Splurge Monday’s TPS Report: ‘Mermaid Tweed’ Jacket

Our daily TPS reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices.

‘Mermaid Tweed’ JacketWe love this elegant, summery take on tweed from Nanette Leport.  We love the deep V, the ruffle at the back, and the cuffed sleeves — and we love that color.  It’s $498 at Nordstrom, available in sizes 0-12.  Nanette Lepore ‘Mermaid Tweed’ Jacket

If you’ve recently seen a great work piece you’d like to recommend to the readers, please e-mail [email protected] with “TPS” in the subject line. Unless you ask otherwise, we’ll refer to you by your first initial.

(L-2)

Comments

  1. I love Nanette Lapore’s suiting. This jacket is pretty and versatile. Good pick!

    • Agreed — Nanette Lepore and Trina Turk need to make more suiting.

      That said, the fish tail is inappropriate for my job.

  2. I’ve seen this jacket in person and in catalogs and love it except for the belt. It looked to me like it belonged on a life preserver and not a suit jacket. I would switch it out for something a little more polished looking.

  3. I was wondering in what way this was mermaid-like, then I saw the back. I suppose if it’s going to look good on anyone, it would be me, since my butt is really small, but the question remains: is it going to look good on anyone?

  4. Love the look; especially with the crisp white pants. Not an outfit for me though — don’t really need to add MORE volume to my backside. Also, if you didn’t want to wear it with a plunging white blouse, what would you use for more modest coverage options?

  5. Adorable!

  6. I love, love, love this. But I wonder if the mermaid tail portion would be uncomfortable to sit on all day. I have a few blazers and dresses with embellishments on the back, and the pinpointed pressure on my back gets old after an hour or so.

  7. legalicious07 :

    Love this look! If they scaled it down for petites, I’d buy in it a heartbeat!

  8. I love this from the front and really dislike the back. Guess I’m just too conservative to rock the mermaid tail…

    • Me too. I actually gasped when I saw the tail in the back!

      • yeah, really. Ick. Didn’t like the front all that much (except the fabric, love the color and tweed), but the back – my first thought was it was a joke.

    • It’s not that you’re conservative – it’s that the extra fabric looks ridiculous

  9. Nanette Lepore is a little too cutesy for my taste (case in point — backside of this jacket). The clothes are made extremely well but I wish they made more more clothes appropriate for the workplace.

    • I completely agree, I usually love her clothes except for one tiny detail that makes it too cutesy. Here, it’s the tail (I think you could have the same detail-effect that’s work-appropriate by making it peplum or something). Other times, she has a weird ruffle on a skirt or the pattern is ridiculous. who wears clothes like that? probably the same people who wear short-suits to work.

      • I have quite a few of her pieces and love them. I do not wear short suits to work. Not everyone’s workplace is that conservative and what some people think is ridiculous, others tend to think gives it a little interest/flair.

      • Exactly! I’m thinking of that plaid skirt with the ruffle in the back, I think it’s still available at Nordstrom. Hate the ruffle!

  10. Like it, but I never get short sleeve jackets (too cold in my office!!!)

  11. Holy crap, we are in a recession. Why would you buy a $500 tweed short sleeve jacket? Give us something we can use. This is ridiculous, unless you all work as partners in a private firm.

    Very disappointed. I can waste money all by myself.

    • Monday is always expensive. Friday is always a deal. Hence the “Splurge Monday” post title. I like it because it caters to the wide range of salaries held by the readers, as evidenced by the recent poll Kat did.

      Keep it up Kat, I love this system and I really love the jacket!

      • I agree that I love the range of prices featured on this blog. Some things, I would consider paying the money for whereas other pieces I feel can be better value at a lesser price. I would be curious to hear where other readers tend to splurge and where they buy “value” pieces. (I apologize if we’ve already discussed this topic in depth…)

        Personally, I will splurge (relative to my personal budget, of course) on classic shoes (black, brown, navy), pants, one or two great blazers/jackets, a classic sheath dress, and one great suit. (I am not a litigator and spend very little time in the courtroom, so separates usually work just fine for my personal practice.) I am lucky enough to have a husband with fantastic taste in classic jewelry so I have some good quality and beautiful pieces to wear when I need to present a serious image.

