CheapJAP

Oy Vey!

Stupid and “The City.”

Wait, a spin-off of The Hills reminiscent of Sex and The City?! What an ingenious marriage of youth, NYC and Fashion! So cutting edge, so fresh, so faaaahhbulous dahling. Gag me with a spoon.

I didn’t realize the full-retardation of Carrie Bradshaw’s cavalier attitude toward money - one that ultimately made me cringe even more than her cliched observations on all things Man - until I moved to her hometown. Her spending habits did more damage than even her faux-female empowerment act: Episode after episode, she squandered her menial writer’s salary on Manolo after Manolo, all too willing to pay full price. Only in the world of fiction could this irrational combination exist, but we bought it anyway, and sunk ourselves into debt right along with her. Where shopping’s concerned, SaTC’s heroine might just be the worst rolemodel we’ve ever had. And - in a monumentally stupid move - MTV’s about to unleash her spawn in the form of one Whitney Port. Recession, Shmecession.

According to Page Six, “It takes women as young as Whitney and her carefree cohorts to let us relive those frivolous, halcyon, spend-crazy days of Sex and the City. ‘We all need clothes, obviously, but to be fashionable right now is an extra,’ Whitney says.”

(…is an extra, what, exactly?) I don’t doubt that “The City” is Whit’s reality, but it’s not mine and I’m way too self-centered to give a shit about anything extraneous to me, obvs. I don’t need to see “The City” (see, like SaTC, without the S!) to know it’s like reading a fashion mag; its only lasting effect is that it leaves you thinking you *need* the apparel, shoes and accessories you’ve just seen. And that’s exactly what MTV’s banking on with this hot mess of a half hour.

I don’t know when being a young, cute girl in NYC became consistent with being a jackass about money. The only thing you need to acknowledge about money in your twenties is this:
You. Don’t. Have. Any. Yet. (If you do, in excess, it’s probably not your own. Moochface). This doesn’t mean you sacrifice living in the moment and/or shopping; it means you stop associating spontaneity with impulsively buying expensive crap.

Look, Whit, my beef isn’t with you. I’m sure your PR gig at DVF snags you all sorts of free goodies, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that trench coat you obviously needed was a bonus, and not something you blew your entry-level salary on.

This is *reality*, right?

Oy Vey!

A Slap on the Wrist to Vogue

As I was yawning my way through Vogue’s VIEW section last night, the following words jarred me awake: “Big Deals” and “Chain-store.” Hang on a sec. Now Vogue, you’re intimidatingly cutting-edge, so some of your predicted Next Big Things are a smidge beyond my amateur grasp of the avant-garde. But if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that big deals can be found at chain-stores.

WHAT? When did that start happening?! I also read something about it being totally okay to shop for clothing at Target and Wal-mart because the stuff’s actually cute. REALLY???!!! No effing way! Ye gods of Fashion hath predicted yet another shopping trend and deigned to share their wisdom with us peons. Way to be on top of your game this month, Vogue. Kudos.

Okay, for serious. When you’re the kind of publication that has the gall to continually endorse outrageously expensive merchandise in a RECESSION, you forgo your right to jump on the cheap-is-cool bandwagon. Yours is a mag that deifies designers so much so that a $1,255 Burberry Trench, a $350 pair of Oliver Peoples aviators and a $3000 Ralph Lauren Ricky Bag top your list of Classics. The only thing timeless about any of that crap is that it’s eternally overpriced.

I don’t doubt your industry-related authority, but when it comes to reasonably priced stuff, you are - perhaps for the first time ever - out of your element. I know this because your Target picks included this fugly Sigerson Morrison flat. Newsflash, beotches: Brand doth not equal beauty. Sigerson Morrison = Pricey, but good. Sigerson Morrison for Target = A trashy version of its expensive counterpart and henceforth very, very bad. Unfortunately for you, your label-whoring asses can’t differentiate between the decent and the heinous without a brand to stand on. Employ some real gals who shop at Wal-mart and Target because they have to, not because it’s, like, sooo fun to slum it sometimes, and start playing catch up. Or hit the road, ’cause you don’t know JACK.

Oy Vey!

