Glossed Over

There's Nothing Sexy About InStyle's "Look Better Naked"

Many many years ago, I briefly dated a guy who was, well, not particularly nice.  Watching a movie at his place one afternoon, he leaned in for a kiss. (Mom and Dad, avert your eyes here.) Matters progressed, he tugged the hem of my t-shirt over my head, and then he rolled his eyes at my basic beige bra. “Don’t you have any sexy underwear?” he asked.

All I could think was: Dude, I’m taking my clothes off for you. How is that not enough?

Therein lies the problem with February’s glut of lingerie and look-better-naked stories: they’re so focused on an artificial construct of romance that they miss the point. If, as magazines often say, feeling sexy means feeling comfortable in your own skin, then endless articles exhorting the virtues of self-tanners, lacy knickers, and styling products aren't exactly conducive to developing that self-confidence.

And that’s what makes InStyle’s “10 Ways to Look Better Naked” so utterly ludicrous. Among their suggestions:

• Weight loss

Got 30 minutes and $85 to spend on detoxifying salts? Great!

We shed 3 inches of water weight and felt thinner for about 48 hours.

And you can keep those inches off, too, provided you don’t do anything outlandish like, say, eat or drink. People don’t typically go to romantic restaurants on Valentine’s Day, do they?

• Jewelry

The magazine suggests highlighting your back, which it calls “a very sexy region of the body.” The best way to do that? With an $850 gemstone-studded lariat chain, obviously. Without pricey jewels pointing the way, how would a man know what to focus on?

• Home décor

“Amber casts skin in a warm, rosy glow,” says [interior designer Ron] Woodson, who suggests placing a red-hued bulb in bedside lamps and painting your ceiling a barely there shade of peach or pink to enhance the effect.

Painting the ceiling? Painting the ceiling! That seems excessively vain, but at least they didn’t suggest installing a mirror up there.

Of course, the article also covers the usual territory of depilation, exfoliation, and cosmetic trickery to hide any traces of humanity blemishes and bruises. But unless you’re disrobing for a sculptor who’ll immortalize your every detail in marble, isn’t this overkill? There’s probably a 3,000-word essay here about treating women like objects and the deleterious effects of porn and how the media tries to define our sexuality, but I’ll just leave it at this:

If you’re naked and your partner dares frown at your white ceiling or a stray stretch mark, your relationship is way beyond InStyle’s help. Also, you’re probably dating my ex-boyfriend.

A Sticky Situation in Lucky's September Issue

In its patriotic mission to stimulate the economy, Lucky does everything it can to make shopping easier for the few, the proud, the misanthropes who detest malls, and the between-sizes Americans prone to fitting-room meltdowns. With the stickers marked “YES!” and “MAYBE?” in every issue, vicarious shopping has never been easier! 

This month, instead of tearing out the stickers to annotate a publication with actual paragraphs (like, say, a book), I actually affixed them to the magazine's comparatively noteworthy pages. And in my mission to help you avoid “reading” Lucky, here's what I culled from the September issue:

YES! I may need the entirety of Anna Sui’s Gossip Girl-inspired collection for Target, now that I’ve seen the two-page ad near the front of this issue. Unchecked spending on stuff I don’t need makes me a good American, right?

YES! Just as expected, Kim France’s “Editor’s Letter” does acknowledge the crummy financial climate, but adds that “against all odds,” the magazine’s fashion editors found plenty of great stuff for fall. Such sacrifice!

YES! Lucky continues its slaughter of the English language on page 94, trotting out the non-word “splurgier.” Are there fuses in my brain? Because I think one just blew.

MAYBE? It is totally acceptable to shop at outlets. If you’re in Italy and buying stuff at the Prada outlet, that is. (page 108)

YES! There exists an article of clothing called “zoot pants,” and Lucky’s “Style Spy” expects you to wear them for fall.

YES! Lucky’s editors may suffer from long-term memory loss, since they’ve managed to load up “The Smart Shopping Sourcebook” with heaps of accessories and clothes under $100, but can’t seem to remember those stylish bargains long enough to insert many of them in other features.

YES! According to “Accessories Report,” eyeglasses are in for fall. Great! I hate when glasses are out and I have to go around squinting. Suffer for fashion, right? (Or, you know, wear them and look like I don’t care about my appearance at all.)

MAYBE? Ed Hardy’s new perfume, which, according to the ad in this issue, is a “vintage tattoo inspired fragrance,” could be less appealing. But probably not.

