Meet the Elizabeth and James Candy-Striped Cotton Tunic, originally $265 now on sale at Bloomingdale’s for $127.20.
Applied placket, spread collar, long sleeves with barrel cuffs, boasts the department store advertisement. Which reminds Bossy of something. Something… something… Oh yes, it reminds Bossy of Your Boyfriend’s Shirt you can get for free.
Momo Fali saysJuly 14, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Can’t you just put a belt around the first one and save yourself $260?
Deb saysJuly 14, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Oh, I thought maybe she was doing The Walk of Shame the next morning. At least those shoes are hideous. Maybe it will distract from the fact that she forgot her pants.
teri saysJuly 14, 2010 at 12:36 pm
are the shirts made out of gold? WTH?
Sewmouse saysJuly 14, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Sewmouse has sworn to never, ever, shop at Bloomie’s. They planted one here at the local mall, but Sewmouse does not think Chicago suburban malls need New Yawk stores. Sewmouse is especially unhappy with Macy’s who bought out Marshall Fields (a Chicago landmark and ICON) and renamed all the stores. Sewmouse would like New Yawk to go back east where it belongs.
May Sewmouse suggest that you shop at a Chicago-based store, Sears – (Formerly Sears Roebuck, but somewhere along the line Roebuck got lost) – and buy yourself a nice Arrow shirt for less than $30 ?
Angela saysJuly 14, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Hahaha… I can’t believe they can get away with calling that a dress, AND charging over a hundred dollars for it – ON SALE! She could really use some PANTS!!
The Domestic Goddess saysJuly 14, 2010 at 1:28 pm
BossysMom saysJuly 14, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Don’t blame Bloomingdales, someone is consuming them…just like someone is consuming BP oil bigtime. I’ve started feeling guilty for the oil spill everytime I drive my car.
bossy's friend amy saysJuly 14, 2010 at 2:31 pm
and pairing them with equally fugginugly shoes…
Kate saysJuly 14, 2010 at 6:10 pm
This totally means I’ve been sleeping in a dress every night. **high-fiveing my obviously silent-but-deadly fashion sense**
Suzi saysJuly 14, 2010 at 6:31 pm
I agree with Sewmouse.
KathyB saysJuly 14, 2010 at 6:34 pm
So, does it button on the man’s side or the woman’s side? It used to matter, back when you could “look for the union label” on women’s blouses.
linlah saysJuly 14, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Nice belt, can short people wear that style too?
bossy's friend martha's sister saysJuly 15, 2010 at 6:37 am
My sister… (not Martha… the other one… did you know there is another one?)…. once gave me a night shirt from Brooks Brothers… very nice.. the cotton was amazing… bet it cost only two digits! Would not be caught dead out of the house in it!
apathy lounge saysJuly 15, 2010 at 8:58 am
Accent on the shirt…and not so much on the dress. All I know is that if I showed up wearing that to teach school, I’d be called in for a little conference with the principal. And those shoes? Maybe I’m the only one, but these are BUTT UGLY>
Zak saysJuly 15, 2010 at 10:42 am
The second one reminds me of the nightshirt that Charles Ingalls wore on Little House On The Prairie.
Random, I know, but it’s just what I do.
joeinvegas saysJuly 15, 2010 at 11:35 am
I’d be happy to give Bossy one of my shirts instead.
kay saysJuly 15, 2010 at 11:51 am
Gads. You also have to be built like a pencil to wear it.
I’m more eraser-shaped. The big block pink one.
Niki in Baltimore saysJuly 15, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Are you kidding me?!?!?
$400 for that dress?
I rocked the exact same look at a high school dance in 1988 with a shirt i got from my dad’s closet and a fabulous metal link belt from Claire’s that cost $7; adding in tights and heels that whole ensemble cost $30.
Shame on you, Bloomingdales.
Amber Lee saysJuly 16, 2010 at 1:25 am
I’m so going to start wearing my husband’s shirts with a belt.