        Just about everything else is more conservatively priced items. Especially camis and shirts worn under jackets or cardigans that will rarely see the light of day without the other layer. Funky shoes or jewelry to provide “pop” to an outfit – definitely are “budget” items in my book. I have not been able to find sweaters in any price range or fabric that don’t lose their shape or texture so these are also in my budget category since I would rather replace a cheap item than spend the effort/time to repair an expensive one.

        My general thought is that if I would potentially get tired of an item before it wears out, it should be a budget piece. This is not to say that I obey my rule 100% and I haven’t splurged on a great layering top if I absolutely LOVED it and it made me stand a little taller!

        • My approach is similar. I have several pairs of very expensive black shoes, because I find that I wear them almost every day and they make a tremendous difference in how polished I think my outfit looks, and they tend to break in faster/better than cheaper shoes. (I also have hard-to-fit feet, so I don’t have a lot of choices.) I keep them in the office most of the time to prolong their useful lives.

          I also splurge on a few basic pieces of jewelery (watch, earrings) – not too blingy, but not cheap.

          Finally, I have found that wearing a jacket that is a little interesting or different makes me feel professional, and also gets me lots of compliments from other women in the office. Also, unlike my shirts, which I spill on or get all sweaty and smelly, jackets tend to last a long time. So I look for jackets that will go with a variety of pants, and I will spend on those if I really like them and they fit well. I often wear them with cheap black pants, or with jeans on Fridays.

    • that’s why it’s called “splurge” monday.

    • Anyone else think that, increasingly, some of the commentators take personal offense if they don’t like every piece suggested by C or if every piece isn’t within their definition of a reasonable price?

      C isn’t your personal shopper.

      The suggestions on this blog = like everything else in life. Some things you’ll love, some meh, some omg I would not wear that for xyz reason. No need to get your mermaid tail in a twist over it.

      • seriously! there is always one person who is extremely vocal about their dislike of C’s choice. I am wondering if it’s the same person.

        • Nope. But since you want me to chime in, I will. I kept my opinion down law because you have no idea what you are talking about and I don’t want to waste my time. But as ugly as this thing is I think that it matches you perfectly. You should totally buy it. Ugo goes with Ugo.

          • Really? the only two things I’ve said about this jacket is: 1. it’s a splurge, fit for splurge monday; and 2. it’s too cutesy for me to wear. So I, too, am a splurge and too cutesy? or i’m a splurge and not cutesy enough? i’m confused. very constructive comment, though.

          • Geez, Big C! Why so harsh?

            Does the “C” stand for Cheney, by chance? Because that is who you remind me of with you bitter aspersions lol.

          • Ugh. We normally have mature, relatively pleasant disagreements here that stick the clothing and don’t make personal attacks. Please don’t come back with this attitude.

      • Really, so insightful. I was not aware that I could just let you go on and on about how great it is and then not have a comment of my own. I think you’re are ridiculous. I attack the shirt, not you, but if you want to make this personal we can. Maybe you should go crush some kittens and get your hatred out.

        • Why is it that rude comments seem so much more rude when accompanied by poor grammar? It’s “you are,” not “you’re are.” I also think you meant “attacked” rather than “attack.” And, it’s a jacket, not a shirt. I wouldn’t normally point out any of this. However, in your case, it suggests jealousy of people who do have the intelligence to be articulate and, more importantly, it suggests that your aim is to attack posters here rather than the clothes (given that you can’t remember whether it was a jacket or a shirt that incited your ire). Just go away if you can’t discuss clothing constructively rather than by making personal attacks. Please.

        • This seems like a severe overreaction.