YES! Cosmetics are the sure path to happiness and fulfillment! According to “Beauty Spy,” hot pink blush will make you “instantly feel 5,000 times prettier.” The latest anti-wrinkle potions are “kind of miraculous.” A saffron lip stain is “unexpectedly gorgeous”—for $65, it had better be. A new Maybelline lipstick is “perfect,” and a handful of acne products work with “stunning efficiency.” Yay!

MAYBE? Despite the wisdom so altruistically dispensed on page 214, most readers probably don’t need detailed instructions on shampooing.

YES! It is possible to “Love Your Hair,” as page 224 exuberantly instructs. It doesn’t require a shift in perspective—just a heap of drugstore products, a $140 flat iron, and a $34 shampoo. Easy!

MAYBE? We shouldn’t take beauty editors’ advice as gospel, since in “Skin Regimens of Beauty Editors,” one confesses that she hates washing her face at night and another never takes off her eye makeup before bed. As all of us who’ve been indoctrinated by a lifetime of women’s mags know, not washing up before sleeping is a cardinal sin.

MAYBE? I might have actually used the stickers to mark various pages of the “Lucky Fall Shoe Guide.” I’ll never tell.

YES! As noted in “40s Modern,” the right clothes can make me “magpie-cool.” Whatever that means.

YES! A $415 leopard-print blouse can be worn for work, weekend, and evening, according to “Fall’s Most Versatile Pieces.” Good thing, too, because at that price, it’d be the only blouse I own.

MAYBE? An $1195 Emporio Armani jacket and $630 Bruno Frisoni pumps, as seen on pages 280 and 281, aren’t the best exemplars of the “punk rock” or “collegiate” style the spread is supposed to embody. But then, neither is posing those “punk rock” models in front of a nightclub advertising a show presented by Radio Disney. Oops!

YES! Now that I’ve read the entire issue, I do want to purchase a new wardrobe! Lucky, you’ve successfully completed your mission.

Lowest Common Denominator: Glamour, December

$1,712: Value of the gift bag from Glamour’s Women of the Year gala

68.75: Percent of honorees cited at least in part for their work improving the lives of women in poverty or oppressive situations

16: Women honored by Glamour for, in the words of editor-in-chief Cynthia Leive, “inspiring” other women

3: Celebrity hairstyles noted on page 86 as “Part Makeovers to Inspire You” (that’s “part” as in the part in your hair)

Null: Likelihood I would ever publicly admit to being “inspired” by the direction Gwyneth Paltrow combs her hair

10: Number of strategies suggested to “Make Over Your Body, Head to Toe,” including three for the face

2: Uses of the word “bling” on page 116

$895: Average price of the bling-encrusted bags on the same page

Boundless: My astonishment that anyone would spend $2,295 on a Valentino purse studded with hot-glued faux jewels

3: Body types represented in “The Sexiest Dress for Your Shape”

3: Number of “fun ways” to wear a scarf recommended on the next page

239: Page on which a Glamour staffer claims to have seen the term “sophisticated elf” as the dress code on an invitation

5: According to page 163, the count of “Fights Every Couple is Having Right Now”

100: Approximate percentage of those five conflicts that have been the basis for an episode of a network sitcom starring an average-looking former standup comedian and a gorgeous actress as his wife

9: “Sweet ways guys show their affection” in “100 Little Things that Renew Your Faith in Love”

1: Of those 9, the number which involve a man sleeping outside his girlfriend’s house without her knowledge. Sweet, eh?

4: Pages devoted to “I Don’t Care About Being a Size 2,” a beauty story featuring singer Adele

1: Total of photos of Adele where her body is actually visible below the neck

Women's Magazines Still Waging War on Our Wallets

I know, I know, money has become a regular topic around here. Here’s my pledge: I promise I’ll quit ranting about it as soon as the fashion magazines stop conflating luxury goods with sound investments. (So, probably never.)

Here’s the latest communiqué in the battle to separate women from their cash, from the “Editor’s Note” in September’s InStyle:

And yet there’s that tiny voice—OK, it’s a booming foghorn—in the back of your head telling you now’s not the time to shop. The economy seems dicey, at best, and any fiscally savvy woman worth her mutual funds (bad example, but go with me) knows that the sensible thing to do is bank that money for the inevitable rainy day. Or is it? After all, you don’t have to make all the trends your own, only the ones that work for you.

