Friday, February 27, 2009

Interesting article...

I found this article on Style Bakery.
It's an ok article, nothing new from my point of view. Only, I'd like to comment on some points.

In the introduction, it says:
A closet brimming with designer handbags and overflowing with shoes is no longer the signature of a stylish woman.

Well, I have never thought that to be stilish you need designer stuff - quite the opposite! I don't think to be elegant and chic you have ever needed to spend a lot of money - if you can, good for you, but if you can't, no need to worry!!!
Elegance is much more than a signature on a dress. It's a way of putting things together, of presenting yourself a certain, unique way, and has to do with personality as much (if not more) as with the clothes you wear!

Anothe one:
7. Think quality, not quantity ... Is it better to spend $200 on 5 cheap but chic shirts you'll wear just for the season, or should you spend that money on a great fitting dress you'll wear for years?

Tatally agree on quality over quantity, but 200$ for 5 shirts means 40$ each on average. That's not cheap on my book! I have several nice shirts I bought from Express 2-3 years ago, less expensive than 40$ each, and I am still wearing them, since I do take good care of them. May be we should re-think what we define "cheap"? I repeat: 40$ for a shirt is not cheap for me!

Done with the rant. I did enjoy the rest of the post, thought!

I put a pic of Audrey Hepburn, because sh'e my favourite chic woman! Yes, Givenchy was making dresses for her, but she was a "natural".


Leah_Leanna said...

I am in total agreement with you. I consider myself fairly stylish, simply because I make do with the price point I am able to purchase and wear it well.

Kelly said...

I *hate* when any media outlet defines "cheap" as something way over my definition of "cheap." Sure, to some of my richer friends, $40 isn't expensive. But I hardly ever spend that much on a top, and I think most of the world is with me.


Related Posts with Thumbnails