Today I wore a plain black long sleeved dress that had a cotton bodice/sleeves upper body part and velvet skirts, with a textured black belt, black (almost) flat boots and my medium size shoulder black leather bag. I know, it sounds really black, but it is what I would consider a very safe brainless casual everyday outfit. Because really, even though the dress has velvet parts, it IS still very plain and casual and is really suitable for all occasions. But anyways, you get the picture.
So, dressed like that, I walked into the restaurant and met my mom and aunt up for Saturday lunch. And the greeting I got were affronted expressions followed by, "Oh dear, what are you wearing today?" Granted my outfit is boring and black, but I didn't think I looked THAT bad. Turns out that they thought that I was dressed too formal for a weekend! Apparently while it was fine to dress up so on a weekday, on a weekend one always dresses very casually with jeans, t shirt and flats/sneakers!
Generally I take these edicts my mom says with a grain of salt, because most of them contradicts previous edicts and I get thoroughly confused, but this time I couldn't help but wonder if there IS a grain of truth to it. As I glance around the streets, people indeed were all dressed very casually (though I WAS in a casual part of town). And I'm sure that the term weekend casual didn't just come out of thin air. One of my friends recently even bought a pair of "weekend shoes."
Personally I don't dress any differently on a weekend than on a weekday. Mostly because I'm a student and its casual day everyday so I wear the same things everyday regardless of the day of the week (though I DO dress differently depending on where I go, my mood and how much time I have). Over the summer, while I was working and wearing semi formal clothes every weekday, I DID miss my jeans. So I guess "casual weekends" could just be a social by product of this. But that doesn't mean that I want to wear the "casual" outfit every weekend. Weekends are the also the only time I get to experiment with what I wear and have fun with fashion! I really don't think that just because everyone else decides its casual day, I have to follow it as well.
But just out of curiosity, what are everyone's preference for weekend dressing? Do you generally dress down or is it an arbitrary decision subjected to many other factors that don't include the day of the week?
Saturday 12 January 2008
Friday 11 January 2008
Legwarmers
The other day the topic of leg warmers came up.
After watching her look for leg warmers all season, she told me the other day that she's finally bought one- except she hasn't worn them out yet because she felt that the reality of legwarmers didn't quite match her expectations. They looked much cooler in the pictures, mannequinns and in her imagination (above: American Apparel).
So how well do these legwarmers, originally designed for ballerinas to warm up with before they practice so they won't injure their muscles (I just found this out today!) translate in reality? Lets explore the ways they are worn. Over at Urban Outfitters, they are shown worn with pumps over skinny jeans and stockings (leggings?).
And at Sock Dreams, they are shown worn with pumps (with short skirt?) and with cute flats (also with short skirts/shorts?). I think that legwarmers look rather cute with short skirts/shorts as shown here, but when it is over skinny jeans, that is just a bit too much. I know it adds interesting detail, but in this case I think it actually cuts the leg up and if you are not super skinny model tall, this will make you look short. The additional detail just weighs you down. I am half half with legwarmer over tights, as with really really simple outfits I think it may work as interesting layering. But at the end of the day, I believe that less is more. Has anyone else tried this look before? Thoughts on making it work?
Oh and here is a random side thought. These stirrup stockings from American Apparel looks really cool. But in reality, HOW does one wear them? And what differentiates them with footless tights or full on stockings? What does it achieve?
Image Source: American Apparel, Urban Outfitters and Sock Dreams
After watching her look for leg warmers all season, she told me the other day that she's finally bought one- except she hasn't worn them out yet because she felt that the reality of legwarmers didn't quite match her expectations. They looked much cooler in the pictures, mannequinns and in her imagination (above: American Apparel).
So how well do these legwarmers, originally designed for ballerinas to warm up with before they practice so they won't injure their muscles (I just found this out today!) translate in reality? Lets explore the ways they are worn. Over at Urban Outfitters, they are shown worn with pumps over skinny jeans and stockings (leggings?).
