I seriously had no idea!!
Wow, this one actually did stump me! I had to squint to notice that the fabric on one pair seemed a bit more delicate than run-of-the-mill canvas.I'd wear $2,000 shorts on a boat with some flippy floppies if T-Pain and Andy Samberg ever invite me on their boat.
The funny thing is the J. Crew ones are much cleaner-looking and generally just more attractive than the $2000 ones. I'd wear $2000 khaki shorts mud wrestling, and when I won, I'd say it was my $2000 shorts. Alllll in the shorts, baby.
This was disturbingly difficult, oh my god.
Oh god, this is kind of sad. I really couldn't tell. Honestly, the J.Crew ones look nicer to me. Balmain is ridiculously overpriced.
I'd probably briefly consider the $2000 shorts, and then spend the money on something better. For serious, can't ever see myself wearing $2000 anything. Is it bad that I like the $50 pair better?
Easy! It's far more audacious to try to sell pre-worn short for $thousands.I take askance at the pre-worn thing, I really do. Unless someone has actually really truly "worn in" my clothes before I get them, leading to a price-drop for me (second hand, charity shoping), I expect to pay for quality. Quality = long-wearing! If Balmain think their shorts are going to last for $2,015 worth of years in that state, they must be using flipping SPACECANVAS or something.
not to mention both pairs come with holes already in them -- how thoughtful!
And, for the record, these shorts are generally available at your friendly neighborhood thrift store for $5 a pair. Additionally, OY. $2K for shorts?
the $2000 pair HAVE HOLES IN THEM. omg, seriously? that's... the mind boggles.
Ginger, I agree. I actually guessed correctly because I thought the uglier option must be the most expensive.
I think that when a pair of shorts costs about the same as a small downpayment on a CAR, there is a problem. http://reneetbouchard.blogspot.com
Yeah, the J.Crew ones are cuter! The Balmain ones look like they are from Old Navy!
Wow. I couldn't tell which was more expensive. However, I like the J.Crew ones better!
Wow! I guessed wrong! The top pair looks like someone ironed them with too hot of an iron. I think $50 is too much for shorts!
Obviously those are what you wear before you go on safari to hunt unicorns, or perhaps to raid an Egyptian tomb. You need good, flexible shorts that let you move so you can run away from the mummy.-Katie
my only clue was the style of the shorts. but that is RIdiculous! talk about our consumer world...
I would wear the $2000 shorts on a tour of star's homes in Palm Springs,Ca.
I guess it would have to be with some Skovgaard shoe booties and a Wang vest.
OMG! I had seen Balmain's pieces on net-a-porter and LAUGHED. They are ridiculously priced, and a tad ugly. I knew which one was the Balmain cuz I had seen them before. Balmain has several items on net-a-porter that look like old navy basics, priced over a grand. How ridiculous?! I like the J. Crew pair waaaaay more.
If the Balmain folks can find someone to buy them, more power to them. Though I'd rather people spend $2000 on a nice gold ring.
Totally called it, but sadly, just because of the product photography. I've gotten good at spotting JCrew and your typical Netaporter fare by the lighting and background.Agree that fifty dollar shorts are cheaper. Doubly agree that you can get similar shorts for fifteen bucks at an outlet store if you're patient, and for five or less at the thrift store.Truly, I don't get this. I spent forty dollars (including shipping) on a pair of shoes last night and it was MAYBE the most expensive style-related thing I have ever bought. I just don't understand :(
In Beverly Hills. They strut around hoping someone will notice they spent $2,000.00 on their shorts.
To a Damien Hirst lawn bowling party. Bowling with crystal skulls of course.
$2000 shorts? That's crazy talk!
I was able to guess correctly by asking myself "which one of these could be seen on Nantucket?" Clean fabric, crisp edges, straight pockets...J. Crew all the way.
Umm I liked the J. Crew ones more... The Balmain seem a little bit closer to bloomers than I would like my shorts to be. I already have huge thighs and a butt. I like that, but I don't need to emphasize it that much.
i'd wear them to the opera!;)
They're both pretty ugly IMO, and I certainly wouldn't buy a pair of shorts for $50. $40? Maybe. $30? Let's talk. $20? YES
Ha! I got it right! But seriously, I wouldn't pay $50 for the cheaper ones never mind thousands. A better option: Value Village - they have decades worth of these shorts on stock for under $10.
I guessed wrong. And that's so wrong.
Those shorts are even ugly on the model. :(
I got it right. But I could only tell from the way they were photographed.
Jesus, even if they were lined in silk made from spider's webs with 24 karat gold hardware, that price is ridiculous.
I found your blog through Epbot, which I started reading because of Cake Wrecks. Anyway, I've lost about 2 hours of my life already clicking through your archives. I thought it might interest you to know that these shorts are now on clearance for $1400, and that two sizes are sold out.
OMG - I was about to leave almost the exact same comment as Erica above - Cake Wrecks to Epbot to you, to losing some of my life on your fab blog, to noting that the ridiculous shorts are now a total frikkin' steal at $1007.50 (price must have dropped again! Can't believe those suckas who bought when they were 2k!) However, I hadn't noticed that some sizes were sold out already. Srsly? I now REALLY want to become a talented cyber-hacker, find out who bought shorts for far more money than I have in my bank account, and convince these folks to return them and pay my next 2.5 months of rent instead! Un.be.lieveable! - CandiceP.S. - LOVE Martin Sheen, your haiku, and DSYC . . . actually, everything: you crack me up!
Post a Comment