Operation Avoidance: Sigerson Morrison for Target

Yesterday, whilst perusing the shoe selection at Tar-jay, I got an overwhelmingly icky feeling in my tummy. The cause of my nausea? Sigerson Morrison’s Pathetic Excuse for a Budget-Friendly Collection.
If I’d only viewed the “collection” online, I might have been duped into believing it wasn’t entirely awful. Alas, now that I’ve seen Sigerson Morrison for Target in person, the jig is up. Objectively speaking, it’s an assemblage of the trashiest, cheapest-looking shoes I’ve ever seen.

It’s not that there aren’t similarities between this $500 Patent Leather Striped Pump and its spawn. Alas, when you downgrade from pricey leather to fake suede, less is more. You can’t crap it up with metallic pink squiggles and trim and expect it to look more stylish than slutty.

The attempt to mimic this uber fabulous $695 Suede Ankle Boot is even more disheartening, in part because you can’t do justice to a beautifully made - albeit heinously overpriced - shoe by slapping some gold pleather on some black suede. It’s tough to make anything metallic look classy even when its high-end. So why, WHY, did Sigerson Morrison think it was okay to base its collection for TARGET on shiny shit?
If you’re skeptical of my assessment (understandable, as JPEGs alone can’t impart the stiff feel of the material and trash-factor of the design), this Glam Crystal Bootie should verify the line’s icky-ness. Show me a fucking Bejeweled kit and a hot glue gun and I’ll show you this shoe.

Sigerson Morrison, we’ve seen enough. Get the eff out of Target and go back to Saks.

Oy Vey!

You Can’t Wear That On Television!

Yesterday, I shot a TV thing for Style Network: A timed shopping challenge intended to promote Lucky Shops/Rafe Handbags/American Express and even Chevy Malibu - all in a three-minute fashion-reality segment! I’m coming clean with this info because if you happen see it and recognize that “Alexandra/Contestant#2/Eveningwear” is me, Cheap JAP, you will flip your non-existent nuts. And not in a good way.

For the first bit, the two other “contestants” and myself were dressed in our own “street clothes.” Here’s the short and lethal list of what I could NOT wear:

“Refrain from bringing any neon, cream, white, gray or black - as it does not film well on camera.”
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

Designer Slumdown: Simply Vera, Vera Wang

I spent some time clicking around Simply Vera Vera Wang and came away incredibly confused. And by confused, I mean I experienced a strange mix of bewilderment and betrayal and oy effing vey I’m having problemos with alliteration AGAIN.

I was initially confounded by the pricetags; $128 coats, $74 skirts, $58 tops? Vera, are you shitting me? I know you’re the big cheese of uber-classy evening wear. I know you’re, like, the best wedding dress designer ever and if I wanted to get married, I’d respect you for that. What I do not respect is your using your credentials to justify the price points of your budget - all-caps repeat, BUDGET - line for KOHL’S. No wonder everything’s on sale.

Granted, Simply Vera has some redeeming qualities, particularly at its sale prices: If I’d only seen the line’s Shirts and Blouses, I’d be seriously impressed. This Pleated Top ($32.50 from $54) could easily function as a mini-dress with the addition of opaque tights.

The same is true of the Flapfront Top ($27 from $54) and the Drape Front Top ($34.80 from $54) - super cute, tunic-esque tops that easily double as dresses. Makes sense, as dresses are Vera’s forte.

Or ARE they? Based on these Simply Vera dresses, one wouldn’t think so.

Looks like someone over at Simply Vera forgot that “simple” doth not mean “boring.” The half-assed effort behind the line’s dresses disappoints; the fact that both dresses pictured retail for around $80 infuriates.

Vera, babe, no one’s buying $9000 wedding gowns any time soon. You had the good sense to start what could be - with some price point and design tweaking, obvs - a fab line for us regular gals. Now have the good sense to make it something we actually want to buy. Capiche?

Oy Vey!

When I’m Wrong, I’m Only Sort of Wrong?

From Rita re: H&M Drinks the Kool Aid:
So, I looked at the website that you linked to, and you seem to have missed that the prices given are in Hong Kong dollars- 1 US dollar is approx. $7.75 Hong Kong dollars. Therefore, that dress is actually $166 dollars, and those penis shorts are approximately $66…

Clearly these are a bit higher than the usual H&M fare, but the designer did make the point that she tried to make these clothes with the same care she puts into her regular comme des garcons collection.