Oh, so I’ve been getting it all wrong! Buying a closetful of stuff you don’t need is profligate, but buying just a few things you don’t need is as good as earning interest.

I’m not saying women shouldn’t spend their money as they please on shiny consumer goods. (I certainly do!) But trying to pass off the purchase of luxury goods as financially prudent behavior is an untenable position—not to mention more than a little patronizing. It's more important to look on-trend now than to have an adequate nest egg? Really, InStyle? I need a pencil skirt more than I need those “rainy day” funds?

Apparently so! In the table of contents, they chirp that a $1,950 Prada bag is “worth it!”

Sigh. And over on Marie Claire’s “Diary of an MC Fashionista,” they helpfully deconstruct the appeal of ostrich skin.

Here’s why to invest in this hard-wearing luxury instead! (Hint: It lasts 30 years)

Well, there is an upside to buying ostrich: it’ll endure as long as the Visa bills do! (Slight exaggeration: If you charge Marie Claire’s recommended $6,500 Bottega Veneta bag and make minimum payments at 11% interest, that bag will be yours in just 25 years.)

And now, we can talk about something else, like how Jessica Simpson appears to be posing for her 11th grade yearbook portrait on the cover of Lucky. Is it just me?

Lowest Common Denominator: Elle, September

600+: Number of pages in the September issue, according to the cover

636: Actual number of pages in this issue

1.75: Number of hips Jessica Simpson has, also according to the cover

4: Contestants from the upcoming Stylista featured in a co-branded H&M ad (Best quote from one of the contestants: “You can look good in anything as long as you have a smile on your face and you haven’t bad too many Double Doubles.” Thanks for that insight.)

3: Length, in minutes, of a Stylista preview promoted in Robbie Meyers’ “Editor’s Letter”

239,402: Based on the promotional brigade thus far, the approximate number of further Stylista mentions I’m expecting in this issue

2: Ugly Betty characters who receive Joe Zee makeovers in “Style A to Zee”

100%: My expectation that this issue will also contain numerous mentions of Just Shoot Me, since Elle seems bent on cornering the fashion-mag-as-TV-show market

1: Reference to The Lost Boys as the inspiration for gothic fashion, in “Wicked Ways”

$3,840: Price of the “bag of the season,” a snakeskin Fendi, as listed on page 310

0: Percent of people who are not fashion editors who think $3,840 is a reasonable price for a bag for “the season”

Boundless: My incredulity that “short trousers” are in for fall, as shown in “Fall’s Must-Haves.” Can anyone who isn’t a 6-foot-tall model wear these? Would anyone even want to?

90210: Zip code-turned-title of the show Elle deems “DVR-worthy” in “Elle 25” (Okay, okay, I’m looking forward to it, too. Donna Martin graduates!)

428: Page on which Stylista is mentioned AGAIN. This time, an editorial assistant interviews Joe Zee and Anne Slowey, apparently because they so rarely get a chance to express themselves in the pages of Elle

2.333: Pages assigned to “Killer Stiller,” a profile of—you guessed it—Ben Stiller

7: Pages devoted to political coverage

19: Pages of beauty coverage

13: Age difference, in years, between writer Philip Nobel and the girlfriend whom he left his wife to be with, in “Danger Man”

Monthly: Estimated frequency with which at least one of the women’s mags runs a similar story about a man who left his wife in pursuit of a younger woman

40: Age of model Stephanie Seymour, who appears in fashion spread “Forever in Blue Jeans” (and looks amazing, for the record)

23, 20, and 19: Ages of Ashley Tisdale, Zac Efron, and Vanessa Hudgens, respectively, who appear in “High School Confidential”

Lucky Now Loaded with Less Expensive Stuff You Still Don't Need

I have a double standard when it comes to the clothes in magazines: I’m way more offended by a $300 bracelet than I am by a $25,000 ball gown. See, ball gowns exist purely to remind me how plebeian I am. They have nothing to do with real life (or, at least, my life), and I will never have cause to buy one, so I want to ogle only the grandest, most ostentatious gowns in magazines. But when Bazaar recommends I “stock up” on a $325 Chanel bracelet as if that’s a sound way to build an investment portfolio, I’m bugged. Either their math is way off, or I’m going about it all wrong by paying rent before buying baubles.