        • You can, of course give your opinion, but there’s no need to be rude about it. If someone chooses to spend their money on this, that’s their choice and you needn’t deem it “ridiculous.” And yes, there are some people who can afford it, just like there are some that don’t find Friday’s relatively inexpensive items applicable to their life. That’s the whole point–it doesn’t cater to one person’s budget or tastes, which is what you seem to be looking for.

          Everyone knows Monday is the splurge day–these items are not necessarily intended to be purchased by you or anyone, but often give an indication of what is available at a higher price-point, and, I find, they give me ideas about what to look for when I do go shopping.

          Go ahead and express your opinion, just try not to do it in a way that disparages someone else’s.

          • I think its ok to deem something ‘ridiculous’ – its not profanity, its just an indicator of how absurd I or someone else thinks that item is… Honestly, sometimes I feel like without a counterpoint to point out some basic flaws to an item or idea, the group think that occurs on this site would end with 30 identically dressed women

    • I’m a recent law graduate not working in big law (so can’t really afford this) but I still like the expensive suggestions. A lot of times I think it’s insane for someone to spend so much money on them but sometimes I really like them and would consider saving for them (hence: splurge). I appreciate seeing the range.

      • I always look at the blog for ideas; not necessarily the exact item. For this one, there is no way that I would ever pay that much, but when I saw it I thought – oh what a gorgeous color, oh don’t the white pants look great with it, ooh my butt would never look good with a mermaid tail, but I like the short jacket with nipped in waist. For me, that’s what these Monday items give me. YMMV.

    • Add in the back and even if it was $10 I wouldn’t buy it

  12. I’m a huge Nanette fan but when I tried this on, I wasn’t very impressed. It’s very lightweight and didn’t fall right. I bought this instead:

    http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3067997?Category=&Search=True&SearchType=predictivesearch&keyword=classiques+entier+women%27s+apparel+%3e+Blue&origin=searchresults

    Similar idea but more conservative–and a lot less expensive!

    • I do hope that, unlike the model, you plan to wear a shirt.

    • that is cute! love that it comes with two belts!

    • lulu – that’s a GREAT jacket. any notes on how it fit? Do you think the large collar would work for those of us who are well-endowed?

      • Meg–I haven’t worn it for a full day yet but I found that the 6 (my normal Classiques size) felt ample, meaning that I wasn’t restricted in my arm/chest but it has sufficient definition in the waist to not be boxy. I don’t think that the large collar would be a problem; it has hidden buttons/snaps to keep it in place and it is actually cut a lot higher than it looks in the picture. I am a 34D and could wear it without a shirt underneath, although I will probably wear a plain black camisole just to be safe. Someone who is as perky as the model could still make it work at work with a shirt underneath.

    • Ooh love that look, but still hate the price :/

    • Really cute! Good call!

  13. I don’t understand the point of short sleeved jackets (mostly because I’m always cold at work and am constantly piling on cardigans of increasing thickness), but as a former fat girl I do resent that this is only available through size 12.

    I also think that its too weird to wear very often, and for nearly $500, there are a lot of more attractive clothing out there – and I’m usually a fan of Nanette Lepore.

    • They work great in Florida when you need a slightly more formal look but aren’t going to court. It is way too hot here most of the year for a full suit. I think it also gives good coverage for some of us who are concerned about underarm sweat but don’t necessarily want to be sweltering.

    • I personally really like short sleeved jackets. One, because I am tall with long arms so it’s hard to find jackets with sleeves long enough, and forget about finding anything cute, non-plain, and relatively inexpensive. And two, because I’m hot all the time, especially in the summer, so I usually end up taking off long-sleeved jackets anyway. I wonder if you could have this tailored to either cut off the “tail” in the back or at least shorten it a bit.

      • You probably could have it tailored (let’s face it, you can pay to have almost anything done to your hair, body, shoes, and clothes), but a $500 splurge should be something that is already so fabulously perfect, not an item that needs adjustments (but that’s just my opinion, of course)

    • Short-sleeved jackets are great for hot weather. Not sure about short-sleeved tweed, though. I think it would be cute layered over a turtleneck, but that’s not a very business-professional look.

