there is nothing sadder than shopping in your own closet

Lots of lady mags have been touting the super idea of shopping in your own closet. Below my friend and sister discuss this depressing thought. I'm red, she is blue.
click to enlarge

So there you have it; shopping in your own closet is sad and our mother is cray-cray. Also sad: clothing swaps, but that is an entirely different animal.

exit does not exist

NBC nightly news reports that one of the only consumables that has had positive sales is, lottery tickets (followed closely by alcohol). Their rez expert lady likens the scratch-off spike is more like when movie ticket sales increased in the 30s, saying that people want a bit of escapism in tough times. The fantasy that their life could change over-night. What else might also be on the upswing? I am calling for sex and hallucinogens. I am crossing my beer chilled fingers for the day when someone makes a valentines day gift basket of all four vices; guaranteed sell out. Retailers peep that.

hand in hand; arm in arm

Hot on the heels of the news that Louis Vuitton is lowering the cost of its luxury wares, by 7%, in Japan due to the country's 'economic problems' and LV's policy to 'offer its products at appropriate prices' (say whaaaaaaa) is the news that condom sales are on the rise (say yehhhhhhh). Which would you choose, a Richard Prince edition LV for several thou or a roll (or several rolls) in the hay? I guess this goes with the current mantra of staying in and making do with what you've got, you know, instead of going out and dropping cash on a fancy dinner, eat in; instead of buying the latest 'it' bag/shoe; eat out.

quelle surprise! le recession!

French Elle, known for being somewhat more accessable than Vogue Paris, but less accessable than US Elle, has a micro article on wardrobe adapting for the recession. Granted, it was sandwiched between a wheel-barrow-full of 'price upon request' items, but still contained 'tips' that US Yanks know and love. Such bon mots as, 'repair old clothes', 'share items with friends', 'buy quality, not quantity', and the cold war favorite, 'jazz up old outfits with crispy new on-trend accessories' (my words, not theirs, clearly.) There, however, were no fun tips on dumpster diving or stealing from your loved one's closets and just beltin' it to you new lean depression era bod. Considering, Europe is no where near the apocalyptic situation that is the US economy, (hey! the Dow jumped 5000 points wednesday. woop woop!), it seems odd that such a fashion-centric country would offer any amount of glossy pages to 'cutting back'. Though, as someone who has been documented several times over as willingly choosing style over sustenance; cool over comfort, I want to see MacGuyver-y articles on stealing cable, using so many coupons you end up getting paid to buy groceries, and listings of all galleries that are giving free booze and hors d'oeurves. Recession be damned, I still have needs! French Elle needs to step it up.

again. with the rationalizing.

Below I already discussed H.Bazaar's take on the sinking economy -buy expensive! you can just buy less cheap shit!- but this morning New York Times' fashion doyenne, Cathryn Horyn, has another reasoning system consumers can ascribe to as we near the beginning of the most expensive (to produce and consume) fashion season of the calender year. Keep buying the same things, just buy the ones that are negligibly less! Follow the trends, but buy expensive because you wouldn't want to look tacky in a knock off of a 850$ gold sequined Proenza Schouler skirt that you'll likely wear twice (cost per wear is only 425! a steal!) BECAUSE YOUR ASS IS COVERED IN GOLD SEQUINS. People tend to remember a look like that. I digress, you can also buy the premium M.Jacobs velveteen trousers for $1100, but, caution shoppers!, don't tread into iconic french house Lanvin's territory in Bloomingdales! Their tweed, also timely, trousers are a whopping 150$ more and you know, in these times, we really need to limit ourselves. If you are spending over $1k on pants. Pants that may or may not last more than a season, 150 really isn't that much more to spend. That amount of money is so negligible to these designers that it will not even buy you a coin purse from their accessory lines. Do I deny that the economy is hard times for fashion houses, designers, and avid consumers? Not at all. Do I dislike any of the people or designers listed above? Bish pls, you know me. It is just laughable that the wealthy are buying down into 'cheap' categories where a blouse is still 495-695 in a feeble show that just comes off like 'See the rich! They're just like us! They are hurting! They can't take a private jet to pre-shop fall collections in invite-only showrooms! So sad!' Though, if they looked or at least instructed their assistants to look, they would find impeccable merch from new designers where the retail cost accurately reflects the worth of the garment and not the perceived worth of the label stitched inside by tiny ladies situation around 38th st and 8th ave. Though, with that much net worth, one does have to keep up appearances and cannot shame their family by wearing anything not found in Lord & Taylor or the pages of Vogue. That might insinuate that one is a liberal hippie with a rouge streak for designers not sanctioned by years of breeding and privilege. They might even be communists. Fall fashion is dangerous business. On a serious note, the article is well written and might help you put your own buying habits, or fall wardrobe acquisition plans into perspective.