Join me, won’t you, as we descend into the depths of the expensive and hideous. No snorkle required!*
 |
| Burberry Prorsum coat, $5495 |
“What do you mean the bottom of the coat got caught in the shredder, and the only material we have on hand is a bath mat? We’re a high-end design house! We can’t. . . Oh, to hell with it, just staple them together and meet me at the bar.”
 |
| Matthew Williamson jumpsuit, $1,202 |
I’ve been staying away from jumpsuits and rompers because they’re so intrinsically stupid that there’s nothing that interesting about a stupid-looking one.
So I’ll say this for our psuedo-military, crotch-bag friend here: It’s managed to take stupid-looking to a whole new level.
 |
| L.A.M.B pants, $245 |
Speaking of which. . . I wonder, is there a subset of wealthy people who intentionally make themselves look as unappealing as possible, in order to determine who is just attracted to them for their money?
 |
| Marc Jacobs jacket, $970 |
It’s like someone went to clown college and majored in crocheting.
 |
| Gucci blouse, $960 |
And to think your dad complained about the tacky short you gave him for Father’s Day.
 |
| Who’s Who “dress,” $315 |
Another thing I’ve resisted so far is the impulse to post very, very short dresses with a “that’s not a dress, that’s a shirt” label, because it just makes me seem old and crotchety. But this? This is not a dress. This is a shirt.
*Barf bag recommended.
I agree on the awful Burberry coat – but think the accompanying shoes rate an honorable mention.
Mom
I have to disagree. That "dress" is not a shirt, it's a slutty 70s flight attendant costume, for use during private adult time with a special loved one who enjoys reminiscing about the good old days of flying in the 70s.