That’s why Lucky bothers me so much. For a magazine that’s ostensibly about shopping, there's little in its pages that I—or any other trust fund-deprived mortal—could actually purchase. So my curiosity was piqued when Lucky editor-in-chief Kim France mentioned money-related matters in September’s “Editor’s Letter.”

We’ve been quite busy here at Lucky HQ lately, creating new pages…Deal Hunting, in which we present, for your delectation, clothing and accessories that fall into the budget no-shock zone.

“Delectation”? Well, that may be an overstatement. But if you need a magazine to point you to the mall, then these two pages will do the trick! Chains like American Eagle Outfitters, Gap, J. Crew, and H&M are all represented here. Their suggestion of a $49 Nautica rugby shirt is almost insultingly unimaginative, but it’s hard to quibble too much when the most expensive piece featured is a $145 trench coat.

Anyway, not all hope is lost for those of us who enjoy spending money on luxuries like, say, health insurance and groceries. “Style Spy” offers two work-appropriate bags under $100. “My Foolproof Outfit” deviates from its usual high-spending ways, featuring a Manhattan financial adviser whose priciest choice is a $305 Cynthia Steffe dress. And the “Lucky Girl” keeps it almost real, too, selecting a $188 cashmere cardigan, a $15 necklace, and a $166 embroidered canvas bag.

But is this apparent decline in prices merely confirmation bias or an actual shift in Lucky’s editorial?

That’s a question only a spreadsheet can solve! I compared three fashion stories from the August issue with this month’s to find the average price per item.

“My Foolproof Outfit”

August average: $670.11

September average: $181.44

“Lucky Girl”

August average: $220.83

September average: $152.43

August’s “The Lucky How to Wear Your Denim Guide” and September’s “The Lucky Fall Trend Special”

August average: $262.87

September average: $532.45

So not much has actually changed, except perhaps the magazine’s realization that not all of us are willing to trade a kidney for a shearling coat. But that acknowledgment is a step in the right direction, even if does raise a host of questions. Is fashion by its very nature exclusive? Can a wool blazer from the Gap be considered fashion? Am I the only person who doesn’t share Lucky’s penchant for ludicrously expensive scarves? (Check out the $725 animal-print Vuitton on page 326. Ouch.)

I don’t know, and I’m not sure Lucky does either. But I welcome an increased emphasis on accessible apparel in magazines. I won’t ever need a ball gown, but I’d still like to look like I might.

InStyle Just Saved Me $64,705

In the August issue, “Where Can I Find…” answers the burning question of where Eva Longoria shops. Here’s one element of her look:

Oh, thanks, InStyle! I totally would have spent $65,000 in the vain hope of accessorizing just like Eva Longoria if you hadn’t alerted me to the possibility of spending less. I’ll just put my black Amex away now.

Magazines Acknowledge The Cost of Clothes: A Recession Fashion Rundown

So, the U.S. is teetering on the brink of a recession. While there is a smattering of financial advice scattered throughout the July issues, the magazines focus on something far more important than investments and job security: looking good! Priorities! The best investment to weather an economic crisis is, apparently, your wardrobe. I’m no financial expert, but based on what’s in the magazines this month, I will say this: If Forever 21 ever goes public, buy.

Nearly all the magazines offer looks at lower prices, but considering the source, lower-priced is not necessarily low-end. Here’s a breakdown of the style sticker shock:

Bazaar

One page of “Hottest, Newest, Latest” is devoted to “fashion at AFFORDABLE prices.” It was wise to emphasize the word “affordable,” because otherwise—well, see for yourself.

Total number of deals: 6

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $69 Banana Republic scarf

Most expensive bargain: A $395 Elie Tahari clutch

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $140 J. Crew flats

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $450,000 Neil Lane for De Beers bracelet

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: A $46,650 Balenciaga dress. No, it isn’t woven from gold. Why do you ask?

Cosmopolitan

“How to Shop Summer Sales” blends fashion with suggestions to befriend a saleswoman and keep your receipts for price adjustments. Original!

Total number of deals: 14

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $49 dress from Macy’s

Most expensive bargain: A $158 necklace, Marc by Marc Jacobs

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $48 DKNY jeans

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $575 3.1 Philip Lim dress

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Cosmo neglects to list prices for the most expensive items, like the YSL cardigan worn by a model riding a jetski. Where else would you wear such a sweater?

