Thursday, July 29, 2010
JUST WHEN YOU THINK "JORTS" IS DONE: Somehow, until reading today's NYT review of the newly opened Forever 21 flagship in Times Square (seriously, we lost the Virgin Megastore for this?) I was somehow unaware of the concept of "jeggings," or, more disturbingly, the concept that they are available for men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The hardest thing for me to accept about that article is that the author used the word jeggings without a trace of irony.
ReplyDeleteDoes it just mean really skinny jeans with some stretch in them? Because I've seen those -- just didn't know they were a separate species within the genus.
ReplyDeleteYou lost a Virgin Megastore, we lost a West Elm. In a gorgeous historic building, no less. Grumble.
ReplyDeleteThe entire article was pretty ironic, I thought, and the dig at the massive "JEGGINGS!" sign was pretty clear.
ReplyDeleteI read the irony as "Look at all the little people and their pathetic attempts at fashion, of which there is precious little in this store." The author didn't question the jeggings, but instead the way they were deployed.
ReplyDeleteI believe it's the other way around.
ReplyDeleteDid Forever 21 get a package deal or something? They took over the Virgin space here in Chicago as well.
ReplyDeleteI don't think of it as us losing a Virgin Megastore, Matt, so much as gaining the resultant liquidation clearinghouse around the corner. Every bad purchasing choice that chain ever made is towards the back -- generic box-sets galore!
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, I'm thinking of the VMS that closed down in Union Square -- although the liquidation place is probably getting rid of overstock from there, too.
ReplyDeleteWell, to replace the Union Square one, they've subdivided, and we've gotten a Nordstrom Rack and the new Duane Reade flagship, because what New York really needed? Another Duane Reade.
ReplyDeleteI was just thinking, hey they took ours too!
ReplyDeletethat was me
ReplyDeleteGap is carrying jeggings now. I blame Lindsay Lohan.
ReplyDelete