‘Twas a celebrity-riddled event at the Standard Hotel – one for which the big box clearly busted out all high cost production bells and whistles in existence.

Runway show? Beotch please. Target built a hotel within a hotel, and showed the clothes via three-sided “rooms” instead. How META!

NY1′s coverage mirrored that of every other media outlet – models, stars, location, fashion insiders, Target’s creative director, etc. What’s the ONE GLARING OMISSION from this PR pageantry?

The CLOTHES.

You have to be smart about how you spend your money these days to survive – in this capacity, no one’s smarter than Target. The company rakes in around three billion dollars a year, yet manages to abstain from indulging in trivial things like paying those who work in its factories overseas a living wage. Using the profits to improve on the environmental havoc wreaked by its plants and/or the quality of its production materials won’t up the net sales.

Better to invest in what really matters: Image, branding and media outreach. It’s easy to appear as an offshoot of the luxury goods industry when you’ve got enough cash to pay off Fashion to endorse you. (Nina Garcia, I’m looking at you, you walking excuse for an editorial authority).

Back to the clothes, which are oft framed as “Fashion, at a price.” Yes, in comparison with department stores and retail boutiques, that price is dirt cheap. Unfortunately for us shoppers, so is the item on which it’s stamped.

If it doesn’t fall apart after one wash, it looks really effing ugly after two weeks of reflection. It inevitably makes its way out of your closet, and BAM! You’re out $38.99 with nothing to show for it. That’s not what I’d call smart shopping.

Don’t buy into Target’s latest self-promotional horseshit. Be strategic about how you spend your clothing allowance.

Shop secondhand.

Whatevs. I still heart the shorts. Let’s move on, shall we?

So. Mulberry’s upcoming Target line is prompting all kinds of feigned excitement in ye old blogosphere. You have to be shitting me.

Riddle me this: What’s the difference between a Mulberry x Target bag and a Mulberry counterfeit bag?

If Mulberry sanctions the cheap copying of itself, it gets a cut of the profits. If someone copies it without their consent, it doesn’t. Otherwise, they’re identical, and by that I mean they’re both inauthentic and made in sweatshops.

Stay tuned for additional kvetching and (more importantly) reduced-price Mulberry options. There’s a better way to get it for less than Target, and it’s called EBAY.

The Raincoat – dig the color, cut looks reasonably flattering.

The Ruched Skirt – meh overall, demerits for an in-between length that makes 90% of legs look stumpy. The hat – why?

The Snap Tape Dress – uber original, stellar snap detail, destined to be the rock star of an otherwise mediocre collection. I am, however, wondering how the open, lace-up neckline will respond to the challenge of supporting real, live breasts. Outlook not good.

The Sailor Dress – pattern, length and styling get a plus. The socks/heels combo – heinously distracting to the point of obscuring all the above.

The Ruffled Dress – eyes are burning due to an overly enthusiastic use of ruched tulle. A belated holiday party disaster made more offensive by an audacious $79.99 price tag. Forever 21 a much more reasonable alternative to cheaply-made party garb. Boo.

The Gown – I like the print, but for $69.99? Beotch please.

The Moto Leather Jacket – a $200 offense to eighties style, why spend that at Target when you can get a legit vintage jacket of decent quality for the same amount?

The Tuxedo Skirt – ruined by the bow tie. Like, we get it.

The Tuxedo Bodysuit – What. The. Fuck.

Krip: I bought three Tri-Blend Tanks from there the other day, and I was like, ‘Cheap JAP would kill me.’ Didn’t you find them for six bucks or something?
Me: Yup.

Krip: Then why aren’t you gloating?
Me: Well…
Krip: They were crap, weren’t they?
Me: Yup.
Krip: I knew it!

That she did, and crap they were. While Target’s $6 poach from AA remains wearable in its current state, it took approximately three wash cycles for me to realize that sometimes, you really do get what you pay for. Pillage, in this case.

For those unfamiliar, Pillage is a phenomenon that occurs after many months of wear and tear: Your fave tee says ENOUGH to being tossed around violently in the wash cycle, and subsequently stages a coup in the form of little unsightly balls. Granted, I didn’t wash the $6 Tri-Blend Tanks in cold water, nor did I hang-dry them, but that’s neither here nor there. Nothing you wear should pill after mere weeks, and if it does – regardless of what it cost – you got ripped off. And by ‘you,’ I mean me. Pfft.


I’m considering a Fuzz Away Fabric Shaver, as it might be the tanks’ only salvation. What I’m not considering is another mass-produced garment in cheap material, tempting as its price may be.

This is not to imply that I’m a fan of eco-friendly apparel. Yes, it’s cool that tee’s made from plastic bottles: No, it’s not cool enough for its $65 pricetag. All that earth-obsessed jazz might be good for the planet in comparison with mass-produced brands, but manufacturing ANYTHING new burns up energy and creates waste. It follows that any thrifted purchase – even when you don’t need it, can’t afford it, weren’t thinking clearly, whatever – can always, ALWAYS be justified. Few things in this world are free. But Secondhand Shopping is the only thing of its kind that doesn’t cost the earth a cent.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Green Freaks.

Given my penchant for ripped tights, off-shoulder shirts and legwarmers (basically, the eighties) a striped, boat-necked tank is an uncharacteristically preppy purchase for me. I didn’t buy it because I’m considering upping the Classy ante in my wardrobe or anything. I bought it because its the perfect background canvas for something more risque. Something slightly ridiculous. Something not intended to be worn in public.

Something like this black satiny robe-turned-wrapdress from Target.

This easy-peasy robe-to-wrapdress transformation utilizes an item that’s become an essential in my DIY arsenal: Tight Strips. I simply hacked up a pair of hot pink tights into pieces, strung them together, knotted them to the ends of the robe’s ties, and poked a few strategic holes in the sides of the garment for threading purposes. I could illustrate the process with diagrammed drawings, but I don’t want to frighten you with my kindergarten-esque artistic skills more than once. The best way to visualize this undertaking is to familiarize yourself with the constructs of a legit wrapdress, and mimic its structure.

Robes in jersey-knit and/or satiny materials work best in this sitch, as they can masquerade as non-sleepwear fairly well. Going to town on anything in terrycloth or flannel is ill-advised.

you know, i ALWAYS admire your thrift, cheap jap, and i definitely don’t admire AA’s prices (nor dov charney’s), but i do appreciate american apparel’s fair labor standards, which undoubtedly are not shared by target. just something to put out there, though i know from experience that even expert thrifters can’t always avoid retail (especially for the basics).

Firstly, many thanks to zhozhi and to all those who echoed her concerns regarding Target’s ghastly labor (and, as it turns out, environmental) standards. When something like six dollar tri-blend tanks come along, it’s all-too-convenient to forget WHY they’re so effing cheap. Ignorance is bliss, so if you’d like to continue shopping at Target guilt-free, stop reading this post NOW.

I’m of the mind that a smart shopper understands that ‘cost’ applies to more than a pricetag: If you’re on board with that, take a look at Target’s Responsible Shopper Profile and allow yourself a big fat fucking OY VEY.

Target is the subject of repeated allegations of sweatshop sourcing worldwide.
Target was fined by the EPA for failing to disclose the percentage of pesticides in its products.
The NAACP gave Target an “F” for its lack of commitment to African Americans and other people of color.

So what’s your six bucks really paying for? Dire factory conditions, pesticide-related fines, and racist hiring practices.  As is often the case with chains of this ilk, small pricetags have big environmental and ethical implications. And while it’s tough to avoid corporate clothing entirely – particularly in a recession – it’s still important to acknowledge that you’re paying for more than a cheap shirt. Not many can afford to always opt for American Apparel over Target, but those who can undoubtedly should.

I no longer feel fab about patronizing Target, but the lure of the Cheap is too powerful for me to say I’ll never do so again; I like to think that shopping American Apparel (and subsequently contributing to their more human and earth-friendly practices) evens things out. (For a study in balance, see this outfit – the skirt’s AA, the top’s Tar-jay, and the belt is a pair of old tights cut into strips and knotted end-to-end.)

Now obviously, the most responsible thing would be to stop shopping Target altogether because it’s bad for the world, and stop shopping American Apparel altogether because it’s bad for my checking account. Except for the Stop Shopping Altogether part. I’m a realist and a materialist, people. Saint Cheap JAP just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

I’m kidding, kind of. I don’t feel deliberately left out of the loop, and I know your lack of Sharesies wasn’t intentional. But I’m going to piggyback off of it anyway, because it illustrates something icky we can’t help but feel in relation to Fashion – something that happens rarely on this blog (and it better not start), but something I see all too often in other mediums: Competition.

Whenever I read the reviews in Yelp’s Thrift/Consignment Stores section, I almost always see something like this:

I wasn’t going to comment on this store because the deals are, like, sooo amazing and I don’t want you girls to take all the good shit! I found this FIRST goddammit, but according to Yelp, you all know about it anyway. So I’m going to brag about all the great stuff I found to discourage you from moving in on my territory, ’cause I’m clearly a better shopper than you.

I’m obvs paraphrasing, but you get my drift. Because the Recession’s like, so hot right now, budget shopping – secondhand and otherwise – has a lot of new converts; former fashionistas more comfortable with battling it out at the Barney’s Warehouse Sale than with sharing their coveted secrets. And that is So Not Okay. Part of why I’m a kickass shopper is practice, but another part of it is Karma. Good Shopping Karma comes from being good to your fellow shoppers, from acting in accordance with the notion that Sharing is Caring. I don’t need you to share your tips, trials, finds and frustrations with me: I just want you to share them with each other. (Yes, I sound like a Sesame Street character, no, I don’t care.) So use this blog to do it. And don’t even think about hoarding info on something we can ALL use like a Basic V-Neck Tee again.