    • I don’t think it’s fair to resent clothing (or clothing manufacturers) for not being available in all sizes. I understand the frustration, but something like this gets made in less sizes because it is just not profitable to make it available in all possible ranges.

      I don’t think that resenting that plain fact is very productive.

      • I disagree. The average size woman in this country wears a size 12. It’s ludicrous that so much clothing STOPS at that size. Frankly, I think it is likely because brands don’t like their clothing being associated with “fat girls” and, while it’s a private company’s right to make that decision, I don’t see why anyone who cares about women not being marginalized wouldn’t want to see people speak out about it.

        • I don’t think NL or DvF or any of the other brands that do not go past 12 are trying to marginalize women. I think that business are in the business (no pun intended) of being profitable, and for certain brands the cost/benefit analysis cautions against offering their clothes in larger sizes. Believe me, if there was adequate demand, this jacket would come in size 14, 16, etc.

          I can certainly see that it’s very frustrating but designers make clothing for their consumers.

          • It’s not really about whether they’re trying to marginalize designers; it’s about whether they do and the fact is, in certain ways, they do. I think it’s worth discussing, but I think their actual motives are the least interesting part of that discussion.

            It’s also worth noting that demand isn’t a static thing that exists in a vacuum. The availability of fashionable clothes in larger sizes is likely to drive more purchases of those same clothes, as the culture shifts away from our current paradigm of “fashion for the thin,” for instance.

            And finally, what do you think women expressing annoyance that an item isn’t in their size are doing other than demonstrating demand?> Clothing manufacturers may not deem that demand to be significant, but if larger women never mention that they would buy that item if it became available in their size, it’s a hundred percent certain that they won’t. It’s not as if they can demonstrate demand by actually buying the items because they don’t actually exist. Being vocal about it is a way to demonstrate that the market is there, so silencing women who express that is kind of contradictory. (On a side note, I’ve heard of women who write letters to companies detailing the items they’d buy if they came in their size – I think that’s a brilliant idea.)

          • That first sentence should read “trying to marginalize women” not “designers.”

        • I agree — They are selling a lifestyle of success – that’s part of why we pay such extreme amounts of money when we could buy jackets at Wal-Mart for a fraction (yes, I realize the fabric choice is key, but come on, this is a huge mark-up) – and fat girls aren’t seen as successful.

          • by the way, V, I love your idea to write to manufacturers – I listed it on my blog tonight – Thanks!

          • It is so much more than fabric that discourages people from shopping at Wal Mart, Shayna!
            Not that you can’t find an occasional treasure anywhere, but generally it is the cut, the fit, the quality, the thought that was put into an item, etc.
            And, I don’t think the fact that “fat girls aren’t seen as successful,” has very much to do with what you claim is the selling of the “lifestyle of success”.
            I am sure I will offend lots of people but the fact of the matter is that a lot (notice I did not say all) of the kinds of clothes that do not come in larger sizes, do not come in these sizes because they would not look good in these sizes. And, contrary to your idea of people buying expensive items because they make them feel successful, people actually tend to buy expensive items because they make them feel like they look great in that item (and looking really good in say a pair of super tight jeans is a reason to spend a lot of money on said jeans). Although I am sure there are exceptions, for the most part a Herve Leger dress should not come above a size 12 because frankly it would not look good in a larger size. Neither would this jacket look good on, say, a size 18 (just take a look at the comments of people who are far below size 12 who are all complaining that the back would accentuate their behind too much & hence they would not wear it).

            So, I am all for voting with your dollars. There are high end designers like e.g., Marina Rinaldi, that make lovely, high quality & expensive clothing for larger women (selling a lifestyle of major success, as you might put it). If “larger” women want to buy these, they should & perhaps that will lead to more and more high end designers catering to larger sizes in designs that are actually meant to flatter larger figures. There are lots of in between price point options,too — Talbots woman, etc.

