No, not the toffs again.

You could think of this as an addendum to my post this week, ‘How to dress appropriately.’ It’s clear that quite a lot of women need some guidance here. Probably quite a lot of men too, but this is about the recent shenanigans at the latest Paris women’s fashion extravaganza.

Rarely is so much bollocks talked/written as that produced by fashion writers/editors. When all is said and done, a dress is a dress. Here’s a classic piece of tosh about the Chanel collection.

‘Karl Lagerfeld knows his client’s life of morning to night glamour well, which is why there was a feeling of wearability to his show.’

Is it just me, or is being wearable something that clothes really should have in spades? Wearing is what we do with clothes. But wait! The best is yet to come.

‘You could sport that skirt with a cashmere knit, though if your life is about Rolls-Royce and Ruinart, why bother?’

Is that even English? I’m not sure. But there’s a palpable sense of snobbery about that load of twaddle.

The real ‘WTF?’ moments come when you read a bit of the technical background. Take this about a Valentino creation.

‘This organza and tulle concoction took six seamstresses 60 days.’

That’s the sort of outlandish extravagance you might expect from that mad old bat Cixi, the dowager empress in China in the late 1800s/early 1900s. Her bloody exploitation of the proles can be linked to the seeds of the revolution. In the stratospheric world of fashion, this behaviour is regarded as not deranged at all.

Another quote now. What does this mean? Anybody like to hazard a guess?

‘… Christian Dior did – or rather undid – something different this season. Undoneness was in the mood in a collection by a studio minus a head designer… This off the shoulder pinafore summed up the deshabillé*, almost real-world feel.’

I’m dubious about the use of the term ‘real-world,’ but I’m not sure because I don’t really understand the context.

Now the real ‘WTF?’ suckerpunch. You’ll no doubt have a sneaking suspicion that clothing produced under conditions a feudal lord might think a bit OTT is not cheap. How not cheap? Take a guess. Go on.

All right, I’ll put you out of your misery.

‘…the bill starts at about £30,000 for the simplest of day dresses.’

I’m not sure anything that costs thirty big ones can be described as ‘simple.’ My first house cost about ¾ of that.

‘An evening dress, which has often taken thousands of hours to make, would set you back £150,000 or more.’

For that, you could buy a brand new , top of the range, Aston Martin Vanquish and still have enough left over for a couple of yearsworth of school fees.

Bear in mind that this all starts again when the winter collections go on show. Apparently one of the biggest markets for Armani Prive is the emerging Chinese oligarchy. Cixi must be so proud of them.

*Yes, I know it’s ‘déshabillé,’ but the fashion editor at The Times apparently doesn’t.

Advertisements