockings tickle your fancy, they are available here for 41€.
Deka is the writer of That's Hideous! and lives in San Francisco, California. She brings attention to all things ugly: fashion, handbags, shoes, jewelry, celebrities, politics, furniture, and gadgets.
Would you pay $135 for tights? ANY tights? That would be a "no" from us: not just because your Fashion Police are sadly accident prone, and therefore guaranteed to ladder them the first time we wore them anyway, but also because we just know that Topshop/American Apparel/Urban Outfitters can probably be relied upon to bring out a much cheaper version, saving us around $130.
These particular tights, however, are from Jean Paul Gaultier's pre-fall collection, and they come with a sheer panel to the front and opaque bands to either side. They look like they'd probably be wonderfully slimming on the leg, but we're still not totally on board with them. If you are, they're also available in black, with a fishnet panel to the front, and you can buy them now from Neiman Marcus. (The dress, by the way, is also JPG, and is $495)
What do you think of them?
We know Bebaroque's fringed tights have been wildly popular across the fashion blogosphere. We know that. But if we were forced to wear these thigh-high versions which are flesh-coloured, to help create the impression that the "hair" is growing directly out of your legs, we think we'd have a hard time not reaching for the razor. You?
[Product Page]
![Spl101188_008[1]](http://www.thefashionpolice.net/images/Spl101188_008[1].jpg "Spl101188_008[1]")
Well, it looks like the dreaded Clothes Ripper has struck again, and poor Peaches Geldof has been targeted for a second time! What did she do to attract the ire of the Ripper this time, we wonder?
Of course, joking aside, the "oops, I laddered my tights, but I don't care because that's how totally badass I am!" look has been around ever since Rodarte sent models in carefully ripped tights down the runway last year (and before that, too, for that matter), but here's Peaches, who lets no trend go untried, arriving at Nice airport this weekend in her own version. Nice hair.
What do you think of deliberately laddered tights, readers? We think his is a hard look to pull off – if we tried it, we'd just look like homeless people, for instance, and passers-by would throw us their spare change – but what about you? Are you rocking ripped tights, or does the very sight of them make you want to offer their wearer a pot of clear nail polish, in a bid to repair the "damage"?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
![Spl101188_008[1]](http://www.thefashionpolice.net/images/6a00d8341c873353ef01157090665b970b.jpg "Spl101188_008[1]")
