This Liberty of London wallet is $14.99 at Target. If you are into Liberty prints but don't want a whole dress of it, this is a fun, inexpensive way to play with it this season without committing to an entire floral outfit. I think it's really cute and probably really useful. Of course, this item is now out of stock online. If you like it and can find it a store, grab it while you can!
It's obviously not the EXACT same print, but honestly, for a $103 difference, I can probably get over it. The biggest (visual) differences for me would be the cuff details on the Joe's shirt (love) and the front pockets on the Merona short (not awesome for women with larger chests). The longer length of the Joe's shirt appeals to me, too, so it wins- but only by a slim margin.
This is the Ted Baker Flat Front Patent Crossbody Bag. It's $110 and comes in 4 colors. (Click the link for better pictures.) I love this bag for several reasons: 1) fun color options (the orange is delish), 2) it's PVC, so if you don't want leather it's great for you, and 3) looks like a handy size for every day.
I pretty much agree with all 25 "forbidden items," especially for a conservative office atmosphere. However, I would very much like to know which women are wearing crocs or fanny packs to the freaking office. Who are the people who thought these things were ok in the first place?!
Here is my list of 5 Things A Professional Woman Shouldn't Even Have To Be Told Not to Wear to the Office:
Putting aside the MOUNTING evidence that these are not only hideous but also not that great for your feet, these shouldn't even be considered as even REMOTELY appropriate for the office. If you work as a nurse or a gardener, have at it, but we're talking OFFICE WEAR people. These are way too casual for an office- any office- and are the shoe equivalent of wearing a white tank and denim mini. Not ok.
2. Fanny Packs
People, seriously? This is even something the writer had to mention? Why the HELL would anyone ever think of this as office attire? I don't give a damn if it's a Louis Vuitton piece, it's ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of giving a damn. And also that you are stuck in a time warp.
3. Leather Pants
Wow. That's one I haven't seen much in the financial district. But if you are one wearing these to the office, you have obviously forgotten what office wear looks like. This should really (really, really) go without saying, but if you look like you belong a) on stage, b) on a Harley, or c) on a street corner, you are dressed inappropriately.
4. Sports Jerseys
To even have to say this is ridiculous just tells me how far we've fallen from understanding how to dress appropriately for the occasion. Play the office pool and leave the damn jerseys at home.
5. Short Shorts
If you are fortunate enough to be allowed to wear shorts at the office, don't push your damn luck by wearing something that doesn't cover a) all of your arse, and b) at least half of your thighs. Don't lie to yourself or me and tell me that you really don't know what's too short. If you can't sit down without- again- at least half of your thigh covered, it's too short for the office. Period.
This is the Heritage Indigo cross-body bag from Banana Republic. It's on sale for $99.99. While it's not super exciting, it does look pretty useful. I like the detailing on the strap and the reverse stitching on the corners- it all reads very classic equestrian to me, without any actual horses. At about 50% off the retail price, it's a great value for all of the practicality it offers.
The Spring Top Ten lists are out, and pretty much everyone is pushing sandals, white and/or distressed jeans, and jean shorts.
As usual, I have my own list, but here's what I think of these particular items.
1. Sandals are obviously a must-have. But expensive white sandals you will wear for 3 months, tops, is not a good use of your paycheck/trust fund. If you really like sandals or you live somewhere warm, I recommend getting one trendy cheap pair (can be trashed and discarded, guilt-free) and one more classic, nicer pair (can wear a few years in row).
2. White jeans are something I see Every. Damn. Spring. and I hate them every time.
You must not be swayed by promises of looking Crisp! Carefree! or as if you Own a Yacht!
White pants of any kind must always 1) fit PERFECTLY and 2) be PRISTINE. If your white jeans do not fit that description at all times, you will look sloppy and larger than you really are.