The point is, you can get a lot of things for low prices at forever 21 and h&m, but avant garde fashion really isn’t one of them. And yes, perhaps not everyone can afford even the h&m comme des garcons clothes, but I doubt that lower prices would significantly make more people buy them.
@ 7:18 pm on October 13th, 2008

DAMMIT! I KNEW that rant was too good to be true. And I thought my uber righteous anger was justified. Fine, Commes des Pou-Pou for H&M’s prices aren’t quite as ridiculous as the Hong Kong dollars led me to believe. Whatever. Those shorts are still penis shorts.

(Thanks to Rita, KD and co. for setting the record straight).

Oy Vey!

H&M Drinks the Kool-Aid

I try not to waste my time on shit I can’t afford, so I’m only vaguely familiar with Commes des Garcons. I brushed up on my knowledge of asexual, monochromatic clothing when I heard about the label’s collabs with H&M (Commes des Garcons means “like boys,” and boy, does it show!). Seems like this uber high-end line wants to go mainstream in a big way.

And nothing says “mainstream” like a $700 polka-dot cardigan.

When I saw what Commes des Garcons plans on charging for their H&M debut, I assumed the decimal points had been erroneously omitted. That black velvet dress couldn’t possibly be $1290…could it?

Look, Commes des Whatever, I don’t give a fuck what you charge at your Guerrilla stores. You want to do a line that masquerades as reasonably priced high fashion, kudos to you. You can even pretend that women will pay $499 for shorts that make them look like they have penises. But you cannot, and will not, do it on my turf.

H&M is Cheap JAP country. I don’t shop there to have my hopes dashed by clothing that costs what I might spend on a massive leather handbag: If I find something fabulous, I presume it’s something I can afford too. This is NOT an unreasonable expectation for a chain that “offers fashion and quality at the best price.” At least it wasn’t, until Commes des Crap arrived on the scene.

Shame on you, H&M, for promoting a line that’s an insult to 98% of shoppers who patronize your store; to us gals who love clothes but can’t pay for high fashion. You just put the “H” in hypocrisy. Ohhh Snap!

Oy Vey!

If you’re looking for something to talk to your grandparents about at Rosh Hashanah dinner tonight, look no further than The Great Schlep. I hate politics, but I heart Sarah Silverman. So whatevs.

L’Shana Tova, Happy New Year, Apples and Honey and all that good stuff to my fellow Cheap JAPs. Back with a vengeance tomorrow, and we’re going to talk about how to weather this economic shitstorm and still look fabulous. Get ready. Get psyched. Get out your scissors and start cutting up those credit cards.

Oy Vey!

Things That Make You Go “Oy.”

OMFG - some uber-artsy Williamsburg couple is making t-shirts so you can wear the initials of who you heart most, and Daily Candy’s all a twitter! They’re by Dahl+Dane=True Love Always - if the name of the company doesn’t make you all warm and fuzzy, surely their story of how they sat next to each other in kindergarten and poof! it was love! will. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

You want to make cheesy t-shirts, fine. You want to use your relationship as an excuse to do it, that’s cool too. You want to charge me $58 for something I could have done with a Hanes v-neck and a few Sharpies? Get the fuck out of Brooklyn.

(Oh, I’m sorry, ‘East Bushwick.’ Williamsburg’s so last year.)

Oy Vey!

More BS from The Little Grey Book

Today, let’s see what the gospel according to La Nina has to say about jewelry, specifically which pieces we MUST own. Please Nina, save us from our unadorned selves!

Nina Says: Statement Necklace, Pearl Necklace, Bangles, Cuff, Cocktail Ring, Signet Ring, Turquoise and Coral Jewelry, Brooch, Hoop Earrings, Charm Bracelet, Watch AND Diamond Studs.
Cheap JAP Says: For serious, nothing mucks up an outfit like too much jewelry, and Nina’s asinine assertion that every stylish woman must own all of the above is merely the unfortunate result of her needing to fill space in her “book.” I haven’t worn a charm bracelet since I was twelve, and what the eff is a signet ring?! Apparently, “the classic version has your family crest.” What, did family crests repeal the No-Jews-Allowed policy?
Per The Grey Book’s non-WASPy jewelry musts, I’m with her on one out of twelve: Diamond Studs. With the hint of a sparkle, these little puppies alone have the power to make your cheap ass look loaded all. the. time. The other crap is only a MUST insofar as it’s a must for YOU, girlfriend. An oversized men’s watch from a thrift store rocks just as hard as a Cartier if you wear it with pizazz. Hoop earrings are a fun, slightly naughty touch to most outfits (and if you’re from Jersey like me, you already own at least four pairs).

