Bazaar

Springing Forward with Six New Magazine Covers

Hi. It's been a while since I've been here. That's because I've been having a tremendous New York depression adventure!

But these new issues—well, their covers—are forcing me out of my silence. I mean, have you seen these things? So I'm going to write brief, snarky comments about a few covers, and I'll hope you'll humor me by pretending this is a real post. Cool?

Lucky

Ouch, my eyes!
Perhaps it's because of my advanced age, but I do not aspire to look "So. Damn. Cute." You know who is "so. damn. cute."? My cat. Except I would say "so damn cute," because that thing with the periods was over in like 2009.

Glamour

Shiny!
Hunger Games and "Acne Smackdown": is Glamour going for the teens? Kudos to the Glamour staff for finding an actress whose face hasn't yet adorned a million glossies (ahem, InStyle); no kudos for the word "ballsy." Bravery has no genitals!

Cosmopolitan

I'm guessing it's Gosling.
You get the feeling Cosmopolitan would have stuck that pink "25 Fun, Free Dates" bubble right over Megan Fox's face if they thought they could get away with it. Way, way too much going on here, and it's all distracting me from what really matters, which is—duh!—trying to figure out who has the hottest butt in Hollywood. 

Bazaar

No. Just no.
Three things:
1. Angelina Jolie did it better.
2. What better way to exemplify "Fabulous at every age" than by putting a 28-year-old on the cover?
3. I really hope "10 New Looks that Matter" includes an explanation of why they matter, because that will probably be the most hilarious thing I read all year.

Elle

Nope. Not necessary!
I like to think I speak for the entire world when I say, "Was this really necessary?"

It's not that pregnant women aren't lovely or that they shouldn't be on magazine covers. It's that this pose has been done to death. It's that a pregnant woman posing nude feels remarkably similar to plus-size models posing nude, which is itself an uncomfortable mélange of sexualization and stylists just throwing up their hands in frustration. It's that fashion magazines apparently live in a world where clothes for non-sample-sized women just don't exist—except, oh look, they do! Which means this cover is really just another naked, Photoshopped female body on display in a cynical ploy for cash. 

I do, however, admire the juxtaposition of "Change your look instantly" with Simpson's burgeoning belly, because hello! Pregnancy is a great way to change your look. You know, when eye shadow and some new shoes just won't do...

(If your blood pressure can handle reading a more serious—but still snarky!—take on this cover, I liked this Dallas Observer post.)

And finally:

InStyle

Instyle_april_jenniferaniston
Have you ever thought, "Gosh, I wish there were a major media outlet covering that little-known actress Jennifer Aniston. What's up with her love life? Does she work out? I wonder if she has opinions about those popular denim trousers!" I sure haven't, but apparently those people exist and they're buying this issue. I will not be among them.

What do you think about these covers? Anything good inside these issues?

Bazaar: Bare Your Body to Boost the Economy

Bazaar_jan10_mileycyrus

In an essay in the February issue of Bazaar, Derek Blasberg tries valiantly to explain the phenomenon he calls "The Sexification of Fashion."

What is this "sexification," and how do we know it's occurring? I've read his article three times and I'm not exactly certain. But it has something to do with Megan Fox earning a lot of money as the face of Emporio Armani Underwear, Jenna Jameson wearing a tasteful blue frock on Oprah, and pop stars like Lady Gaga, Rihanna, and Shakira merely existing.

Blasberg's theory rests on two things: a catalog of strange ideas about how women should express their sexuality, and—you guessed it!—the economy. He writes:

A woman tarting up her lifestyle, according to many, can be traced back to a very familiar recent event: the Great Recession.

Riiiight. Like Lady Gaga doesn’t wear pants because she can’t afford them.

“Maybe you can’t afford a new condo or a couture blouse,” [Simon Doonan] teases, “but hanky panky is free!”

Spoken like someone who’s never paid for birth control!

New York’s Upper East Side novelist Jill Kargman argues that a woman feeling a renewed sense of sexual energy and power in the light of the recession shouldn’t be surprising. “Since men’s egos are so wrapped up in their bank accounts, maybe their sex drive mirrors the Dow?” she wonders. “Perhaps women are trying to play into their fantasies more to lift spirits and electroshock them back from the dead?”

Maybe so! I mean, it is our responsibility as women to use our bodies to ensure men feel good about themselves at all times.

“Why dress meekly when things look bleak?” the designer Antonio Berardi asks.

Excellent point! So I assume Berardi wore a see-through singlet and hot pants during this interview. Men are also subject to the new dress code, right?                                               

He agrees with Kargman that in this economy, it’s all about a sexual woman and says, “Every once in a while fashion is dictated not by trends but by the need to feel sexy, to be adored, and to be wanted. Now more so than ever it’s about playing the female card.”

