Department store angst

The Bloomingdales’ catalog, of which they send about one a week, beckoned with cute cashmere sweaters, and I was freezing in my office during a freak August cold snap in NY. Armed with the catalog, I ventured into the store (I hadn’t been in at least 5 years). After asking 3 saleswomen where these sweaters were, I ended up in the Juniors, 2nd floor. (Well, the sweaters were trendy.) I decided they weren’t me, with their empire waistlines and smocking. Made me feel even more like a petite than I am (5’4″). Bloomies has a more spacious layout than Macy’s or Lord & Taylor, but their prices are less bargain-hunter-friendly, and both their clothing and shoe selections can best be described as idiosyncratic and narrow. Two of the saleswomen ignored me until I spoke up twice. And the store is majorly disorienting. I may not be back for another 5 years, or ever.

Contrast this with Lord & Taylor and Ann Taylor. Why are they two of my favorites? L&T has given me courteous, old-school service and I got great buys on their cashmere last year. I am a loyal AT customer because many of their pants have a very forgiving cut, they use great fabrics and colors, and they send me coupons, which I usually find a way to use. Last month at Ann Taylor Loft, I dropped $200 but with my 20% off coupon, saved $50, and got two tops, a pair of cropped pants, and a cute denim suit, all of which are office-worthy.

Stores, take note: you build customer loyalty by offering your customers something extra, by carrying their size, and by not insulting their intelligence with ridiculous trendy crap. Ann Taylor has sent me their latest coupon, with a handwritten invitation to set up an appointment with a personal shopper. I even remember the saleswoman who helped me pick out clothes at that store. I hadn’t experienced that level of service in a long time, and you can bet I’ll be setting up that appointment soon.

Summer Skirt Primer

A coworker complimenting me on my vintage skirt–cotton with scencs of Morocco in shades of burnt orange, brown, and yellow on a mustard-yellow background–mentioned that there was a French term for these: Toile de Jouy. I call them “picture skirts.” According to wikipedia, “Toile de Jouy originated in France in the 1800s. In the French language, the phrase literally means “cloth from Jouy-en-Josas”, a town of north-central France. Although it has been continuously produced since then, it experienced a marked upsurge in popularity around the year 2000. Previously only a decorating design, designers have been recently experimenting with toile-patterned apparel as well.” I see these skirts mostly in the summer, and I think they are great. They seem to be more popular than ever this summer in New York, when the heat and humidity can skyrocket. You can wear these elegant little numbers with a blouse or camisole and feel cool and breezy without sacrificing modesty. (Mine comes down almost to my ankles.)

Another great summer skirt in my collection is this brilliant invention I snapped up at some off-brand boutique on lower Broadway last year. It’s simply two long layers of very light, black cotton (voile, I think) with a stretchy wide waistband of spandex. I can pull this on, on even my most bloated days and still feel elegant. And it goes with absolutely everything. Plus, with the two layers of fabric–no slip required!

My new gored ivory linen number, I’m wearing not so much.

The long and short of it

OK, so I buy one of those modern-cut blouses with the three-quarter sleeves and shorter, slightly flared body. Then I buy a pair of those pants that say they fit “slightly below the waist.” I try to wear the blouse and pants together and…how the heck do I keep the blouse tucked in?! I want to wear them to work, together, and the “untucked” look is about as acceptable in my office as a “Free Paris!” t-shirt. My answer: get the blouse in a regular Misses’ size and not Petite. that way I have the option of tucking it in, or not. This worked out well with the Land’s End stretch jeans and blouse I recently ordered. But really…what are manufacturers thinking? Practicality does not seem to be at the top of their priority list! I just hope and pray for the end of this low-slung pants trend (“at the waist,” “slightly below the waist,” …geez–as if buying pants that fit weren’t confusing enough already!).

Flats are back, and thank God!

