The Tom & Lorenzo Archives: 2006 -2011
Our current site is here: www.tomandlorenzo.com

Judging the Judge's Tights

Darlings, we have much to get to in the coming days, but for now, we're taking a breather and letting you be the bitchy ones.


Even though she was practically non-existent as a judge last night, we've been getting a lot of emails asking us about Rachel Bilson. Or to be more specific, the tights she wore. Well ladies, here they are:


Chanel Fall 2008 Collection

They're Chanel, so save your pennies. We think they're cute but we're not all that crazy about the opaque backs. What say you?


[Photos: myLifetime.com/Style.com]


Post a Comment
116 comments:

I liked them on her. IN


I like everything about them, even the opaque backside, EXCEPT I don't like the flowery/spidery looking pattern that runs up the front. It looks like a skin disease. Take that part out and I would wear them. I also LOVE the shoes that are in the Chanel pics. LOVE.


Yuck!

SisterZip


I'm a total tights whore. Would love these sans the opaque backs.


Don't like the tights. Don't like the judge.

I don't envy you guys at the moment. Suffering through the show once was bad enough but you now have to go back and scrutinize it! It will certainly be fun to read about it as long as I don't have to ever watch it again!


I like them. I'm a fan of crazy tights and I think she kept the outfit simple enough to get away with it.


Isn't it supposed to be "business in the front, party in the back?"

These tights are the exact opposite of that.


Ooohh, I loved these on her last night! Seriously, I was happily distracted by them...but now I'm sad to see the opaque back. I'd still be thrilled to have them, but not AS much ;)


Minus the opaque backs, those tights were giving me a major mid-1960s flashback. We all wore hose like that after they were popularized by the late, great Dusty Springfield.


I like them, but I think they work better with the heavier heel shown in the bottom picture.

The blouse + tights was a little too frillery for me. Are we returning to the New Romantics, AGAIN?!? Would have been nice to see the imapact of the tights with a sleeker look.


the opaque backs have a slimming effect.


LOVE the outfit, LOVE the tights.

Enough said.


C'est moi, c'est moi Lola

I'm with Miss Heather on this one: I would love them without the opaque back.

They're Chanel? Aw, jeez, I'm going to have to skip a couple car payments or something....

Love the tights - not loving the judge. It pains me to say this, but LiLo was more articulate in her critiques. Then again, seeing that much fug on the runway might have stunned me dumb too.


Love, love, love the tights. And I think the opaque on the back is very cool, chic.

However, I question Bilson wearing them since she is so wee. We didn't see her standing up, but I always find that dark tights make short women look even shorter. My 5'7" ass, however, could wear them and look HAWT.


LOVE THEM!


I don't like tights but these are cool.


They're GORGEOUS!!! Thank you for posting this. I was wondering who they were.


LaFemmeFataleinNY

Too busy, I don't like them.


IN.
It's a very young look. I remember wearing lace/polka dot/crazy patterned tights when I was a teen/early 20s.
I think she looks adorable.


Those things cost $370.00!!!

I hope she got them for free, 'cause otherwise that is just a ridiculous joke of a rip-off.


Eww, I didn't notice the back. I'd say NO. OUT.


Je deteste. I don't mind patterned tights, but patterned *sheer* tights always make me think "skin condition."

They'll look lovely with her new green stained neoprene dress, won't they?


Summer said...

They'll look lovely with her new green stained neoprene dress, won't they?



ROFL. Yeah, the one she said she would wear. Eye rolling.


I love the tights! Except I have to agree with Amanda in Austin about the flowerness. It looks like a child attacked them with the permanent marker.


GORGEOUS!


Agreed, not so much a fan of the opaque backs but they were very cute patterned tights! IN!


Why hide a great pair of legs behind so much pattern? Those tights are wearing her, not the other way around.


I thought these tights were perfect for that woman, that outfit, and that occasion. They looked great on her.

Not sure I'd love 'em in other settings or on other people, myself included.


Tights are meh, judge is annoying. Never liked her. (And no that isn't clouding my opinion of the tights)


I love Rachel Bilson so I am biased (and I did not see the show, so am doubly biased).


Love. With that outfit. They'd be horrible with a straight skirt or an outfit that had a lot of color.


that is a whole lotta look...

love them on her.

i couldn't wear them.

but i saw a pair with lettertype on them the other day and was surprised to feel a craving come over me. so you never know.


Don't know the chick, but liked the tights.

I can't even remember the last time I even wore tights. Maybe when Clinton was still in office...


In the early 60s my English pen pal sent me some stockings with beetles running up them (in the design, sillies). I was the coolest kid in the Jr. High!


I love those tights! The opaque back is so unexpected! very cool.


I like them! I'm not sure about the opaque backs, though. They are slimming, certainly, but do Rachel Bilson's legs need slimming? On someone with excellent legs, such as myself (she said modestly), such backs might make the legs look too slender.


I really dig them, but in the close up on the runway shots, the weave makes it look like the model has hairy legs.


I think she pulls the look off, but I just don't like tights..


I don't EVER want to hear the phrase 'actress and designer' again.
Probably too much to hope for that.


