1:38 PM • Jul 24th, 2008
By cheapjap
Hots and Nots
Fashion likes to stick it to us regular gals by using 5′11” waifs to distract us from one of the cardinal rules of getting dressed: DRESS FOR YOUR BODY TYPE. The following trends have the uncanny ability to make even runway models look bloated, so unless you’re a flat-chested, lanky, scrawny young thang (Kleenex is not a snack, dollface), don’t even bother.
1. Pantaloons
AKA Fancy Pants, Pirate Pants, Bloomers, etc. Wait, you want me to wear something that makes my hips and thighs look like big, billowy, trouser-clad tree trunks? I don’t give a shit if it tapers at the ankle - that’s worse. That is not expertly playing with proportions - that is giving myself a fat ass ON PURPOSE.
2. The T-Shirt Dress
Belt it, add boots, vests, weird headgear, whatevs. Doesn’t change the fact that you’re wearing an oversized tee shirt; the term “schmata” was invented to describe shit like this.
Continue reading →
1:19 PM • Jul 1st, 2008
By cheapjap
Hots and Nots
Know how I know the lines by everyone else “for GO International” royally sucked? Because I never wore a goddamn thing from any of them. 
Most of the Erin Fetherston stuff screamed Alice in Wonderland on Crack, the Jovovich-Hawk line boasted nine different versions of the same, baggy “minidress”, and don’t even get me started on the animal-print, eco-obsessed disaster that was Rogan Gregory.
While the full name,
Target GO International Private Label, is a bit much, the clothes from their in house designers aren’t just cute, y’know, for something from Target; they’re fabulous, no concessions required. So fabulous that I bought three thangs, two of which are pictured here. 
You can find the Button-Front Ruffle Top and Ruffle Miniskirt on Target’s website for $26.99 each. If you’re a snob like me, you’ll be totally turned off by the fact that these pieces are among Mossimo, Cherokee and all those other icky lines. To assure you of their fabbiness, pics of them in outfit form will be up later today.
I’ve never really used the term Tar-jay because I’ve never thought of this massive brand conglomerate as even remotely chic. Until now. And the best slummer is… Target for Target. Bravissimo!
10:57 AM • Jun 9th, 2008
By cheapjap
Hots and Nots
To be fair, Patricia Field puts together a mean outfit. The woman proved that high fashion can transform a short, skinny, frizzy-haired, character-nosed Jewish gal into one of the greatest style icons, like, ever. This in turn gives all us short, Jewish gals the cojones to experiment with fashion a la Carrie, and that kind of rocks.
What does not rock is this Patricia Field for Payless biznass. Let’s not forget that this woman is a costume designer, people. Give her vintage dresses and Manolos and she knows how to put them together. Give her the freedom to design her own stuff, and behold this metallic mess of a shoe “collection.” 
My problem with metallics is that even the priciest shiny gold/silver/bronze/pewter handbags, sandals and/or stilettos tend to look kinda cheap. It follows that cheap metallics look, well, really cheap (see left…eew). Trendy shoes for thirty-five bucks might seem like a sweet deal, particularly if they’re strategically released in conjunction with a film that idealizes fashion. Know this: Everyone and their mom is wearing Patricia Field for Payless because it’s a novelty, not because the shoes mimic those on Carrie Bradshaw’s little feet. And as soon as they’ve seen and sobbed at the movie the requisite five times, they’ll toss the Payless pumps and take their plastic to Christian Louboutine.
I’m not saying make like Carrie and blow $450 on heels - that’s effing insane. I am saying that, even though $35 doesn’t seem like much, it’s still not worth wasting on trashy, fugly shoes. Pricey-looking heels can easily be had for $70 to $150, and they’ll make you feel a hell of a lot more like SJP than freaking Payless. Viva La Resistance.
11:55 AM • May 21st, 2008
By cheapjap
Hots and Nots
I’m all about jumpers provided they’re fitted, adorable and short. Alas, not all jumpers are created equal. Witness the Stella McCartney disaster at left. Since some fashion blogs fail to distinguish between a jumper and a jumpsuit, allow me to enlighten you with some CJ-certified definitions.
