CheapJAP

Economic Shitstorm

Old Habits Die Hard Or Not At All

Ahh, December 31st. An eve where we vow to be better, more responsible people and seal the deal with all those toxins we’re soooo not consuming in abundance next year, and then proceed to crash without taking off our eye make-up and stumble out of bed the next morning toward a greasy brunch intended to settle our still-liquor saturated tummies (totally acceptable because our diet doesn’t really start until the second - phew). Later, we’ll spiral into a web of self-loathing at last night’s regrettable behavior, a horrific guilt balloon that can only be popped via stiff martini at the day’s end. Resolutions, indeed. Let’s not forget that when Mimi sang “It’s Gonna Be A Happy New Year” alongside her fellow we’re-not-gonna-pay-RENTers, she did so while on the hunt for her crack dealer. In the words of the wisest waiter I’ve ever worked alongside: Same shit, different shovel. And this brings us to Vou…Voug…It That Shall Not Be Named!

The January cover of Vogue boasts Cheap & Chic ways to look fabulous whilst enduring this tres DRAG of a recession. One would think that the mag that put the Eff in Fashion could come up with a less exhausted phrase for our oh-fuck-we-can’t-spend-money-on-designer-shit-now-what era, but I digress. Let’s see what pearls of wisdom Anna & Co. have to offer this time around, shall we?

Shop Sustainably*
You mean like carry an easy-to-fold canvas tote in my purse so I can use it for groceries and stuff? Ha. HA. Canvas - how plebeian! Why not try leather, specifically Chanel’s distinctive leather tote, instead? I don’t know, assbags: Maybe because it’s $1,525 plus-tax.

Pile It On
“It” being neon, sparkly Missoni bangles that retail for $150 - $500, give or take. I’m down with mismatched accessories. What I’m not down with is ludicrously expensive plastic and/or privileged spawns of designers who masquerade as such by wearing Grandmommies’s dresses to really cool parties with really cool people. Talent ain’t always hereditary, dollfaces.

Tighten Your Belt (or something to do with belts or waists - I obvs disposed of the tome in disgust post-read and now can’t recall the exact phraseology)
This tip implies spending less money, but the belt referenced isn’t one you already own; it’s a Marc Jacobs metallic wrap-around number that retails for over $600, if memory serves. A trendy excessory that costs more than a handbag. Awesome job, ladies. Awesome job.

Other offending suggestions include, but are not limited to: $800 laptop bags, $1200 pendants - because organization and accessories never go out of style or something - and, my personal favorite, a Lanvin Orange Patent Leather Sneaker as a $695 way to “Improve Your Carbon Footprint.” It’s chemically-altered leather, for fuck’s sake.

Vogue’s continual failure to grasp the concept of Practical Fashion once worked to their advantage, but as of late, it’s rendered the publication increasingly ridiculous. Version 2009 looks a whole lot like version 2008.

Same shit. Different shovel.

*Shop Sustainably…hmm. Sounds remarkably similar to Sustainable Shopping, no? Methinks you whoreface editrixes over at Conde Nasty might be reading my bloggy on the sly, what with the ill-disguised phrase poaching and all. I’m usually a very giving person, but the buck stops with you. The age of Fashion is over. The time of the Cheap JAP has come. (Yes, that’s a Lord of the Rings reference. If you thought I was cool before…)

Oy Vey!

Stupid and “The City.”

Wait, a spin-off of The Hills reminiscent of Sex and The City?! What an ingenious marriage of youth, NYC and Fashion! So cutting edge, so fresh, so faaaahhbulous dahling. Gag me with a spoon.

I didn’t realize the full-retardation of Carrie Bradshaw’s cavalier attitude toward money - one that ultimately made me cringe even more than her cliched observations on all things Man - until I moved to her hometown. Her spending habits did more damage than even her faux-female empowerment act: Episode after episode, she squandered her menial writer’s salary on Manolo after Manolo, all too willing to pay full price. Only in the world of fiction could this irrational combination exist, but we bought it anyway, and sunk ourselves into debt right along with her. Where shopping’s concerned, SaTC’s heroine might just be the worst rolemodel we’ve ever had. And - in a monumentally stupid move - MTV’s about to unleash her spawn in the form of one Whitney Port. Recession, Shmecession.

