the plight of aa.

American Apparel is renowned for a number of things. whether that's for being a blogger favourite - a well publicised brand in this currently rather internet reliant industry, a mainstay in the eyes of communities like chictopia and lookbook.nu; for their somewhat over-sexualised ads or for their somewhat oversexed CEO; or more recently for their ever increasing money problems.

the highly sexualised reputation of both AA and Dov Charney are, mostly, taking the blame for what could be the companies demise, but is that really the cause? I MEAN REALLY? it's not like this is a new development - in the beginning, there was the image. at the height of AA-fever, there was the image. AA is the image. there is no escaping the image.

we are to blame, if anything, that ol' fashion-foe, the economy.

of course, here's some personal experience: i have but one AA item, a moss green tube dress which has rather lost it's elasticity, and cost me 22 of my best british pounds a couple of years ago. good quality, ill give you that. a great basic. a good jersey piece. despite its tendency to slip down now when i wear it as a dress, i keep it in my wardrobe. it makes a good skirt when belted and twisted into some sort of shape. i still like it. but two years later, £22 wouldn't get me much in AA. take, for example, the lace trim cycling shorts.

they've become quite the must-have item, especially for this modesty-concious cyclist, but a pair of (shiny, and therefore not ideal) shorts in the covent garden AA store (oh yes, i've done my research) would've set be back a whopping £28. TWENTY. EIGHT. POUNDS.

FOR SHORTS.

FOR CYCLING SHORTS WHICH WILL BE WORN UNDER THINGS.

FOR, ESSENTIALLY, AN ITEM OF UNDERWEAR.

WHAT?

....you can get similar lace trimmed cycling shorts, in a lovely matt jersey, in H&M for under a fiver. i think it is obvious where one such as myself would rather purchase my shorts.

once could argue that AA have their ethics and USA-produced garments and that's the reason for their high prices, but when one has increasingly high debts and clothes that are approx. 7 times more expensive than your competitors; maybe it's time for a rethink. the hipster vote isn't going to help you now, Dov, no matter how you try to change your image*

---------------

*what with new product lines and such. you may have noticed that AA is no longer merely where spandex goes to die, but also home to sheer loveliness (maxis; blouses; frilly tu-tu affairs) and other gorgeous non-jersey pieces (i really, REALLY like the tailored trousers in store atm); and i will forever be a fan of the huge range of colours available, but alas, AA, i and many like me can't afford most of your wares, and as such, you are doomed. additionally, your sizing is a little mental. i'm 90% sure the aforementioned tube dress I own is a medium. i'm a size 8/10. surely only children fit into the XS size?!?

bikes. and shoes. and velvet.

these Carin Wester wedges have been everywhere.

if you read a number of blogs, anyways.

imgs from pixiemarket

but of course, they cost MANY MONIES.

(also; they are mostly sold out.)

i'll give them this, they look pretty comfy. but the price tag is enough to stop me even considering them. and i'm not a fan of the toe shape.

so then, i went into town yesterday to buy humous from M&S (because it is the best humous ever) and pay a tenner off my topshop bill.

i came back home an hour later with said humous but without having any less to pay off my topshop bill, and with £22.50 less in my bank account. but i did have these shoes.

something a little familiar, non? but a) considerably cheaper and b) with a nicer toe shape. also they had hundreds of pairs in the sale for 25 british pounds-a-piece. (oh, they're from oasis. which happens to be right opposite one of the entrances to eldon square, and has massive sale signs in the window. godammit, i had resisted the sales so far.)

anyway, they are the comfiest shoes i've ever owned (as far as i am, so far, aware) and i stomped around the house in them all afternoon.

for said humous-and-shoe-shopping, i donned some velvet and cycling shorts.

i know what you're thinking. AWang, AW10. but lemme tell you a story, about this dress.

err, i bought in in 2008, at a charity shop. it was long-ish. i shortened it, and wore it for my 20th birthday night out (oh dear god that seems like so long ago), and some times since, and it's one of my favourite dresses despite my disdain for velvet and the lack of purple on my wardrobe. the zip broke late last year and i forgot about until last week, and i fixed the zip and had to wear it posthaste.

it now creates the biggest cleavage ever, yet has a tendency to slip down. i don't care.

as for the cycling shorts, they are PRACTICAL. such things are necessary for cycling in when you were such dresses.

...also they are from H! by House of Holland. and were in the sale.

....oh.

maybe i did get drawn in by the sales.

did i mention they were practical?

it comes to my attention that i've never shared the wonder of Freshy P/The Fresh Prince/my bike with the internet. here he is.

this is turning into a long post about nothing, but ALSO here is a coat that i bought in some charity shop or other recently.

i umm-ed and ahh-ed over it but in the end it's green and a nice shape and has pockets and stuff and i have a weakness for coats and jackets (apparently) so at £7 i had to get it. but i also had to shorten the sleeves - every coat i get gets shuffled up to my elbows. even my fur coat. which swiftly falls back down, but at least i try. a bracelet-length sleeve is much more flattering and the cuffs don't get as dirty/in the way (which they were on the orig length so there's another reason for shortening.)

anyways, here's the new coat.

and finally...

thrifted coat+denim shirt+dress//H&M ring+necklace//claire's accessories leaf ring//vintage short necklaces (??)//

H! by House of Holland cycling shorts//very old shoes whose origin i always forget//primark belt