Bottom line? Don’t ever stress about jewelry; the best stuff usually finds you in the form of familial generosity. Like when you graduate from college and your grandmother opens up her jewelry box and says, “Pick one.”

Oy Vey!

The Little Grey Book of BS

Oooh wait…sorry, that was the title of Nina Garcia’s first foray into the world of real, live, books. I didn’t read it. I did, however, have a momentary lapse of sanity in Barnes and Nobles a few weeks ago that resulted in my purchasing “The One Hundred: A Guide to the Pieces Every Stylish Woman Must Own.” What prompted me to give this fluff the time of day was def the “must” - I mean, it sounds scary, doesn’t it? There are ONE HUNDRED pieces out there that I MUST own?! Oh Nina, show me the way!

Turns out, the number of pieces every stylish woman must own is far from one hundred. Because, for the Cheap JAP, two of the almost-same thing means only buying one. Here’s how I’ve trimmed the list.

Nina Says: Vans AND Converse
Cheap JAP Says: One pair of cool, casual sneaks is more than enough.
The gospel according to La Nina deems Converse “the shoe that the models are always wearing when they walk out of shoots and that every downtown girl wears in her downtime.” To me, this means they should be boycotted entirely - who the eff wants to look like everyone else? Vans are a little more interesting, a lot more badass, and conjure up fond memories of my middle school skater grrl days. Sk8-Hi Special Fabric Vans, $65.

Nina Says: Caftan AND Sarongs
Cheap JAP Says: What, not everyone takes warm-weather vacations five times a year? Come on, Nina. As Sarongs look ridiculous sans beach and bikini, they’re decidedly not a piece one MUST own. Caftans (think really long muumuu) can be belted, dressed up with heels, and/or thrown on with big hoop earrings when one feels too bloated for anything else. You do the math.

Nina Says: Cable-Knit AND Cashmere
Cheap JAP Says: I’m not trying to look like a schoolteacher. I’m trying to look loaded, goddammit.
If you’ve got a penchant for preppy-chic, Cable-Knit Sweaters can be easily found at thrift stores, Goodwills, Salvation Armies et. al. But if we’re talking MUSTs here, it’s Cashmere, all the way.

Especially if it’s a 100% Cashmere Beige Shrug (originally $495) snagged at Barney’s Warehouse Sale for $119.

Stay tuned for more ways to make this gratuitous list applicable to reality. Now, that’s a MUST.

Oy Vey!

Marc by Marc, Fat by Fat

I really like the idea of Marc Jacobs; the ads are refreshingly unconventional, the bags are as chic as they are functional, and most of his shoes possess subtle details that seem to say, “I paid a shitload for these.” But whenever I try on anything Marc by Marc Jacobs, I don’t feel confident, trendy, or cool. I feel like a total fattie.

It’s not the florescent lighting; it’s not that I’m retaining water; it’s not that I need the next size up. It’s that MJ seems to continually forget which gender he’s designing for. When there’s no room for boobs, hips or butts of any kind, you ain’t makin’ clothes for women. You want to use your hot little bf as your muse, that’s cool with me. But if you expect me to fit into his clothes, you are all kinds of crazy.
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

It’s Fashion Week?

On the off-chance that you care about Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week NYC (get off my site, now ;), you’ve probs noticed a lack of coverage here on Cheap JAP. Dolls, loving fashion doth not equate to loving fashion week. It’d be one thing if the ludicrously overpriced collections had anything to do with what I want to wear right now (”now” being Fall) - then, at least I could look at them wistfully and use them as inspiration whilst shopping. But what is showing now isn’t Fall/Winter 2008/2009; it’s Spring 2009. This means anyone who’s anyone on the isle of Manhattan is flipping their nut over what to wear six months from now.

I don’t even know what I’m wearing today. You want me to think about what I’ll be wearing SIX MONTHS from now? And wait, I’m supposed to be spending money on it so it can sit in my closet unused to the point that when I’m finally able to wear it, I’ll wonder, “What was I THINKING?!”

