Saturday, June 11, 2005

To my girlfriend who was lamenting my lack of dress purchase documentation:



This was the dress that I first picked and actually paid full price for. (Yes, $25 is relatively inexpensive, but I'm so used to buying things at "the boutique" that I still had to work through the sticker shock.)



This was the dress I found on the clearance rack the day I went back to pick up a cardigan to wear with the previous dress. (Originally $35; I got it for $17 and change.) I ended up wearing this one to the party.

"Great design always turns heads" is absolutely correct. These dresses are rare nowadays in that they fit a woman's form. Not a flat-chested, prepubescent form - a woman's form. Bravo to Target for bringing Isaac on board. I have a couple pieces from his unaffordable collection (boutique purchases) and absolutely love his work.

Does having a line at Target make him less precious? Does it really matter? I'm happy, and I'm a pretty bad consumer. That they were able to draw in the likes of me means that perhaps they're doing something right.

***

Speaking of bringing in bad consumers - I actually managed to get Pablo in to try on and purchase pants at the Wellington Target. He's even worse (or better) than I am, in that he's bona fide wealthy, but hates spending on what he sees as 'fripperies.' I like to call him Howard Hughes, as he's got something like 23 plaid flannel (didn't know that flannel was a summer fabric until I met him) shirts and one pair of pants. Boy, did we fight over this, too. I never said that he had to wear Armani, but for crying out loud - at least don't look like a bum.

Anyway - Got him to Target, made him try on pants. The khakis were on sale ($11/pair), so he bought two pairs.

18 comments:

nappy40 said...

I bought Christmas gifts at Target last year. We have a Super Target center nearby with groceries, wine, deli. I'll have to return there to get a look at their clothes. I like those dresses.

Simon Kenton said...

Dated a Chilena a few years ago, and concluded that shopping vivaciously in a different language could actually be fun. (My normal perspective is that unless it can be vetted in Consumer Reports and purchased on the internet, I don't need it and will never have it.) I used to tease her about her interest in 'basuritas electronicas,' such as boomboxes. But more fun than the trips to Target, was the trip to Victoria's Secrets. Later I was to be told by a learned friend that the great observatory in Chile has a steady influx of American astronomers, and within 18 months, regardless of initial marital status, all of them end up married to Chilean women. I was a more seasoned, resistant bachelor than these, but still it was such fun. Perhaps there are two kinds of people? those who enjoyed dating, and those who didn't.

nappy40 said...

Simon, I agree with you about Consumer Reports. I use it for car purchases. If it's given the ok by them and costs under $20,000 I might buy it.

I am seasoned and resistant as well. I think there are some who are attracted to commitment and some who are not. I'm sensing some bloggable material--I won't say more.

Be said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Be said...

Who in their right mind wouldn't consult Consumer Reports? They haven't helped me with a car (don't need one), but thanks to their counsel, I've a decent bedframe and an excellent set of knives.

It's too bad they don't give ratings to lingerie stores, however. Victoria's Secret stuff costs an arm and a leg and is of actually pretty poor quality. I was given a gift certificate there by some coworkers at a going away party (As a joke - was asked what I'd need for my time away, I answered "socks and underwear."). Everything I bought ended up falling to pieces after 7-8 washes (hand wash, warm water with soap flakes, line dry).

nappy40 said...

You're right about the poor quality of Vic's Secret.

Simon Kenton said...

Ladies, cluck cluck cluck. That Victoria's Secret shopping was FUN. Chattering (on my part) bad spanish and on hers, elegant; watching her lift and shake brightly-colored laciness; all I needed was banderillas. And you turn this into some discussion about wash-day blues, complete with recitation of the approved techniques. That Victoria's Secret stuff is

- to put it on
- to display it and you
- to have someone peel it off

Its highest and best use is not handwashing with warm water and soapflakes (whatever the hell soapflakes are). Who cares about its durability? You want durability, get some Carhartt flannel-lined overalls.