According to Page Six, “It takes women as young as Whitney and her carefree cohorts to let us relive those frivolous, halcyon, spend-crazy days of Sex and the City. ‘We all need clothes, obviously, but to be fashionable right now is an extra,’ Whitney says.”

(…is an extra, what, exactly?) I don’t doubt that “The City” is Whit’s reality, but it’s not mine and I’m way too self-centered to give a shit about anything extraneous to me, obvs. I don’t need to see “The City” (see, like SaTC, without the S!) to know it’s like reading a fashion mag; its only lasting effect is that it leaves you thinking you *need* the apparel, shoes and accessories you’ve just seen. And that’s exactly what MTV’s banking on with this hot mess of a half hour.

I don’t know when being a young, cute girl in NYC became consistent with being a jackass about money. The only thing you need to acknowledge about money in your twenties is this:
You. Don’t. Have. Any. Yet. (If you do, in excess, it’s probably not your own. Moochface). This doesn’t mean you sacrifice living in the moment and/or shopping; it means you stop associating spontaneity with impulsively buying expensive crap.

Look, Whit, my beef isn’t with you. I’m sure your PR gig at DVF snags you all sorts of free goodies, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that trench coat you obviously needed was a bonus, and not something you blew your entry-level salary on.

This is *reality*, right?

Navigatrix

Staple This: Black Pants

I’m usually sooo not a fan of black pants, in part because they bore the hell out of me, in part because I associate them with something really icky: WAITRESSING.

These High Rise Trousers, ($24.80 at Forever 21) are the only pair I actually wear outside of work. They’re as classy as they are comfortable, the high-waist/wide-leg is uber flattering, they’re a worthy counterpart to that Ruffled Blouse from Beacon’s; in short, I’m effing nuts about them.

The Little Grey Book of BS would likely deem black pants a splurge-worthy item. I’ve owned Theory and Tahari versions of this staple; I genuinely like the Forever 21 trousers more. That this dressy item is machine-washable is the cream cheese icing on the red velvet cupcake. (Still, wash inside out on COLD and HANG DRY to preserve lifespan).

And sorry bout the bitchface. I was obvs on my way to work at the time.

Oy Vey!

A Slap on the Wrist to Vogue

As I was yawning my way through Vogue’s VIEW section last night, the following words jarred me awake: “Big Deals” and “Chain-store.” Hang on a sec. Now Vogue, you’re intimidatingly cutting-edge, so some of your predicted Next Big Things are a smidge beyond my amateur grasp of the avant-garde. But if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that big deals can be found at chain-stores.

WHAT? When did that start happening?! I also read something about it being totally okay to shop for clothing at Target and Wal-mart because the stuff’s actually cute. REALLY???!!! No effing way! Ye gods of Fashion hath predicted yet another shopping trend and deigned to share their wisdom with us peons. Way to be on top of your game this month, Vogue. Kudos.

Okay, for serious. When you’re the kind of publication that has the gall to continually endorse outrageously expensive merchandise in a RECESSION, you forgo your right to jump on the cheap-is-cool bandwagon. Yours is a mag that deifies designers so much so that a $1,255 Burberry Trench, a $350 pair of Oliver Peoples aviators and a $3000 Ralph Lauren Ricky Bag top your list of Classics. The only thing timeless about any of that crap is that it’s eternally overpriced.

I don’t doubt your industry-related authority, but when it comes to reasonably priced stuff, you are - perhaps for the first time ever - out of your element. I know this because your Target picks included this fugly Sigerson Morrison flat. Newsflash, beotches: Brand doth not equal beauty. Sigerson Morrison = Pricey, but good. Sigerson Morrison for Target = A trashy version of its expensive counterpart and henceforth very, very bad. Unfortunately for you, your label-whoring asses can’t differentiate between the decent and the heinous without a brand to stand on. Employ some real gals who shop at Wal-mart and Target because they have to, not because it’s, like, sooo fun to slum it sometimes, and start playing catch up. Or hit the road, ’cause you don’t know JACK.

