KittyT
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,463
- Location
- Boston, MA
Definitely keep them! Besides, it's a pair of stockings! They don't take up any space
C-dot said:Never EVER buy from American Apparel! They charge more than lonesharks, and the quality is terrible.
Tourbillion said:Sorry to get in your face, but this is bugging me.
They charge more than "loansharks" because they are an American company with a vertically integrated business model that pays their workers fair wages and gives them benefits. I think this is a good reason to patronize them rather than shun them.
If you find them too expensive or low quality that is of course your choice.
However, $28 is still a lot cheaper then the $59.99 and up that Alexis4u is charging for vintage 50's and 60's stockings in my size. They might last more than one wearing too, which probably won't happen with vintage 15 denier stockings.
I'd maybe consider paying that much for service weight ff stockings, but not ultra sheer. They would be more vintage accurate and would last a while.
cupcake said:The thing that gets at me about AA is their unnecessarily sleazy advertising. Why must I be exposed to breasts (And then some) when all I want to buy is socks?
I'm definitely all for a company that doesn't outsource it's manufacturing to east asian factories with workers under the age of 10!
exquisitebones said:Everything I have bought from AA has NO JOKE... side seam holes, where the serging was done wrong and there is a hole in the side seam.
Not to mention their sexist ads are completely off putting. there are several american made companies you can buy from that are not so ... low grade
Lady Day said:Okay ladies, lets stop bashing AA. Although I have never bought anything from them, I would have to agree with Tourbillion. An American business that builds fair wages and bennies into their business plan is worth supporting. I mean, they must be doing something right, they have had quite a bit of expansion in the last few years.
Exquisitebones, are you sure you were not at a seconds or rejects rack?
As for their risque advertising, I remember reading an article with the founder where he stated, and Im paraphrasing, 'Yeah we do skin tight thin shirts, but thats what sells. And its my job to make/advertise what sells.'
You dont have to agree with that, but fair enough, right?
Did you all write the company and tell them you were dissatisfied with their product? Unlike many other companies (I read someone mentioned Forever 21, and I notice a lot of gals still shop there) this company has a face. You have a real good chance of getting an answer to your query.
LD
Tourbillion said:Sorry to get in your face, but this is bugging me.
They charge more than "loansharks" because they are an American company with a vertically integrated business model that pays their workers fair wages and gives them benefits. I think this is a good reason to patronize them rather than shun them.
However, $28 is still a lot cheaper then the $59.99 and up that Alexis4u is charging for vintage 50's and 60's stockings in my size. They might last more than one wearing too, which probably won't happen with vintage 15 denier stockings.
exquisitebones said:On the Subject of paying $60.00 for vintage stockings, there are several GOOD repro sites out there that sell them under $20/pr and they look like the real thing and are FF.
I, for one, can't quite decide. We see images every day of airbrushed, photoshopped models placed in the most sexual of positions—remember Dolce & Gabbana’s “gang rape” ad? And thanks to technology, models are nothing more than objects to be shaped and molded by marketers, fashion editors and photographers. Moles and acne are erased, eyes enlarged, ears trimmed, hairlines filled, teeth straightened and necks and waists lengthened and stretched. "We're always stretching the models' legs and slimming their thighs," a Manhattan photo retoucher recently told NEWSWEEK. And in some cases hands, feet and even legs are replaced when a subject's parts don't add up to a perfect whole.
So why then am I so offended when I see real-looking women who choose to display themselves for American Apparel—the rare company that doesn't airbrush, manipulate or otherwise alter the photos in their ads? Shouldn't I view them as brave, sexual, confident? Refreshing, even? Hall, of Adrants, says it's easier to detach ourselves from more mainstream fashion images that are so overproduced "they're almost fake … It's like you don't even believe there's an actual person involved in the creation of the ad." With American Apparel "that's like some girl that could live next door to you."
Former porn star turned Ph.D. sexologist Annie Sprinkle says American Apparel's promotions tap into American culture's contradictory views about sex. "They can be fun, sexy and positive," Sprinkle says, or they can be a turnoff—depicted as dirty and ugly. "But that's why it's a great ad campaign," she says. "As a feminist, I like the ads and I like the graffiti [the New York billboard was defaced with]. It makes us think about how we view sexuality."
How we view sexuality has certainly changed: we're no longer living in the days of free love, yet we're bombarded by sexualized images just about everywhere. And younger Americans who've grown up in a MySpace world aren't shy about sharing our own most intimate secrets … with everyone who has an Internet connection. It turns out the photo in the controversial American Apparel billboard in Manhattan was a self-portrait shot by the model herself, 24-year-old Kyung Chung, an amateur photographer living in Paris. "The fact that some people chose to project 'victim' onto that image—an image that I took of myself—is only an indication of their own distorted perceptions about women and sexuality," she tells NEWSWEEK. Ah, beauty … or exploitation: it's in the eye of the beholder.
source
LizzieMaine said:I'm 5' 6", and the 3975s are too long for me to wear with a panty girdle -- they're practically opera length, and I have long legs for my height. So I'd suspect they'd fit just fine on you.
I find their beige to be a a tad on the reddish-tan side. If you're pale, the seam and heel will be quite prominent.
jessesgirl08 said:i am really fair skinned and pretty new to stockings i usually wear fishnets but i would like to try something new, so what shades are best for a fair skinned gal?
Lauren said:I wasn't quite sure where to post this, but here's a scan of stockings from a catalog from Winter 1939-1940. There's more about it on my blog here.