Elle

An eight-page spread, “Le Cheap, C’est Chic!,” is annoyingly teased on the cover with the line “No She Didn’t!” Because, you know, spending less than $150 on an item of clothing is totally a novel lifestyle choice and not a necessity!

Total number of deals: Who can tell what Elle thinks is “cheap”? They’ve got Forever 21 mixed with Burberry.

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $6 bead necklace and, the fashion find of the century, a $7 Hanes t-shirt. Thanks for uncovering that hidden gem, Elle!

Most expensive bargain: Elle’s “inexpensive” clothes are paired with thousands of dollars of jewelry, as if that’s the only way to redeem them. The highest-priced piece in “Le Cheap” is a $3,990 diamond ring.

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $48 Levi’s denim shorts worn by Mary-Kate Olsen

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $5,600 Marchesa satin dress

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Ludicrous $300 square sunglasses by Luella by Linda Farrow. People aren’t actually going to buy those, right? Right?

Glamour

Bargains are splashed across one page, “Summery work stuff—all less than $40,” and a high-low feature, “Your Summer Extras.”

Total number of deals: 12 for sure; the high-low feature doesn’t designate what is what. A $40 scarf could go either way.

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $10 Shop Suey ring

Most expensive bargain: A $70 Roberta Freymann tote (assuming this is what counts for low-end in Glamour’s universe. Since another page in the same story features a $795 straw hat, I think it must.)

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $25 Chinese Laundry belt

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: The $12,000 Louis Vuitton Speedy mentioned here

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Gotta be that hat.

InStyle

An anemic single page is devoted to “Deals & Steals.”

Total number of deals: 7

Their idea of dirt cheap: $14 aviator sunglasses by Shop Suey

Most expensive bargain: A $139 MNG by Mango dress

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: An $18 American Apparel t-shirt

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: An $88,000 Van Cleef and Arpels ring

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: An $18,000 Donna Karan crocodile bag. It’s just a purse.

Lucky

An entire feature, “The Season’s Best Looks Under $100,” is given over to low-price style.

Total number of deals: 67

Their idea of dirt cheap: An $18 Mossimo for Target top

Most expensive bargain: Tie: at $99, a “tiered maxiskirt” by WDNY International and a Tommy Hilfiger cotton dress

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $7 Metro 7 tank top

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $1,465 bracelet by Steven Dweck

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Chanel charges $1,225 for a belt. A belt! I regret not launching a career in luxury fashion.

Marie Claire

They’ve spread the discounts throughout: there’s one page of “101 Ideas,” one page of “Splurge vs. Steal,” and a feature, “Black & White,” that’s high-low.

Total number of deals: 40

Their idea of dirt cheap: $7 Hue socks (Thanks, Marie Claire, I was really overspending on socks.)

Most expensive bargain: $300 Marciano shoes (worn with the $7 Hue socks, natch)

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $5.80 Forever 21 sunglasses

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: An $18,800 Cartier ring

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: A Chanel top and skirt set that retails for the low, low price of $10,745.

Self

Looks like all the clothes shown in the  fashion features under $100, which is excellent.

Total number of deals: 100, according to the cover

Their idea of dirt cheap: It’s a tie at $8 for a Forever 21 necklace and Old Navy earrings

Most expensive bargain: Another tie, this one at $99, for a Nahui Ollin tote, an RJ Graziano necklace, and a $99 Tommy Hilfiger clutch. Those are special prices for Self readers, however, so this hews dangerously close to cheating.

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: See above for $8 jewelry.

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: That tank top Anne Hathaway is wearing on the cover? Yeah. It’s $845, and she’s wearing it with necklaces whose combined total is $5,300.

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: $49 jelly shoes, but probably only because I’m old enough to remember buying jellies the first time around.

Vogue

In “The Economists,” Vogue editors offer “inspired finds under $500 (plus one key investment piece).” Oh, thank god, because I needed help to find clothes that cost so little.

Total number of deals: 31, not counting the home décor and investment pieces

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $127 Sykes London belt

Most expensive bargain: Seven items retail for $495, including a John Varvatos coat, a Moschino Cheap and Chic skirt, and a  3.1 Philip Lim dress. (You didn’t think they’d go four whole pages without mentioning Lim, did you?)

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $150 YSL dickey

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $16,600 Cartier watch

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Hands down, the dickeys were the most egregiously priced items I saw in any of the magazines. Vogue featured two: a $150 YSL version and a $395 Prada one. That’s an awful lot of scratch for something that isn’t even a real shirt.