Love With Hate Icing

One Fugly Freebie

While I’m not entirely above whoring myself out for publicity sans monetary compensation, I was obvs thrilled when Lucky gifted me with $300 in Amex gift certificates post-shoot. I initially intended to spend this on something at Lucky Shops, then I realized I wanted to buy more than half a pair of shoes. Designer clothing at 50% off is good in theory. But when the reality is a $595 See By Chloe sequined bolero jacket “on sale” for $295, I say EFF THAT.
My Amex buckaroos were zipped into this Rafe clutch (another advertiser included in the segment shot for Style Network…too many cooks?). Apparently, said clutch was an additional ‘thank you’ for having done the shoot. No, that’s not necessary, Really, we insist! I probs should have been grateful; alas, something’s being free doesn’t make it any less fugly.

Rafe clutches - pronounced Rah-fay, not Raayfe, (do I smell pretension?) - usually retail from $120 to $550. This shiny, metallic, grommeted disaster was “on sale” at Lucky Shops for $175. The pricetag isn’t what offends me most - it’s that it looks totally budget, and it’s soooo not. We’re shopping cheap to look loaded here people, not the other way around!

As trashtastic as the clutch is, that it’s big enough to accommodate evening essentials like the Mace my Dad makes me carry around makes it worth salvaging. I’m either going to find a way to strip the grommets from the material, and/or go to town on it with sequins and feathers and hot glue. Eek, project!

Love With Hate Icing

New York Mag, Masters of the Obvs

Last week’s New York Magazine decided to tell us what we already know (at least, where fashion’s concerned) via their Live Cheap Without Giving Up Much feature. In a sleek, over-edited column entitled “Embrace Low Fashion,” NY Mag graciously points us toward Forever 21’s $36 frocks in lieu of Zara’s $89 dresses, and recommends $115 Guess Marciano stilettos as replacements for those $610 Etro heels you used to be able to afford (what?!).

Firstly, Zara blows. Nextly, while $115 is enough to snag you a quality pair of party pumps, it’s not an insignificant sum of moolah. Spending over a Benjamin on any one item requires some thought, especially now that we’re all fiscally effed and stuff.

But thanks anyway for the hot tips, dudes. We’re thrilled you could fill that white space by telling us shit we already know.

Oy Vey!

Operation Avoidance: Sigerson Morrison for Target

Yesterday, whilst perusing the shoe selection at Tar-jay, I got an overwhelmingly icky feeling in my tummy. The cause of my nausea? Sigerson Morrison’s Pathetic Excuse for a Budget-Friendly Collection.
If I’d only viewed the “collection” online, I might have been duped into believing it wasn’t entirely awful. Alas, now that I’ve seen Sigerson Morrison for Target in person, the jig is up. Objectively speaking, it’s an assemblage of the trashiest, cheapest-looking shoes I’ve ever seen.

It’s not that there aren’t similarities between this $500 Patent Leather Striped Pump and its spawn. Alas, when you downgrade from pricey leather to fake suede, less is more. You can’t crap it up with metallic pink squiggles and trim and expect it to look more stylish than slutty.

The attempt to mimic this uber fabulous $695 Suede Ankle Boot is even more disheartening, in part because you can’t do justice to a beautifully made - albeit heinously overpriced - shoe by slapping some gold pleather on some black suede. It’s tough to make anything metallic look classy even when its high-end. So why, WHY, did Sigerson Morrison think it was okay to base its collection for TARGET on shiny shit?
If you’re skeptical of my assessment (understandable, as JPEGs alone can’t impart the stiff feel of the material and trash-factor of the design), this Glam Crystal Bootie should verify the line’s icky-ness. Show me a fucking Bejeweled kit and a hot glue gun and I’ll show you this shoe.

Sigerson Morrison, we’ve seen enough. Get the eff out of Target and go back to Saks.

Oy Vey!

You Can’t Wear That On Television!

Yesterday, I shot a TV thing for Style Network: A timed shopping challenge intended to promote Lucky Shops/Rafe Handbags/American Express and even Chevy Malibu - all in a three-minute fashion-reality segment! I’m coming clean with this info because if you happen see it and recognize that “Alexandra/Contestant#2/Eveningwear” is me, Cheap JAP, you will flip your non-existent nuts. And not in a good way.

