Everything in this issue is UNDER $100.
They weren’t screwing around either. After two uber intensive flip-throughs, I can confirm that every item pictured in the latest issue fulfills the mag’s promise. I’m impressed by Lucky’s willingness to get real about this recession, and I applaud its noble attempt to cater to what’s realistic for the average American consumer – July is certainly chock full of reasonably priced retail. But it’s riddled with something else too. Something that negates every product on every editorial page, something that has Lucky and all its glossy brethren stuck between a rock and hard place. Something called Hypocrisy.
I don’t save back issues of fashion magazines because constant reminders of have-nots kill my mojo, so I can’t prove that a pre-recession Lucky looks a hell of a lot different than a post-recession one. I can, however, use myself as a case study to refute all evidence to the contrary.
I’ve been a devout Lucky reader since January of 2001. That’s eight years and six months and/or 102 issues, the bulk of which were consumed B.B.C.P. (Before the Birth of Cheap JAP (sacrilege alert!)); the bulk of which gushed over $300 tops, $200 jeans and $500 shoes, with a few budget-friendly (read: less-pretty) options sprinkled in for the sake of variety; the bulk of which endorsed the notion that high quality necessitated high cost; the bulk of which told me it was okay to be the label whore I once was. Only when I started shopping secondhand did I realize the ugly truth: By buying into Lucky’s suggestions, I’d been getting ripped off. For years. So. Not. Okay.
I’m obvs a lot less of a brand snob now than I used to be: If I find something at Goodwill that looks and feels fab for five bucks, I’m buying it regardless of its origin. An Old Navy sundress is no better or worse than a Tahari blazer – if they’re equally cheap, they’re equally good. My thrifting prowess might have made me a more open-minded shopper in the world of the gently worn, but where retail’s concerned, the reverse is true. I’m no longer just mildly icked out by what my label whoring ass views as subpar brands – I’m completely repulsed by their cost in comparison with their secondhand counterparts.
Riddle me this: If I can snag a Diane von Furstenberg for $22.95, why the FUCK would I pay $98 for sundress by freaking Nautica? And don’t you go acting all horrified at my snobbery, Lucky – YOU created this brand-savvy monster by cooing over marked-up retail for the majority of your existence.
Let’s play a little game called Under $100 Lucky vs. Secondhand Cheap JAP.
Under $100 Lucky: J.Crew Cotton Ruffled Tank, $70.
Secondhand Cheap JAP: MARC by Marc Jacobs Tank, Beacon’s Closet, $17.95.
$70 might be less than $100; it’s also a retarded price to pay for a cotton shirt. Especially if said shirt hails from a brand as generic as J.Crew. My secondhand tank doesn’t just cost a fraction of Lucky’s recommendation: It’s effing MARC by Marc Jacobs. ‘Nuff said.
Under $100 Lucky: Colin Stuart for Victoria’s Secret Patent Sandals, $68.
Secondhand Cheap JAP: Donald Pliner Wedges, Beacon’s Closet, $18.95.
In my experience, Victoria’s Secret tends to look as cheap as it is; these Colin Stuart patent leather debacles are no exception (also, $68 isn’t even THAT cheap). For shoes, quality is paramount. I mean, isn’t that why Lucky’s Shoe Guides have always endorsed $300 Cole Haan pumps? A high-end wedge that originally retails for $200 outlasts a cheaply-made budget sandal regardless of whether or not said wedge is bought new or secondhand. Hence the reason I prefer gently-worn Donald Pliners to brand new bullshit.
Under $100 Lucky: Route 66 Shirtdress, $30.
Secondhand Cheap JAP: Twelfth Street by Cynthia Vincent Dress, Monk Thrift Shop, $6.
I shop at Kmart to find affordable things inspired by the overpriced bologna in fashion magazines, and Lucky’s recommending a shirtdress by Route 66 disrupts this natural sartorial order. When you endorse marked-up designer goodies we can’t afford, you challenge us to look good for less. We inevitably figure out how to do so, we get to say “HA!”, and that’s a fun game. When you suddenly switch to the cheap team and start endorsing stuff we actually can afford, you don’t just look like a big fat hypocrite; you’re telling us shit we knew yesterday. And yes, I just called you fat. Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it?
(Twelfth Street by Cynthia Vincent dresses retail from $150 to $400, BTdubs, and I managed to pay less than $10 for mine. A budget brand for $30 a la Route 66, or a high-end one on the uber-cheap a la thrift? It’s not fucking rocket science.)
Under $100 Lucky: American Eagle Outfitters Destroyed Denim Shorts, $35. Secondhand Cheap JAP: Theory Shorts, Buffalo Exchange, $16.95.
American Eagle Outfitters… like, the D-list version of Abercrombie and Fitch? Sweet Jesus, Lucky, get it together. I don’t buy denim shorts so much as cut them out of old designer jeans. But if I did, you can bet your tuchis A&E wouldn’t be on my radar for such a purchase. So mind your P’s and Q’s buster, and remember who you’re dealing with: A monster who knows how to snag Theory for $16.95. A monster YOU created.
Viva la resistance.
tags: 
Hey CheapJap, I’ve been reading your blog for awhile now, and I love it! I’m about to head back to grad school this fall after a few years in the corporate world, and was wondering if you had any suggestions for someone whose wardrobe is about to make a huge transition? My company’s pretty formal, so I have a ton of button downs, cardigans, suits, pencil skirts, etc. Do you have have any suggestions for how I could continue to get mileage out of these pieces in a much more casual environment?
PS did you happen to go to NU? Just curious based on other things you’ve posted and cuz I’m also an alum : )
I really admire your thrifting prowess.
Damn. I like your blog, but you sure find a way to complain about EVERYTHING. Even a fashion mag issue where every item is under $100. Lighten up.
Love the site, but I agree with camif0….if you style yourself as the populist stacy london, you can’t really knock the options of the average american shopper (which, like it or not, run more towards ae and kmart then the funky fabulous NY thrift stores with their fancy brands). This is what Lucky was trying to do, I think-show that you can get the look at the big box stores. I’d love to see an all thrift edition of the mag, but I’m not holding my breath.
Also, “retarded” as an adjective? please.
We thrifters owe a debt of gratitude to all the fashion mag readers who buy stuff and then donate it! It’s an ecosystem.
At least they have good taste. Your style sucks, and you can hardly dress yourself. Seriously, wrap tops? How uncic, suburban soccer mom can we get?
Consider this: your style is maybe NOT as fab as you think it is.
Case closed.
Ouch, Karen. Most of us read this blog because we really dig CheapJap’s style and overall fashion attitude. Part of that attitude is knowing that fashion is different for each of us and you gotta rock what you love.
Maybe you’re missing the point.
I agree, um Karen – real brave leaving bitchy comments under a pseudoname. CheapJap is a site where we can explore the contents of our closet, get pointers on how to take cleavers or trashbag to the clothes we don’t wear anymore, on how to best thrift on a limited budget. Besides I don’t know where YOU live but I’ve never seen a soccer mom rocking her clothes the way CheapJap does. I have a different style from her, but I still appreciate her aesthetic. If you think she’s so unchic, just stop reading the blog. If you think you can do better, I dare you to post your own pictures up and put yourself out there.