Fashion isn’t a front-row seat at DVF; it isn’t a pre-ordered It Bag; it isn’t an $800 blouse. It’s an amorphous thing that can be molded to fit your tastes, your personality and your budget, provided you have the balls to do it. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

American Apparel’s Latest Offenses

I’m kind of angry with American Apparel. In fact, my irritation has increased in direct proportion to the brand’s median pricetag. Suddenly, instead of fifteen-dollar tees, we have Forty-Five Dollar Shiny Zipper-Front Bodysuits and Sixty-Eight Dollar Bull Denim Slim Slacks. If I wanted to spend over $50 on mediocre jeans, I’d shop at Urban Outfitters, assbags. I’ll concede that some American Apparel items are worth paying for. (The Nylon Tricot High-Waisted Legging is a bodyshaper, leg-slimmer, and tummy-flattener all-in-one; for anything that makes you look a solid seven lbs lighter, $42 is chump change). But a few gems can’t excuse the heinousness they’re hawking as of late. Here’s the worst of the worst.

Metallics - in small doses - are sometimes okay. Blinding, Shiny Windbreakers are not okay. This jacket overwhelms anything one could possibly wear with it - not a problem for AA models as they’re barely clothed to begin with, but def an issue for everyone else. If I was going to a costume party as a glowworm, I still wouldn’t waste $58 on this p.o.s.

I’m pretty sure my Uncle Chip has a pair of sweatpants in this print that he wore for most of 1986. I’m not really sure what’s attractive about American Apparel’s Afrika Line, other than that pretending to care about Africa is, like, so hot right now. If these leggings were $10 and ALL the proceeds went to saving Darfur, I might buy them out of guilt. But spending $34 on something this fugly that funds ZERO charities is all kinds of crazy.
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

Do It or Screw It? (Fall Trends)

Like most fashion mags, ELLE usually pisses me off, what with their Vogue-esque concept of reasonably priced apparel. But the mag’s latest issue does a nice job of breaking down Fall’s Must-Haves. Must we have everything suggested? Hellllls no. Must we take a good, hard look at this season’s trends and weed out the ridiculousness so we don’t waste our dough on things we’ll wear once? You betcha.

DO IT: The New LBD

Little Black Dresses are always In, doy. “New” according to ELLE means these LBDs have certain stylistic embellishments - like expertly placed rhinestones that somehow make the Erin Fetherston dress featured $1500 - that set them apart from a plain ol’ LBD. Thus “New” according to me means Stupid. A little detail is fab, but a classic LBD doesn’t need sequins, lace, bows or any of that crap. It just needs to fit like a glove. Write that down. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

Vogue Addresses the Plight of the Recessionista

Soooo, The Online Home of Vogue knows you’re like totally stressing about not being able to afford your usual Resort Collection for your end-of-summer vacay on the Amalfi Coast or whatevs. The shitty economy means no Armani, Versace, Dior or Zac Posen this year, and how sad for you! Fear not. The editorial-fashion-powers-that-be have come up with Realistic Resort Options for you from “the best little sister brands and contemporary labels that qualify as solid investments” AND don’t cost as much as a small car. Like this Development Navy-and-White Striped Coat, for instance. Now, they can’t tell you how much it actually costs - that would be crass. But Development dresses usually run around $375, so this coat can’t possibly be more than $600.

Other Resort options for the budget-conscious Recessionista include, but are not limited to: DKNY, Moschino Cheap & Chic, Marc by Marc Jacobs, Emporio Armani and Theory. At full price, of course - because waiting for things to go on sale is such a drag.

Oh Vogue. Where money’s concerned, your idiocy really is astounding. Like Smalls in “The Sandlot,” you’re killing me. Do yourselves (and us) a favor and stick to what you know (a lot about fashion, and not much else…oooh snap!) We don’t want to buy the overpriced, beautiful ridiculousness that graces your pages, even if it’s less overpriced than usual because you think you have some grasp on what real women spend on clothes. No. We just want to enjoy it!

(And maybe copy it ;).

Oy Vey!