For the first bit, the two other “contestants” and myself were dressed in our own “street clothes.” Here’s the short and lethal list of what I could NOT wear:

“Refrain from bringing any neon, cream, white, gray or black - as it does not film well on camera.”
Continue reading →

Cheap JAP 101

Do It or Screw It? Online Shopping

Soooo, the crappy economic sitch means big designer discounts, obvs. Even new stuff incurs a price-slashing as soon as it hits the racks and/or the Interweb. It’s easy to get giddy over this phenomenon; isn’t a 50% off tag the silver lining of the overpriced handbag storm cloud? Au contraire, dollfaces. If we had money to burn, this would be cause for joy. We don’t, yet we remain easily convinced that because we’re getting those Hollywould navy suede boots - complete with black grosgrain ribbon AND removable legwarmers - for $235 as opposed to $650, we’re saving $415. No, no, and EFF no.

I won’t deny that uber-fab boots at less than half their original price aren’t a steal in some circles. But ask yourself this: If you hadn’t signed up for daily emails alerting you to deals of this ilk, would you still be out two hundred and thirty-five-plus-shipping-and-handling bucks? I don’t THINK so.

Right now, you’re probs thinking there’s no harm in receiving an email a day from Ideeli, or Hautelook, and/or Shop It To Me; you can always delete them; it’s not like you don’t have any self-control. That might be true… until you’re notified of a one-day-only Theory sale and you swear you’ll just look and oh that’s a kickass blazer and what?! 70% off! and click, click, BOOM! Another $200 bites the dust.

Designer-discount, members-only shopping sites masquerade as exclusive clubs so that, upon receiving an invite, you feel “chosen,” privy to coveted deals, etc. My hunch is that if you’ve bought anything online EVER, you’re either already one of the chosen ones or you will be soon. Sites like these operate on one principle:

If you see it, you will buy it.

I’m not anti-ecommerce in general; I’m against anything that takes the active choice factor out of spending money. Clicking your Bluefly bookmark to shop for a new peacoat might not seem that different from navigating to a Marc Jacobs sale via a suggestive email. But with the latter, you run the risk of spending money without actually intending to do so. And that, my little chickadees, is just effing stupid. Especially now.

This concludes today’s lecture on the Philosophy of Choice re: Buying Stuff (what?!). ‘Cause Fashion’s deep like that.

Navigatrix

Xhilarated By Xhilaration

When you’re as big of a label whore as I am (or was, I should say), certain brands take some getting used to. I never had a problem with Target’s GO International line because I subscribed to the notion that - as long as it was sanctioned by some designer and/or had slightly higher prices than the rest of the superstore’s wares - it wasn’t really Target. I like to blame this rich-bitch perspective on years of fashion mag-induced brainwashing; really, I came to the conclusion that totally Target brands like Merona and Mossimo were materialistically unacceptable all by myself. I’m that much of an effing snob. But I’m working on unraveling that.

That I purchased (and have already worn) this Xhilaration dress speaks volumes to my personal growth. (Wait…shopping isn’t a synonym for therapy?) It cost a whopping $16. With gray tights, my trusty black boots and that Ann Taylor blouse snagged at Goodwill for $12.99, it’s all kinds of awesome. Note: Cheapie dresses of this ilk rarely fit perfectly, so they’re tough to wear sans layering. Button down shirts are the answer. A BDS doesn’t just accessorize this dress; when cinched tightly at the waist, it keeps the flowy garment from looking like a muumuu.

(Clarification: I’m rolling up my sleeves to rinse out wine glasses, NOT to cook… in case any of you’d given me the benefit of the doubt or something :P).

Oy Vey!

Designer Slumdown: Simply Vera, Vera Wang

I spent some time clicking around Simply Vera Vera Wang and came away incredibly confused. And by confused, I mean I experienced a strange mix of bewilderment and betrayal and oy effing vey I’m having problemos with alliteration AGAIN.

I was initially confounded by the pricetags; $128 coats, $74 skirts, $58 tops? Vera, are you shitting me? I know you’re the big cheese of uber-classy evening wear. I know you’re, like, the best wedding dress designer ever and if I wanted to get married, I’d respect you for that. What I do not respect is your using your credentials to justify the price points of your budget - all-caps repeat, BUDGET - line for KOHL’S. No wonder everything’s on sale.

Granted, Simply Vera has some redeeming qualities, particularly at its sale prices: If I’d only seen the line’s Shirts and Blouses, I’d be seriously impressed. This Pleated Top ($32.50 from $54) could easily function as a mini-dress with the addition of opaque tights.

