Lucky's Least Flattering Outfits for Spring

Lucky’s March cover touts “Body-flattering outfits for normal-size people.” You’d think that would be a given in a fashion magazine, but no, Lucky had to specify. See, this issue is packed with outfits that don’t flatter even the reed-thin six-foot models forced to be photographed in them. Maybe I’m missing the inherent aesthetic value of these ensembles, or perhaps Kim France et al actually wanted readers to say, “God no” and flip to the next page as quickly as possible. It’s hard to say with any certainty.

Below, my picks for the worst looks in the March issue:

Honorable mention: The Romper, page 192. Here’s a novel idea! How about not describing as “flirty” clothes that most closely resemble something a toddler would wear?

 

3. Boxy Tops and Slouchy Trousers, page 97. Lucky says that rolling up the cuffs of your single-pleat pants—oh, yes, pleated pants!—“draw attention to a flatteringly thin point” of your calf. Indeed! Showcasing that sliver of calf between your cuffs and your shoes both compensates for the pooch-highlighting pleats and confirms that you deliberately dressed this way to leave the house. Also, is it an optical illusion created by the loose-fitting pants, or is this model in fact three feet tall?

2. The Shrunken Jacket and Nonchalantly Cuffed Pants, page 163. What is it with the cuffs this month? And where on earth would it be appropriate to wear a suit with the legs “nonchalantly” rolled up? (Other than to an editorial meeting at a fashion magazine, obviously.) As for pegging the pants: It didn’t look good in 1989, either, although at least they didn’t also outfit the model with two different-colored pairs of socks and a coordinating scrunchie.

1. The Disheveled Button-Down, page 98. Cuffed pants, a haphazardly tucked-in tee, and a button-down fastened only at the neck? Yeah, there’s a reason we’ve never seen this look before.

As for the article mentioned on the cover, it includes one “normal-size” person. Also, the term “normal-size”? As a fashion magazine, Lucky has zero authority to declare which body types are normal and which aren’t. The feature showcases a mere three outfits, but they are at least attractive. For once in a fashion glossy, maybe those of us who don’t look like models actually come out ahead.

Comments

[Courtney]

The editors were obviously inspired by last summer's Midwest floods by having everyone preemptively roll up their pant legs.

[Margot]

I thought it was interesting that all of their "suit" suggestions portrayed clothing that was completely inappropriate for any office that would require you to wear a suit.

[Todra]

This is just scary. I really have nothing else to say.

[Todra]

Actually, sorry. I do have something else to say...the girl in the third picture (with the opened shirt) looks homeless. What were they thinking???

[Jessica M.]

Perhaps Lucky secretly feels that "normal sized" people have no business wearing clothes that suggest you aren't a hobo, and this is their clever tactic to correct that societal ill ("clever" to them being that they have inserted beautiful stick models to help the medicine go down easier).

[Fabulously Broke]

Maybe normal sized people are supposed to be fashionable slobs.

The box top isn't bad. With skinny jeans and maybe a cute skinny belt it could work

But cuffed capris? Or cuffed pleated ANYTHING for that matter?

Atrocious.

[Fabulously Broke]

I think blogs on the internet are a lot more fashionable than a so-called fashion mag.

France clearly needs her eyes checked.

Fabulously Broke in the City
"Just a girl trying to find a balance between being a Shopaholic and a Saver."

[Jake Danger]

I'm a guy, and I'd like to say for the record that I don't think the first two models are pretty *at all*. The third one, despite the stupidly-buttoned shirt, is decent.

I don't know who's on the cover but she isn't pretty either. I vote for putting Katee Sackhoff on a cover. She's fit, healthy, and "normal." And she kicks ass.

[Jane]

Wow. Those clothes are violently ugly, particularly the last page. The model looks stumpy, homeless, and like she can barely balance her head on her shoulders.

Good job, Lucky! You've sunk to new depths.

[Brigitte]

I'm going to admit to liking the first outfit. There. I said it. Neener-neener.

[Becca]

I actually don't hate the first outfit either. I am pretty tall and I like wearing capri pants, so I could see myself wearing a version of it. But the other two really are awful, and I recall being really disappointed with this entire issue. I paged through it pretty quickly, and I think I only used two "maybe" stickers from the front.

[Bee]

This magazine was one big NO after another NO. I finished it in record time. They should also offer stickers that say "Hell to the NO" to stick on almost ever page. Ugh.

[Pomerol]

Couldn't stop giggling. The third one looks like a five-year-old wearing her mother's shoes. Completely nuts.

And amen to Katee Sackhoff.

[Buzzkill]

Just when I think Lucky can't get any worse (or feature more unattractive outfits) I had to read this issue. My sister and I have a general shopping rule: if it looks terrible on a model, it sure as hell is going to look even worse on a "normal" person. The entire issue was an illustration of this rule.

[Beth]

I miss the days when Lucky used their staffers as the models. It was much easier to take 'disheveled' as legitimate fashion advice when pictured on a girl who looked like my sister.