And every once in a while, fashion is dictated by men who justify objectifying women by claiming to know how women feel.

By the way, what constitutes “playing the female card”? Possessing ovaries?

Still, the midst of all this trenchant socio-economic analysis, there is some ever-so-helpful fashion advice. For instance:

…why not try an over-the-knee boot? It’s official: they’re not just for prostitutes anymore!
And, to close the article, this charming reminder:

But [Berardi] warns novices…: “Slutty is just too much and totally wrong.” In other words, ladies, wear underwear!

What a coincidence! “Just too much and totally wrong”—much like this article.

Karl Lagerfeld in Bazaar: Feminists Are Ugly

From “What Would Coco Do” in the September issue of Bazaar, wherein designer Karl Lagerfeld was Bazaar_LeightonMeester_Sept09 asked to “channel the original fashion wit,” Coco Chanel:

HB: Your clothing liberated women in the 1920s. Are you still a feminist?

CC: I was never a feminist because I was never ugly enough for that.

Did your jaw just drop in disbelief? Mine did, too.

So, according to Karl-as-Coco, feminists are ugly. And it’s not just that they’re unattractive—it’s their very lack of pulchritude that made them resort to feminism. What constitutes “ugly enough”? Who knows? When I decided to call myself a feminist, it’s not like I was forced to parade around in a bathing suit before a panel of judges who determined whether I was unappealing enough to do so.

In Monsieur Lagerfeld’s Magical Gender Equity Utopia, beautiful women apparently have no need for feminism. Which is an awesome fantasy for genetic-lottery winners, but I’d rather live in a world where my worth isn’t directly proportionate to how closely I conform to whatever happens to be in style this week. I know, I must be ugly and insane!

Other than being a blatant insult to feminists, Lagerfeld’s attitude is troubling because it forces women into a game we can’t win. Within this rubric, a gorgeous woman’s sole quality is her appearance; and an average woman’s intelligence or insight is nullified by her embrace of feminism.

The end result: our only worth is the way we look. How’s that for ugly?

Bazaar: You'd Like Yourself More If You Stopped Eating Solid Food

The April issue of Bazaar contains the usual assortment of ludicrously priced fashion tagged as “investments” and “smart buys.” But because much has been written about that—and, sadly, because it’s no Bazaar april gisele longer surprising—I’m going to mostly ignore Derek Blasberg’s off-putting article, which helpfully explains that the super-rich can still handily afford couture. I’m so happy for them! Also, the reference to John Galliano’s “let-them-eat-cake euphoria”? Charming.

Instead, let’s talk about “Tracy Anderson Muscles In,” a profile of the woman Bazaar dubs a “fitness guru” and I would call a “fitness guru, but only if you consider magazines’ absurd ideas about women’s bodies to be absolute gospel.”

This past summer, she tinkered with a drastic 14-drink-a-day liquid menu she may also bring to market. There have been times in her life when she has all but subsisted on the kale lemonade… Her prodigious eating habits shock and awe: the 30 cookies she ate in a row one weekend, an entire apple pie.

14 drinks a day? And that’s it? There’s some shock for you. My awe is reserved for the fact that a woman whose diet vacillates between liquid fasts and junk food binges is considered a fitness expert.

Tracy has an opinion about everyone else’s trendy regimens: Spinning, and its gift of a manly butt and legs. Pilates, which regrettably builds out the stomach. Weights for women? You might as well shoot steroids.

Silly me, I thought it was a penis that made one’s lower body manly! And the problem with weight training? Apparently, we women are supposed to be delicate and small—or, in Anderson's parlance, “teeny-tiny dancer types” with “teeny tiny” muscles. (Never mind that, like, every magazine ever has explained why lifting weights is beneficial and how to do so without adding unwanted bulk.)

“Gwyneth wants to look great naked too. I mean, so does Madonna.”…The method turns out to be less about vanity than self-esteem.

But is wanting to look good naked vanity or self-esteem? Does it even matter? Claiming that potentially harmful fitness regimens—like, say, refraining from actual food—are about self-esteem doesn’t instantly render them innocuous, and unilaterally imposing the "teeny tiny" standard isn’t particularly conducive to anyone's self-esteem.

In fact, I’d say it’s precisely the opposite. If the only way to be “teeny tiny” is to subsist on 14 glasses of lemonade a day, well, I’d rather eat cake.

A Cavalcade of Barely Tolerable Personalities in Bazaar

Is Karl Lagerfeld the most abrasive person in fashion? Not being personally acquainted with him—or Anna Wintour, for that matter—I can’t say for sure. But he certainly makes a strong push for the title in the March issue of Bazaar.Bazaar March SJP

Of course, if I consider everyone who appears in this edition, Lagerfeld has some serious competition. There’s the fawning Ivana Trump story, replete with the explanation that her husband is younger than Donald’s wife. Oh, what a victory for women all over the world! (To be fair, this may be a case of the writing being far more irritating than Ivana herself. On the other hand, the erstwhile Mrs. Trump does refer to herself as a “glam-ma.”)