The same is true of the Flapfront Top ($27 from $54) and the Drape Front Top ($34.80 from $54) - super cute, tunic-esque tops that easily double as dresses. Makes sense, as dresses are Vera’s forte.

Or ARE they? Based on these Simply Vera dresses, one wouldn’t think so.

Looks like someone over at Simply Vera forgot that “simple” doth not mean “boring.” The half-assed effort behind the line’s dresses disappoints; the fact that both dresses pictured retail for around $80 infuriates.

Vera, babe, no one’s buying $9000 wedding gowns any time soon. You had the good sense to start what could be - with some price point and design tweaking, obvs - a fab line for us regular gals. Now have the good sense to make it something we actually want to buy. Capiche?

Label Whore

Another Day, Another Six Dollar Dress

Yesterday afternoon, I walked twenty blocks up 5th Avenue in search of Monk; a thrift store deemed better than Beacon’s by some fellow Park Slopers. It’s not. But if you’ve got time to sift through the junk, it certainly has potential.

Now, before I boast about yet another brand-name find at yet another thrift store, I’d like to address some readers who feel I should temper my secondhand finds with more sample sale and/or designer discount fare.

While most JAPtastic brands are heinously overpriced, even I admit that cost often relates to quality. Well-made clothing doesn’t just hold up until its original owner tires of it; it lasts long enough to be re-worn and re-born into the wardrobe of another. I don’t shop at Goodwill, Salvation Army, Beacon’s, et. al because I aim to look like a fifties housewife or a free-lovin flower child. I shop these stores because they offer the greatest deals in fashion, provided you have the time and energy to notice.

I’m well aware that not everyone has hours to spend searching for said deals, which is why I fully support Loehmanns, Filene’s, TJ Maxx, and other established brands-for-less outlets. For the sake of argument, let’s say I have a $150 dress reduced to $60 from Loehmanns and a $150 dress reduced to $6 from Monk - the main difference between the two being that one has its tags on it and one’s a little wrinkly. It is ludicrous for my lifestyle and my budget to shell out $60 when I could spend $6. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ludicrous for you. Particularly if you work in an office and need something semi-professional, not something in magenta chiffon.

Long story long, my enthusiasm for thrift stores is really just basic economics (I think). Twelfth Street by Cynthia Vincent dresses usually run from $150 to $400. Unless they’re from Monk, in which case, they’re $6. Six dollars. SIX DOLLARS.

I rest my case.

Oy Vey!

When I’m Wrong, I’m Only Sort of Wrong?

From Rita re: H&M Drinks the Kool Aid:
So, I looked at the website that you linked to, and you seem to have missed that the prices given are in Hong Kong dollars- 1 US dollar is approx. $7.75 Hong Kong dollars. Therefore, that dress is actually $166 dollars, and those penis shorts are approximately $66…

Clearly these are a bit higher than the usual H&M fare, but the designer did make the point that she tried to make these clothes with the same care she puts into her regular comme des garcons collection.

The point is, you can get a lot of things for low prices at forever 21 and h&m, but avant garde fashion really isn’t one of them. And yes, perhaps not everyone can afford even the h&m comme des garcons clothes, but I doubt that lower prices would significantly make more people buy them.
@ 7:18 pm on October 13th, 2008

DAMMIT! I KNEW that rant was too good to be true. And I thought my uber righteous anger was justified. Fine, Commes des Pou-Pou for H&M’s prices aren’t quite as ridiculous as the Hong Kong dollars led me to believe. Whatever. Those shorts are still penis shorts.

(Thanks to Rita, KD and co. for setting the record straight).

Oy Vey!

H&M Drinks the Kool-Aid

I try not to waste my time on shit I can’t afford, so I’m only vaguely familiar with Commes des Garcons. I brushed up on my knowledge of asexual, monochromatic clothing when I heard about the label’s collabs with H&M (Commes des Garcons means “like boys,” and boy, does it show!). Seems like this uber high-end line wants to go mainstream in a big way.

And nothing says “mainstream” like a $700 polka-dot cardigan.

When I saw what Commes des Garcons plans on charging for their H&M debut, I assumed the decimal points had been erroneously omitted. That black velvet dress couldn’t possibly be $1290…could it?

