Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/big/public_html/wordpress/wp-content/themes/StandardTheme_20/admin/functions.php on line 229
Dear Seven Jeans: Bite Me | Manolo for the Big Girl

Dear Seven Jeans: Bite Me

Seriously, just go ahead, find yourself a nice meaty chunk and have at it because I am just about tired of you and I am thisclose to pulling hair.

First of all, the idea of $200 denim makes my slapping hand itch just on principle. Any pair of jeans with that sort of price tag had better be made out of the swaddling clothes of baby angels and come with a small but powerful electronic device, and y’all know I don’t mean an iPod.

Secondly, I don’t mind that you exist but your name is “Seven For All Mankind.”

Really? ALL mankind? Or do you mean “All Mankind As Long As Your Waist Is No Bigger Than 32 Inches With Legs Like a Pole-Vaulting Giraffe?”

THIRTY TWO INCHES. For a LOW rise. From what I’ve been able to discern that’s a small size 12. The average American woman wears a size 14.

Listen, I’m not a bitter fat chick and as I said I don’t mind that you EXIST. I’m sure you serve a purpose much in the same way that fleas, black velvet paintings of The Last Supper and leopard print stirrup pants do, but this is not Animal Farm and you are NOT the pant of the working-class proletariat so stop pretending you are.

Drop the name or add some sizes. The choice is yours.

Chompingly yours,

Plumcake

Oh, and Moschino Cheap and Chic? Don’t think that your fabulous designs are going to save you from my wrath. I’m coming for you next.

28 Responses to “Dear Seven Jeans: Bite Me”

  1. Jane October 2, 2007 at 3:23 pm #

    Plumcake, you are brilliant. I think I last had a 32-inch waist when I was 10.

  2. Never teh Bride October 2, 2007 at 3:53 pm #

    /me pumps her fist in the air

  3. Twistie October 2, 2007 at 4:40 pm #

    (dons buttkicking boots, lines up behind Plumcake to deliver the next shot)

    Actually, I think $200 jeans may provide less to humanity than black velvet paintings of the Last Supper. At least one is mildly amusing in a painfully kitschy way.

  4. caitlin October 2, 2007 at 5:09 pm #

    Those “Seven7” jeans that Lane Bryant carries are not related at all to 7 For All Mankind.

  5. JayKay October 2, 2007 at 5:38 pm #

    Ok, I have to speak up here. I am 5’6″, close to 190lbs. I am by NO means a thin woman. Like most of you, I’m sure, I’ve struggled endlessly to find jeans that fit my proportions. I have curves, VERY muscular legs (Quadzilla’s got nothin’ on me!) and I love, love LOVE my size 30 Sevens. I own several pairs, and having worn Sevens almost exclusively for over 5 years, give or take, I will never wear anything else. They flatter even the biggest parts of me (my hind quarters). True, they may not be for “all mankind”, but for me, the $200+ price tag is worth it.

  6. caitlin October 2, 2007 at 5:53 pm #

    I think you’re missing the point. The argument isn’t that they’re crappy jeans- it’s that the name “7 for All Mankind” is disingenuous at best.

  7. nanabanana October 2, 2007 at 7:11 pm #

    I am about to don my dashiki, pick out my afro and march with Plumcake. The fact that the jeans are $200 is a crime in itself. I’m not sure if the Seven7 jeans from Lane Bryant are related to the 7 for all mankind brand or not, but they are HORRIBLE! Almost all of my friends have tried them on and we have all reached the consensus that our $200 would be better spent buying 4 pairs of the Venezia brand jeans. They make your behind look good and you don’t have to decide whether to buy them or groceries for the next two weeks.

  8. curvalicious October 2, 2007 at 7:15 pm #

    Oh plumcake, I just love your biting sarcasm. All mankind? No on this planet.

  9. Kimks October 2, 2007 at 8:32 pm #

    Sing it Sisters!!!

  10. raincoaster October 2, 2007 at 11:24 pm #

    You never know: it’s quite possible they make different sizes but that stores actually hide them. I overheard a woman today complaining that she wanted a certain dress in a size bigger than those they had on the floor…and the salesgirl told her they had them in the back, but the manager didn’t allow anything larger than a six onto the sales floor, because it “wasn’t fashionable.” The woman tried on the dress, just to get some jollies, then didn’t buy it. I was dying to ask her the name of the store, but she left before I could get it.

    I live in Vancouver. It’s not Paris, ffs.

  11. JustJenny October 3, 2007 at 12:21 am #

    Wait, size 8 is out of fashion now? Do I have to get rid of all my size 8 clothes? Seriously, why don’t they just do the opposite of the coffee shops and make sizes in small, really small, teeny and nearly invisible? That way everyone’s size can be out and no one has to be embarrassed about having bigger than “fashionable” sizes on the sales floor.

  12. raincoaster October 3, 2007 at 1:17 am #

    Honest to god, I have seen size -2. In this city the only way to tell a street junkie from a fashionista is the cost of the outfits, especially when the bedhead look is in style.

  13. Toby Wollin October 3, 2007 at 8:57 am #

    Raincoaster: “…and the salesgirl told her they had them in the back, but the manager didn’t allow anything larger than a six onto the sales floor, because it “wasn’t fashionable.”
    Right. What the manager did not say – or perhaps she did say it but the sales staff person would not – was that they don’t allow anything larger than a six because – they don’t want any fat people in the store because the thin people might be offended. And we all know that thin people have more money to spend and spend it more often than fat people. So, let’s keep the fat people out of the stores. That manager is an idiot and is missing a tremendous opportunity in terms of developing a customer base. But then, when was the last time anyone has been in a store where the sales staff or management actually cared about trying to meet your needs (besides LB? – I have had universally positive experiences with sales staff in LB)? Does. Not. Exist. I could go on for days and days about ignorant sales staff, stupid displays, and poor customer service.