There’s Sarah Jessica Parker in full-on Pollyanna mode, recommending we plebeians hand-write our correspondence, save our pennies in a jar, and use the public library. To use what’s purported to be one of SJP’s favorite words, golly! And I’d been throwing my spare change in the trash!

And I’m just going to completely disqualify the spate of economy-related articles, wherein multiple writers employ tortured logic to explain why a $3000 dress is a solid investment—if you wear it twice! What an adjustment that must be for those dowagers accustomed to burning their frocks after each wearing.

Nonetheless, the title undoubtedly belongs to Karl Lagerfeld. He may be brutal, but he’s also a genius. How else could a man who wears the EXACT SAME THING in every single photograph be a fashion guru?

In “Fashion Therapy,” he plays the role of, well, therapist, tackling the queries of apparel-beleaguered Bazaar staffers. Oh, the agony! Here's a selection of his gems, some of which are startlingly spot-on:

The t-shirt can be impeccable, and the jeans, too. The body has to be impeccable as well—that helps a lot. If it’s not, buy small sizes and less food.

I guess Bazaar wasn’t bold enough to include that particular tidbit of advice in the articles about cost-conscious dressing.

Please, your question is childish. Don’t drink when you wear stilettos. I can’t advise you to get drunk at home to find out if you would be able to walk in them at a party. Plus, you aren’t on the runway. Life should not be a fashion show.

Oh, and speaking of heels:

Very high heels actually look better on tall girls, but men hate to walk around with giants who make them feel like midgets.

When I said “heels” a few lines back, I was referring to men who’d impose their own insecurities on a woman’s choice of shoes. Seriously? Men other than Tom Cruise do that?

I am very much against looks that put women under what I call “permanent sexual alarm.”

I don’t even know what this means, but “permanent sexual alarm” is admirably colorful. Then Lagerfeld says this to a woman clinging to the resurgence of 1980s-inspired fashions:

This look is not back for people who wore it when it was new. And why did you let your “flawless figure” go? Good excuse, but it explains your need to hide behind shopping trophies.

Burn!

And a final bon mot from Mr. Lagerfeld:

Better a split personality than no personality at all.

As for the types of personality on display in this issue, well, that's debatable.

Why I Didn't Finish Reading October's Bazaar

I’m going to keep this brief and cranky.

It’s never a good sign when I roll my eyes before I’ve even opened the magazine. Sure, the photo is novel and eye-catching, and Kirsten Dunst hasn’t appeared on any covers for a while, but “shopping issue”? Really? That differentiates this edition from every other issue how, exactly?

Bazaar_october_kirsten_dunst

Next obstacle: the editor’s letter, about a teenage girl who, after beating cancer, dreams of moving to New York to intern at Bazaar. This had potential to be touching, but I couldn’t buy the preposterous notion that Bazaar is a 15-year-old’s favorite magazine. Actually, could Bazaar possibly be anyone’s favorite magazine?

Bazaar_editors_letter

And then, in my vain search for content remotely relevant to my life, I encountered these ads for Bertolucci watches. Can someone please explain how this is supposed to inspire me to spend? All I’m getting is that men are apparently more aroused by oversized inanimate women wearing pricey timepieces than by, you know, human females with faces, and I’m almost sure that’s not the intended message.

Bertolucci_1

Bertolucci_2

I’d fill you in on the rest of the issue, but honestly? I couldn’t bring myself to do it. Flipping through the next few pages, I spotted a lengthy story about something called “banana pants”—and that was the moment I decided to read a book instead.

Bazaar Features Rachel Zoe as a Fake Size 8

Dear Bazaar,

Can we talk about this page from the September issue?

Rachel_zoe_bazaar

For years, we’ve been subjected to preternaturally thin models whose every excess ounce has been erased by a computer. Now you’ve taken Rachel Zoe and digitally added pounds to her form. You can’t have it both ways, Bazaar. Why is a size-8 figure acceptable only when it can be slimmed down to a 0 with the click of a mouse?

Some women are slender. Some women are not. There is nothing inherently wrong with that variety. If you want to foster a spirit of acceptance and demonstrate that beauty comes in all shapes, then photograph women of varying sizes (and no, Photoshopping a bigger bust on Zoe doesn’t count). If you want to send the message that no body type is adequate, well, you’ve already done it.

Love,

Glossed Over

P.S. Those shoes? Hideous.

The Language of Magazines: Is "Curvy" Completely Meaningless?