And at Sock Dreams, they are shown worn with pumps (with short skirt?) and with cute flats (also with short skirts/shorts?). I think that legwarmers look rather cute with short skirts/shorts as shown here, but when it is over skinny jeans, that is just a bit too much. I know it adds interesting detail, but in this case I think it actually cuts the leg up and if you are not super skinny model tall, this will make you look short. The additional detail just weighs you down. I am half half with legwarmer over tights, as with really really simple outfits I think it may work as interesting layering. But at the end of the day, I believe that less is more. Has anyone else tried this look before? Thoughts on making it work?
Oh and here is a random side thought. These stirrup stockings from American Apparel looks really cool. But in reality, HOW does one wear them? And what differentiates them with footless tights or full on stockings? What does it achieve?Image Source: American Apparel, Urban Outfitters and Sock Dreams
Thursday 10 January 2008
Blackwell's 2007 Worst-Dressed List
In the past I've usually blogged about Blackwell's annual Worst Dressed List, (see last year's post here.) But this year while reading the list, I've come to realise that I didn't have a lot of insults in mind for the worse-dressed people. Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually like the style of most people on Blackwell's list. It's just that I've now come to learn to just skip past the pictures of poorly-dressed celebrities (or the celebrities whose style just isn't similar to mine,) and stare at the well-dressed celebrities. Perhaps I have learnt to use my time more efficiently or have grown up?
Anyways, here's the list.
1. Victoria Beckham -While I am no fan of hers, I do admire she has the confidence to wear the clothes that she wears. And while her style is very different from mine, I certainly don't think she's the worst-dressed in 2007.
2. Amy Winehouse -I suppose I do agree with this one. Not only is she poorly dressed, but her hairstyle is just disastrous!
3. Mary Kate Olsen -OK, even though as an MKA fan I am totally biased, I do admit I didn't like some of the outfits MK wore in 2007. But I really don't think one should ignore her better outfits and declare her worst-dressed.4. Fergie -Huh. I usually just skip looking at her outfits in gossip sites.
5. Kelly Clarkson -Skip again. Plus we obviously care more about her singing than her outfits.
6. Eva Green -Do we even know what she normally wears?
7. Avril Lavigne -OK, so I didn't like some of her outfits. And I really don't like her 2007 pink hairdo. But I chalk it all as part of her marketing and image.
8. Jessica Simpson -I'm definitely not a fan of Jessica Simpson, although hasn't her style improved in 2007? Wait, I actually can't recall any of the outfits she wore in 2007. I obviously don't care much for her style.
9. Lindsay Lohan -I really don't think her style is bad. For Lindsay, 2007 was all about the leggings, so I guess it all depends how much you like leggings yourself.
10. Alison Arngrim -Uh, who? Why bother listing someone who isn't stalked by the paparazzis anyway?
And maybe it's because I'm still in my early-20's but I don't find people named in Blackwell's Fabulous Fashion Independent List really fashion-inspiring either. Btw, they are Reese Witherspoon, Jemima Khan, Beyonce, Angelina Jolie, Helen Mirren, Nicole Kidman, Katie Holmes, Kate Middleton, Katherine Heigl and Cate Blanchett. Seriously, Beyonce and Katherine Heigl?
What do you think of Blackwell's 2007 lists?
Wednesday 9 January 2008
The Divide Route in the Multiple Smash Concept
The "smash concept" is extremely popular for a reason: It's a great route. And it is simple to teach. The concept is designed to defeat Cover Two in its many forms. As Cover Two has evolved (Tampa 2, "Tough Two" with the corners retreating to ten yards and jumping routes, and Cover Two-Man), the Smash has become more and more popular.
A word here about verbiage. I refer here to the "Smash concept" or the "Smash route." Both refer to a two-man combination with the outside receiver on a 6 yard hitch and the inside receiver on a 12 yard corner route. Some coaches and teams go further and actually refer to either the corner route or the hitch route as a "smash" route. Again, "smash" to me is the combination - i.e. the concept - rather than any individual route.
