Does anyone else wonder what’s going through the minds of the Lucky Magazine editors when they’re putting together their magazine? Are Mary Kate and Ashley managing this publication? I buy one every once in a while hoping they’ve smartened up, but I get burned every time. What’s the saying?
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
SHAME ON ME!! I wish I could find the last issue that I bought. Everything was straight out of the 80s (Lucky editors, it’s ’08 not ’80). Now, when I look back at pictures of me (and anyone else for that matter) in the 80s I cringe. Why would I want to go through that again?
The editors of Lucky should have their fashions critiqued by the Project Runway judges. I’d PAY to be there for that one. Michael Kors (in that snotty tone he has, although I love it): “What were you thinking? It looks like you rummaged through a small town flea market and pulled together the first five things you found.” Nina Garcia (with that blase attitude and accent): “I don’t understand it. We did this twenty years ago at Elle. It’s so old, nothing new about it.” Heidi (in another awesome accent): yeah, you bored us. You’re Out. Auf Wiedersehen.”
Or is it that I’m really getting that old? Is this kind of fashion appealing to the younger crowd? Big baggy clothes that don’t match? I swear they told one model to get dressed in the dark. Poor model. Poor editors. They will all look back in the not so distant future and wince at what they were trying to pass off as fashionable. The day I see Gwyneth Paltrow wearing any of that
crap clothing I’ll call it stylish. No, on second thought, I’ll wonder what drug she’s on. Below is the pic I’m talking about (I finally found my magazine).
They title the outfit: “Modern Preppy.” She’s got on a blue and white striped turtleneck. Then they decided to add a blue sheer frilly blouse. Then they decided to add a preppy jacket/blazer with a crest on it. AND SHE’S WEARING TIGHT, ANKLE-LENGTH STONEWAHSED JEANS!!! What!?!?!? As if that’s not enough she’s got patterned tights with brown shoes.Can she even move in all that?
Next up for your commiseration:
SLEEK???? She looks like Laura Ingalls Wilder with piles of clothes on. And the boots chop her legs in half with the skirt being so long. This blue blouse is the same one they layered on preppy girl above. I do see the Olsen twins wearing this though.
Ok, I just can’t stop. Now that I actually have the mag to search through.
Notice the title of this one: The Next BIG Things. A WHITE SHORTS JUMPSUIT?!?! Ladies, this NASCAR chic outfit will set you back $380. I wish they would have shown us what shoes they decided to pair this gem with.
And last, but certainly not least:
Not to be outdone by NASCAR chic is Anorexic chic. The goal here ladies is to make things as baggy as possible so people don’t know how skinny you are. Who does that actually work for other than girls in the fashion industry? Notice what they called this: “Fit Clinic” “This loose and slouchy piece has an effortless cool–as long as it hits you in the right spots.” Please tell me in what spots this dress is hitting this girl. And ladies, for this you will set yourself back $328. No groceries for a couple of weeks, but you still get the brown bag!
Maybe the next time I go shopping in New York, wearing normal clothes from the present decade, I’ll get stopped by Stacy and Clinton and be given $5000 to do some serious shopping. Stacy, Clinton, I’m your woman apparently.
Here’s another saying that’s apropos for the editors:
Styles change, style doesn’t.
One thought on “Lucky’s Not So Lucky”
You are so right on with this magazine! I would look through it and find not one thing appealing. I’ll stick with my Instyle..where I can’t afford anything they show but at least you can tell it came from this year and not 20 years ago!