A little busy for me, but I like more simple clothes now. I may have worn them back in the 80s with a neon dress.


hate it. don't forget, this is the girl that said she would "like, totally wear" the neoprene dress.


I like the way they blend into the back of the shoe—makes the shoe look crazy tall on one side, which is pretty fun I think!


Hey, Nina said she'd wear the neoprene nightmare, too. There was a lot of crack being smoked last night.

I like 'em, but $370?! Holy whack!


love them! front and back!
$370! wow!


Why the heck would you buy DESIGNER tights when it's so easy to snag or rip them? A designer handbag lasts last for decades, but tights would be lucky to see a third or fourth wearing.


I like the front but not the back. However, that much for tights (even Chanel tights) is insane!


honesty.not.pc

Who is Rachel Bilson and why is she "judge" worthy?

OUT


Isn't anyone going to mention her hair? She looked like the secretary in an old Cary Grant movie!


I turned to my mom last night and commented on how much I love those tights. I'd wear them. It's too bad the girl wearing them was so weak and boring.


I like her whole look.

But, doesn't the flower element look a bit like varicose veins?


I don't like the opaque back, as many have said, but I think they look cute on her. Honesty.not.pc, she's probably more known for being stylish and trendy than for anything else (she was on The OC--I've never watched it). She also does a column for InStyle magazine every month.


i LOVE them! Must own a pair!! =D


Tights and shoes are adorable! Unfortunately that blouse is heinous. It looks like the puffy shirt from seinfeld :/


Barely noticed her; didn't notice the tights. Yawn!


TOO BUSY


Myra Flection


I hate feeling like this, but in these times, with so many people hurting financially, living in river camps like the Sacramento River Camp, it really bothers me morally to see a pair of tights for $370, and pocketbooks for 18K. I know, I know, it's their money, but please don't tell me that people buying $370 tights are what is keeping the economy going. There aren't enough fools to part with their $370 to keep the economy afloat from luxury goods.


Cute! I think she paired them well with her outfit. In.


Nancy, yes! Three hundread and seventy dollars for tights??????? I am a girl who will spend on A$ on this & that, but jesus damn.
Dr Sparkles


If they were $10 or less, that would be one thing, but over $300 for something that you could get a run in the first day, no thanks. Talk about disposable income!

If they catch on, someone will make a cheap knock-off version that you could get at Target. If they don't, then you'll be out $370 on a pair of "last years pantyhose."


Anonymous said:
"I don't envy you guys at the moment. Suffering through the show once was bad enough but you now have to go back and scrutinize it! It will certainly be fun to read about it as long as I don't have to ever watch it again!"

I think that T Lo should be excused this week because it was all just too stupid to take seriously. A protest of sorts.

Now, can we protest the quality of the commercials on Lifetime! Dear God.... Is Lifetime TRYING to reinforce their image as the "made-for-TV-bad-chick-flick" channel?


I jizzed all over myself staring at Rachel Bilson last night and now you have provided me with the perfect screenshot to keep my going all weekend.
Sticky kisses for you boys.


They're cute and I want them!


Tights are cute; they are in. As for Rachel Bilson's outfit: that's a lot of volume--the shirt with the ruffles, the billowy skirt which cites the suggestive movement of the ruffles on top, then that patterned tights. And this girl is barely, if even, 5 feet weighing 90 pounds. Too much!


It was funny she was reffered to as fashion designer, seeing as how she did the whole forever 21 schitk and copied DKNY's shirt completely. Lol


I love them.

Don't love the opaque back quite as much, but they're still fabulous.


bitchybitchybitchy

Donald said...
Those things cost $370.00!!!

I hope she got them for free, 'cause otherwise that is just a ridiculous joke of a rip-off.

Holy Mother of God, those are expensive...of course, compared to the bunny ears, they're a bargain(tongue firmly in cheek!)


IN.*

*But not for $370


I like the tights, but I love love LOVE the Chanel shoes.

Which probably cost $3700, right?


I like the whole look. I hope somebody working for Target knocks off the tights, because that's the only way that I could ever have a pair.


Well, you have to give her props for being profoundly on-trend because these sorts of tights are only now being called a must-have for Fall 2009 wardrobes.

But honestly I didn't notice them last night. Too much stuff on the runway burning a hole in my retinas, I guess.


The opaque backs make her legs look like table legs, which is really not how a lovely pair of gams (male or female) should ever look.


The opaque backs make her legs look like table legs, which is really not how a lovely pair of gams (male or female) should ever look.


I thought it was Coco who said your clothing isn't supposed to look like a skin disease... ?


They're gorgeous. I want them.


I'd say in. It works with her outfit.


See, I like the back. It's different.


Tina Marina said...

I thought it was Coco who said your clothing isn't supposed to look like a skin disease... ?


It does look a skin disease. OUT.


The opaque back is a no-no but I do like all the detailing.


PinkPrincess

OHMYGOD I was just talking to my friend about them and voila here they are you bitches are the best!


NOOOOO, and certainly not for that price, I don't care if they're Chanel.


Agree with the gang. The opaque backs are weird but I feel both strangely drawn to them otherwise while simultaneously feeling that I shouldn't be.