In any event, the quarterback has a progression read: (1) corner, (2) hitch underneath. In his progression read he will "key" the cornerback: If the cornerback sinks back to stop the corner route, throw the hitch; if he comes up for the hitch, throw the corner. The best way to describe this to a QB is that you have a progression read and you "read" your receivers. You simply "progress" from one to two. In doing this though you have to understand what guys you are "keying," as their reactions should determine your progression. A Quarterback must understand defenses and defender reactions, but at the same time there is no telling where those 11 guys on defense will go, and as long as he knows where his receivers are and if the QB and the receivers are all on the same page we can run a successful play. We tell him his general rule is to throw the corner route until they take it away (though by gameplan or defense you can tell him to always throw the hitch until they come up for it).
I won't belabor the details of coaching up the "smash" portion of the route itself. If you want to understand all the details in depth, I suggest this. See here too for more on the "multiple smash route." (Registration required) Broadly, the inside receiver will run a 12 yard corner route. He has no "reading" on the play, but he must know his techniques. First, he should identify whether it is man or zone. Against man he will need to close his defender's cushion, push or lean him slightly inside, and plant and break hard away from the defender. Against zone he wants to see who he is running the route off of. If there is a deep defender over him he must set this man up inside and jab at the post at 10-12 yards and break for the corner. If there is no one head up on him he will roll cut his route so he loses no speed. It's worth mentioning though that even if he jabs or plants and breaks we want this closer to a "speed cut," as we don't want him to lose too much speed. A receiver can do this best by "jabbing" while having his toes actually pointed where he wants to go and having his "plant" foot not outside the framework of his body. Young receivers too often step way outside their body frames with their toes pointed in the wrong direction.
The corner route will be caught between 22-25 yards downfield. The QB's job is to "throw him open": throw the ball into the open grass. The receiver must react to the ball and go and get it. Against man to man defense to the short side of the field the depth of the route will be 18-22 yards.
See the above linked article for more specifics, but we tell the outside guy he has two portions to his route. First, run a six-yard hitch route (five-steps - three big and two small), and (2) the "option" or "get open" part of his route. We simply want him to find the open spot. If the corner comes up in Cover 2 zone he will push to 6, turn inside, and work inside to the next zone hole.
If the corner is off and he turns and there is a flat defender inside, he just wants to get space from that guy. If that defender hangs the hitch receiver will drift away from him at his 5-6 yard depth as an outlet for the QB.
If the flat defender flies out to cover him he will break inside this player. We'd like him to actually climb over this flat defender because he will better be able to find the zone hole created but if the flat defender hangs back too far he will come inside slightly and settle underneath.
The Divide Route
This is all fairly straightforward stuff that most people do. The point of this article is to talk about adding a bit more of a big-play dimension to theSmash by using the "divide route," which in other coaches terminology may be a "seam read" or a "tube-read." Both the route and the "read" are simple.
The divide route involves a MOFO or MOFC read by the inside receiver. MOFO simply means "middle of the field open," or no deep middle safety. MOFC means "middle of the field closed," or is there a deep middle guy. The nice thing about this read for the "divide route" as opposed to some other contexts is that the route, hence the name, is simply about "dividing" the deep coverage and the receiver has a lot of freedom to find the downfield open grass. It's a deep stretch and it is designed to strike safeties who overplay the smash or simply get out of position.
Obviously the immediate strength of the divide route as shown is that if a two-deep safety to the smash side overplays the route, one can hit the post route for a big play. If you keep the go route on the backside (as diagrammed) and both safeties overplay the Smash side then the "Go" might be open for a big play. The simple reality is that a Cover 2 team really cannot cover this concept effectively.
Against a Cover 3 zone the QB's "peek" is the seam backside. Before the smash part of his progression, he wants to get the F/S moving and hit the seam.
Running the divide to the trips side is even more dangerous. Any team that tries to play Cover 2 to the trips side will struggle mightily. Many defensive coaches instruct their kids to simply check out of Cover 2 against a trips look. Observe that the "divide" principles governing that inside receiver tells him that he will run more of a "skinny" post here inside the Cover 2 safety to break the deep coverage but avoid the safety on the opposite hash. If there is no deep safety the receiver has lots of freedom.
