This is a headband. With cutesy cat ears on it. It’s covered in beads and glitter, NOT in priceless diamonds and stardust, and yet… it’s £660. Six. Hundred. And. Sixty. Pounds. Which is MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS. Would YOU pay $1,000 for a headband? Or do you agree that, whatever your opinion on grown adults wearing cat ear headbands outside of a costume party, this is a clear case of Daylight Robbery? [Product Page]
We wouldn’t describe these as a crime of fashion exactly. Not exactly. OK, sure, if you wear them exactly as shown above, then you can expect to be hearing from our officers. And probably the officers of the actual police, too, because what you’re basically looking at here, fashion jurors, is a pair of footless, fishnet tights with a tatoo print on the upper part of the leg. It’s not something we’d necessarily wear ourselves, but if you wanted the look of tattooed legs, say, without the actual “getting a tatoo” bit, and if you were prepared to wear something with them to cover your crotch (for let us never forget that tights are not pants, readers), we can see how these…
Or you could just keep your £225 / $362 and make your own plastic grass necklace with materials found at your local garden centre . Or you could forget the plastic grass necklace altogether. Your call. [‘Nature’ necklace by Ineke Otte, £225, Louisa Via Roma: click here to buy it.]
At a time when nothing in life is certain, isn’t it reassuring to know that some things never chance, and that Rick Owens is still charging over $500 for a pair of his saggy, mud-coloured shorts, despite repeated cautions from The Fashion Police? No, we didn’t think so. Because, seriously, the two pairs of shorts in the image? That’s over $1000 worth of designer fashion, right there. THIS is what’s wrong with the fashion world, people, you mark our words. [Product Page]
This is $2000. OK, it’s not: it’s actually “only” $1944.44. Because that makes ALL the difference, doesn’t it? Why is this hat almost $2000? Er, ya got us. Our best guess is “Because it’s OMGGIVENCHY.” But if you have some other explanation for why in the wide world anyone would want to pay that much money for a hat with ears, we’d love to hear it. We’re all ears, in fact. (Geddit? “All ears”? Oh, never mind…) [Click here for the product page.]
So, these are $288. We’ll just let that sink in for a moment, shall we? In their defence, they’re not actually hair elastics. They’re bracelets. Yeah, like all hair elastics are sometimes “bracelets”, when you pull them out of your pony and stick them on your wrists. These ones really are supposed to be bracelets, though, and the reason they’re so expensive is that the metal part is 18K gold. That really doesn’t make it much better, does it? [Click here for the product page]
Quick question, jurors: $300 canvas shoppers: where do you stand on them? We get that canvas shoppers can be handy. For, you know, groceries, and trips to the beach, and other such affairs. And we get that they can be cute, and funny, and, dare we say it, quirky. (We feel dirty now.) We know that Anya Hindmarch, in particular, is beloved by the fashion world, and possessed of an extraordinary ability to convince people that her canvas tote bags are worth paying $295 for, like the one shown above. Are they, though? We’re going to go with a big fat NO. Because, honestly, we could buy lots of pairs of shoes for that. Or a really good quality leather handbag. And…
So, this exists. And honestly, we didn’t even know what it WAS at first (that’s always a bad sign), we just knew it looked like something Coco the Clown might have worn as a nipper. That’s not a good sign either, now we come to think of it. What we mostly want to talk about here, however, is the price. See, this is £835, which is about $1,295. In its defence: 1. It’s hand-knitted 2. It’s alpaca wool. Even so, unless it was actually hand-knitted BY alpacas, we still can’t imagine spending that much on… this. Seriously, just imagine handing over over $1000 and walking away with this! To think of all of the awesome shoes you could get for…
Earlier this week, we showed you a selection of yeti boots, so now here are the matching gloves. So that’s Halloween sorted, then. Actually, we’re not calling these “Yeti gloves” because of their appearance, although they will almost certainly make your hands look they belong on SOME kind of monster. No, we’re calling them “Yeti gloves” because they have a price tag of no less than $453… and for that price, we have to assume that they’ve been knitted using the fur of the Yeti and stitched together with unicorn hair. No such luck, though: according to Colette, these are actually made from “hairy virgin wool”. So, we guess we have two questions: 1. Do you want monster hands? 2….
