2. Trenchcoat-- vintage 70's camel-colored leather
Want. My own trenchcoat is a raincoat (in the trenchcoat manner). It is black.
I own several blazers, a couple of black dresses, almost no day dresses (I have one, which is linen, and two more which have been on the sewing pile for 2 years), and quite a bit in the trousers/skirts department. I... looking at Tim's list, he appears to think that you wear a basic white blouse with all things, and do not need any other tops. Which is a steaming pile of nonsense. A couple of sleeveless or short-sleeved shirts are kind of necessary, you think? Unless you're going nudie under that blazer.
And a cashmere sweater is... people who can actually wear wool should be required to do so, so that cashmere prices stay low for those of us who can't wear wool. (And people who live in Miami BETTER NOT be wearing my cashmere in their excessively-AC buildings.)
I was just there, ita. The Montana one is still sporty.
If you're ever at Century City, Kristin, look at the Lucy there and pretend you've never heard of them. Not only is there no way you'd guess it was an athletic clothing store (skirts in the window might mislead you) when I was shopping for sports bras a while back, they only had 2. Not two styles. Two bras. I haven't driven into Santa Monica since then to see if my "original" one is still true to the cause. I'm sad enough as it is.
t sobs
There's a Lucy right on Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena. I was planning on going there when my yoga pants were completely worn out (they're getting pretty damned close by now). Woe.
ETA:
I was just there, ita. The Montana one is still sporty.
Hope!
I think the list of essentials itself is totally nuts, and the kind manufactured need that Lucky magazine excels at. Why doesn't one have these already, if they are essential? How can they be essential when slavishly folllowing such a list would give you a total of one work appropriate outfit?
Not to mention-- cashmere? A skirt? A pair of pants? the two latter are filler, not conceivably limited to a single item.
I have problems with the "blazer" idea because that's something awkward in a professional woman's wardrobe-- it can't match these so-called "dress" pants, and is a male staple. Cute jacket, yes. If a blazer is your wardrobe staple and you are a woman, why are you reading this when you should be toasting with Tad on the yacht.
Sweatsuit alternative? Stupid.
The Montana one is still sporty.
Good. The woman working at the CC one that I spoke to on my great bra hunt agreed she didn't like the selection they had there. Which was something.
I just realised I have a leather bona fide trenchcoat (black) and a quasi-trenchcoat in dark red leather.
Hey, Kat! I may have a wedding to go to in the autumn. If (Erin and her sympathisers should look away now) that black dress with the leather is appropriate can I hang onto it until then?
Because then it would be a suit.
ETA: I can't quite explain, but it is inherent awkwardness of both blazers and dress pants-- I assume that he means dress pants are for dinner and cocktails, which does not go with a blazer to me. Whichever way you fall on it, the very confusion here about what these items are for is indicative of the poorly- adapted- to- women nature of the list.
it can't match these so-called "dress" pants
I don't consider any of my blazers that go with any of my pants to suddenly be part of suits. And if they mutate I don't see what the problem would be.
I still cannot find my damned meds. This is irritating, but I'm not allowed to get irritated.
"Match" is not the same as "go with." I learned that from Clinton and Stacy.
Granted. But I still don't know what the problem with them matching is, and also what the problem with them not matching is.