            But, the whole idea that it’s the manufacturers’ fault for not making fashionable clothing in larger sizes ignores a crucial point that no one seems to want to acknowledge: that not every thing looks good on everyone, and people do not buy clothing based on how it looks on a model, but based on how it looks on them. So this jacket, to use just one very innocuous example, can come in size 16 and 20, but I bet you that it will not sell that well (if at all) in those sizes. If you don’t believe me, check out the final sale section for some of these “fashionable” items at Saks or NM — you will see that the sizes left over are not the 4s and 6s, but the 10s and 12s.

          • I think you’re contradicting your whole “in it for the money” argument, AIMS. If manufacturers don’t care about anything but sales, they’re not going to care about whether their shit looks good on fat girls. If they do, well . . . then we get into all sorts of other issues, such as their determination that it’s not good for their image to have their stuff be seen on fat girls. Honestly, these kinds of contradictions come up all the time in these conversations which makes me think that it’s really about us – as a culture – punishing and shaming women for being fat rather than the supposed multitude of justifications.

            Anyway, it’s silly. It’s debatable whether this particular jacket would be flattering on most any body type. But as a general rule, nice, tailored stuff looks good on almost everyone, and the same principles of design apply for a size 18 as for a size 6 (with variations, obviously, that are more dependent on body shape than size). The fact of the matter, though, is that most of what’s available in plus sizes is shapeless and not well-fitted in a way that doesn’t look good on anybody, much less plus sized women. Plus sized women buy those clothes because they don’t have a choice and because they’re told they shouldn’t bother trying to look good, not because those styles are actually attractive on them. But it’s hard to find out you do, in fact, look and feel great in nice fitting, well tailored expensive clothes if those clothes aren’t available for you to try on. (Yes,you name one exception – can you name another? I can’t think of one.)

          • v: it is silly, but I am not contradicting myself by implying market factors are at work — I am not suggesting that designers “care about whether their shit looks good on fat girls,” as you so eloquently put it. What I am suggesting is that people do not regularly spend $500 on items that do not make them look and feel good.

            And, yes, I can name another brand besides Marina Rinaldi that does higher end, more fashionable clothes for larger women: Saks’ Salon Z (sizes 14-24). And guess what? I am sure there are other options out there if I know 2 of the top of my head without having ever looked into the issue (including the option of having things tailored like I do when I buy suits for work that are cut for much taller & broader body types then mine).

          • I think that what makes people feel good is highly determined by what they’ve been fed about what they “should” wear. Fat women (since you seem to have issue with using “larger” I’m happy to eschew euphemisms) are told in hundreds of implicit and explicit ways that they shouldn’t bother, they’re ugly, they should buy nice clothes AFTER they lose weight not before, and in the meantime, here’s some shapeless shifts to bide your time in. That has an effect that is somewhat divorced from what an individual actually looks good in – frankly, the culture generally will not admit a fat woman looks good in anything because that is not the framework. (“She has a pretty face” is usually the best that will be allowed.) That problem is not the fault of fashion, but it is not independent of it either – that clothes made for thin women aren’t available for fat ones is not just a side effect of that problem, it is also a contributor to it. And that is why I think it is a problem that more designers don’t make larger sizes (in addition to the constrictive effect is has on fat women’s ability to meet professional standards of dress).

            You’re right that there is more than one option. But that doesn’t mean the options aren’t narrowly circumscribed either. Extensive tailoring is an option, as is having clothes custommade, and I’m sure that is what most rich, fat women end up doing out of necessity. I found this blog post comparing straight and plus size high end clothing options to be instructive, however.

          • (Oh, and if you click through to that blog post I linked, it’s worth clicking through to some of the individual items as well to note how few of them are truly work appropriate in the way we expect them to be on this site.)

