Glossed Over

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.

Lucky's "Beauty Strategies" Take Luxury for Granted

Have you seen the MTV show Exiled? Starring the spoiled kids from My Super Sweet 16, the program plucks them from their posh surroundings, sentencing them to a short-term stay with a family far less privileged than their own. (They even have to do chores!) In theory, this is a show about loosening the kids’ grip on material possessions, forcing them to gain a little perspective, and teaching them to appreciate their wealth.

So, then, isn’t it a little strange that the producer of Exiled would appear in the January issue of Lucky magazine, a publication that seemingly exists solely to celebrate the acquisition of overpriced bagatelles, to reveal the $105 face cream she always travels with and discuss how beauty products make her feel “so much better”?

A Lucky Rabbit's Foot for Animal Lovers

Yesterday, in dire need of a boost, I spent three dollars and change on a latte. As the perky cashier at the Coffee Bean took my order, she asked whether I wanted to contribute a dollar toward their charitable cause du jour. And why not? What’s another dollar when 8 ounces of coffee costs more than a gallon of gas?

Back at home, I reflected on my minor good deed and, bursting with my newfound moral superiority, I realized I needed to do more. There had to be something else, some grand gesture I could make to help the less fortunate this holiday season. So I decided to read my copy of Lucky’s December issue. There’s no rule that says I have to be sloppy while serving mankind, right? Is it so wrong that I want to look good and do good at the same time?

How fortuitous, then, that Lucky presented me with yet another opportunity to give to a good cause simply by buying something I don’t even need! In “Beauty Spy,” page 170, the magazine features an $85 Chantecaille bronzer—and 5 percent of the proceeds from its sale go to save the dwindling population of Bengal tigers!

Bengals? Oh, I love cats! Forget my measly dollar at the coffee place. My $4.25 would have the power to do much more good—and I’d achieve a sun-kissed glow at the same time!

The bronzer really got my mind working. What else could I do for those furry four-legged creatures I so adore?

It’s like Lucky was reading my mind! This is what I found in “Party Ready”:

“Statement fur” indeed! What better way to demonstrate my affection for wildlife than to wear an animal’s carcass across my shoulders?

Now, I know what you’re thinking: isn’t it kind of strange that Lucky would suggest saving an endangered species on one page and then showcase fur on another? It’s totally not hypocritical, though! See, the fur coat is rabbit, and we all know bunnies will never face endangerment!

Filled with the warmth of extreme self-satisfaction, I flipped back through the magazine, envisioning how alluring I’d be with my bronzer-streaked cheeks and silky rabbit coat. And then I came across this advertisement:

Oh, Petra, you’re so right! It really is possible to be both—and I was so afraid I'd have to choose!

Lowest Common Denominator: Lucky, November

$2.99: Lucky’s cover price

$30: Suggested retail of Kim France and Andrea Linett’s new book, “The Lucky Guide to Mastering Any Style,” excerpted in the November issue

97%: Oddly enough, the amount of content in those excerpted pages that looks exactly like every single issue of Lucky

1: Number of times each that the alleged word “fashiony” is applied to the Gap and Banana Republic

2: Staffers who publicly admit to “converting” to Jessica Simpson’s new fragrance, Fancy, after Simpson appeared on October’s cover

31.5: Months, at the current rate of 2 employees per month, until the rest of the editorial staff is engulfed in the Great Simpson Perfume Convergence

10: Brands of non-Simpson perfume advertised in this issue, including—so help me—Fairy Dust by Paris Hilton

“Hugely”: Amount powder could potentially change your appearance, according to “Loose Powder: How and Why” in “Beauty Spy”

3: Number of “dramatically different looks” that can be achieved simply by using a different mascara, according to page 144 of “Beauty Spy”

47: Other life issues, approximately, I need to tackle before I’ll have even the slightest motivation to test  on my own face Lucky’s gripping hypotheses about the transformative powers of cosmetics 

“All the time”: Frequency with which beauty editor Jean Godfrey-June buys “things [she] can’t afford,” as divulged in “The Beauty Closet”

$86,483: Total retail value of all jewelry featured in “The Lucky Fall Jewelry Guide”

56: Number of adjectives and adjectival phrases in “The Season’s Best Coats”

26: Number of apparel items described by those 56 terms

30: Even more meaningless descriptors—like “nonchalant crisp” and “cozy meets flirty”—applied to the ensembles in “A Month of Outfits”

Infinite: Desperation emanating from the pop-up that screams “WAIT! SUBSCRIBE TO LUCKY!” when leaving Lucky’s website

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?

