The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsOh Dear. Chanel came out with an ugly line of glasses and not even
Kristen Stewart can make them look good.
http://www.gossipcop.com/kristen-stewart-chanel-eyewear-photos-ad-campaign-pictures-behind-the-scenes-video/#0
irisblue
(32,969 posts)but the price...umm
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)we need this? I don't care whose name is on them.
irisblue
(32,969 posts)man...I NEED to see the fine print when the Rs are raging...big lenses or not. Hell with them and fashion. I need to see everything.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)the trifocals but without the lines - can't remember the name of course. They all have to be able to fit on the lens.
I was just referring to the inference that this is all something "new" because it's Chanel. But that's fashion for ya.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)paid nearly 900 euros for my most recent pair of glasses, because each lens was about 250 bucks, and the frames were about 200 also. OUCH.
I love the discounts on the second pair though, that really helped. I got really chic and nice Vera Wang frames for my sunglasses, I feel like a proper fashionable woman again with them!
mackerel
(4,412 posts)underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)especially because I've been wearing the damn things for 50 years.
I remember being forced to choose the budget lines when I was a kid, we had like 3 choices, ugh. And every damn kid in school had the same ones.
I wore contacts for years, but can't make them work anymore, even trying the old hard contacts again to battle the reading issue, but alas.
So, I love most of the European high fashion glasses and in a broad view, Chanel consistently hits the marks across the board, for high bling style, to classic, subtle professional daily wear. I love their endeavors into new shapes and color tones, from bold to sleek.
It's Chanel, they turn trends into timeless classics, always have and always will!
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)Hope this doesn't turn out to be a duplicate. I had mentioned that the large lenses tend to date a photo. Not to mention that you don't see much of the actual person in the photo.
NJCher
(35,661 posts)She also has blue hair which is shaved on one side of her head and shoulder length on the other.
Cher
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Not to knock you or anything, but I sadly came to this realization many years back myself. I initially thought the same thing, that this belt, those pants, these glasses, etc. were really ugly.
Then when going through pictures of my generation's idea of fashion, I came to the realization that the prior generation thought our clothing, accessories, eye-wear, etc... was quite ugly. No they were not ugly. The critics, were just too old...
Sadly, I'm just too old.
Some looks are classic, and appeal to every generation. RayBan has aced this look...
But most fashion comes and goes (and sometimes comes back) with the times.
irisblue
(32,969 posts)before you lift that injunction? I'm wearing a 2007 pair, cuz medicare does not cover another, premedicare pair( if I had known ...I would have gotten more pal)
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)And you are probably right about that appraisal. My reference points are old. I've seen too many photos ruined because the large glasses have locked the individual into a time warp.
Sophia Loren glasses only look good forever on Sophia Loren. Or maybe, Jackie Kennedy.
malthaussen
(17,193 posts)Black horn-rims, aka RPGs and BCGs, are about as timeless as they come. And still as unattractive as they were 100 years ago.
-- Mal
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)That and a lot of firearm components. Bolt Carrier Groups to be exact.
So... Firearm parts, and heinies.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)If you didn't like it much the first go around, you probably like it less on subsequent trips.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)I couldn't wear any lenses that big. They would be really thick on the edges and heavy. I'm nearsighted.
I would probably look like a fish.