So, the U.S. is teetering on the brink of a recession. While there is a smattering of financial advice scattered throughout the July issues, the magazines focus on something far more important than investments and job security: looking good! Priorities! The best investment to weather an economic crisis is, apparently, your wardrobe. I’m no financial expert, but based on what’s in the magazines this month, I will say this: If Forever 21 ever goes public, buy.

Nearly all the magazines offer looks at lower prices, but considering the source, lower-priced is not necessarily low-end. Here’s a breakdown of the style sticker shock:

Bazaar

One page of “Hottest, Newest, Latest” is devoted to “fashion at AFFORDABLE prices.” It was wise to emphasize the word “affordable,” because otherwise—well, see for yourself.

Total number of deals: 6

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $69 Banana Republic scarf

Most expensive bargain: A $395 Elie Tahari clutch

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $140 J. Crew flats

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $450,000 Neil Lane for De Beers bracelet

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: A $46,650 Balenciaga dress. No, it isn’t woven from gold. Why do you ask?

Cosmopolitan

“How to Shop Summer Sales” blends fashion with suggestions to befriend a saleswoman and keep your receipts for price adjustments. Original!

Total number of deals: 14

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $49 dress from Macy’s

Most expensive bargain: A $158 necklace, Marc by Marc Jacobs

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $48 DKNY jeans

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $575 3.1 Philip Lim dress

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Cosmo neglects to list prices for the most expensive items, like the YSL cardigan worn by a model riding a jetski. Where else would you wear such a sweater?

Elle

An eight-page spread, “Le Cheap, C’est Chic!,” is annoyingly teased on the cover with the line “No She Didn’t!” Because, you know, spending less than $150 on an item of clothing is totally a novel lifestyle choice and not a necessity!

Total number of deals: Who can tell what Elle thinks is “cheap”? They’ve got Forever 21 mixed with Burberry.

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $6 bead necklace and, the fashion find of the century, a $7 Hanes t-shirt. Thanks for uncovering that hidden gem, Elle!

Most expensive bargain: Elle’s “inexpensive” clothes are paired with thousands of dollars of jewelry, as if that’s the only way to redeem them. The highest-priced piece in “Le Cheap” is a $3,990 diamond ring.

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $48 Levi’s denim shorts worn by Mary-Kate Olsen

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $5,600 Marchesa satin dress

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Ludicrous $300 square sunglasses by Luella by Linda Farrow. People aren’t actually going to buy those, right? Right?

Glamour

Bargains are splashed across one page, “Summery work stuff—all less than $40,” and a high-low feature, “Your Summer Extras.”

Total number of deals: 12 for sure; the high-low feature doesn’t designate what is what. A $40 scarf could go either way.

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $10 Shop Suey ring

Most expensive bargain: A $70 Roberta Freymann tote (assuming this is what counts for low-end in Glamour’s universe. Since another page in the same story features a $795 straw hat, I think it must.)

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $25 Chinese Laundry belt

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: The $12,000 Louis Vuitton Speedy mentioned here

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Gotta be that hat.

InStyle

An anemic single page is devoted to “Deals & Steals.”

Total number of deals: 7

Their idea of dirt cheap: $14 aviator sunglasses by Shop Suey

Most expensive bargain: A $139 MNG by Mango dress

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: An $18 American Apparel t-shirt

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: An $88,000 Van Cleef and Arpels ring

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: An $18,000 Donna Karan crocodile bag. It’s just a purse.

Lucky

An entire feature, “The Season’s Best Looks Under $100,” is given over to low-price style.

Total number of deals: 67

Their idea of dirt cheap: An $18 Mossimo for Target top

Most expensive bargain: Tie: at $99, a “tiered maxiskirt” by WDNY International and a Tommy Hilfiger cotton dress

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $7 Metro 7 tank top

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $1,465 bracelet by Steven Dweck

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Chanel charges $1,225 for a belt. A belt! I regret not launching a career in luxury fashion.

Marie Claire

They’ve spread the discounts throughout: there’s one page of “101 Ideas,” one page of “Splurge vs. Steal,” and a feature, “Black & White,” that’s high-low.

Total number of deals: 40

Their idea of dirt cheap: $7 Hue socks (Thanks, Marie Claire, I was really overspending on socks.)