Distressed denim isn't my thing, especially since I think it's all kinds of stupid to buy clothes that look like an animal just mauled you. Fully slashed white denim seems crass to me- it's 80s, it's dirty, it's weird. And while that's what some people are going for, I think in a season when it's touted as a "must-have" you are going to end up looking like you are trying too hard. As well as looking sloppy and larger than you really are.
3. Let me tell you something about jean shorts: They are for gardening and the beach/pool. They are not capable of being "dressed up" for evening. They are not flattering on most people. And mostly, they are juvenile. If you find all of this unconvincing and you still think you can rock them, please do us all a damn favor and avoid layering them over tights or boots.
Part 2 will have my own top ten list, as well as a few tips on what (else) to avoid when shopping this season...
This little Calvin Klein metallic clutch has "evening wedding" written all over it. At $118 I think it's a decent value for the price, but you might want to wait for the (inevitable) sale. The color is fun and neutral, so will go with any party dress, and looks perfect for your phone, credit card, keys, and lipstick. I'd probably tuck the chain strap in, but could see it being handy at the end of the night when you need your hands for party favors and champagne.
According to ModCloth (a site for which I usually have nothing but love), it's the Model Logic Sandal. And it's $114.99. To say I wouldn't pay over $100 for this crap goes without saying, I'm sure. But beyond the fact that they are obviously overpriced, they are FREAKING HIDEOUS.
Thanks to my friend C, who pointed out a pair of Harajuku Lovers shoes to me the other day, I have been relentlessly searching the web for this shoe line and just found what appears to be something of a treasure trove at Endless.com. This is another line from Gwen Stefani, but unlike the L.A.M.B line, this is super trendy but also very well-priced.
The above shoe is the Airli Patent Mary Jane Pump. If they don't have your size, I recommend checking other sources if you love them. Also comes in two RIDICULOUSLY adorable plaid prints.
Aside from the color differences- and the fact the the Target shoes are faux while the Seychelles are real leather, they look exactly the same to me. And for a pair of shoes I will wear/love/need for 1 season, max, I would go with the cheaper pair.
It's quite obviously the same shoe, right down to the small stacked heel. My preference? Target wins again; this is a casual knock around shoe. I'll save my money for nice pumps, not blow it on a one-trick pony sandal. Not sure how comfy faux leather is between the toes on a warm day, though...
The lesson, kids? Check Target or other discount stores for styles you like before shelling out the moolah for nice summer shoes that get trashed after one season.
Yeah, I thought so. In Cali, the weather is HINTING at sandal season, but I know that's not the case elsewhere.
So, for all of you who won't be wearing sandals any time soon, I present to you Some Of The Ugliest Sandals Of The Season. You know, so you don't feel like you're missing anything (besides vitamin D and daylight generally).
This is a Gypsy Macrame Sandal. It's $225. Seriously, people, I can't make shit up that's this good ridiculous.
This "Stoneham" sandal is $109.95. I don't think I've seen sandals this ugly since the 90s. On men. For increased ugliness, check them out in black.
This is a $75 jelly sandal. I don't give a rat's arse whose label is on these, they are PLASTIC SHOES. Therefore, should you choose the juvenile route of plastic shoes, they shouldn't cost more than $14.99- at Target.
Don't know about you, but these look vaguely spider-like and any shoe that contains or looks like a bug is off my list.
And this, gentle readers, is the "indie" sandal for $79.95. Because this is inexplicable to me, I leave it to you to decide what the eff this is for. Cold ankles but warm toes? Whatever it 's for, it looks stupid.
This Michael Kors metallic tote is $198 and comes in 5 colors (3 metallic, 2 patent). Looks like a fab spring/summer work bag, fun weekend bag, and all around useful-for-carting-loads-but-not-too-many-loads-of-crap-around bag. Loving this one in blush.
