
It’s a post-holiday weekend Monday; you office folk could probs use a good chuckle. Well, you’re in luck. Because Vogue’s idea of budget shopping is the biggest fucking joke I have ever heard.
The mag’s first eff-up is letting its editrixes define what constitutes “being chic without breaking the bank.” Based on their suggestions, these floozies are either buffeted by family moolah, married to rich dudes and/or heinously overpaid. Their bank ain’t the same as our bank. Are most of the items featured under $500? Yes. Is spending around $500 on one item ever an economically sound decision? No. Eff no.
While there are some $100 tee shirts and $150 skirts thrown into the mix, the bulk of Vogue’s suggestions aren’t even remotely practical for stylish gals on a budget. If this mag were Gotham, W, Departures, or any other publication exclusively reserved for rich people, I wouldn’t fault it for reveling in its high-end bubble. But every style savvy girl – loaded or no – reads Vogue. It’s the fashion bible because its word is supposed to be gospel. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want 90% of the items suggested in this feature; Vogue has impeccable, cutting-edge taste. But it’s also expensive taste, and to frame it as anything else – smart shopping, budget chic, whatevs – is a big eff you to Cheap JAPs everywhere.
It’s trendy to jump on the budget shopping bandwagon; the economy blows, everyone’s doing it. But if Vogue wants to be as In as always, they need to think outside of their respective designer-obsessed, label-whoring, ready-to-wear boxes. Mwahaha.


my cheap jap network tells me that filene’s basement union square is currently stocked with c&c tanks priced at 12.99-19.99. racks are also rich with michael stars, paige, and free people. also saw a few c&c peasant long sleeved shirts but they were kinda fugly.
1. I agree with you wholeheartedly and thought the same thing when i read this month’s issue.
2. I choked on my soda when i saw the “Conde Nasty” tag. Love it.