Jumper: (noun) A one-piece garment consisting of a top with attached shorts that serves as an excellent warm-weather alternative to minidresses.
Jumpsuit: (noun) A one-piece garment consisting of a top with attached pants that often looks like pajamas, a bad seventies throwback, and/or both.
To be fair, I understand the appeal of both jumpers and jumpsuits. It’s an easy outfit in one fell swoop; add earrings, a bag and some kickass shoes, and you’re good to go. What I don’t understand is the concept of buying something that - even after you’ve dressed it up - still leaves you looking like you’ve rolled out of bed. Jumpers accentuate a hot pair of stems and a cool pair of heels. The latest jumpsuits overwhelm even the thinnest bods and render their wearers shapeless, floating blobs. Jumpsuits aren’t effortless chic; they’re an effing lazy choice in a world of exciting onesies. Viva La Resistance.
11:49 AM • May 19th, 2008
By cheapjap
Hots and Nots
Hey high-end designers! Think you can bullshit your way through your budget line and get away with it? Think again! Every week (or whenever I feel like it), Designer Slumdown pits the wallet-friendly lines of two high-end designers against each other, and sees who slums it best.
Rogan Gregory for Target vs. H&M x Marimekko
Sooo, the much anticipated, Barney’s-sanctioned Rogan Gregory for Target line hit the racks last week. I haven’t had the horror of viewing the line up close, but based on the leopard trashfest pictured at right, it’s not worth any of our time. This number is skankier than the worst of Forever 21, 100% silk or no. Someone over at Rogan Gregory clearly confused slumming it right with slutting it out, as the dress looks a hell of a lot cheaper than its $39.99 price tag.
The Marimekko option pictured at left puts the Rogan Gregory to shame in more than one capacity. It’s not just uber cute and classy; its length, print and cut make it (gasp) totally In. This dress runs for around ten bucks more than its competitor - even so, $50 is a fairly low price to pay for high style of this ilk.
My biggest problemo with Roland Gregory for Target is that it perpetuates the bullshit idea that if you can’t spend big, you can’t look of-the-moment. When was an animal-print, silk t-shirt dress ever a coveted item? What a crock.
And the best slummer is…Marimekko. By an effing landslide.
12:33 PM • May 2nd, 2008
By cheapjap
Hots and Nots
Guess who influences approximately 98% of fashion’s trends?
Gay men. And guess who gay men have in mind when they’re designing women’s clothing? Other men. Hence the re-surfacing of one of the most non-female friendly styles ever conceived: the one-shoulder top.
Even women built like prepubescent boys have boobs to contend with. I suppose strapless bras are an option if you want to rock your B-cups in this trend, but I have yet to find one that doesn’t need to be hiked up, like, every three minutes in order to thwart the dreaded double boobage.
The one-shoulder top contradicts one of the laws of fashion: True style never looks like it’s trying too hard. Do yourself a favor and don’t waste your money on a cut that’s so obviously unintended for the majority of the female population. Viva La Resistance.
9:44 AM • Apr 25th, 2008
By cheapjap
Hots and Nots
The only thing worse than The Return of the Jellies is that legit designers are manufacturing sandals to substantiate the trend. Case in point: The Givenchy Jelly Gladiator. Let’s start with the least offensive of these two shoe trends and why it stinks like poo.
The Gladiator Sandal is, perhaps, the most unflattering shoe ever concocted for women whose calves aren’t the same size as their wrists. The style cuts off the leg at the ankle, and subsequently midgetizes (ooh! new verb!) even the longest and thinnest of limbs. Shoes should always give us the illusion of length, people. And stubby legs are never In.
Onto the Jelly. I don’t have a problem with the 80’s, but I’ve got serious beef with material that looks as cheap as it is. You want to wear them ironically, fine (hipster alert) - they’re $7.99 at Target.
The general consensus on the Givenchy Jelly Gladiator is that it’s, like, totally fabulous. It’s not. It’s a fucking ugly rubber sandal that costs 165 bucks. Viva La Resistance.