Look, Commes des Whatever, I don’t give a fuck what you charge at your Guerrilla stores. You want to do a line that masquerades as reasonably priced high fashion, kudos to you. You can even pretend that women will pay $499 for shorts that make them look like they have penises. But you cannot, and will not, do it on my turf.

H&M is Cheap JAP country. I don’t shop there to have my hopes dashed by clothing that costs what I might spend on a massive leather handbag: If I find something fabulous, I presume it’s something I can afford too. This is NOT an unreasonable expectation for a chain that “offers fashion and quality at the best price.” At least it wasn’t, until Commes des Crap arrived on the scene.

Shame on you, H&M, for promoting a line that’s an insult to 98% of shoppers who patronize your store; to us gals who love clothes but can’t pay for high fashion. You just put the “H” in hypocrisy. Ohhh Snap!

Love With Hate Icing

Saunders Least Sucky of GO International Designers

You know by now how much I love to hate on high-end designers who slap their names on mediocre Target collections for a quick buck. So when I hear about X designer for Go International, I assume X’s Target collection to be as heinous as the pricetags on X’s regular line (which no one is paying for, which is why X is pretending to design for Target in the first place). Only in rare cases is this unfair to X. Okay, enough algebra. Let’s talk about Jonathan Saunders.

Jonathan Saunders is all about the crazy. It’s ruffled, it’s neon, it’s shiny. It’s impractical, it’s unforgettable and it’s totally in-your-face. I don’t love it, but I respect it. I also really like it in its toned-down form a la Target.

Unlike other GO International designers, it looks as though Saunders actually designed his collection. Even more unbelievable is that said designs appear to be reasonably cute. I’ll be hitting my local Tar-jay later this afternoon to confirm. And I’ll probs be buying the Blue Whale Colorblock Dress.

Oy Vey!

More BS from The Little Grey Book

Today, let’s see what the gospel according to La Nina has to say about jewelry, specifically which pieces we MUST own. Please Nina, save us from our unadorned selves!

Nina Says: Statement Necklace, Pearl Necklace, Bangles, Cuff, Cocktail Ring, Signet Ring, Turquoise and Coral Jewelry, Brooch, Hoop Earrings, Charm Bracelet, Watch AND Diamond Studs.
Cheap JAP Says: For serious, nothing mucks up an outfit like too much jewelry, and Nina’s asinine assertion that every stylish woman must own all of the above is merely the unfortunate result of her needing to fill space in her “book.” I haven’t worn a charm bracelet since I was twelve, and what the eff is a signet ring?! Apparently, “the classic version has your family crest.” What, did family crests repeal the No-Jews-Allowed policy?
Per The Grey Book’s non-WASPy jewelry musts, I’m with her on one out of twelve: Diamond Studs. With the hint of a sparkle, these little puppies alone have the power to make your cheap ass look loaded all. the. time. The other crap is only a MUST insofar as it’s a must for YOU, girlfriend. An oversized men’s watch from a thrift store rocks just as hard as a Cartier if you wear it with pizazz. Hoop earrings are a fun, slightly naughty touch to most outfits (and if you’re from Jersey like me, you already own at least four pairs).

Bottom line? Don’t ever stress about jewelry; the best stuff usually finds you in the form of familial generosity. Like when you graduate from college and your grandmother opens up her jewelry box and says, “Pick one.”

Cheap JAP 101

Dress It Down a Notch

Soooo, I recently read Eccentric Glamour. I enjoyed it so much that it pains me to call it a style guide, as that puts it in really icky company (see yesterday’s post). In the spirit of the book - and of wearing fun, fabulous clothes regardless of occasion, season and/or trends - I pulled some seriously under-worn dresses out of my closet.

I don’t have many occasions in my day-to-day life that necessitate dressing up. To this, Simon Doonan would likely say, “Life is the occasion! Wear a tutu to the Whole Foods and twirl for the fishmongers! Be bold!” and in a way, he’s right. I’m just not glamorously eccentric enough for that (yet). If I’m going to wear my party duds in broad daylight and not feel like I’m on a walk of shame, I need them dressed down.

This Forever 21 navy button-down tied over my BCBG Party Frock casual-izes (ooh, new word!) the dress. And the beat-up motorcycle boots do a nice job of saying I-don’t-give-a-shit-about-what-you-think-of-my-outfit.