          • v: 1st it is you who started with the word “fat,” i used the word “larger,” why you would “eschew” euphemisms on my account is beyond me.
            but clearly i have hit on a sensitive issue for you, clearly more so than it is for me, so i am just going to let this go & agree to disagree.
            i will say this though — a large chunk of our population is size 12 and above, and it looks like that percentage will only grow to include more people. even 10-20 years ago plus sized women had far fewer options. i for one am frequently amazed at the sheer variety of items available in larger sizes. give it a few years, and i bet you will have more options. in the meantime, be glad its not the 80s when what is considered a size 8 now used to be considered a size 14.

          • I assumed you objected to “larger” based on the scare quotes. If not, apologies. I’m happy to drop the topic, but I will say I’m not sure it’s fair to categorize what I’m saying as because it hit a “sensitive” topic for me. It is something I’m passionate about, but I don’t engage in discussions about it out of anger or emotion, but rather because I think it’s important to do so (and intellectually interesting!).

          • AIMS – clothing companies like Nanette Lepore sell clothing that sells an image – you think you feel great in that $500 jacket not only because of the beautiful tailoring, but also because of the brand name – and what it represents… and Nanette Lepore is able to sell more clothing based on its exclusive image of success which does not include fat women, then it is by expanding its line to encompass them.

            I’m finally not a plus size and it seems that I finally can sit at the cool kids’ table… how tragically horrible

      • It’s not fair to resent the fact that clothing manufacturers don’t make their styles available to women past size 12? Because life isn’t hard enough at size 14 or 16 without not being able to wear the same clothing as everyone else?

        FYI – the average clothing size of the American woman is a 14

        Perhaps you think that those past size 12 should just wear muumuus or stay home? It’s remarks like that that make it ok to hate fat people – which makes dieting and weight loss that much more stressfull and unlikely.

        • Just as a devil’s advocate for clothing manufacturer’s, I can probably count on one hand the number of women I’ve worked with over my years in a variety of very large offices that wear a size 14 or up. I know the average American women wears a size 14, but I’d estimate that the average woman in all of these offices combined wears a 6-8.

          Which means that if I were going to start a clothing company tomorrow and focus on business/business casual clothing, and if my target audience included a lot of people working in my industry, I probably wouldn’t make many clothes upwards of size 12. Not because I’m a b*tch, but because based on my experience, there wouldn’t be as much demand.

          • No offense, but your experience is hardly a representative sample of an entire population of millions of women. At the most you’ve been able to observe a few thousand women during only a few years of their career.

          • Were you working in NYC or So Cal? I don’t doubt your word, but it’s far outside my own experience where the distribution of women’s sizes in offices I’ve worked in more or less mirrors the general population. (Quick mental headcount of my midsize lawfirm in D.C. suggests that about a third of the lawyers might wear size 14 or above some or all of the time, to say nothing of the support staff.)

            Of course, many of those women have had to more or less give up dressing “fashionably” because it’s so hard to find plus-sized professional clothing. So if you work at an office that doesn’t hire or makes uncomfortable women who aren’t dressed very sharply, women like you find at my firm are likely to be selected out early or even at the hiring stage. (Every tried finding a non-frumpy plus-sized suit?) And that’s why I say this is an issue of women’s marginalization – because as we discuss here clothing has real effects on people’s lives and if women can’t find professional clothing that fits them, it’s going to seriously impact their careers.

          • No offense taken, I was just sharing my own experience and a devil’s advocate position.

            All of these years have been spent working in the South – no NYC, no So Cal. And I don’t work in fashion :) (where, based on The Devil Wears Prada, it would appear that the average size is doesn’t-eat-anything-stick-insect).

          • At a size 16, I follow a lot of plus size blogs and believe me, plus size women are screaming for fashionable clothing to wear to work. And I’ve always noticed that the lines that do go as high as 16-18; the larger sizes seem to sell out first. So I’d be hard pressed to agree with anyone who says that it wouldn’t be cost efficient to offer clothing upwards of size 12.

