Did you know that buying loads of designer goodies is actually thrifty? Did you? Another entry to this unfortunate bandwagon. (Granted, this from a blogger whose comments policy bans all criticism, not merely trolling, personal-life and body-image commentary, and the sorts of things that are reasonable to discourage. I mean, why have a comments section on a fashion blog, then announce "I’m not looking for pointers"? But I digress.)
Remember, people: 'cost-per-wear' is just the reverse of the advice about how small purchases add up.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Agreed in principle, but I don't think the costs she projects are absurd or even designer range. $60 for a pair of jeans, $150 for boots, etc. Sure, you can find cheaper on sale, but those are reasonable regular prices for those items. The rain boots are superfluous though.
Agree re: the prices. The rainboots... Marc Jacobs also sells a lovely $25-ish version (which I have in white), so I'm not sure what the advantage is of the $100 ones, unless the cheaper ones only came out later? What got to me more was that she gave the rainboots as the prime example, that she refers to clothing as something you "invest in," and that so many of her posts showcase outfits that have for a large part been given to her (which, to her credit, she acknowledges) by designers, which sort of detracts from the 'you can do it, too!' spirit of the blog.
The problem with cost-per-wear, I suppose, is only in part that it's (often) used to justify overspending. The bigger issue, as I think came up here earlier when we last discussed this here, is that we just don't know what it means for a garment to be $3 per wear - we have no frame of reference for this unit of measurement. Is $3 a good price per wear? 10 cents? $3 just sounds so much less than whatever even the cheapest items cost initially that the number fools us into thinking anything we wear on multiple occasions is cheaper than we think.
Post a Comment