Unlike many of the gang, I do like Rachel Bilson. Well, her style anyways. I would have sat in stunned silence last night too.


NorthernStar

No, thank you very much, it looks like old ladys' wallpaper.


too many cats

At first glance at the photo, I thought she had had a thing for the tat artist.

Skin disease came in 2nd.

With her good looks, why?


Meh, they're okay, not worth my hard earned pennies though


Like them except for the opaque back.

LOVE the shoes in the Chanel pic.


$370 for tights? Sheesh. Even if I were rich, I hope I wouldn't pay that.


edinamonsoon

Remy said...
"LOVE the outfit, LOVE the tights."

Ditto! It's nice to see an entire post dedicated to something significant --- and fabulous! Must have those tights!

- edina -


Halloween is almost two months away.
Witch costume stockings.


Donald said...

"Those things cost $370.00!!!"

Wow...I just saved $370.00


These SAME tights were all the rage in Italy in 1986. A year or two later they were in style in the US and OUT in Italy. This is not new just gets recycled every 20 years of so.


I've seen the solid version of the Chanel stocking in white and tan (I think) and I thought they were very pretty. The pattern kind of defeats the purspose, IMO. But I do like the pattern itself. I'm a sucker for patterned tights though.

And for $370, I'll take a textiles class, and make/dye my own tights.


Love the patterned tights, but would never pay $370 for them when others that are equally pretty are available for $25 or less.


Not a fan of the "it's not really a skin condition" tights thing.


I love them, but I can't imagine paying almost $400 for hose, since I look at them and they snag.

I can't even imagine making so much money that spending that much cash on something like that, even if I was rich.


Maybe they would be better if she wore them with her lace ears. And her date wore meggings.


i'm not dorothy gale

Yes!


I love the tights and her outfit too! They're fabulous.


Yuck, especially for $370. I like the geometric but not the flowery thing. The opaque up the back is okay. I'd like it a skinnier stripe though, but that's just because I'm short.

I love tights but I'm not paying that. Back to Conway and $4.99 tights for me!


Too much going on in that outfit, the stockings/tights put her over the edge.

Theyd look better with a simpler look.
Not so sure about the backs.

$370 is obscene. I though conspicuous consumption went out in 2008. Tone it down girl!
btw, not much of a range as an actress, she plays the same personality in almost everything I've seen her in. However, I have no hate on her. Seems like a nice inoffensive young lady.


I didn't think anyone in LA wore tights. Wasn't it about 100ยบ when this was filmed?


I'm not the kind of person to spend $370 on them, but they are really cute, But $370 TIGHTS? They'll probably snag before you even wear them 2 or 3 times.


opaque back OR front geometic design. There is no excuse for the skin disease aspect of the tights.


I can think of many other things to spend 370 bucks on...


...like rent (and I don't mean the play)


"I can think of many other things to spend 370 bucks on...


...like rent (and I don't mean the play)"



ummmm that is my rent converted into USD :eek!

I do like them, pattern tights just remind me of France. Women of any age seem to effortlessly pull them off over there


Love them. Love love love. I think the opaque back is really cool. Also very flattering, IMHO.


The back is weird. Me no like it.


MoHub said:

"Minus the opaque backs, those tights were giving me a major mid-1960s flashback. We all wore hose like that after they were popularized by the late, great Dusty Springfield."

LOL! I wore them too (minus weird opaque backs) and a run in those babies used to make me cry ... then in the '80's I wished I had them back with the runs to wear with my steel toed Docs and torn t-shirts ... is this what's next in the tights story?


I kind of like them, but it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see at H&M for $12.90. Which, incidentally, is almost the most I'd pay for tights ($16.90 is the most. Huzzah H&M!). On the other hand, I frequently pay $20-40 on a single pair of socks.


...and I envy anyone whose rent is worth one pair of these tights. Mine is worth at least three or so. :c


The opaque backs seem to be Karl's new thing so I guess we're going to be seeing them for a while. Better get used to them.


Love the tights, love the opaque backs.


I would love the tights minus the varicose veins running up the front; so, as is, merely like them.
But here's where I'm feeling old and used up at 48: I have no idea who this girl is. None. Am I supposed to know her? Do I have to turn in my gay card?


I still love that we're talking about TIGHTS rather than Santino. He must be going absolutely insane. *Laughs evilly*


I love that my daughter just saw the tights and said "Ooooh Mom, those are fancy!" Then she pointed to the tablecloth I have temporarily up to clothe a window and said, "Just like these curtains!" hahaha!


NO....these tights are OUT.

They make her legs look 10+ years older. The black/white combination she was wearing was a bit boring and while the tights are supposed to make the outfit interesting...it's just too distracting...and not in a good way: they make you wonder if she's hiding some skin disease or something.

If you have nice legs SHOW THEM OFF. Don't hide them.


TLo--the label link at the top for Rachel Bilson says "Bison" instead. ^_^

I like opaque patterned tights because they're subtly interesting. This...not so subtle. OUT for me.


I love them but would like to see them paired with a more severe look.





BALMAIN for women

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

Loading...

Project Runway