            I have to accept the fact that there are some designers who only want to reach a certain demographic. I don’t bother getting resentful, I just take my good money elsewhere.

          • Another thing, too, though, is that the same styles do not always flatter different sizes of people. Most things that look great on a size 18 would not on a size 0, and vice versa. I am kind of medium sized, but I have large feet, and I see this with shoes all the time. A cute shoe in a 6 would look ridiculous on my size 12 feet. I think it’s great if there are different styles for different size-ranges. The problem, I think, comes from how much harder it is to find plus-sized clothes that are flattering, stylish, and professional.

          • Also chiming in as devil’s advocate, I have to ask what the average price point is on the brands that sell out at higher sizes first. One of the many ways in which overweight women are marginalized in our society is that they make less money (on average) than women who are not overweight. Looking around my office (in Seattle) although almost all of the women who wear over a size 12 are support staff–in other words, people who almost certainly cannot afford $500 jackets (unless they happen to have wealthy husbands and are just working for fun).

            My point is that I think that the economics probably are more complicated than some posters are suggesting. While it might make sense for many brands to make larger sizes (Ann Taylor, BR, Classiques, for example) it very well might not make sense for other brands, including Nanette Lepore, which is a splurge even for many of us who have Big Law salaries (or close to it).

          • The other side of the economics though is that women who have been told their whole lives how ugly and not worth dressing they are don’t have a lot of motivation to seek out expensive clothing. Meanwhile, when they do, they don’t find it and thus don’t bother looking any more or even, usually, giving feedback to the company (because it’s “their fault” for not fitting into it). This isn’t the clothing manufacturers’ faults per se, but it’s a vicious cycle as long as we have a society that says that women should fit the clothing rather than the other way around, and not having chic clothing available in a variety of sizes will only compound the problem.

            Similarly, not having stylish professional clothing available will just contribute to people’s impressions of fat women as not belonging in high status professional jobs, which will just further lead to those women not being able to afford clothes that help them get those jobs. It’s a chicken and egg problem, to be sure. It’s also a deplorable state of affairs.

          • Huh. I worked in BigLaw (Vault Top 10) for several years in three major cities (including LA and DC) and am now a parter at a medium-sized law firm in LA. It has NOT been my experience that most of the women are 6-8. Rather, the women I’ve worked with over the last 15 years have pretty much run the gamut. This is especially true, in my experience, with respect to the partner-level women I work with.

          • Glad to hear so many women have had the same observations that I do — This is literally why I started http://LifeForward.onsugar.com – because as a former fat girl (and let’s face it, odds are I may be fat again one day), I can tell you that the corporate world is just as difficult to fit into as middle school was, and if you’re not wearing the right clothes, than you are so much further behind the other applicants/colleagues/etc., even with the right qualifications.

            And yes, it is a cruel world – it can forge you or break you, and not being able to find anything that doesn’t make you look like you rolled out of K-Mart circa 1985 doesn’t help

        • This article may help explain why many styles aren’t available past size 12 or 14. http://www.financialpost.com/executive/story.html?id=1685603

          To summarize: the average woman may be a size 14, but the distribution of sizes in the population means that there are far more 10s than 18s. Since it’s cheaper to produce clothing in bulk, and each additional size offered adds to costs in a number of ways, manufacturers can make far more money by selling, say, 50 size 6s as opposed to 20 size 12s, ten 14s, ten 16s, five 18s, and five 20s. (Numbers purely invented. I haven’t studied the statistics in detail, but you get the idea.)

          In addition, at the upper end of the size ranges, each given size needs to accommodate a greater range of weights, so larger sizes are poorly tailored compared to their smaller cousins. Sigh.

          None of that makes the situation less frustrating for those who can’t find properly fitting clothing, of course. But I was slightly relieved to find that clothing manufacturers are, like most businesses, motivated by money and not something more sinister.

          • Interesting article – thanks for posting. There is definitely some logic there that I hadn’t considered before.