I get an email newsletter called JC Report, and here’s what they had to say about shoes:
“The ongoing success of the sky-high platform, an authentic mainstay over the last few seasons, is a case in point. Assertive and dramatic, platforms marry bold design, attention-grabbing appearance, and show-stopping absurdity all in one sturdy piece. While they may be highly impractical, they definitely make a statement. They’re to the silhouette what an exclamation mark is to a sentence. Can anyone walk in them? Hardly. Nevertheless, they work visual wonders, and in this hyper-fast era of the all-encompassing image, that’s all that counts.”
Does anyone else agree that this sounds ridiculous? I had a perfectly wonderful spree at the one Naturalizer store in Manhattan last Friday. Bought a pair each of sandals (black, flat, strappy and with a suede footbed–very comfy) and pumps (pointy-toe style but with a modest kitten heel and tan leather “basketweave” pattern–good neutral shoe for the office with suits) and ordered the sandals in brown, which they didn’t have in the store. Very busy place but one of the few stores that carries my width (Narrow) with any consistency. I would order online but their sizes vary with the styles–sometimes a Medium width fits me–so a physical try-on is requisite.
Shoe companies, take note: because Naturalizer took the trouble to mail me a brochure, I was able to see their offerings for Spring and get an idea of whether it would be worth my time to check out the store, which is usually understaffed, so I have to budget at least 45 mins. there for my hunt. And the 20% off coupon at the back didn’t hurt, either. I got 3 pairs of shoes for what I might pay for 1 pair somewhere else. Sure, lots of department stores send me catalogues, but most of the shoes they feature are impractical and pricey. And poring through Web pages is pointless–most of the photos are so small I can’t see the styles.

Shoes: What’s your take?

Here’s mine:

WRONG: Pinchy, torturous pumps and boots with toothpick heels. (Yo, I live in New York! Ever try to walk over a subway grate in those?)

RIGHT: The Ellen DeGeneres look: Converse basketball shoes with classy suits. A long stride is sexy!

So, kittenish and girly or funky/industrial? Discuss!

Burkhas: the next fashion trend?

I saw a woman in a burkha today. Depressing sight–head-to-toe wrinkled fabric as she waddled through the subway underpass, looking sort of like the over-bundled younger brother in “A Christmas Story”. But a couple of years ago, I saw another burkha-clad woman on the train. She appeared totally at ease in her ensemble, which was made of luxurious, flowing fabric, an alluringly sheer veil, and velvety gloves that had some kind of iridescence to them. Could it be the next frontier of fashion–the designer burkha?

BTW, the article under Links about Oprah’s South African School is by Robin Givhan, a Washington Post op-ed columnist who writes very thoughtful and thought-provoking pieces on fashion and its sociopolitical implications. Need to register (free) to view the entire thing.

Global Warming Sucks!

It got up to 70 degrees here in New York on Saturday, Jan. 6. Can I say I’m really steamed (pun intended) that I haven’t used one pair of my many wool socks this “winter”? And that I’ve had to press my spring raincoats back into service after having cleaned and garment-bagged them? Who will reimburse me for my expensive wool sweaters and pants that have been largely hanging in my closet this whole season? I bought my significant other snow boots for Christmas–will he ever have occasion to use them? The smiling local weather folk are showing clips of people jogging shirtless/in shorts through Central Park. Bush is in Washington probably smugly taking credit for saving people $$$ on heating fuel. All I want is SNOW!

(Meanwhile, the department stores, in their usual cluelessness, are ironically right on target wtih resort wear and early spring offerings.)

WINNERS & LOSERS OF 2006

Yes, at year’s end it’s time to review the WINNERS & LOSERS OF 2006:

WINNERS:
Catalogs: thank you LL Bean, Land’s End, JJill, Eddie Bauer. You make reasonably priced clothes of good quality, in my size. And you send coupons!

Stores: Ann Taylor. Great career clothes that don’t condescend just because I’m 5’4. Classic lines, forgiving slacks (if you get the right cut) and nice fabrics. A bit pricey but they have great sales. Cole-Haan: I cringe every time I hand over my credit card–but their shoes are worth it. Durable and stylish, with enough support, and beautiful, buttery-soft leather.

Manufacturers: Bali & Flexees shapewear. They’re really coming a long way toward making tummy controls that don’t feel like “Girdles.”

LOSERS:
Catalogs: Wissota Traders. Their shoes look practical but I tried ordering rain ankle boots in a “Narrow” width. Narrow for who–an elephant??!!

Stores: most department stores. I was looking for twinsets this holiday–you know, the matching sweaters with the sleeveless or short-sleeve tops underneath? Nowhere to be found. Have you noticed that when one store pulls a style off their racks, the rest follow suit? This copycat mentality has got to stop!

An open letter to the shoe manufacturers

Thank you for making such hideous, impractical styles over the past 5 years! First it was mules, or “slides” as you like to call them now. Then it was the pointy-toe, dominatrix look. I can’t wear either style: they fall off my narrow foot and offer no support, or pinch my toes. I now have arthritis in my feet, among other places. You must be making podiatrists very happy! As for myself, I can’t thank you enough. I’ve saved lots of money repairing my old shoes and skipping the stilettos and skimpy strips of leather attached to soles you’ve been charging $140 for—what basically amounts to half a shoe.
Sincerely, K.P.