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.

Infomania's "We've Got You Covered" May Render Reading Obsolete

Wish you had the time and money to read everything at the newsstand, but worried about your blood pressure? Me too! That’s just one of the reasons I love the Current network’s show Infomania and the segment “We’ve Got You Covered,” which provides a snappy summary of the latest in periodicals. This week’s edition features Glamour, Vogue, Lucky, some other magazines I often buy but rarely read, and, um, a slime mold.

Head to Current’s site to watch Infomania in its entirety.

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.

Looking for Meaning in Lucky's Loopy Descriptions

Confession: I talk to myself when I read Lucky. I don’t plan to; it just happens that a flabbergasted “What?” or “Huh?” escapes my lips every few pages. (Incidentally, this is why I no longer read Lucky on airplanes.)

See, even when the magazine’s product descriptions aren’t rife with “rich” and “fashiony,” there is still a fundamental gap between my brain and the Lucky hivemind. My lack of comprehension usually corresponds to one of these three forms:

1. “Plucked from the wardrobe rack at a Cyndi Lauper video shoot.”

I get what they’re saying. I just don’t grasp the appeal.

2. “A menswearish vest is a bit sexy but kind of office-appropriate.”

I am often baffled by the lack of specificity. Between “-ish,” “sort of,” “kind of,” “a bit,” and “-style,” a paucity of definitive statements exists in this magazine. Pair these qualifiers with Lucky’s frequent contradictory descriptors, and you get aneurysm-inducing vagaries like “laid-back but a bit dressy.” Well, which is it? Make up your minds, already! If it’s “a bit” dressy, then it’s not really dressy, right? Which makes it laid-back. Which renders the whole sentence meaningless!

3. “Recalls the ferocity of a hoop skirt in a black-and-white photo.”

And sometimes, Lucky provides an image so esoteric, bizarre, or just plain unhelpful that I’m forced to rely on sheer conjecture to decipher their intent.

I now present the five most inscrutable product descriptions from the July issue of Lucky!

From “Our Obsessions”:

We love the raffia-esque design on this easy ballet-style flats.

And I almost kind of like how Lucky can maybe only issue the vaguest sort-of-good statement. They should have no trouble committing to a pair of shoes, right?

From “Shoes of the Month: Strappy Platforms”:

Gleamy, finespun straps have a touch of disco-goddess allure.

Pretty sure that no one except maybe ironic-fashion acolytes would actively seek “disco-goddess allure,” whatever that might consist of, and anyway, none of them are reading Lucky.

Just amazing—silver-gold crackly leather telegraphs a decayed luxury.

Because, you know, you want to evoke decay when you spend $790 on a pair of sandals.

From “The Season’s Best Looks Under $100”:

Conjures a hot woman on a Vespa, after-hours.

Read: fisticuffs broke out at Lucky HQ during a discussion about whether these shoes are trashy in a good way or trashy in a bad way, and, OMG, the fashion department interns still aren’t speaking to each other.

So open and drapey in the sexiest way.

I cannot figure out how a $38 purple and black star-motif cardigan that looks like it was filched from Pete Wentz’s closet is “so open and drapey in the sexiest way.” But then, I also haven’t the faintest idea what that phrase is supposed to indicate in the first place, so maybe it actually does make sense. I may never know!

To-Do List • Attempting to walk in Lucky’s shoes? Deadline’s approaching! The cut-off to enter the magazine’s caption-writing contest is Monday, March 3, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.

And if you’re looking for reading material beyond the new issue of Vogue (what is up with Drew Barrymore on the cover?), these stories have captured our attention this week:

• Anna Wintour responds to Carine Roitfeld calling her a “puppet” by refusing to comment, thereby crushing our hopes for an all-out intercontinental war between the Vogue editors.

• Take a glimpse at the past—and the present, and, we fear, the future—of women’s magazines. (Thanks, Melinika!)

• InStyle mixes up the non-Beyoncé members of Destiny’s Child.

• And are Holocaust memorials wildly inappropriate locales for fashion shoots? One brand, facing backlash from shots of a male model at the Vienna monument, admits they “didn’t think through everything.” Well, that much is clear. (via SuperColossal)