This is because, again, the governing principle of the "divide route" (one reason I like to call it this instead of a "seam-read") is that you can largely just tell the receiver that he has the area between the hashmarks to work to find the deep open vertical grass. A more advanced technique applies if the defense drops super deep so that he cannot effectively "divide" defenders. This will be done by gameplan, but if that is the case we will essentially let him "throttle" down a bit in the voids and the QB will still look to throw it in the open grass, but simply in the open grass in front of those deep dropping safeties.
In any event, see below for how the divide route will work against MOFO and MOFC defenses.
Cover 2:
Cover 3:
Now, what if it is a MOFC defense but that free safety is flying over too much? Well now it's time to be a good Ball Coach and tag the inside receiver on a "middle-read" route. I have previously explained that route here. The similarity with the divide is a post route against MOFO. The difference is a square-in or cross against MOFC. So if that free safety flies over, he will cut inside that guy. Observe that this is the exact same principle we used for that outside hitch receiver.
Backside hitch
Here is a last aspect to the play that I am a big fan of. I think the play is very effective if you keep the backside player on a hitch, particularly in trips. This gives you a great look against any soft coverage. When you do this you ask your QB to be a ball player and get the ball to the backside receiver if the defense gives it. (In other words, it's probably soft Cover 3.) If it's not there he looks over to the smash side and works his normal progression: Peek at the divide route, then work the smash combination.
Conclusion
This is a simple, well designed play that is both a ball-control, high percentage play, but with the divide route and the corner route it has great big-play potential. If the defense plays soft you will take what they give you, but if they play any kind of two-deep or if their safety gets out of position you will make them pay.
A word here about verbiage. I refer here to the "Smash concept" or the "Smash route." Both refer to a two-man combination with the outside receiver on a 6 yard hitch and the inside receiver on a 12 yard corner route. Some coaches and teams go further and actually refer to either the corner route or the hitch route as a "smash" route. Again, "smash" to me is the combination - i.e. the concept - rather than any individual route.
In any event, the quarterback has a progression read: (1) corner, (2) hitch underneath. In his progression read he will "key" the cornerback: If the cornerback sinks back to stop the corner route, throw the hitch; if he comes up for the hitch, throw the corner. The best way to describe this to a QB is that you have a progression read and you "read" your receivers. You simply "progress" from one to two. In doing this though you have to understand what guys you are "keying," as their reactions should determine your progression. A Quarterback must understand defenses and defender reactions, but at the same time there is no telling where those 11 guys on defense will go, and as long as he knows where his receivers are and if the QB and the receivers are all on the same page we can run a successful play. We tell him his general rule is to throw the corner route until they take it away (though by gameplan or defense you can tell him to always throw the hitch until they come up for it).
I won't belabor the details of coaching up the "smash" portion of the route itself. If you want to understand all the details in depth, I suggest this. See here too for more on the "multiple smash route." (Registration required) Broadly, the inside receiver will run a 12 yard corner route. He has no "reading" on the play, but he must know his techniques. First, he should identify whether it is man or zone. Against man he will need to close his defender's cushion, push or lean him slightly inside, and plant and break hard away from the defender. Against zone he wants to see who he is running the route off of. If there is a deep defender over him he must set this man up inside and jab at the post at 10-12 yards and break for the corner. If there is no one head up on him he will roll cut his route so he loses no speed. It's worth mentioning though that even if he jabs or plants and breaks we want this closer to a "speed cut," as we don't want him to lose too much speed. A receiver can do this best by "jabbing" while having his toes actually pointed where he wants to go and having his "plant" foot not outside the framework of his body. Young receivers too often step way outside their body frames with their toes pointed in the wrong direction.
The corner route will be caught between 22-25 yards downfield. The QB's job is to "throw him open": throw the ball into the open grass. The receiver must react to the ball and go and get it. Against man to man defense to the short side of the field the depth of the route will be 18-22 yards.
