Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind and I genuinely like some designer pieces, but I confess I don’t understand a lot of label-obvious pieces, like a sweatshirt that says “GIVENCHY,” or a tote that has the two huge Chanel interlocking Cs.

I think that Van Cleef Alhambra earrings are objectively pretty, for example, even though they are obviously from a designer label. Whereas interlocking Chanel C earrings just…aren’t beautiful. I enjoy beauty for beauty’s sake, whether it is a Tiffany silver cuff or a no-name silver cuff.

A lot of times I wonder, why the label and not just something pretty? Who is impressed by a sweatshirt or a baseball cap that has a designer logo?

You "don't understand"? Or you are contemptuous of it? I doubt you truly "don't understand" the appeal of a Givenchy sweatshirt. You just feel the need to put yourself above it.

I truly…don’t understand why people think a GIVENCHY sweatshirt is a flex. I get why a Birkin is a flex. I get that a luxury car is a flex. I truly don’t understand a designer sweatshirt. Because it’s not a flex even though it is apparently intended to be?

Ok. So here you are proving that you fully understand why people wear sweatshirts with a designer name on them, and also proving that you just want to emphasize how you know "it's not a flex" whereas they "apparently intended it to be"?

You probably shop at Talbot's and are all "why do people wear GIVENCHY sweatshirts?? I don't get it?? Blah, blah, blah." Go wander off to Chico's, lol.

Gee, I wonder who has designer sweatshirts and baseball caps and is just now figuring out they’re not landing as intended? Defensive much! LOL. If you want to look like a Real Housewife versus those of us who actually know and invest in quality and style, by all means.

PP here. I have zero "designer sweatshirts" and have never worn baseball caps. Not at all defensive. Just calling it. But I knew you were shopping at Talbot's. Hilarious. Go on with your bad self and your "quality and style." We can all picture it, I assure you.

I’m the other poster who doesn’t understand…I can assure you I would never shop at Talbots or Chico’s. I bought my favorite leggings from TEMU, 5 pairs for $20! I still look fine because I have very long legs and a naturally lithe figure, but I rarely wear makeup and have never colored my hair. I would look absurd in a fancy sweatshirt.

I don’t give much thought to my looks. I haven’t worn a real bra since COVID, I only have a few Amazon sports bras to my name. I don’t care what other people do, but I don’t think someone whose hobby is shopping or who cares about that kind of stuff is likely to want to be friends with me. I’m more the boho outdoorsy nerd type.

I am not one of the glossy impeccable types being discussed here, but as gently as I can I’d like to suggest that boho is more than unkempt hair, and Temu leggings + Amazon sports bras as dailywear is pretty antithetical to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t mind and I genuinely like some designer pieces, but I confess I don’t understand a lot of label-obvious pieces, like a sweatshirt that says “GIVENCHY,” or a tote that has the two huge Chanel interlocking Cs.

I think that Van Cleef Alhambra earrings are objectively pretty, for example, even though they are obviously from a designer label. Whereas interlocking Chanel C earrings just…aren’t beautiful. I enjoy beauty for beauty’s sake, whether it is a Tiffany silver cuff or a no-name silver cuff.

A lot of times I wonder, why the label and not just something pretty? Who is impressed by a sweatshirt or a baseball cap that has a designer logo?

I’ve been rewatching old episodes of the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and I’m dying at your description because that’s exactly how Dorit dresses and one of the reasons I’ve always disliked her.

You hit the nail on the head: it’s a very Real Housewives way to dress—especially if the pieces in question are obvious fakes (I’m looking at you, Potomac).

You know the old advice to “take something off before you leave the house”? How about we update it to be “take something off if a Real Housewife would wear it.”

Haha this reminds me of an older episode of RHOBH where Erica wore just a gigantic baggy t-shirt with some boots to somebody’s fancy party and was indignant that the host seemed kind of offended, because the t-shirt “was really, really expensive” and that alone therefore made it appropriate for the occasion

Anonymous wrote:Everyone implicitly understands that humans make choices about their appearance to convey who they are and where they belong, and that other humans notice and form judgements. I don't know why anyone is particularly offended about this on behalf of rich, basic ladies. They're doing fine!

Hmm—NP but I feel like you’re helping me put my finger on it! I think the lack of originality combined with the wealth makes some people resentful because they feel that the wealth, nice life etc is unearned or undeserved, especially because we’ve always been told that our culture values individuality.