I should have known the term “curvy” was on the fast track to obsolescence when Marie Claire used the slender-but-busty Katherine Heigl as an exemplar of the body type. What makes a woman curvy? It used to be the word was bestowed upon those lovely women who, nonetheless, were heavier than the Hollywood-lollipop standard. Now? The definition has loosened. It seems any celeb who hasn’t retained Rachel Zoe as her stylist could one day be worthy of the term.

That’s not to say that celebrities—or anyone else—should be shunted into an easily definable body-type box. And fashion magazines should absolutely not be arbiters of what any woman should look like. Even so, is the pressure to be slim increased by expanding the definition of “curvy” to include slender women? Are women with different, heavier bodies being squeezed out by the broader definition of the term that once belonged to them? Does it even matter?

Decide for yourself. Here are three women who’ve recently been dubbed “curvy” by magazines.

Jessica Biel and her “curvy figure” in August’s Bazaar:

Jessica_biel_bazaar_dance_2

Kim Raver has “serious curves” in September’s Glamour:

Kim_raver_glamour

And Anna Faris has a “curvy bod” in the fall edition of InStyle Makeover:

Anna_faris_instyle_makeover

What do you think?

We Read It So You Don't Have To: What Jessica Biel Reveals in Bazaar

Jessica Biel landed the cover of the August issue of Bazaar—and inside, she’s the star of an eight-page feature that pairs her with five designers in a series of dance-inspired poses. I say “dance-inspired” because little actual dancing is evident, especially on the part of the designers. Vera Wang is “play[ing] ballerina” by sitting on a metal ladder. Is that how it works? Because in that case, I am “scaling Mt. Everest” while, in fact, I’m stretched out on my couch watching America’s Best Dance Crew. (What? Shut up.)Bazaar_august_jessica_biel

Aside from that noteworthy instruction in exaggeration, the article wasn’t totally without merit! Even though it’s ostensibly about Jessica Biel, the piece had three valuable truths to offer me. So, as an homage to Biel’s 7th Heaven days, I heretofore present the life lessons I learned from “Jessica Biel: Dancing with the Designers.” Cue the saccharine music, please!

1. The best roles for women in Hollywood involve sex, stripping, and single motherhood. The article claims Biel is an “A-list actress.” Quibble with that designation if you must, but the proof is in her upcoming roles. Right now she’s working on a political comedy called Nailed, playing a woman whose head injury has created “irrepressible sexual urges.” Perhaps not completely irredeemable, right? But next up, in Powder Blue—worst title ever?—she’ll “strut her stuff as a single-mom stripper.” Clearly the best way for an actress to “strut her stuff” is by working a pole! Why act when you have breasts?

2. Speaking of stripping: Every woman must defend or demean her body at every available opportunity. In the interview, Biel’s body is described as “bombshell”; she has a “tiny waistline” and wears size 26 jeans from 7 For All Mankind. (That’s equivalent to a size 2 or an extra-small.) My beef is not that those descriptions are inaccurate; it’s that they’re followed up with this quote:

“I am the shape that I am. I feel no shame in it, you know what I mean? My mother always made me feel just great the way I was.”

I’m going to go out on a limb here and proclaim that anyone who looks like Jessica Biel should not feel shame about her body. All this faux defensiveness, like Biel’s admission that she’d be home working out if not for this interview, just reinforces the idea that women should be ashamed of  their bodies, no matter how sculpted they are. If Biel feels comfortable playing an exotic dancer, then she probably doesn’t lie awake at night fretting over her thighs. Just a guess. And good for her.

3. What celebrities eat during interviews is relevant to my life. It must be, because why else would every single profile devote so many inches to what these women eat? It's a no-win situation for the stars themselves, so the mags must perceive some benefit to the reader. (Either the celebs eat sparingly, and every tabloid accuses them of eating disorders and/or drug addiction, or they eat heartily to prove how "normal" they are, and every tabloid accuses them of eating disorders and/or drug addiction.) In case you care, here’s what Biel consumes over the course of the Bazaar interview: mashed potatoes, “pecan-drenched grouper,” fried green tomatoes, and a bite of “oozing chocolate dessert.” But she turns down the “European fully fatted handmade butter with a hint of honey.” Well, my life is certainly enriched by the spellbinding revelation that Biel likes mashed potatoes and chocolate! I thought I was the only one!

The article closes with Biel walking home alone down a dark street, her studio-appointed bodyguard “following behind her at a safe enough distance that she’ll never notice him.” Creepy! Is there a lesson in that, too? I never knew Jessica Biel—and Bazaar—had so much to teach.

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_july_marykate_olsen_2

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_july_nicole_kidman_2

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.

Masthead

Editor: Wendy Felton


Front of the Book



Back Issues

Search


Subscribe



Powered by FeedBlitz

Glossed Over’s Most-Read Articles

Updating! Stay tuned.


Blog powered by TypePad

Alltop, confirmation that I kick ass