Why I Hate The GAP

For some reason, I associate The GAP with the coming of Fall. Perhaps this is because I shopped there for first-day-of-school outfits when I was fifteen and didn’t know how to dress. When I stopped in the other day and wasn’t just disappointed; I was appalled. If the chain’s tiresome neutrals, conservative shapes and ho-hum basics were as cheap as they are fugly, I’d be more forgiving. Here’s what a complete lack of imagination is worth, according to GAP: This dress - this heinous, ill-fitting, brown bag of a dress - costs $58.00. Stay tuned for more overpriced/underachieving fashion, courtesy of the schoolteacher’s brand of choice.

Oy Vey!

Richard Chai, Why Oh Why?!

Everyone’s got a hard-on for Richard Chai for Target GO International. Sans moi, obvs. I’m not so naive that I expect the designers who slap their names onto Target GO International tags to actually design the collection - they’ve got more important things to worry about, like figuring out how to stuff their size 2 models into size 0 samples before Fashion Week. But if the final, budget-friendly product barely resembles its Ready-to-Wear inspiration, I expect them to notice. Something slipped through the cracks with Richard Chai’s latest Target endeavor; something called style. What we have now is a sloppy, confusing, potato sack-esque mess.

Look, I’m don’t expect to find anything as gorge as that beauteous purple number at Tar-jay. But I also don’t see how that fugly, floral disaster at right (a.k.a. the Tuxedo Dress & Striped Tank Look) has anything to do with Chai’s clean and modern aesthetic.
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

Cheap Jack’s, Kiss My @$$

In the world of used clothing, there’s thrift, there’s designer-discount, and there’s vintage bullshit. Because I interpret the term “cheap” to mean low-cost and not sleazy, I recently visited Cheap Jack’s Vintage Clothing and should have bolted after perusing a rack of $30 t-shirts. If the tees had been outstanding in some capacity, I might have been open to the idea of spending thirty bucks on something someone had already pit-stained. But these were standard, pilling, beat-up thrift store tees - worth eight bucks, max. I wondered, was the rest of the stuff priced in the same deluded fashion?

Vintage clothing enthusiasts probs applaud Cheap Jack’s for organizing their wares according to decade, and that’s all well and good. The problemo with real vintage isn’t just that it gives its distributors the excuse to charge more based on an article of clothing’s age and history - oooh this mod minidress was actually worn by a Studio 54 regular in 1979, oooh I don’t give a shit - it’s that fit and fabric have come a long way since the 1950s. So more often than not, you’re paying $150 for something that feels like fucking sandpaper.

Now, Cheap Jack’s had a bunch o’ signs up banning photographing the clothes, probs because they want to keep the fugliness of their overpriced vintage bullshit under wraps, otherwise I’d furnish you with evidence of the offending wares. Thankfully, their online store exemplifies the serious disparity in style and cost. This shapeless, vomit - oops, I mean mustard - colored houndstooth combo can be had for the bargain price of…$175. I suppose the fur trim necessitates the cost, as Cheap Jack’s claims it’s mink. To me, it looks like someone hacked up a squirrel and stuck it on a scarf. Next please.
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

I saw something shocking whilst flipping through the latest Lucky. Pictured in the “Lucky Girl” feature - you know, that page where they show a selection of a 22-year-old PR associate’s wardrobe (you ain’t buying $350 tops on that salary, girlfriend, I don’t care what Lucky says) - was a $190 handbag. As I deem handbags a worthy splurge, my problem wasn’t with the price. It was with the brand. This tote wasn’t Hype, Tano, Fracesco Biasia, or any other legit bag brands that retail for around $200. It was from The GAP.

What the FUCK is GAP doing selling $200 handbags?! If I’m going to blow a few hundred on a bag, you best believe it won’t be as mass-produced and totally vanilla as the shit they sell at GAP. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

The Fugliness of Filene’s

I took the advice of a few commenters yesterday and made a pilgrimage to Filene’s Basement. That crack you Filene’s fans are smoking is totally laced with hallucinogenics, because it’s duped you into thinking that this dire, sloppy selection of discount designer wares is worth your time. There are many reasons why it’s not; for good measure, let’s break down the top three.

Why Filene’s Stinks Like Poo - A Study

1. Big Names, Little Selection
Filene’s has some decent brands, sure. I was initially wooed by the Tahari, C&C California, Free People and True Religion signs gracing the tops of the racks. But upon further inspection, these brands proved a total cocktease. Almost every article of clothing attached to said brands was either boring, bizarre, played out and/or fugly. Not cool.