These are shin pads. They cost $709. That’s not a typo. The justification for this? Well, they’re ostrich leather, but they’re also DESIGNER. And that, as every good fashion victim knows, is enough to make just about ANYTHING worth hundreds of dollars. Even shin pads. Here’s how you’d wear your $700 shin pads: Shorts cut for a giant, baggy shirt, stupid hat. OF COURSE. Are you ready to buy them? They’re by Julien David: click here to go get ’em.
This is not a carrier bag. We repeat: this is NOT a carrier bag. It just looks like one. And we don’t know about you, but if we’re paying £445 for a bag, we’d rather it didn’t look like it came from the local market. Daylight Robbery? The fashion world having a good old laugh at fashion victims? Or a delightfully ironic statement, which you’d be happy to pay for? Which is it? (Click here for the product page)
Folks, do us a favour: read the title of this post again. Then explain to us why this cotton t-shirt is worth $1,500. WITHOUT using any variation on the phrase “Because IT’S OMGDESIGNER!” We’ll wait here while you come up with something. (Want it? Click here to buy it.)
This jacket is £12,095 (no, that’s not a typo) and it is sold out. You could buy two small cars for that price! Yet there are enough people willing to buy this to clean out Net-a-Porter’s stock of it. We can’t really comprehend that. If you are willing to wait (and have a second mortgage in order to pay for it), you can click here to be alerted should more come in to stock.
Lanvin are at it again, readers. Sure, this is pretty. But it’s a canvas tote bag. And it’s almost $1,500. Oh yeah, and the highly visible “LANVIN” logo on the front? Means you’ll be efectively paying THEM for the priviledge of being a walking advertisement for them. Oh, and for being a fashion victim, of course, but that goes without saying. (Click here if you want to be a human advertisement!)
Is everyone else seeing a pair of fishnet tights with a few sequins stuck to them? Good, so are we. Topshop however, see £145 of leggings. That’s right folks, £145! And they’re calling them “leggings”. Now repeat after us: leggings are not pants. Fishnet anything are not leggings. But wait! It gets worse!
It’s cute. It’s whimsical. It looks like the kind of thing you’d pick up in Claire’s Accorssories, and pay less than £5 for. But it’s not. Actually, this little cherry ring will set you back £819 / $1,332. Now, we’re going to assume that’s some kind of precious metal at the base (Colette haven’t specified what it’s made of), but even assuming it is: if we’ve just spent $1,332 on an item of jewellery, we kind of don’t want it to look like it could’ve come from Claire’s. Is it just us? Would you pay that much for this ring? Click here if you answered in the affirmative…
Spare sleeves: they come in handy for those of you who have an extra pair of arms, you know? In all seriousness, sleeves like these ones are the kind of thing we see fairly often on Yoox.com, and not at all anywhere else. Clearly sleeve-shoppers mostly use Yoox, then. Hmmm. How much would you pay for these, though, assuming you were in the market for a pair of sleeves that don’t have a shirt attached to them? How about £169/ $256? Does that sound reasonable? Or are you just wondering why in the world these would cost more than an entire outfit for many of us? Well, that one’s easy: it’s because they’re by Ann Demeulemeester, obviously. Designer brand =…
Here at The Fashion Police we like things to be how they appear. If something looks like a top and skirt, for example, we want it to be a top and skirt, and not, say, a dress. And if something looks like a watch – well, we want it to tell the time. There are some really pretty watches out there, granted, but they do all have a function, and we like that! Plus, we’re pretty sure you can buy a darned lovely watch for £495. Or if you’d rather, a darned lovely bracelet! But if you want to rock the faux-watch look you can order yours from Net-a-Porter.
Sometimes the clue is in the name. This is a tea-stained cotton t-shirt. It looks, well, like a cotton t-shirt that got stained when someone spilled tea on it. Like, A LOT of tea. You tell us – is it worth £200? Because The Fashion Police know a place you can get 100 very stainy tea bags for 99p, should you wish to recreate the effect on a cotton t-shirt of your very own… Bess tea-stained cotton t-shirt, £200 from Net-a-Porter. (Oh, and if you DO think it’s too much, Topshop’s ‘Nibbled Tee’ is a tad cheaper at £16, and is also tea-stained: