Retro is a culturally outdated or aged style, trend, mode, or fashion, from the overall postmodern past, that has since that time become functionally or superficially the norm once again. The use of “retro” style iconography and imagery interjected into post-modern art, advertising, mass media, etc. It generally implies a vintage of at least 15 or 20 years.

You hear that, chickadees? Old shiznat is In. So In that Topshop sent two chicks from its design team over to AuH2O yesterday to spy on us, which was half-flattering and half-absurd. (What’s wrong, Topshop? Is the shitstorm of sparkles and feathers and other overpriced barely-wearables not going as well as you’d hoped?)

Retro basically means stolen from the past. This makes it the easiest trend in the history of trends to thrift, should you choose to incorporate elements of it into your wardrobe. Tie-front blouses, long skirts, printed button down shirts – there’s about nine kajillion of all the above in every shape, size and color in every Salvation Army Family Store and every Goodwill Outlet Center on the planet. For serious.

The tops below were snagged on a stock run earlier this week… before I’d even browsed Shopbop’s latest trend schmend lookbooks. The extent of the Retro sham eventually became clear.
Swearsies, my vintage striped blouse is 100% silk too. Nothing’s wrong with it, aside from the fact that it’s been duplicated, coined the “Clean Sheer Striped Shirt” and perverted by Madewell‘s $95.00 pricetag. Grossness.Am I on glue here, or does the earth-toned, Safari-inspired trend thing happen EVERY SINGLE SPRING and just rotate what it calls itself? I guess this year it’s masquerading as Retro; next year it’ll be Natural or something equally vague. Whatever.

A few small differences between my thrift find and its retail copy, err, inspiration (also by Madewell – someone on that design team def digs Goodwill.) One: Mine is linen – a fabric of equal caliber to silk, IMHO. Two: Mine is olive, as opposed to poop brown. Onto the prints!Okay, okay, I’m aware that the Tommy Bahama number at left isn’t objectively attractive. It could possibly be deemed ugly as sin. Guess what? I don’t give a RAT’S ASS. I think it’s AMAZING. I think it’s my favorite top I own right now, and I think I’m going to wear it all spring and summer, possibly to family events, where it will undoubtedly embarrass my mother.

My feeling is, if you’re gonna go tie-front, go big or go home, and if you’re gonna go print, go loud while you’re at it. I wore it to work yesterday, assuming it’d be slow because it was a weekday and the weather was absolute shite. We ended up getting slammed for the bulk of the afternoon, which obvs means that in addition to being awesome, the Tommy Bahama is also lucky.

For today’s version of the aforementioned lucky top, see the Adhan Sleeveless Blouse by Equipment. It’s a little less loud and little more modern… I might even call it cute. Oh, except it’s effing two hundred and forty two dollars.

I’m sorry, but a top costing more than two Benjamins better take ten pounds off, make my boobs look perkier, go with every thing I own, and have a lifespan of approximately 75 years. If it doesn’t do any of the above, it’s not a top at all. It’s a FELONY.

Peacey outtie and a big fat MWAH.

• keynole, shallow-v, mock-turtle and cowl necklines
• oversized shoulder pads
• boxy tops
• banded-waist sweaters
• anything chenille
• thick, rib knits

Unfortunately, some designers are actually inspired by things better left in the past. My evidence for making such an outrageous claim?

Alexander Wang‘s Pre-Spring Collection.

What, praytell, was the thought process behind these garments? Women are looking way too attractive these days – let’s dose them with schlubbiness? The white number at left features a cropped front, open sides, and a longer back – you know, in case you were worried about having a cute ass or whatever. The rationale for the $595.00 pricetag attached to this fugliness is the “shredded knit-banding” at the shoulders which, I assume, involves a high level of craftsmanship.

Perhaps this pullover evolved out of necessity.

Caring about your model’s health and well-being is such a drag. Put her underweight ass in this sweater, and you can claim ignorance when she collapses from starvation. She looked ten pounds heavier! How were you to know she’d been on the iceberg lettuce/cotton ball diet for three whole days?!

Onto the beige, v-neck pullover. A banded waist. Are you fucking serious? We already have hips, goddammit, and accentuating them stopped being cool in the eighties. Looks like Marc Jacobs finally has some competition for that Ignorance of the Female Form award. Egads.

The boxy, mock turtle pullover at left amounts to two offenses in one. Possibly three, taking the Jacquard into account. Jacquard is a technique for adding volume to a garment via a raised pattern or something. This $495.00 sweater is worse than a cookie: There’s no sugar high, and it STILL makes you fat.

Lastly, we have the cropped mock-neck tank – a nostalgic nod to our grammar school days, back before periods, boys or breasts.

Somebody skipped the class on proportions in design school. Ditto for the one on common fucking sense.

Dressing myself is fun. Dressing a mannequin is FUNNER.

I mean, come on, you know what it’s like to put outfits together: You lay it out on the bed; you think it’ll look amazing; you try on the combo; it looks like hell; you repeat the exercise until you’re out of steam; you resort to one of your standbys; you vow to never play dress up when you’re trying to get out the door again. Maybe that’s just me and I’m a total nutter. Whatevs.

Most apparel looks radically different on the hanger than it does on the body, but outfitting a mannequin gave me a whole new outlook on playing dress up. When you’re the model, the arduous task of dressing and undressing coupled with the self-criticism that tends to go along with trying on clothes results in one thing: Fear. Nothing kills creativity and boldness like being afraid of how it’s going to look. And while dressing a mannequin didn’t obliterate the insecurities exacerbated by trying new things, it changed my perspective on the whole getting dressed thang. When something doesn’t look good on us, our first instinct is to kick our own asses: We’re always too short, too fat, too pale, too old, too whatever. When something doesn’t look good on a dummy, you realize it’s not the body that’s the problem – it’s the garment. Maybe it’s ill-fitting, maybe it’s a weird pairing, maybe it’s made by a designer who’s ignorance of the female form is unparalleled (see Marc Jacobs). Granted, our dummy’s a size 4, which is still a far cry from the average American woman (size 14). But it has boobs, and it’s a lot more realistic than the less-than-zero mannequins gracing most retail stores today.

I’m not suggesting you go out and buy a dummy to avoid all the crap that arises whilst trying to get dressed. I just think reminding ourselves of the obvious when we do so – that more often than not, it’s not us, it’s the clothes – is a solid idea.

Where the eff was I? Oh riiiight – this outfit! Pairing tweeds and animal prints AND studs is kind of wild, and certainly not something I would have thought up sans the freedom afforded by the glorious headless dummy.

Apparently, it worked: A customer came in a few days after the outfit had been on display and asked to try on the skirt. I took it off the mannequin for her (unlike Goodwill, Housing Works and Angel Street Thrift Shop, we DO sell things from our window display on the spot ): She loved it, bought it and left giddy over her material buzz. The naked-bottomed dummy gave me another chance to play dress up – an activity that, thanks to AuH2O, isn’t quite as scary as it once seemed.

Outfit deets: Vintage Tweed Peacoat, $14.00; Moschino Cheap ‘n’ Chic Cardigan, $28.00; Luella for Target Miniskirt (hand-studded by yours truly), $28.00.

What the eff do I wear under this transparent vintage slip schmata?

I snagged the aforementioned slip at Zachary’s Smile’s Attic Sale a few months back; were it not for the awesomeness of shapewear, I’d still have absolutely no idea how to wear it.

Where the risque business trend’s concerned: Keep it dark. Keep it simple. And keep it short without exposing your hoo-ha.

Enter Shopbop Lookbooks: No Fall Trend Report is more drool-worthy or relevant to my personal taste. Shopbop doesn’t just have a knack for highlighting the best of Fall’s apparel, accessories, handbags and shoes; it manages to style the goods in ways as creative as they are wearable. I’m not saying go out and buy the site’s latest and greatest – the prices attached to its goods exemplify material obscenity. Browsing Shopbop Lookbooks is a look-don’t-touch exercise only. We look; we note; we hit a thrift, resale, vintage or consignment store; we review our notes; we find a version of a coveted thing for a fraction of its shopbop price!


Here’s a breakdown of one of the site’s coveted looks, and some tips on how to shop ‘it second hand.

Cadet Set

Right now, I’m reveling in the crisp respite from the stifling city heat. I’m thinking about boots and tights and outerwear; I’m thinking it’s all kinds of awesome that my fave buy-sell-trades stock according to season; I’m thinking about the glory of finding a $350 Theory cashmere sweater for forty-five buckaroos.

I don’t have enough room in the fashion section of my brain to think about what I’ll be wearing next April – I live in the present, for fuck’s sake. How, then, can I reconcile next season’s looks with this season’s outfits?

By highlighting the select few that manage to transcend seasonal reality.

A word on trends: Like love in The 40 Year Old Virgin, they’re a mysterious fig. I tend to view trends as an urban fashion myth – if the same thing were In season after season, we’d be robbed of an excuse to buy more crap we don’t need, yes? Yes.

This doesn’t mean trends should be ignored altogether; it simply means they’re to be taken with a big fat grain of salt. Trends aren’t rules so much as potential nuggets of inspiration.

Here’s a breakdown of some NYFW Spring 2011 ready-to-wear trends versatile enough to inject creativity into your winter wardrobe choices.

You’re welcome.

1.White Out

Yes, it’s fine to wear white all year round, particularly if you’re an attention whore a la moi. Tone down the Spring factor with black opaque tights; badass it up with motorcycle boots or something of the platform ankle bootie ilk. In terms of shoulder coverage, a cropped pleather jacket would make for a stellar pairing. White now, woo woo.

2. Prairie Dawg

Do the long floral thang in fall via riding boots and a denim jacket. If you’re a full-on trend whore, swap out the latter for a shapeless, nineties-era flannel (shown with a similar Charlotte Ronson dress last week. No, I don’t get it).

3. Short Suits

I’m obvs psyched that shorts are now considered appropriate office apparel, but if you’re wary of the trend, try a dark-colored pair with tights in a similar shade. Also follow the proportions pictured – the long-cut blazer puts it all in balance. Wear with flats or pumps, depending on dress code leniency. Heeled knee-high boots + Shorts = Potential Slut Factor. I’m just saying.

4. Loungerie

Lingerie as outerwear is not to be taken seriously a la the above. I’m not suggesting you go full nipple or anything: Sheer nightie stuffs are to be treated as layering tools only. Throw one on over a shift dress and cinch the whole shebang with a belt. Cool beans.

5. Canadian Tuxedo

Because anything that used to be a faux pas should be embraced as evidence of fashion’s ridiculousness. Particularly if it’s an all-year-round thang like denim. Loves it!

If I had to pinpoint the precursor to the Side Boob trend, I’d probs go with something obvious, like eighties cleavage.

Apparently, my knowledge of boob trends isn’t entirely up to snuff.

Do the Side Boob, and you sacrifice support. Do the NIPPLE BRA, and you get to be slutty AND perky! The mini-erasers built into the lingerie allow you to look aroused and/or cold ALL THE TIME!

This ad’s from the seventies, which means it’s almost time for the Nipple Bra to make a comeback. Witness the Side Boob’s past and future. Oy. Effing. Vey.

Lucky Mag editor Elise Loehnen led the charge, and while I usually dig the glossy’s creative combos, this morning’s outlet outfit proved uninspiring.

It appears Last Call Needless Markup (err, Neiman Marcus) shat out a bunch of uber intense trends and crammed them into one look. Leopard and Sequins and Jewel Tones oh MY! I wouldn’t be kvetching about the impracticality of the outfit if it came at a practical price, but it costs upwards of $200. That’s its OUTLET price.

The fact that it retails for $700 suggests that by buying it, I’m saving $500 as opposed to spending $200.

Here’s the kajillion dollar question: If I hadn’t known the outfit’s retail price, would I have spent $200 on it to begin with?

Helllllllllllllllls NO.

Today Show – you can’t encourage people to save their dollars via Money 911 segments if you’re going to tempt them to bust out the plastic at Woodbury Commons five minutes later. Go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done.

Touche, Ms. Norbury. This nugget of Mean Girls wisdom seems logical enough, but it’s still the stuff of fiction. Prostitution-inspired terminology infiltrates every aspect of our culture – it sounds edgy, so we throw it around, consequences to our gender be damned.

Fashion’s all about anything edgy. It was only a matter of time before slutty turned chic.

Now look, I’m not one to knock risque style. I’ve been known to toe the hiked-up hemline. But there’s a big fat difference between dressing to feel sexy, and dressing to advertise sex. The latter reduces you to the exposed outlines of your va-jay-jay – there’s nothing empowering about a crotch on display.

We’re a celeb-obsessed nation tied to the laws of monkey-see, monkey-do, so let’s observe the outfits currently inspiring our own. And by ‘outfits’ I mean looks conceived in a dominatrix den.

Oh, they’re all musicians, this is concert garb, they don’t reeeally dress that way everyday, and even if they do, it doesn’t mean we have to mimic them, right? Right – in theory. Unfortunately, the volume of images like these doesn’t just make them impossible to ignore – each time we see one, we grow a little more desensitized. Dressing like a sex worker stops sending the wrong message and starts being badass. We get conned into thinking the road to body confidence and feminine empowerment is paved with our T&A, and start dressing accordingly.

Oh, but celebrities aren’t responsible for messages sent by their wardrobe choices. Horseshit. Maybe Fergie’s rocking her look on stage and Miley’s using hers to bust out of the Disney mold. But Rihanna and Katy’s outfits are accompanied by the words HARD and ONE NIGHT STAND.

So, if I dress to make guys hard and have promiscuous sex, I can be hot and rich and famous too?! I’m totally wearing my garter belt in public!

Sports icons who cheat on their wives often use the I-didn’t-choose-to-be-a-role-model defense. Maybe the girls above didn’t choose to be role models, but if you’re lucky enough to be famous for what you do, you should probs be grateful enough to not royally fuck it up. Dressing like sluts makes these ladies sex objects first and artists second.

You want to be taken seriously as a musician? Stop dressing like a stripper. Rocket science, I know.

The real-life consequences of Slutty Chic extend beyond messages sent and absorbed. The style went mainstream this Spring – see the most popular Prom Dress Trend for 2010.

Trashtaculous.

What happens when we dress like sluts and whores?

It makes it okay for us to be treated like sluts and whores. It makes it okay to view semen as the latest avante garde accessory. It makes it okay for us to be seen as sex dolls first, people second.

Yes, Gaga and Ke$ha are badasses, but their devil-may-care ‘tudes don’t excuse the disgusting evidence above. Slutty chic is a contradiction in terms. There’s nothing classy about a trend that compromises your self-respect.

Ladies, we’ve come a long way since not being able to vote, but we’re not there yet. You want equal pay for equal work? Don’t leave the house for the office without pants.

The real answer is far more disheartening than all of the above. The Baby Bell Bottom hearkens back to the least flattering pant style ever conceived. It’s a cut clinically proven to cause distress, mood swings, crash diets and bitterness related to genetic inheritance. A cut designed to make anyone under 5′ 9″ look and feel like a bloated rhinoceros. I’m talking, of course, about capris.

I bet Karl Lagerfeld was like Oooh, I know vat vee can do to make zee womens eat less of zee candies and zee sweets. Vee can make a pant zat looks good on only models and tell zem it’s IN. Zey vill never look good in eet unless zey are as tall as zee models, but who cares? Zey will buy eet, hate zemselves, eat less, and b theener and happeeir. Vere ist my afternoon boiled feesh snack?! Lagerfeld, I’ll get you someday, and your little gastric bypass too. But I digress.

To be fair, some capris are more attractive than others – those of the loose harem pant ilk have the bonus of making your calves look smaller. Fitted denim capris a la the Baby Bell, however, defy certain laws of proportions and as such, must be avoided at all costs.

For J Brand‘s attempt to revive the capri via the Baby Bell see below:

The Gigi is a “mid-rise cropped flare inspired by the runway.” I’m assuming this nod to high fashion is why it costs $180.00.

J Brand’s tips for donning the impossible? “Wear it retro with clogs, be feminine with sexy heels or be too-cool-for-school with ankle boots.” So If I wear the Gigi flare with sky-high stilettos or other types of elevated footwear a la the model, I might have a fighting chance of looking halfway decent. What if I pair it with flats? It’s a casual pant, yes?

Yes. A casual pant that, when paired with walkable footwear, gives your shape the appearance of having gone through a box crusher. Sounds fun.

Thank you, J Brand, for re-reminding me of how short I am. Methinks I’m going to leave your runway-inspired style where it belongs – on a model’s body, not on my own.

Stocky wasn’t IN last time I checked.

Whatever. I’m bonkers for the style now, particularly in the form of these Robert Rodriguez puppies.

I was still in denial re: harem pants when I edited this photo, as I made a point to call them “slouch trousers” in lieu of what they really are. Same diff.

Robert Rodriguez Pants – harem and otherwise – retail for around $286.00. Ra-ra-resale and yaay for a SICK Buff Ex score. Secondhand and on-trend.

Loves it!

Cut to LAST JULY, when I said the following In Defense of Chloe Sevigny:

The initial appearance of any trend is rarely met with universal approval, if only because Fashion polices those whose style of dress contradicts its rules of the moment. Post-critique, the industry jacks the ideas of its biggest rule-breakers and later pawns them off as its own: Don’ts become Do’s and Out becomes In, Fashion gets to look original and we get an excuse to buy new stuff.

That Chloe Sevigny’s personal style has inspired more than a few trends isn’t the point. What ultimately matters is the source of her sartorial originality, a.k.a. her mastery of the art of Not Giving A Shit. Chloe Sevigny doesn’t dress to inspire Fashion; the fact that what she wears eventually shows up on its radar is simply a byproduct of her dressing to please only herself.

Chloe’s recent pairing of Socks With Orthopedic Sandals might seem like a total faux pas, so if you need to tear her down to feel sartorially superior, go right ahead. Just make sure you thank her a few years from now, when the Granny Chic trend inevitably hits the runway.

Mere months later and POOF! The Socks ‘n’ Sandals Trend is all the rage. Whatafuckingcoincidence. I’m on board with Second City Style’s assessment of the said trend as heinous, but that’s not ultimately the point. The point is that fashion is an idea-thieving beotch.

Also that I’m clairvoyant.

That is all.

-Zara shift dress

-pony hair belt

-skinny belt

-versatile vintage blouse

-military-inspired pencil skirt

The most expensive thing was the dress, at a whopping six bucks. Everything else was under $5. If memory serves, all the above came to less than $20.00.

That is the smile of a happy shopper.

When imitating a given designer, don’t name the copycat after its inspiration.

It appears Rag & Bone didn’t get the memo when it decided construction boots were like-so-hot-right-now. Its footwear’s striking similarity to Danner‘s aesthetic could have been framed as coincidence.

Unfortunately, Rag & Bone christened its copycat the ‘Danner Boot‘. That’s called asking for a lawsuit (also shit-for-brains).

The inspiration for Rag & Bone’s party foul (see right) is Danner’s Recon Insulated Uniform Boot (see left) – an expertly-crafted shoe with the following features:

- 100% waterproof, breathable GORE-TEX® lining for the ultimate in comfortable, breathable waterproof protection.

- Vibram® Kletterlift outsole is specifically designed for comfort and durability. The heel provides lightweight comfort as well as superb shock absorption. The compound guarantees great traction and stability on both wet and dry surfaces.

- 200 grams of Thinsulateâ„¢ Insulation offer lightweight warmth for those needing protection in cold climates.

- Made in the USA.

The Recon boots cost $265.00, and appear to be built for an environmental apocalypse. When we eff up the earth to the point of no longer being able to walk barefoot on its surface, at least we’ll have shoes for the occasion. Good to know.

A detailed description of Rag & Bone’s Danner boot is no longer available, as Barney’s and Saks don’t like it when controversy pollutes their inventories – tres DRAG. For the sake of comparison, let’s take a looksee at the “features” of a similar shoe: Rag & Bone’s Lace Up Combat Boot ($495.00):

- These lace-up leather booties feature seams and a pull tab.

- 3.25″ stacked heel and 6″ shaft. Leather sole.

- Imported.

Combat my ass.

This leads me to conclude that the Rag & Bone’s Danner Boot is also crafted in “imported leather” (read: sweatshops) and is also the Recon boot’s inferior in strength and durability.

It clearly costs less to produce the brandtastic rip-off. Yet – somehow – the copycat costs a whopping $525.00. None of the features, none of the craftsmanship, double the price.

Maybe the soles of Rag & Bone’s Danner Boots are actually secret mini-rocket boosters, and their numerical absurdity accounts for the cost of fuel.

Oh wait, that actually requires neurons. Nevermind.

Said enchantment dissolved upon learning that the Unisex Circle Scarf and the Super Sheer Circle Scarf retail for $28.00 and $37.00, respectively.

Beotch please – for a piece of fabric cut into a circular strip, anything over twenty is pushing it. I made a subtle gagging noise, and exited the store in search of alternatives.

I then headed uptown to Paron Fabrics for some t-shirt-esque material sold by the yard. Paron is known and hailed for their 50% off selection and it did not disappoint: A yard of on-sale jersey knit cost me all of six bucks.

After you’ve scissored, glued and fray-checked your way to a circular piece of fabric, loop it around your neck about nine times – the more times you loop, the cooler it looks. I highly recommend toeing the line between choking and not choking here. Fashion not function, people, fashion not function.

The DIY Infinity Scarf Project took an hour in its entirety, saved me at least $30.00, and quelled my urge to stick it to American Apparel for trying unsuccessfully to rip me off.

Tres satisfying.

Some materials and prints are also better left unmixed. Velvet and Leopard are fine on their own, but their marriage is not a happy one.

Witness the carnage in the form of Diane von Furstenberg’s Wilma Joon Dress.

I’m usually bonkers for all things DVF, but this is a disaster of epic proportions.

I can’t even get into the muumuu-esque cut – it’s too upsetting. And what’s with the uneven sleeves?

If that’s the new one-shoulder, we’re totally screwed. Velvet has never looked cheaper; Leopard has never looked trashier.

I’m going to give DVF the benefit of the doubt here by assuming this monstrosity was designed by Olivia or Whitney or some other chick from The City trying to get out of that D-list faux reality TV starlet box.

Sorry dollfaces, it’s so not happening – the best you can hope for is fashion PR. Kindly leave the designing to the pros for all of our sakes.

I’m also going to give Shopbop the benefit of the doubt by assuming they were paid by MTV to slap an Editor’s Pick graphic on this $298 offense to velvet, animal prints, and dresses in general.

I’m obvs feeling generous today.