2. A Not-Hot Mess
An overwhelming amount of clothes at reduced-reduced-reduced prices is hot. A sale rack with no size or brand consistency is not. If the clothes were half-decent to begin with, I might have found the strength to wade through the overstuffed sale section. But sifting through a shit ton of Jones New York and Anne Klein blazers to find one lame BCBG black top isn’t really my bag, baby.
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

The Very Vomitous Vogue

Ahh, Vogue. Aliases: Conniving Queen of Chic, Evil Stepmother of Style, Embodiment of All Things We Can’t Afford. I recently received the July issue and something on the cover caught my eye. Something incongruous to the mag’s content and concept. Something implying that even Vogue was susceptible to a fashion reality check. Something that read, “Cheap Chic: Strategies for Shopping the Trends on a Budget.”

It’s a post-holiday weekend Monday; you office folk could probs use a good chuckle. Well, you’re in luck. Because Vogue’s idea of budget shopping is the biggest fucking joke I have ever heard.

The mag’s first eff-up is letting its editrixes define what constitutes “being chic without breaking the bank.” Based on their suggestions, these floozies are either buffeted by family moolah, married to rich dudes and/or heinously overpaid. Their bank ain’t the same as our bank. Are most of the items featured under $500? Yes. Is spending around $500 on one item ever an economically sound decision? No. Eff no.
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

DESIGNER SLUMDOWN: Urban Outfitters vs. Rendez-Vous by Paul & Joe Sister (for Urban Outfitters…what?!)

Now, I was under the impression that designers collaborated with budget chain stores like Target, Kohl’s, etc. in order to market and sell affordable versions of their high-end (i.e. overpriced) lines. So I was understandably puzzled when Urban Outfitters - a chain that pretends to be a whole lot cheaper than it is - took Paul & Joe Sister’s “middle ground” line, Rendez-Vous under its faux vintage wings.

See, Paul & Joe charges around $500 for one shirt. Oh it’s handmade, oh it’s silk, oh I don’t give a shit. It’s a shirt, for fuck’s sake. Not a handbag. Their overpriced absurdity of a brand must not have been selling well, because Paul & Joe went ahead and made Paul & Joe Sister (great name, guys); a line whose dresses fall in the “reasonably-priced” range of $250-$400.

One would think they’d consider a noticeable price reduction for the line currently being sold at Urban, Rendez-Vous by Paul & Joe Sister (just keep tacking words on dudes, it’s working). One would see this $188 Kenya Safari Jumper and be wrong. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

Botkier for Target? Oh HELLS No.

Anyone eagerly anticipating the July 20 release of the Botkier for Target handbag line needs to take a good, hard look at these photos. Witness Exhibit A:

It’s not just painfully obvious that the sparkling, buttery, buckled beauty at left is the real thing; it’s fucking insulting that the gold, stiff, pleather disaster at right is being pawned off as a desirable alternative to its overpriced inspiration. Witness Exhibit B:

If the JPEG placement switcheroo was enough to trick you, you’re clearly one of the sheep who’ll actually buy this crapola and I pity you. Even if the Target-ized version at left is real leather, it’s of the immobile, low-cost ilk. It’s not just the intricate stitching that outs the bag on the right as the real thing; it’s the scrunching of soft, mobile leather around the buckle strap. Versions of its pathetic copy lurk on the corners of Broadway and every other street in Soho and - if you don’t mind looking not-even-close-to-loaded - can be had for twenty bucks.

Last night marked the end of an era for me and my own (real) Botkier bag. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

The Top Five Things Not to Buy at American Apparel (Unless Shopping for an Orgy)

Let’s start with a few disclaimers: 1. I heart most of American Apparel’s stuff and 2. Not my ass pictured at left. I don’t have a problem with the company’s penchant for provocative photography. I have a problem with the notion that it’s okay to wear the following items in public.

This Nylon Tricot Figure Skater Dress might adequately cover one’s naughty bits, but seriously, come on. The easy-access skirt totally fetishizes jailbait-age ballerinas, and that’s just creepy. Alas, if you’ve got some Ice Capades-related sex fantasy you’re looking to enact, look no further.

This mini-skirt is technically a skort.