This is the BCBG MAXAZRIA cap-sleeved color block dress. Since it's sold out, I have no idea how much it is/was. I do know that it looks EXACTLY the same as this Bisou Bisou version which is on sale for $20.99:
Yeah, it's slightly shinier (and therefore slightly cheaper looking) and it's polyester instead of silk (and therefore actually IS cheaper). But really? Based on the pictures, they look the same to me.
Would I buy the less expensive one? Probably, if I found the higher end one too pricey. It looks like a pretty trendy dress, so I don't know if a higher cost would be justified. But if I was going to sport it at work or a nice event, I'd consider the splurge since it will likely be more durable and will LOOK higher end for much longer.
I will say that while the bottle blond's hair looks like it's several weeks overdue for a touch up and the brunette's hair looks freshly manicured, the expressions on each of their faces doesn't make the dress seem very fun to wear.
Because I know you've been losing sleep over which shoes I will wear with my rehearsal dress, it is without further ado that I present to you...the shoes I might possibly wear.
These are the Gillian from Kate Spade. They are suede, they are ribbon, they have a giant bow. So if they fit well in the size I ordered they are definitely contenders.
Why the fear of commitment, you wonder? Rehearsal shoes, I feel, are meant to be a little ridiculous. I don't have to wear them all day, dance in them, or even stand in them for very long. So if I find something even more outrageous and just as fab, these might have to go back. But for now, I'm hoping they are the ones.
Yeah, yeah, it's not actually a handbag. But it is an excuse to carry something stylish AND functional. This is the Telegraph Hill Laptop Sleeve from Modcloth. It's $29.99 and I just ordered it for my new Thinkpad. The site has a laptop carrier (larger, shoulder strap, etc.) in this print, as well as a bunch of other cute, offbeat patterns in laptop sleeves and carriers. I'm not against the typical, plain black nylon case, but if I have to see it every day, why not smile at it, too?
One more TEENY little rant about more insulting crap from Bazaar and I will let it go. This time.
In case you were curious, more "Smart Shopping" ideas in this lousy excuse for a fashion mag include a $425 cuff, $475 floral button down, and a $330 clutch. Think I'm being selective? Nope- the ENTIRE section is rife with this BS.
Hey, Harper's- don't try the Fashion Is Art argument with me. This stuff is specifically laid out as a shopping guide, not an artsy fashion shoot.
And don't EVEN get me started on the ads in this rag mag. (Um, hello? Calvin Klein? Your model looks angry, greasy, and uncomfortable.) (And really Baby Phat? You are REALLY going to try to sell me a freaking tie-dyed jumpsuit? For real?)
I flipped through this month's issue of Harper's Bazaar and my first clue that the editors of this rag are on a different planet than, say, 99.999% of the rest of us was an article under the misleading title Cheap Thrills about affordable spring fashion.
Didja click that link? I highly recommend it if you need a laugh and/or fuel for a rant. You will find the "cheap thrills" they are so effing thrilled about are considered cheap because they are somewhere under the $500-700 range instead of being upwards of $800 like the rest of the clothes featured in the mag. In the discussion on diffusion lines, right under the obligatory Target plug, the article states "The prices on [Zac] Posen's new Z Spoke collection...start at $78 and don't go over $675." Well, thank freaking god, because if any piece went ONE PENNY over $675, it would no longer be a cheap thrill.
The article continues in this vein by describing $232 necklaces and $415 sequined windbreakers (?!) "as credit-card-friendly".
Here's the thing: While I have been known to drop more than I should on a handbag, I sure as hell don't have the chutzpah to call a $600 bag "cheap" or even "credit-card-friendly." A $20 bag with a fun print from Old Navy that happens to look like it cost way more? THAT is a cheap thrill.
We have long known that the people writing in and running these magazines are operating on different definitions of style, hotness, and even reasonable price ranges. But don't insult me- and pretty much everyone else- by calling the swag you got sent for free and that most of us would actually consider a splurge "cheap", or frankly, even a thrill.
So, Bazaar, please suck it. Because we all know you suck.