  14. Style Spy October 3, 2007 at 10:10 am #

    Brava, bella!!

    No way am I spending $200 on a pair of jeans. I need that money for shoes! (And badly-mixed manhattans.)

  15. Buffy October 3, 2007 at 11:05 am #

    I’ve tried a pair of these on, not worth the $200 price tag. Gap jeans are the jean of choice for me, I recently bought a pair of trouser jeans that I LOVE! I have been looking for trouser jeans for at least a year. Go GAP!

  16. The Betsy October 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm #

    I’m a size 16 and wear Levi’s. Comfortable, classic and affordable. They even come in short. There’s no reason ANYONE should be buying $200 jeans. They’re just cotton, not spun platinum.

  17. Astarael October 4, 2007 at 1:54 pm #

    If one is looking for nice jeans, one should scurry over to JC Penney, where they have C7P jeans. Said jeans are made by the designer Chip&Pepper, and go up to size 17! They are the exact same material as the $150 + version sold and Nordstroms, and are just as stylish. They are also significantly shorter than the “designer” version, for our shorter fashionistas. Hope someone finds this usefull…

  18. Leti October 4, 2007 at 4:32 pm #

    The 7 jeans at Lane Bryant were an off shoot of 7 for all Mankind. At least according to my friend who used to work there. I don’t know if they are still being sold at LB as my friend is no longer working there.

  19. Christina October 4, 2007 at 4:33 pm #

    I love, love my Seven jeans from Lane Bryant! I’m 6 feet tall and they are the only jeans I have bought from a retail store that have both length and not total craziness on the rise – they go higher than I’d like, but I’m short waisted and have come to terms with that.

    I also hate how cheap my plus-size denim looks from Lane Bryant or Old Navy, so I have been thrilled to pay $100+ for my Svoboda jeans and Paige Premium denim jeans from Nordstrom’s website. LOVE LOVE LOVE.

  20. Plumcake October 4, 2007 at 4:39 pm #

    As astute reader Caitlin pointed out the Seven jeans sold at Lane Bryant are not in anyway related to Seven for All Mankind.

    From an article in DSN Retailing Today, January 10, 2005

    “Seven has proven to be a lucky name for jeanswear branding and sales but an unlucky number when it comes to lawsuits.

    Hip designer jeanwear brand Seven For All Mankind, launched in 2000, filed a copyright infringement suit against Express in 2003 regarding its launch of Seven7 jeans.

    However, it turns out that Seven7 is a registered trademark that has existed for decades, owned as Seven Licensing Co. by industry veteran Gerard Guez, chairman of Tarrant Apparel Group, who filed a countersuit.

    Undeterred, Lane Bryant has just jumped into the fray with a line of plus-size Seven7 branded jeans and tops.”

  21. Rebecca October 4, 2007 at 7:05 pm #

    I am with Christina… If you are going to spend $200 for jeans go take a look at Svboda. Her jeans are gorgeous, well-made and worth every penny.

  22. Girlfriend October 6, 2007 at 5:19 pm #

    I just love your attitude! ;-) And I’ll put that $200 towards a handbag that doesn’t discriminate by size.

  23. Wellesley October 8, 2007 at 11:49 pm #

    32 inchesis their largest! Sweet lord, I’m a size 4 on a good day, 6 after inhaling something at Taco Bell, and because I have actual HIPS and a BUTT and a little bit of a GUT I can barely squeeze into one of their 28 inchers. I bought a pair of 27 inchers a year ago from them at Nordstrom Rack, which were nice and strechy so they worked. Until I was dancing at a friends party and they ripped right in the butt! Seven for All Mankind? How about Seven For All Mankind 100 LBS and Under?

  24. Tailypo October 9, 2007 at 12:40 am #

    Years ago when I was a lean, mean 145 pounds and 5’10, I went to a fancy jeantique in San Francisco, which sold 7s and other fancy jeans. Not one. pair. fit. Not that they weren’t flattering — not one pair could come up over my thighs — they stopped short about four inches under my crotch, hung up on my thighs. The shopgirl simply shrugged and said they didn’t carry anything in large sizes. And I was at that time clinically underweight (although the bmi wouldn’t say so — don’t get me started–) anyway, ever since then I have known that those 7s are the Playpants of the Devil.

  25. Recklessred January 28, 2010 at 5:55 am #

    I love this. I put on a pair of Seven jeans in khols the otherday, totally prepared to pay the semi reasonable fifty nine dollar price tag. In the dressing room when i tried these on my friend heard me sstruggling and asked “so do they button?” I responded “well, the button, but i think the lack of blood flow to my legs might be prpblamatic if iintened to do any walking moving or well breathing for that matter”

    Ps plumcake will you be my best friend

  26. ugg boot August 9, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    Hi there, just wanted to leave a quick comment about the interface of your blog. It is really easy on the eye while also being catchy. I think I will do something similar for my blog as well. Thanks for the nice blog share.

  27. Julie October 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm #

    That is hilarious! Thank you so much for writing this! I too am tired of seeing this particular brand that claims to be for everyone, yet will never even get past my knees when I was at my skinniest. But I do have a problem paying $200 for jeans. I just wish there was something between the cheaper ones that just aren’t the nicest and the $200 ones.