STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

ILoveChoo · Hermes

Lucky

Kincali · Dooney & Bourke

I just picked up January with Mena Suvari, and the December issue has Anne Hathaway on the cover

MissMee · Kate Spade

I got January yesterday, and Mena Suvari is on it and is very thin and wimpy. The last one had Anne Hathaway on the cover and was really thick. I actually thought it was Penelope Cruz when I saw the cover at first.

rosie_the_riveter · Gucci

fairlight wrote:

I just picked up January with Mena Suvari, and the December issue has Anne Hathaway on the cover

yup, I second this

theotherjess · Chanel

Anne Hathaway was on the December and Mena Suvari (sp?) was on the January. If I were you I wouldn't bother getting the January issue. December was okay but the January was sooo skimpy and there really wasn't anything spectacular in it (at least anything I could afford).

ILoveChoo · Hermes

OK, I got Decembers then...it was just a really long time ago. Seemed like I hadn't gotten a mag in a while so I was wondering what was up with that.

Jess- I have a subscription. I don't think I'd buy it off the stand anymore unless I had a plane ride or something. It's not nearly as good as it used to be...

rocky · Coach

I have a subscription too, and I have not gotten mine yet either, grrr

atlgirl · Gucci

January mags are typically very skimpy, especially after we all get sort of spoiled by the big fall versions. My Jan (Mena) just came in the mail today, so I can't make a recommendation one way or the other. Though I was *under*whelmed by the Dec. issue...

NCshopper · Hermes

I got my January one the other day, and even though it's thin, it has some cute stuff in it. Not too bad. The beauty section isn't as big as usual, so that's good.

I think we should all bombard Lucky with e-mails and letters and whatnot and get them to take out the beauty section. I just feel like I can get all that info elsewhere and that's not the reason I subscribe to Lucky. I want to see outfits and fashion. No beauty.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

zeitgeist4 · Gucci

MissMee wrote:

I actually thought it was Penelope Cruz when I saw the cover at first.

It's funny that you say that, because I always give my mom a pop quiz (cover up name, "guess who this is, mom") on the Lucky covers, and she thought it was Penelope too. I try to keep my mom up on the current actors/showbiz people.

I always seem to receive my Lucky mag a good two weeks after you guys do, and it's not like I live in a hick town! Maybe it ships from the East Coast?

Cortney1982 · Chanel

It is skimpy, but doesn't have a third of the ads of December's. I thought there was a lot of cute stuff in it. I really really like the purple sleevless sweater thingy on page 42. So cute, and it's only $68! Plus I also want the white cotton Tommy vest on page 49. It would get lots of spring and summer wearing and very affordable for $49.

And of course, there is a lot of not so cute to repulsive items...

I especially disliked Hope Greenberg's mod style stuff. The only thing cute on page 32 is the necklace. And that dress she is wearing looks bad. It would be better if it didn't have the sqaure on the tummy.

On page 47...those huge pants. They are just too big, it makes me sick to look at it.

The dress on page 86. He he! Wouldn't work around here.

-- Edited by Cortney1982 at 23:19, 2005-12-13

mikacat · Coach

if i were you, i would just flip throw Lucky january in the grocery line or something--you only need about 15 minutes with it.

Elle · Hermes

Even though it's quite thin, I really liked alot of stuff in the Jan issue. It's way expensive as usual, and there were still a few things that inspired a "WTF were they thinking?" moment, but overall I thought it was the best they've done in awhile. I'd rather it be small and good than huge and completely hideous.

MissMee · Kate Spade

There were actually some affordable things in these issues in some of the "what I want now" and the trends for spring sections. Then there were those disgusting cashmere leggings. I wouldn't spend $320 on anything that will accentuate all the lumps and bumps I don't want people to see (or anything I'd wear for one season. period.). A $290 slip. $120 panties.$275 slip dress. That horrid grandma tunic by Belle & Bunty on p. 39 for $391. The gun motif stuff....all of it. I could go on and on. I wasn't aware that Lucky was going to be targeting the ladies in the penthouses of Manhattan or the gated homes of Beverly Hills. Isn't that what Elle and Vogue are for?

atlgirl · Gucci

OMG missmee, I nearly choked when I saw the gun stuff! WTF? At least they put the disclaimer out there (in Kim France's page) that they don't know if their predictions will be "what everyone wants". I would say they certainly were NOT, for me at least. Leather hoodie? Cherry charm on a cord? Um...I don't think so.

I did like the knit skirts they showed (p. 37, I think) and some of the stuff Mena wore, but overall I didn't dog-ear much in this issue. I was glad to see that the beauty section seemd a bit smaller this time though.

mikacat · Coach

miss mee- the gun stuff was awful.

even though, i would like to go to a shooting range. i heard it is fun.

rlutz · Chanel

i just got the issue yesterday....not that impressed with it...

MissMee · Kate Spade

mikacat - shooting ranges are fun, but who puts gun paraphenalia around their house? Rednecks and loners in forest shacks aside......... Wonder if any of the Lucky ladies actually believe in guns and the right to bear arms or if they just think that guns are cute little play things? I'm thinking the latter. Hell, they're all probably anti-gun lobbyists thinking they're so hip and cool and on top of things. Feh.