Unfortunately, the fact that there are shorts underneath this coochie-grazing number doesn’t make it any less slutty. You’re better off parading around the street in your underwear - at least then you’d be making a statement.

There are few occasions when black and gold glitter don’t scream workin’ girl; this Spandex Nightlife Dress is no exception.

For a White Trash theme party, it’s money. Because this is one of American Apparel’s few items that looks as cheap as it is. Well, this and the Shiny Hot Short pictured above, which is technically part of a bikini. Even I wouldn’t wear these to the beach, and I’m from South Jersey.

Finally, we have the Nylon Micro-Mesh Bodysuit. I’m not sure, but I think the see-through-top-over-black-bra-look went out in 1982 and never came back. (Her nipples are airbrushed out of the pic, btw. I know this because I tried the bodysuit on a few weeks ago). If you want to seduce your dude - look at me in my see-through bodysuit, yay! - then this is an interesting choice. Wearing this bodysuit for any other reason is prohibited. Capeesh?

Oy Vey!

Barney’s to Make Clothes for the Little People

Soooo, Barney’s is teaming with Target because the economy sucks, err, I mean, because they want Middle America to have access to high fashion. Barney’s’ medium for this beautiful union is designer Rogan Gregory. I would care about this if I knew who Rogan Gregory was. Based on the looks of his collection, he constructs boring shit in varying gray, black and white tones (my bad, Minimalist Chic) that sells for upwards of $500. Thanks to Target, he and Barney’s have come down to earth to sell us stuff for $45 or less. Lucky us!

Oy Vey!

Barfey’s Scarehouse Sale

Soooo, the heinously uppity and nauseatingly expensive Barney’s New York is currently having their Warehouse Sale. My beef with Barney’s isn’t their prices, per say. It’s that - every time I browse the store - I toy with the idea of opening a credit card and going into thousands of dollars of debt just so I can revel in the awesomeness that is the Co-Op floor. One would think I’d be all over the Warehouse Sale. And one would be wrong. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

An Ugh! for Uggs.

I can’t understand is why Uggs are perceived as stereotypically JAPpy footwear. It’s fucking insulting. I try my best to live by the phrase, “Fashion, not function.” Ugglies exemplify the converse of said phrase. It might be winter in New York City, but it’s an unseasonably warm one; we’re not dealing with temperatures that necessitate Australian Sheepskin. So why, WHY, do I continually see otherwise-cute outfits marred by these shapeless, hideous, cliched boots? Because people still think they’re cool. Here’s why they’re not. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

NYC Style: Crisp, Clean and Uncomplicated. Really, Lucky? Really?

The latest issue of Lucky boasts the Stylish and Sexy Guide - “perfect, subtly seductive looks inspired by four of the chicest cities in the world.” Let’s see how New York is described hmm, shall we?

“This style is crisp and clean, with an alluringly uncomplicated sensuality.”

Ahem, exsqueeze me? Baking powder? I can’t think of less accurate adjectives for NYC style than “crisp,” “clean,” and “uncomplicated.” One of the best things about New York is that you can wear whatever the fuck you want and someone, somewhere, will probably think it rocks. Ours is a city that gives you the freedom to occasionally look like an ass for the sake of fashion. If we were crisp, clean and uncomplicated, we’d be Boston. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

All I Want for Christmas is a Cute Work Outfit

To some, serving at a swanky, upscale steak place means selling $60 hunks of cow and $300 bottles of Cab. To me, it means finding the inner strength, shift after shift, to don my uniform, i.e. a white button-down shirt and black pants, i.e. the worst outfit ever. Fine, white button-down shirts (I’m sick of typing that phrase already, let’s just call them WBDs) are practical, particularly if they’re cut as well as the one I snagged at the Banana Republic Factory Store for $35.

Fine, BCBG black pants are standard JAP garb and mine only cost me $50 (thank you, Atlantic City outlets). But too many black pants and WBDs render one’s wardrobe a battered, desert wasteland void of creative capital. The only thing that depresses me more than owning four pairs of black pants and six WBDs is that I actually have to wear this shit. And there is nothing worse for a JAP - cheap or otherwise - than being forced to wear the same effing outfit every goddamn day. I mean, it’s not waterboarding, but I’m totally drowning in wardrobe monotony here.