            Unfortunately as someone who’s apparently in the most common weight bucket for my age group, I’m not able to purchase this jacket – though ironically I’m at a point in my career where I might consider a splurge like this if it were something that made me feel fantastic. (That, and I do find the tail to be just a bit too much….)

          • EK — this is exactly what I was thinking of. I read something very similar in the NY Times when AT stopped selling many of their larger sizes in stores, and moved them online.

            Thanks for posting. I realize a lot of people find this a very sensitive issue, but I really don’t think that this is meant as a personal attack by manufacturers. Everything cannot work for everyone, and I think people fail to realize that with designer/semi-designer clothing the total amount of pieces made/per item is just much, much less.

          • Interesting article – thank you for sharing! I will be posting something about this later tonight at http://LifeForward.onsugar.com — It’s an issue that definitely needs more focus because I do think that women who are heavier are marginalized… lets face it, beyond our resumes, when we are interviewed, we are judged by how we look – which is predicated by how we’re dressed…

  14. Hmm, kinda like a mullet. (Semi) business in the front and a party in the back. It’s rather cute, though.

  15. Lynette is hilarious. It certainly is an expensive party in the back. ;)

  16. Wow, it’s a jacket with a mullet!

    Business in the front and party (or, um, something) in the back.

  17. I like this one from Nanette Lepore: http://tinyurl.com/y8hyjbe

    It’s the same kind of splurge – $478, but I think it’s more useful/will have a longer shelf/hanger life.

  18. I would LOVE this but for the mermaid-like asymmetrical ruffle in the back. Thinking it probably wouldn’t be flattering on me, especially not for work. Would likely draw unwanted, inappropriate attention to one’s backside (?).

    • Delta Sierra :

      JD Chic: I agree, I think it’s a beautiful jacket, I love tweed. Short sleeves for SoCal, yes, please. A bit expensive, but then I’m one who likes fewer pieces but better quality. The tail, I wouldn’t worry so much about how flattering it was if I really liked it, which I do. But wouldn’t wear it to stuffy places/meetings, only with more arty clients.

      • Delta Sierra :

        And I would flip the tail up as I sat down, so, fewer wrinkles. Again, only wearing it with certain clients, since the flipping would inevitably be a tad eye-catching.

  19. if you are like me and love the pattern but doesn’t think I can pull off the fishtail, I am loving the matching skirt:

    http://shop.nordstrom.com/S/3080660/0~2376780~6009391~6009410~6009413~6013061?mediumthumbnail=Y&origin=category&searchtype=&pbo=6013061&P=1

    • Good call — The only question I have is what shoes go with that color blue? Besides nude (I know I’m the only person here who isn’t a fan of that look)

      • Besides black, I could see myself wearing that skirt with red, orange, lime green, saddle brown, butterscotch brown in a patent. I like color in my footwear (so sue me) and I can get away with it in my office.

        • I like the way you think – Not sure if I could get away with in my office, but I have always admired offbeat/funky shoes in different colors!

    • Love the material and the cut of the skirt, but it looks a little short on the model. Anybody try it on to see where it actually falls on shorter woman?

      • I agree it’s short. I’m an envelope-pusher w/r/t skirt length and I think 2-3″ above the knee is fine (ok maybe not 3″ – but 2″ is a-ok in my book). Also, lately I’ve been going to the tailor to have them lower my skirts by letting out the hem – they just sew on additional fabric and re-hem it (so you can see the addition). Voila, another 1″ on your skirt.

  20. Pretty to look at, but completely impractical for the office (as others have noted, it would be a crumpled mess after sitting on it all day). Also wouldn’t work for anyone with curves.

    • legalicious07 :

      Most sentiments exactly! I have a few curves on bottom, and this would look highly inappropiate on me at work.

  21. I have almost the same thing, also navy blue, and I wear it a lot and love it. But….I bought mine (at Banana a few years back) for under $100.

work fashion blog press mentions