and that’s British slang for “that is, like, major suckitude!”
Here I was, all ready to present to you a multi-faceted, multi-pictured, multi-product post that would, if not gain widespread acclaim would at least cause a few snarky comments and YAY! Pageview bonus! and WordPress went and ate it.
In its place, we bring you the following observation: that shopping online for pants is … pants. Because all pants look exactly alike online:
Exhibit A: $698 Zenobia Slim Crepe Pants from Saks:
Exhibit B: $178 Eileen Fisher Stretch Crepe Pants, also from Saks:
Well, okay, these look different, but we don’t have to discuss them, do we?
eep! I’m a firm believer in “You get what you pay for”, but the $700 pair looks deeply, shockingly, unflattering! The second pair falls so much better, and doesn’t make the model look stumpy.
If I ignore the last pair, will it go away?
Comment by rach — September 9, 2010 @ 8:08 am
Sorry Rach, Once seen they can’t be unseen! Intertoobz rulez.
Comment by archiearchive — September 9, 2010 @ 8:37 am
And just to make the last pair of “pants” even more tragique, they’re priced at $138.00.
Comment by Chicklet — September 9, 2010 @ 9:43 am
God forbid you are one of those ”look and not read” kinda ppl and ordered the 1st pair when you really wanted the 2ed pair . It would be a real tragedy if the company accidentally sent you the 3ed pair ! AHH ! lol
Comment by Dawn — September 9, 2010 @ 9:52 am
Trousers (for women) and swimsuits must be tried on. Also, as I discovered recently, wedding dresses. My daughter waxed lyrical about an elegant white suit for her wedding, and ended up with an ivory lace gown that made her look and feel like the bride she wanted to be.
But I digress. Those $700 trousers may be magically cut to flatter you, and be a hot lumpy squishy mess on me, while the Eileen Fishers might sing my song all night long. With my luck, though, it would be the other way around, and I’d be trying to figure out how to justify $700 for a pair of pants.
Comment by gamma — September 9, 2010 @ 11:56 am
Gah! WRT the $700 trousers, I can get some equally as hideous from Penneys/Primark for about €10 – maximum. I think these all might be the new signal that you have too much money.
Comment by Liz — September 9, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
Of course the “pants” in the slang expression aren’t what’s shown here, but underpants, which is what that word means in British English. (I never could figure out that expression.)
Comment by That Queer Chick — September 9, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
In keeping with the times, I am going to start calling irritating and sucky things “jeggings.”
Comment by daisyj — September 9, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
I have the Eileen Fisher pants and love them. She usually has clothes cut well for the larger woman. I save my money and make trips to NYC just to try her (among others) latest lines.
Comment by Peaches — September 9, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
What’s up with the floods out there, as in #1?
I agree about Eileen Fisher’s surprising viability. The bad rap it gets you’d think it was all Hefty trash bags. It’s good, a lot of it.
Comment by Violet — September 9, 2010 @ 7:58 pm
Chicklet, even worse: that’s marked down!
I will never understand why people wish to pay that kind of money for something that was last in fashion when Jennifer Lopez was dating Ben Affleck. As a blogger, I’m certainly not anti-sweats, but I’m anti-ridiculously-overpriced-sweats-in-which-you-never-intend-to-sweat.
Comment by raincoaster — September 10, 2010 @ 7:53 am
Per Violet, where’s the flood? As a tall’un I find it hard to get pants that don’t look like #1. For that money the adjustment services of a seamstress better be included.
I’m amused how pant #3 shows the model’s inner thigh bulge. I think I’d use those pants to mop up my dog’s accidents on the floor, but that’s about it. But at least they don’t shout “juicy” on the butt, right?
Comment by SusanC — September 10, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
Is model #3 wearing those pants (and I use that term loosely) with ballet flats?
I’m so confused. Her feet are going to the office, but her legs and bum are going to bed.
Comment by La Petite Acadienne — September 11, 2010 @ 10:10 pm