Most expensive bargain: $300 Marciano shoes (worn with the $7 Hue socks, natch)

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: $5.80 Forever 21 sunglasses

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: An $18,800 Cartier ring

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: A Chanel top and skirt set that retails for the low, low price of $10,745.

Self

Looks like all the clothes shown in the  fashion features under $100, which is excellent.

Total number of deals: 100, according to the cover

Their idea of dirt cheap: It’s a tie at $8 for a Forever 21 necklace and Old Navy earrings

Most expensive bargain: Another tie, this one at $99, for a Nahui Ollin tote, an RJ Graziano necklace, and a $99 Tommy Hilfiger clutch. Those are special prices for Self readers, however, so this hews dangerously close to cheating.

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: See above for $8 jewelry.

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: That tank top Anne Hathaway is wearing on the cover? Yeah. It’s $845, and she’s wearing it with necklaces whose combined total is $5,300.

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: $49 jelly shoes, but probably only because I’m old enough to remember buying jellies the first time around.

Vogue

In “The Economists,” Vogue editors offer “inspired finds under $500 (plus one key investment piece).” Oh, thank god, because I needed help to find clothes that cost so little.

Total number of deals: 31, not counting the home décor and investment pieces

Their idea of dirt cheap: A $127 Sykes London belt

Most expensive bargain: Seven items retail for $495, including a John Varvatos coat, a Moschino Cheap and Chic skirt, and a  3.1 Philip Lim dress. (You didn’t think they’d go four whole pages without mentioning Lim, did you?)

Cheapest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $150 YSL dickey

Priciest item elsewhere in the magazine: A $16,600 Cartier watch

Item whose price makes me question the wisdom of capitalism: Hands down, the dickeys were the most egregiously priced items I saw in any of the magazines. Vogue featured two: a $150 YSL version and a $395 Prada one. That’s an awful lot of scratch for something that isn’t even a real shirt.

Glamour Takes On Gossip Girl's Prohibitive Purse Prices

The July edition of Glamour’s “Dos, Don’ts, News & Views” compares the accessories of TV characters. Deeming a Jimmy Choo bag acceptable for a thirty-something denizen of Lipstick Jungle, the mag goes on to declare a Constance Billard freshman’s $2,495 Valentino tote unrealistically expensive for someone so young.

Oddly, Glamour failed to indicate which age group is permitted to carry the $12,000 Louis Vuitton Speedy bag pictured in “Sunny Day Chic” on page 144 (below). $12K for a bag to take to the beach, and they think Gossip Girl is unbelievable?

Bazaar Justifies Luxury Price Tags, Own Existence

For a long time, we’ve been peeved by magazines’ skewed ideas of what constitutes affordable. (Never mind the debate over whether fashion prices are deliberately exclusionary.) So pervasive is the notion that $150 is a reasonable expense for a belt that we occasionally have to wonder why our wardrobe contains so few expensive pieces. Will we ever own a pair of red-soled Louboutins? Is there some expense we could cut from our budget to be better able to afford a Balenciaga bag? Are we flat-out deluded thinking that our ensembles look like they don’t come from H&M? Not that we want those things, exactly, but we want to be able to afford them.

And then we had a sobering experience. We were at MAGIC, talking to a sales rep. As she showed us a handful of modal t-shirts, we asked the wholesale price. “$37,” she replied.

Our response? “Oh, so that’s really accessible.” The sales rep nodded and moved on to pick up a hooded sweatshirt, and we started to hate ourselves. At a wholesale price of $37, that t-shirt likely retails for at least $70. Which, even if money were no object, is an awful lot of cash to spend on a mere tee, and $70 is certainly not a mass-market price for a little cotton shirt. But in the moment we deemed that particular price point “accessible,” we wholeheartedly believed it. We were sleep-deprived, we’d already spent days walking the never-ending aisles of the show seeing pieces whose prices were far more unjustified, and, well, the t-shirts were baby-blanket soft. (We just feel fortunate that we snapped back to reality before we broke out the Visa card at the Fashion Show Mall later in the week.)

All of which is a really long way of saying that, having been immersed in a fantasy land of desirable consumer goods, we sort of understand how writers for Bazaar choke up the nerve to refer to a $300 cardigan as a “steal.” So our interest was piqued by “Why Does It Cost So Much?” in the March issue. Why, indeed?