See the above linked article for more specifics, but we tell the outside guy he has two portions to his route. First, run a six-yard hitch route (five-steps - three big and two small), and (2) the "option" or "get open" part of his route. We simply want him to find the open spot. If the corner comes up in Cover 2 zone he will push to 6, turn inside, and work inside to the next zone hole.
If the corner is off and he turns and there is a flat defender inside, he just wants to get space from that guy. If that defender hangs the hitch receiver will drift away from him at his 5-6 yard depth as an outlet for the QB.
If the flat defender flies out to cover him he will break inside this player. We'd like him to actually climb over this flat defender because he will better be able to find the zone hole created but if the flat defender hangs back too far he will come inside slightly and settle underneath.
The Divide Route
This is all fairly straightforward stuff that most people do. The point of this article is to talk about adding a bit more of a big-play dimension to theSmash by using the "divide route," which in other coaches terminology may be a "seam read" or a "tube-read." Both the route and the "read" are simple.
The divide route involves a MOFO or MOFC read by the inside receiver. MOFO simply means "middle of the field open," or no deep middle safety. MOFC means "middle of the field closed," or is there a deep middle guy. The nice thing about this read for the "divide route" as opposed to some other contexts is that the route, hence the name, is simply about "dividing" the deep coverage and the receiver has a lot of freedom to find the downfield open grass. It's a deep stretch and it is designed to strike safeties who overplay the smash or simply get out of position.
Obviously the immediate strength of the divide route as shown is that if a two-deep safety to the smash side overplays the route, one can hit the post route for a big play. If you keep the go route on the backside (as diagrammed) and both safeties overplay the Smash side then the "Go" might be open for a big play. The simple reality is that a Cover 2 team really cannot cover this concept effectively.
Against a Cover 3 zone the QB's "peek" is the seam backside. Before the smash part of his progression, he wants to get the F/S moving and hit the seam.
Running the divide to the trips side is even more dangerous. Any team that tries to play Cover 2 to the trips side will struggle mightily. Many defensive coaches instruct their kids to simply check out of Cover 2 against a trips look. Observe that the "divide" principles governing that inside receiver tells him that he will run more of a "skinny" post here inside the Cover 2 safety to break the deep coverage but avoid the safety on the opposite hash. If there is no deep safety the receiver has lots of freedom.
This is because, again, the governing principle of the "divide route" (one reason I like to call it this instead of a "seam-read") is that you can largely just tell the receiver that he has the area between the hashmarks to work to find the deep open vertical grass. A more advanced technique applies if the defense drops super deep so that he cannot effectively "divide" defenders. This will be done by gameplan, but if that is the case we will essentially let him "throttle" down a bit in the voids and the QB will still look to throw it in the open grass, but simply in the open grass in front of those deep dropping safeties.
In any event, see below for how the divide route will work against MOFO and MOFC defenses.
Cover 2:
Cover 3:
Now, what if it is a MOFC defense but that free safety is flying over too much? Well now it's time to be a good Ball Coach and tag the inside receiver on a "middle-read" route. I have previously explained that route here. The similarity with the divide is a post route against MOFO. The difference is a square-in or cross against MOFC. So if that free safety flies over, he will cut inside that guy. Observe that this is the exact same principle we used for that outside hitch receiver.
Backside hitch
Here is a last aspect to the play that I am a big fan of. I think the play is very effective if you keep the backside player on a hitch, particularly in trips. This gives you a great look against any soft coverage. When you do this you ask your QB to be a ball player and get the ball to the backside receiver if the defense gives it. (In other words, it's probably soft Cover 3.) If it's not there he looks over to the smash side and works his normal progression: Peek at the divide route, then work the smash combination.
Conclusion
This is a simple, well designed play that is both a ball-control, high percentage play, but with the divide route and the corner route it has great big-play potential. If the defense plays soft you will take what they give you, but if they play any kind of two-deep or if their safety gets out of position you will make them pay.