You jist cain't never tell. Join a discussion about woman-shaped dresses, and somehow you turn a couple of woman-shaped women into soap flakes. I'm going to have to keep my lines drier.

Be said...

Well, Simon - since I buy my own underwear and I am on a budget...I take notice of these things.

I remember hearing that the only strippers who throw their stuff out into the audience are the newer ones, as it's not cost effective to do so.

Simon Kenton said...

John Ross's experience as a financial manager for strippers indicates not much forethought, in a profession with a front-loaded earnings curve:

http://www.john-ross.net/inverted.htm

And Miss? I too buy my own underwear (incidentally I take your implication, and the answer is 'no'), and get triple duty from it. Its second and third careers are cleaning up after changing oil, and cleaning guns. Perhaps, in the crowded city of the lefty fascisti, you have no need of either. Here in the hills, with the Rocky Mountain penstemon, subalpine lupine, sticky geranium, sandwort and blanketflower in bloom; with the bucks in velvet and just through their first ramification, ready to bifurcate again, I can say with Green righteousness, "Frugality, thy name is Kenton."

nappy40 said...

Simon, I understand intimate wear that is for display and peeling off, but even those garments have to be washed. I have found prettier, although more expensive, garments at department stores. And they hold up quite well in Woolite.

Be said...

Nappy - Many, many years ago, an old roommate of mine got an awful gift from the original Fredericks in Hollywood - an alligator (ahem) codpiece. This was about the most offputting bit of merchandise I'd ever seen, so worked hard to get Frederick's out of my head.

The last tenant in my current place used to get all sorts of weird publications, and since she had a serious porn star type name (though an MD), I'd look at them - found that Fredericks was a lot different than what I'd originally thought them to be. They have a great clearance section on their website, as well. I'd say that their underthings are better made than Victoria and their stockings are near bullet proof. I got a sweater from them that was pretty nice, too

Be said...

Interesting set of double standards here: women's underwear is just for taking off, but men's underwear should be able to accomplish a wide range of non-underwear related tasks.

City-dwelling lefty fascista though I may be, I do know that I'd not be caught hunting or even at a target range in 'Body by Victoria.'

Simon Kenton said...

To be more precise here, the Victoria's Secret underwear I saw here was for don/doff. I can assure you that I would have NO QUALMS using de-accessioned ordinary utilitarian female underwear - which my wife does wear to go hunting and rafting - for changing oil or patching material.

Thus, the double standard is not between the sexes of the underwearers, but between the anticipated usage of the underwear - whether it is to be worn, or to be worn only to be removed.

I leave the treatment of a third category, Mormon Garments, to the blog proprietress.

Be said...

Simon - I could argue about the utility of ropas interiores chileñas and Mormon Undergarments, as both were designed for certain purposes. Since I have no use for either (am neither looking to seduce someone into setting me up for more underwear, pricey geegaws or a greencard, nor spend my life trying to live up to an arbitrary standard of virtue), I really have no interest. Thank you for your input, however.

Simon Kenton said...

We've obviously gotten crosswise, and I'd like to clear up 2 matters:

La Chilena was not using me as a sugar daddy; she spent her own money, proudly.

She had no interest in a green card, but rather in travel and learning a new language.

I'll drop out now.

Be said...

Fair enough; you just be careful before firing off assumptions regarding other women looking for "benefactors" and being "lefty fascistas."

Simon Kenton said...

Be -

I don't like to get into quotation wars, but I also would as soon not let my admiration for your site and your thinking and your expression get obscured. I don't recall, nor can I find, a place where I said 'benefactors;' I don't know where this comes from. I did write "Perhaps, in the crowded city of the lefty fascisti, you have no need of either," apropos cars and guns; this was not meant to call you a lefty fascista (which is prima facie ludicrous given the entire tenor of your blog) but rather to call out a difference between you and those around which you yourself often cite. It seemed to me that I was satiric, and perhaps offensive, on other topics here; not these.

Be said...

Simon: you're more than welcome to take this offline, and in the language of your choice.

C'est à vous de jouer, alors.