Daisy Bateman

Ugly Clothes for Rich People, Part IV

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.

2 thoughts on “Ugly Clothes for Rich People, Part IV”

  1. 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.


Leave a Comment