More dressed down creations to come.

Oy Vey!

Marc by Marc, Fat by Fat

I really like the idea of Marc Jacobs; the ads are refreshingly unconventional, the bags are as chic as they are functional, and most of his shoes possess subtle details that seem to say, “I paid a shitload for these.” But whenever I try on anything Marc by Marc Jacobs, I don’t feel confident, trendy, or cool. I feel like a total fattie.

It’s not the florescent lighting; it’s not that I’m retaining water; it’s not that I need the next size up. It’s that MJ seems to continually forget which gender he’s designing for. When there’s no room for boobs, hips or butts of any kind, you ain’t makin’ clothes for women. You want to use your hot little bf as your muse, that’s cool with me. But if you expect me to fit into his clothes, you are all kinds of crazy.
Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

It’s Fashion Week?

On the off-chance that you care about Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week NYC (get off my site, now ;), you’ve probs noticed a lack of coverage here on Cheap JAP. Dolls, loving fashion doth not equate to loving fashion week. It’d be one thing if the ludicrously overpriced collections had anything to do with what I want to wear right now (”now” being Fall) - then, at least I could look at them wistfully and use them as inspiration whilst shopping. But what is showing now isn’t Fall/Winter 2008/2009; it’s Spring 2009. This means anyone who’s anyone on the isle of Manhattan is flipping their nut over what to wear six months from now.

I don’t even know what I’m wearing today. You want me to think about what I’ll be wearing SIX MONTHS from now? And wait, I’m supposed to be spending money on it so it can sit in my closet unused to the point that when I’m finally able to wear it, I’ll wonder, “What was I THINKING?!”

Fashion isn’t a front-row seat at DVF; it isn’t a pre-ordered It Bag; it isn’t an $800 blouse. It’s an amorphous thing that can be molded to fit your tastes, your personality and your budget, provided you have the balls to do it. Continue reading →

Cheap JAP 101

Do It or Screw It? (Fall Fabrics)

Last Fall, nary a peep was made about lace, velvet or florals. Suddenly, they’re all the rage. What happened to bright solids and houndstooth? You bought those styles last year, and - now that they’re Out - your broke ass has to pony up for new stuff AGAIN. Drag!

Trends exist for one reason, and one reason only. Say it with me now dolls. So we SPEND. MORE. MONEY. If the same shit was In year after year, would we feel quite as compelled to buy new things? Helllls no. Designers and mag editors don’t care about how well you dress; they care about how much you buy. If you genuinely like something trendy, sweet. Just don’t convince yourself that you and your wardrobe can’t survive without it…(insert theme from Twilight Zone here)…because that’s what they want you to think. Damn the Man, Save the Empire, et. al. But I digress.

DO IT: Winter Florals

Hmm, let’s see, why do I support Winter Florals? Because - unless you’re so cutting edge that you spent the summer in black a la Goth Trend - you already own this trend. No need to put the sundresses in storage this year - just add tights and boots, and voila! Painted Floral Chiffon Dress, Forever 21. Print Frill Sleeve Dress, TopShop.

SCREW IT: Velvet
I haven’t worn velvet since 1998. It only works in winter, it’s not daytime-appropriate (unless you like looking overdressed). It’s also one of the few fabrics that tends to look its price; if it’s bought cheap, it ain’t lookin loaded. Suede and wool are more versatile, practical warm-weather fabrics for those of us seeking budget chic. Next. Continue reading →

Oy Vey!

Do It or Screw It? (Fall Trends)

Like most fashion mags, ELLE usually pisses me off, what with their Vogue-esque concept of reasonably priced apparel. But the mag’s latest issue does a nice job of breaking down Fall’s Must-Haves. Must we have everything suggested? Hellllls no. Must we take a good, hard look at this season’s trends and weed out the ridiculousness so we don’t waste our dough on things we’ll wear once? You betcha.

DO IT: The New LBD

Little Black Dresses are always In, doy. “New” according to ELLE means these LBDs have certain stylistic embellishments - like expertly placed rhinestones that somehow make the Erin Fetherston dress featured $1500 - that set them apart from a plain ol’ LBD. Thus “New” according to me means Stupid. A little detail is fab, but a classic LBD doesn’t need sequins, lace, bows or any of that crap. It just needs to fit like a glove. Write that down. Continue reading →