Tuesday 8 January 2008
Wide Headbands
Over the years I've always had these on and off phases with wide headbands. Personally they are quite flattering for me and I've always loved them. But they never really served much practical purposes i.e. keep fringe off face (not if I want it to be flattering anyway). And so after a while, I just end up just giving up on them (I had a fabulous black textured print one from Claires).
Well this season, my obsession with them is back. It first entered my mind early this season when I went to Burberry and tried on these red patent quilted ones (very similar to the ones above left), which looked SOOO nice on me! Then the other day I saw my friend wearing a similar red patent headband from Miu Miu (with different details), which looked soo fab on her! And of course, I've also been steadily influenced by Blair's preppy and trendy use of headbands all season on Gossip Girl.
Now I really want a shiny bold colored headband to accesorize with this season. I have black hair so red (like Blair's above) would look great. I definitely want a patent one like the pink one above (right) from Miu Miu, except in red. Though come to think of it, one of my friend has this beautiful purple shiny satin wide headband from Barneys (similar to the brown one above left: Jennifer Ouellette) that she's been wearing for a while that looks gorgeous with her dark hair.... so many choices!
I guess at the end of the day the most important thing with bold wide headbands is that it matches with the rest of your outfit. Note how all her headband goes so well with the rest of her outfits. I especially love the white headband with the rest of her outfit (right) where there are white accents!
The turban styled headbands are also a good twist to the usual headbands. I am in LOVE with these turban headbands from Jennifer Ouellette (left) and Rachel Pally (right). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I think the Rachel Pally headband at $38 (not on sale) is a bargain and I'd totally get it if they had it in red. Except they have it only in dark blue, dove (white) and black and I'll have to think about that. I just love the side twist thing!
Some easy colored wide headbands to go with your wardrobe from Claires (above). The trick to not making them look like its cheap I think is texture (if its shiny and plastic) and a clean cut (if its fabric print).
For something fancier I am loving these two from Miu Miu (left) and By Malene Birger (right). Normally I'd discard them at a glance thinking they are tacky and toy-like. But having been inspired by Blair, I think with the right elegant simple outfit, these would be the perfect accessory. And just imagine how gorgeous that blue would look contrasting against dark hair!
So far I got a kind of shiny wide bronze headband similar to the satin brown one from Jennifer Oullette (third one down), except the quality isn't as good since its only $10 as opposed to $50... but the effect is close. Now if only I can get my hands on a purple satin one and a patent red one...and I definitely don't mind a jeweled one (though I guess its not necessary)...... then my headband collection would be complete :)
Image Source: CW TV, Barneys, Net a Porter, Bloomingdales, Shopbop and Claires
Well this season, my obsession with them is back. It first entered my mind early this season when I went to Burberry and tried on these red patent quilted ones (very similar to the ones above left), which looked SOOO nice on me! Then the other day I saw my friend wearing a similar red patent headband from Miu Miu (with different details), which looked soo fab on her! And of course, I've also been steadily influenced by Blair's preppy and trendy use of headbands all season on Gossip Girl.
Now I really want a shiny bold colored headband to accesorize with this season. I have black hair so red (like Blair's above) would look great. I definitely want a patent one like the pink one above (right) from Miu Miu, except in red. Though come to think of it, one of my friend has this beautiful purple shiny satin wide headband from Barneys (similar to the brown one above left: Jennifer Ouellette) that she's been wearing for a while that looks gorgeous with her dark hair.... so many choices!
I guess at the end of the day the most important thing with bold wide headbands is that it matches with the rest of your outfit. Note how all her headband goes so well with the rest of her outfits. I especially love the white headband with the rest of her outfit (right) where there are white accents!
The turban styled headbands are also a good twist to the usual headbands. I am in LOVE with these turban headbands from Jennifer Ouellette (left) and Rachel Pally (right). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I think the Rachel Pally headband at $38 (not on sale) is a bargain and I'd totally get it if they had it in red. Except they have it only in dark blue, dove (white) and black and I'll have to think about that. I just love the side twist thing!
Some easy colored wide headbands to go with your wardrobe from Claires (above). The trick to not making them look like its cheap I think is texture (if its shiny and plastic) and a clean cut (if its fabric print).
