walk on by...

I did it, i took the time out of my life to give river island a second chance, there's two hours of my life i'll never get back. The just arrived section was the expected, page after page of tacky, vom-worthy garmistakes with only the odd buyable item. Now a lot of people do actually like river island, so i'm not saying that those beings are in anyway tacky, it's just not for me. Maybe it's my lack of imagination, because i have to love something on it's own, to want to splurge out the doe. I'll start, however, with the items which didn't make me want to throw up my toblerone (bare in mind that this is not based on the whole RI website, just the 'just arrived' section).

The good...

              (001)                      (002)                       (003)                          (004)                           (005)

001. Average pick really, i mean the actual garm is lovely (minus the shoulder zip), the £69.99 price tag however, is
       not - especially considering it's "62% nylon and 38% other fibre". There are just plenty of cheaper, nicer, less
       itchy alternatives out there.

002. I actually really like this dress, despite the cheap-ish looking belt (which can be removed), the tailoring is
       actually quite impressive; it has minor detailing near the hips to give it a bit of an edge, the length is perfect
       for this season, and i think the puff sleeves are adorable and balance out the shape of the dress. This scoop
       neck beauty will only set you back £44.99, i use the term 'only' loosely, and in comparison to the prices of the
       rest of the garms.

003. Once again, another great fashion offering from river island. I love the colour and the floatiness, it appeals to my
       long sleeve shirt love, and although at first i thought the shoulder studs were a little tacky, after looking back at
       it a few times, they've grown on me - they make it an option for evening wear, they wouldn't really affect daytime
       wear either as no-one would see them because let's face it, nobody is leaving the house without a coat this
       season. Bad side? £29.99, although not a major bad side as it does have some value for money, but with so
       many similar cheaper options it just wouldn't get snatched up (by me).

004. I do like this jumper, i love the colour, the cables and even the little pom poms. The price isn't that bad either
       (£44.99) considering similar knits are going for £40-50, the wool count however is much higher from the likes of
       topshop/H&M/dorothy perkins (80%), whereas this woolly chum is only 20% - bummer. (Also available in red
       and cream).

005. This cream lace cropped blouse beauty is only £29.99, and i think it's adorable, i would  never wear it the way
       the 'create the look' section has suggested though. J'adore the floaty sleeves and the lace detail, but the neck
       area looks unusually cheap, and it's completely put my off it, but if it ever goes in the sale, that baby is getting
       snatched up faster than a free date with Adam Brody.

          (006)                          (007)                     (008)                      (009)                                (010)

006. N'awh, isn't it cute, with it's gorgeous little rose print. I'm not quite sure if the roses are textured, or printed, as it
       says 'rose print' in the title but they look raised. I do quite like this dress, it's simple yet detailed, and i don't
       think i've seen one the same as of yet. There is a very tacky gold zip on the back though which i bloody hate,
       and a hefty £49.99 price tag, but it's okay i guess, i think it will date rapidly though and be shoved to the back of
       the wardrobe before the winter is up.

007. This is kind of amateur, i'm sure that the navy white and tan trend came and went this autumn, i do still like it
       though but maybe without the belt. And the pocket detail? Bleugh. £34.99.
008. As i've said before when i reviewed topshop's new arrivals, i really like winged accessories, and this little pearl
       number is super cute - only £6.99 too, bargain!
009. Quite similar to a lot of things i wear, which is probably why i spotted this bell sleeved tunic, the almost 35
       squidders price puts me off it though. I mean, it's not an amazing-can't-get-this-anywhere-else garm, so why over
       charge for it - it's pretty, that's it, full stop.
010. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, even to myself, this would be so buyable if it wasn't 40 whole pound. It
       ticks a few boxes for me, it's velvet (much to Jack's disgust), it's burnt orange and it's floaty; i really like it, if only
       they didn't charge so much, £40 is like two weeks worth of food for me and it's not even a 'love at first sight'
       dress.

The bad...

          (011)                      (012)                          (013)                               (014)                           (015)

011. I honestly can't see these being worn, i can't see anyone i know buying them, and i especially can't see anyone
       parting with a penny short of 50 quid for them!
012. It's winter, not central america during crop season, why oh why would someone pay 30 pound for these? On the
       other had, i can see someone very versatile - fashion wise - pulling them off, i just wouldn't go anywhere near
       them.
013. Now this isn't horrendous, it's just not very nice, it would just do absolutely nothing for my shape and i can tell
       that just by looking at the picture. It looks like someone has gone all jekyll and hyde and sewn a skirt to the
       bottom of a jacket, the heart buttons are cute though, but nowhere near worth £60.
014. I hate these, i think they're hideous and to me, they look unfinished. The thing i hate most about these gross
       feet enemies, is the toe section, it flicks up! WHY? Oh, and they're £64.99, no thanks.
015. This looks like something a scally would wear to go to the races, or maybe to go to the Jeremy Kyle awards
       (*secretly loves jeremy kyle*), or perhaps for a good old night out on the lambrini. It just looks too busy, tacky
       and over the top, like it's trying to look 'movie premiere' but just looks 'wetherspoons opening' (and itchy). I do
       like the colour though and i've been looking for a cardigan in the same colour, but this is a huge no no - i
       wouldn't touch this frock with a barge pole, never mind fork over almost 70 quid for it.