I also think women are disproportionately targets for this kind of criticism. The types of insults that often accompany these judgments are words primarily used to describe women (eg “vapid” “gold-digger” “cliquey”), even though there are tons of brand-conscious men who lack personal depth, spend a lot of money to play it safe, or who aren’t likely to be friendly to people who are very different to them etc. No one then infantilizes such men by concluding that they are therefore immature or sad for not knowing better at their age. Even the pronouncement that dressing this way isn’t “nice” because it’s exclusive, or people chiming in to defend women they know like this as “actually some of the nicest I know” shows the extra scrutiny and standards women are held to when it comes to our appearance. No wonder so many of us spend so much time on it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spinoff from this thread in Beauty and Fashion.

TL/DR - A woman is miffed that her recently laid off cousin showed up at Thanksgiving looking nice. Too nice. She cites the woman's Cartier Love bracelet and VCA necklace as evidence that the cousin was obnoxiously "dripping" in designer goods. Posters rightly pointed out that the woman only had a few designer items on and OP likely only noticed them because she was jealous and wanted them herself. Shockingly, OP has not returned. (https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1242233.page)

But here's what I'm really curious about. Someone posted this:

This may be an unpopular opinion but I like basic rich suburban mom style. It’s not me but give me a highlighted hair, nails done, lulu wearing soccer mom with Cartier bangles and a van cleef arpel necklace any day. You know it’s not unique and you don’t feel like you need to prove you are interesting with what you are wearing. I say, get it girl. Grab your neverfull and pick up those kiddos from soccer practice.

Why does DCUM hate this woman so much? I think the whole "I prefer a WASPier aesthetic" thing is just pretext. Because she's happy to lean in to conventional design aesthetics? Is it because this woman is competition for higher value men? I just don't get it.

Dcum women hate this but men love it

Looks like the ex wife

DC food celeb Pati Jinich, who no doubt grew up rich and married rich, wears all these trappings — the Cartier watch and love bracelet, the Van Cleef Alhambra earrings and necklace.

I think only one PP mentioned the idea that many of these things (esp the jewelry) are gifts — given by parents when younger, and then likely husbands when married. When I see these jewelry items on a woman, the impression I get is that she’s *well taken care of* and has a high-earning and generous parent/boyfriend/spouse. Not that she couldn’t or doesn’t make her own big salary. It’s just that I feel they are usually gifts. High-earning women probably don’t want to spend (waste) their money on a bangle costing over $10k (bags seem a different story), but they are happy to receive them as a gift, especially when all their friends’ have them and likely their good-provider husbands have expressed *their* love for their spouses with the same generous gifts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think women dress like this to signal style and sophistication. They dress like this to signal something; in upper middle class suburbia a lot of safe boring moms adhere to these particular labels and items to visual communicate that they are a. well to do b. aware of the trends and c. fit in.

This look says I am rich and have the disposable income to buy a few select designer items. I am not middle class, I am above middle class. The lulus say, a. I am fit and have the resources and time to devote to my thinness and b. I am rich so I don't mind spending $120 on luxury workout wear. The expensive processed hair says I am rich enough to afford maintenance of this type of hair.

This look does not signal style or taste; it an attempt at signaling wealth in UMC suburbia

Bingo. It's all about this.
If you have a gay male friend you'll get the unvarnished truth. A coworker said to me "I can tell by the way you talk that you grew up with money, but I can tell by the way you dress that you don't have any now. You wear cheap shoes and no jewelry." WOW THANKS!

Ha! I grew up rich and am rich now. However, I’m not that materialistic and although I like relatively nice things, it’s to a point. I buy Lululemon and highlight my hair because I like the way Lululemon clothes look and they’re comfortable, and I like the way my hair looks highlighted. One of the earlier posters hit the nail on the head when they basically said some women do these things because they are easy. Yes I’m sure if I spend hours researching different brandsand clothing items I could buy more original clothes that I would like just as much, but who has the time? I spend five minutes and buy a bunch of stuff online from Lululemon and that’s that. I am not an artsy person nor into fashion, and the idea of looking “unique” doesn’t really have a meaning to me. I’m not trying to fit in by wearing LL, but everyone has to wear clothes so…

Yes I have the time and money to stay in shape and be healthy. I do not work out to prove to people that I have the time and money to do it. Isn’t being healthy a good thing? Both of my parents had cancer in their early 50s and I am 50 now. Staying healthy is not all about vanity.

I have some cheap shoes and some mid price shoes. I don’t usually buy expensive shoes because… I don’t know I just don’t. I don’t wear jewelry because I don’t like the way it feels, probably a sensory thing. Do you think people look at me and think I am poor?

No way am I doing these things to convince people I’m rich. But I am rich. It is what it is. Not everyone bases their actions on what other people think. Some people just do what they want.

Actually, I was prepared to be less desirable to men in middle age but what has shocked me is how much less I desire men. I think most of them are whiny babies. So if I were one, I wouldn’t want to date me either! I would want to date someone who likes me.