Unfortunately, the article devotes just one brief paragraph to the actual reasons why apparel and accessories bear exorbitant price tags. Discard any notions of getting an educational glimpse inside the industry! Rather, the focus is on “how to cope and still look cool.” Here’s what writer Nandini D’Souza had to say:

...I held up my beloved pair of silver Dries Van Noten leather sandals...“How much do you think these cost?” I asked my husband, playing devil’s advocate. “Flip-flops are cheap,” he analyzed in a finance-thinking way. “But since they’re designer, $40, maybe $50.”

Until then, I had never doubted the $300-plus I had shelled out a few years ago for them…I started questioning my sanity: More than $300 for flip-flops?...I had thought I was one of the more frugal fashion editors around. But I wondered, when did everything get so expensive, and when did I stop noticing?

This apparently sincere question is followed by a litany of agreement from people who can actually afford those $300 flip-flops. Which, you know, is annoying. Can you really complain that $500 is too much to pay for shoes when, in fact, you have the ability to buy $500 shoes? (Tangential whine: when did “social” become acceptable parlance for “socialite”?)

“Social” Nina Griscom says,

“The prices today are so astronomical.”

And designer Jenni Kayne weighs in:

“You can’t get a pair for less than $500; $300 used to be the normal expensive shoe.”

So who’s to blame for these ultra-pricey pieces? Designers! Phillip Lim explains himself.

“A dress can cost you $20,000. That’s a whole lot of money,” he says. “You can renovate your kitchen for that, or for some people that’s their salary or their child’s school tuition. You start to feel guilty.”

Start?

For one, lines like Lim’s 3.1 Phillip Lim and Kayne’s label are filling the yawning gap between high and low. Socialite turned designer Tory Burch says, “The whole reason I started my company is because fashion is expensive.”

Tory Burch also charges $195 for a striped cotton tee, so forgive us if we aren’t exactly in agreement with her assessment of “expensive.”

To be fair, the article does give some reasonably good (if not novel) advice about not buying things just because they’re on sale, and recommends that women develop a uniform that suits their body type and lifestyle so they don’t feel the need to give in to every passing trend. However, the article gets progressively more grating, predictably returning to the justification of the positively vulgar price tags of luxury goods. What else can be expected from people whose livelihoods are dependent on the public buying costly stuff they don’t need? A chorus of fashion people rationalize their expenditures thusly:

On a $1,300 pair of Chanel boots:

“But they’re worth it, and they make everything look chic.”

On an Oscar de la Renta dress:

“…I’ll have it for the rest of my life. You can wear it again, and it never looks like last season’s dress.”

On $800 Azzedine Alaia shoes:

“Outrageous. But I wear them a lot.”

About the $7,000-and-up Kelly and Birkin bags from Hermès:

“It’s more about what’s timeless than what’s trendy.”

And our favorite, on a handbag by Yves Saint Laurent:

“I was like, ‘Oh my God, it’s only $1,595. It’s a deal!’” she recalls. “How sad is that?”

Very, very sad. Even worse is the article’s next implication. Can’t even manage to splash out on one of these “deal”s? You’re probably fat, too!

But let’s face it, not everyone can pull off those curved contours the way Jennifer Connelly did just weeks after Nicholas Ghesquiere introduced them. That doesn’t mean that that look can’t translate for a less-than-lithe nonceleb gal. “If you can’t afford the dress, get the shirt or scarf,” says [actress/designer Katie] Nehra. [emphasis ours]

Wait, we’re confused. What exactly is our problem again? Is it that we can’t afford or can’t fit into designer garb? Never mind! Here’s another plug for Phillip Lim!

…For spring, he has several alternatives to his own runway looks, including versions of a mint Grecian dress and a citron frock with a chain neckline.

At least he’s smart enough to knock off his own designs before Forever 21 does! Though we aren’t exactly sure how this reconciles with the guilt he mentioned earlier, especially when he suggests a way to acclimate to items whose prices contain a comma.

Lim’s advice for things that seem too expensive at first? “Sit on it for a few days, maybe a week.” [emphasis ours]

However, the most incredulity-inducing quote in the whole article has nothing to do with cash money:

Echoes Burch of seasonal hits, “They’re so identifiable, and I’d rather not wear something that screams what it is.”

This from a woman who puts her logo all over her line.

Ultimately, the article concludes that we should approach our wardrobes and our retirement plans in a similar manner.

The best way to stretch your dollar while still looking like a million of them is to think long-term investment...

Designer clothes as a long-term investment? Rather ludicrous coming from a magazine that tells us we need new clothes every single month.