For something fancier I am loving these two from Miu Miu (left) and By Malene Birger (right). Normally I'd discard them at a glance thinking they are tacky and toy-like. But having been inspired by Blair, I think with the right elegant simple outfit, these would be the perfect accessory. And just imagine how gorgeous that blue would look contrasting against dark hair!So far I got a kind of shiny wide bronze headband similar to the satin brown one from Jennifer Oullette (third one down), except the quality isn't as good since its only $10 as opposed to $50... but the effect is close. Now if only I can get my hands on a purple satin one and a patent red one...and I definitely don't mind a jeweled one (though I guess its not necessary)...... then my headband collection would be complete :)
Image Source: CW TV, Barneys, Net a Porter, Bloomingdales, Shopbop and Claires
Monday 7 January 2008
The Balenciaga Blazers Lookalikes
Hey people, happy new year! We have finally updated the About Us section, so check it out when you have time. Anyways, BG and I love blazers so I simply cannot resist talking about the Balenciaga blazers.
The Balenciaga blazers were the IT items of the FW season. Vogue.co.uk even reported that a woman who was not on the wait-list refused to leave until she was sold one (-crazy much?) It costed 1295 pounds btw. Obviously, the high street stores very quickly started producing lookalikes too. Here a few that I found: (Most of them are from last year so they might not be in stores anymore.)
Zara came out with a super lookalike blazer. So alike infact, that it had to be pulled out of stores after selling it for a short while. It's supposedly the one Blair is wearing in this picture.
This stripe blazer by Top Shop is a pretty good copy too, isn't it? Very cool schoolgirl looking.
More recently, Top Shop came out with this moleskin jacket. This one looks just a bit more classic and less like its part of a schoolgirl outfit, so much more suitable for those aged over say, 22.
Urban Outfitters has always had blazers in their FW Lux collections so it's hard to say whether these are particularly Balenciaga-inspired. Adopting the details from the Balenciaga blazers might sound more correct. Plus UO tends to sell younger and more casual clothes than Zara, so the lookalike factor might be lower, making it less of a trendy item and more long-lasting.
The solid colours of these blazers comehow remind me of the pink Balenciaga one. But it could just be my imagination.
Then there are the blazers where the outer edges are lined with a thick, solid line. Also by Urban Outfitters. Blazers always manage to make a casual outfit look way cooler and structured, don't they?
Has anyone been wearing this trend this season?
Image Credits: www.vogue.co.uk, www.urbanoutfitters.com, www.topshop.com, www.instyle.com
The Balenciaga blazers were the IT items of the FW season. Vogue.co.uk even reported that a woman who was not on the wait-list refused to leave until she was sold one (-crazy much?) It costed 1295 pounds btw. Obviously, the high street stores very quickly started producing lookalikes too. Here a few that I found: (Most of them are from last year so they might not be in stores anymore.)Zara came out with a super lookalike blazer. So alike infact, that it had to be pulled out of stores after selling it for a short while. It's supposedly the one Blair is wearing in this picture.This stripe blazer by Top Shop is a pretty good copy too, isn't it? Very cool schoolgirl looking.More recently, Top Shop came out with this moleskin jacket. This one looks just a bit more classic and less like its part of a schoolgirl outfit, so much more suitable for those aged over say, 22.Urban Outfitters has always had blazers in their FW Lux collections so it's hard to say whether these are particularly Balenciaga-inspired. Adopting the details from the Balenciaga blazers might sound more correct. Plus UO tends to sell younger and more casual clothes than Zara, so the lookalike factor might be lower, making it less of a trendy item and more long-lasting. The solid colours of these blazers comehow remind me of the pink Balenciaga one. But it could just be my imagination.Then there are the blazers where the outer edges are lined with a thick, solid line. Also by Urban Outfitters. Blazers always manage to make a casual outfit look way cooler and structured, don't they?Has anyone been wearing this trend this season?
Image Credits: www.vogue.co.uk, www.urbanoutfitters.com, www.topshop.com, www.instyle.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