This brings us to our Karma All-Star of the day, Emma, who wrote:

Last time my mom and I were at Target, we saw some Tri-Blend Tanks on sale for $6, just like the ones from American Apparel. I was skeptical at first, but upon trying one one, found they fit like a dream. The Target copies are the exact same blend as the A.A. originals – 50% polyester, 25% cotton, 25% rayon – and, I am convinced, the exact same cut. I am still amazed. I am having to refrain from buying three in every color.

Approximately seven minutes after receiving Emma’s email, I hauled ass to Target to see what she was talking about. And, um, OMFG. Target’s Mossimo Supply Tri-Blend Tanks weren’t just the spitting image of American Apparel’s Tri-Blend Racerback Tank – they were cut a little longer, and heretofore made to be paired with leggings. Emma was right about the material too; the feel was identical. The only difference, obvs, was the price. I briefly wondered, Is This Legal?


The top two tanks are AA originals, the bottom two are Target. Can YOU tell the difference?

Thank you, Emma. Thank you, Target. And American Apparel: I hope those leggings get copied next, so I can stop getting ripped off buying yours.

Okay, okay, McQueen at consignment is obvs cheaper than new McQueen – it’s resale, duh – but how does it compare to Alexander McQueen for Target? Surely, a skirt from his Target line must be cheaper… Right?

Technically, yes. The High-Waist Gore Skirt from his Target “collection” retails for $49.99 and as such, is a whopping one cent cheaper than the pale pink, corduroy, flared number I found at Pip’s.

I mean, it’s not nearly as unique or environmentally-friendly as its resale counterpart, but it saves you one whole cent!

Pfft.

Design-wise, the Zigzag Print Dress and the Tattoo Print Strapless Dress ain’t half-bad. They’re cute enough that I’d try them on and consider buying them…if they weren’t priced at $69.99 and $79.99. As previously mentioned, in a vacuum, those numbers aren’t ridiculous. But at Target, where apparel is rarely priced about $39.99, they’re all kinds of stupid. It’s all relative, peeps.

Now, see Exhibit B: Two dresses from thrift and designer re-sale store Housing Works.

The dress pictured at left is Laundry and priced at $70; the one on the right is Milly and priced at $85. Cost-wise and otherwise, these sustainably shopped dresses are totally comparable to McQueen’s Designer Collaborations stuff.

Oh, except they’re REAL Laundry and REAL Milly, not bullshit fast-fashion McQueen. Booyah.

This penchant for revealing clothing often results in uncomfortably cold commutes that necessitate speedwalking to warm myself up – NBD, until a few days ago, when the windchill rivaled Chi-town’s and brought back horrific college memories of walking the mile to and from class in Turtle Fur. I shuddered, and set aside the gray crochet tights I’d planned on wearing; exposed skin probs wasn’t a good idea.

But hark! I could layer the tights over another pair, couldn’t I?

And if two pairs of tights weren’t warm enough, I had legwarmers too!

I could wear my black satin-esque Target minidress after all!

Layer One: Gray Heat Tech Top (Uniqlo), Hot Pink Tights (Target)


Layer Two: GO International Kimono Dress, Gray Crochet Tights (Target)


Layer Three: Only Hearts Mesh Ballet Sweater (another Mommy’s Closet snag), Foot Traffic Super-Long Legwarmer (Beacon’s Closet)

With a hat, gloves and puffy vest, I wasn’t just warm. I was warm AND psyched about my outfit. Who knew?!

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.

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.

But if the final, budget-friendly product barely resembles its Ready-to-Wear inspiration, I expect them to notice. Something slipped through the cracks with Richard Chai’s latest Target endeavor; something called style. What we have now is a sloppy, confusing, potato sack-esque mess.

Look, I’m don’t expect to find anything as gorge as that beauteous purple number at Tar-jay. But I also don’t see how that fugly, floral disaster at right (a.k.a. the Tuxedo Dress & Striped Tank Look) has anything to do with Chai’s clean and modern aesthetic.

These two looks both have orange and cream…and that’s where it ends. The fit of the runway look is impressive; the fit of the Target one is offensive. Oh, let’s take a baggy skirt, add a loose top and then, for good measure, accent the overall shapelessness with an unbuttoned vest. Great idea.

The ads for the latest GO International collection read something like, ” ‘Now, every girl can have style without having to pay for it.’ – Richard Chai”. This mass-produced garbage might not cost a lot of money. That doesn’t mean that wearing it won’t cost you your dignity. (Oh, ZING!)

This high-waisted, satin-esque (it’s Target, let’s not kid ourselves) bubble skirt – from the store’s in-house Go International line – was originally priced at $34.99. Not bad to begin with, obvs. I, however, got it on sale for $8.74.

Paired with a Theory tank (on loan from my friend Lucy) and Via Spiga pumps it looks fairly high-end, which makes the fact that it was less than ten bucks kind of ludicrous.

And kind of awesome.