               (016)                             (017)                        (018)                  (019)                         (020)

016. If there's two colours i can't stand together, it's green and orange or yellow and navy, so this monstrous combo
       will not be going anywhere near my wardrobe (£40).
017. Urgh, this just screams tack, louder than a damn fog horn. I honestly don't know why anyone would wear or pay
       20 pound for this, it's a 2 quid t-shirt with an iron on logo, and chelsea girl? What is that and why would
       someone proclaim that they are/are wearing chelsea girl across their rack? If it is in fact a fashion line
       exclusive to river island (more than likely is, i don't know/follow river island), then it's the worst name for a
       fashion line ever, for some reason it reminds me of the infamous 'wag wannabe/in the making' tees a while back
       - vom.
018. Anyone who parts with a penny short of a fifty for this paper looking, over designed, unflattering "dress" definitely
       has more money than sense. The description also says "perfect for a glamorous night", i wouldn't wear that
       dress if i was a toilet attendant at a glamorous night club, it looks like a card and glue project from a nursery.
019. Anyone up for walking the streets? No, didn't think so. "Look sexy in this black thin strap dress with front zip 
       thru detail and all over eyelet design" should be "pay £64.99 to look tacky and scally-ish in this black denim 
       vom frock, you'll make your money back in no time the amount of extra business you'll get" - great.
020. Now these, on the right fashionista, could look quite nice. But on their own, they look hideous, cheap, totally not
       worth £74.99 and i definitely wouldn't put my toesies anywhere near them. However, they look like VivWest's
       finest compared to the monstrosities that follow.

and the 'what the fuck were they thinking?'...

        (021)                     (022)                   (023)                   (024)                 (025)                        (026)

021-024. What on earth are these? What the hell? I can't even look, they don't deserve an item description, all i'll say
       is it'll cost you £34.99 and 1 social life.
025. If i ever saw anyone wearing these, i'd throw what ever was in reach at them, even if it was a kitten. Anyone who
       is willing to spend almost 30 squids on star trek reject outfits, needs help, serious help.
026. I don't like hareem pants, i don't like blue and i don't like elastic features, so these didn't really stand a chance
       with me really, especially as they have the word "bling" in the item description. Shame on you river island, i'm
       sure these never went flying off the shelves at £74.99 a piece, *shakes head in dismay*.

                (027)                          (028)                     (029)                        (030)                           (031)

027. Ew, just ew, this looks like a reject from Britney's Toxic video. £19.99.

028. These look slightly familiar, hmmm, maybe they had a load of left over black denim, and eyelets and they
       needed another dress and pair of pants to complete the collection. One can only guess/avoid what inspired this
       piece and who priced them at almost 65 quid.
029. Like, seriously, who comes up with these designs? One of the worst pieces i think, excluding the foil maxi
       dresses (*shivers at their mention*), RI must be stupid to think we'll part with £24.99 for that eye sore.
030. So many things wrong with these feet knobheads, separately i they'd be two alright pairs of shoes, but together
       it looks like someone with a leather leg wearing black buckle shoes. They should pay me £150 to wear them.
031. I think the majority of the population can agree, there's only a small handful of people who can make kitten heels
       look good, and only a handful of decent looking kitten heels; these leopard print mistakes not being the latter.
       Why do they curl up at the end? Gross. £29.99. My mild OCD was screaming at me for finishing the post on 31,
       but i had to include all the disgusting finds.

For blog research, on wednesday i ventured into RI chester with my besty Hannah (i spent £200 on that shopping trip, but that's a whole different post!), the overpriced (usually plastic snake skin) bags were on shelves right at the entrance, it was five minutes before we looked at each other and said "shall we go", thus ending practical research! I've noticed that on the website product descriptions, they throw the word 'sexy' around a lot (almost in every description), and i don't know why but it creeps me out. I just don't agree with it, (i may be reading too much into this) it subliminally fuels the society that think that they are meant to dress to impress the opposite/same sex, and encourages people to walk around baring all, i think we should dress how we like and in what makes us happy. But that's just my opinion!

I shalln't be shopping at river island anytime soon, but hey i gave it a chance, now i have a legitimate reason not to shop there; the reason being that it's utter shite.

P & L

Currently listening to
She had a knife! by This Drama