Introducing Jezebel

The razor-fingered Valkyries seen above are the editors of the newest addition to the Gawker stable, Jezebel. They’ll be delivering an unvarnished excoriation of women’s magazines, celebrities, sex and fashion.

Jezebel has already executed a nifty project, sewing designer labels into mid-range clothing to see much they could get at consignment shops in New York’s East Village. Here’s what they were offered:

• H&M dress (original price, $39.99) masquerading as Isaac Mizrahi: 2 for 3, with highest offers of $130 and $190.
• Club Monaco jacket (original price, $199) masquerading as Richard Tyler: 2 for 3, with offers of $90 and $110.
• Club Monaco skirt ($129) masquerading as Donna Karan: 2 for 3, with offers of $78 and $135.
• Club Monaco sweater ($99) masquerading as Calvin Klein: 1 for 3, with offer of $50.

So if you’re looking for a new place to tell superficiality to go fug itself, while simultaneously reveling in its decadent charms, Jezebel may be place for you. — BEN POPKEN

Label Whores Hit The East Village [Jezebel]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. ShadeWalker says:

    it’s like i walked into glamour or cosmo. now where are the 20 ways to please my man?

  2. capnfive says:

    that tag thing is quite the scam. For when you’re tired of reading about how to be a responsible consumer on the Consumerist?

  3. dohtem says:

    Shouldn’t there be a Gawker Media disclaimer? It *is* advertising after all.

  4. markwm says:

    Heh, from one of the business classes I had in college, that label thing is basically what happens in the manufacturing plants in India/China/elsewhere where clothing is made.
    One of the students in the class was an Indian lady who said during group discussion one day, “I don’t get your fascination with name brands over here. My family owns textile plants. We make clothing for Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. We also make clothing for Wal-Mart. The only difference between the clothing is which company picked which pattern, so which label we sew in that pattern at the end of the run.”

  5. matukonyc says:

    How does the magazine already named Jezebel feel about that?

    Also, since when do writers have to look like groupies?

  6. CumaeanSibyl says:

    Hey guys, let’s critique the shallow and looks-obsessed world of beauty and fashion publishing by hiring a bunch of hot chicks!

    I don’t mean to impugn the skllls of these women, but just once I’d like to see a style critic who didn’t get dressed to the nines for every photo. Much more fun to reject fascist beauty standards from the comfort of pajama pants and fuzzy slippers. :)

  7. kenposan says:

    Isn’t changing the tags illegal?

  8. bambino says:

    And how is this a good thing?

  9. etinterrapax says:

    I have a feeling that while I may enjoy the content to a certain extent, it’s going to be run by the kind of girls who wouldn’t let me eat at their lunch table in junior high.

  10. Emor8t says:

    I love it /sarcasm.

    To quote the social equalizer that is South Park
    To be a non-conformist, you have to dress in black, and listen to the same music we do.

    To fit in with this group you have to shun labels and dress in Donna Karen knockoffs you bought at Wal Mart. You must listen to Pat Benetar and basically act like the hippy chick from John Tucker must Die.

    Why don’t they just hose off and realize people will be people.

  11. TinaB says:

    So I’m the only one here who likes it? I’m gonna go run and hide….

  12. @Emor8t:

    Why don’t they just hose off and realize people will be people.

    So why should it be? You and I should get along so awfully.

  13. TSS says:

    Well I gave it a shot, but it didn’t seem like it had anything I don’t already get from other sources. And yes, I am a woman.

  14. cgmaetc says:

    @TinaB: No, I like it too, but I realize in their efforts to be different, they are still the same.

    They look like the Sarah Silverman’s of fashion/pop culture blogging: hot chicks who tire of maintaining their hotness.

  15. Emor8t says:

    @Holden Caulfield: I am missing what you are saying. If it’s a refernce to that South Park episode, I’ve probably forgotten, but that phrase is etched in my mind.

  16. lowlight69 says:

    maybe i’m mising it, but how does this belong on the consumerist? so they put different tags on clothes and sold them to a used clothing store? maybe it’s because i am a guy and currently i’m wearing jeans i bought at costco and a t-shirt that one of my old companies gave me back in 2001.

    some how i’ve fallen in this trap, i’m commenting on this post……..

  17. Dustbunny says:

    It was worth visiting the site just to see a pic of Angelina Jolie’s veiny arm. Gaaah.

  18. rmz says:

    @Emor8t: It’s from a Depeche Mode song.

  19. TedSez says:

    1. Buy jacket for $199

    2. Sew in a designer label and sell it for $110

    3. Profit!

  20. kimsama says:

    @TedSez: HAHAHA! I almost fell out of my chair!

    You forgot a step, though:

    1. Buy jacket for $199
    2. Sew in a designer label and sell it for $110
    3. ????
    4. Profit!

  21. markymags says:

    @TedSez:

    Ummm, it would appear more like this:

    1. Buy jacket for $45
    2. Sew in a designer label and sell it for $110
    3. Profit!

  22. @rmz: Thank you.

    People are people emor8t

  23. automatic_blue says:

    @markymags:

    No, actually – it is in fact what everyone said. This pricing scheme was consistent in almost all cases. Offers for less than the original retail of the item (which was pretty damned expensive to begin with!)

    • Club Monaco jacket (original price, $199) masquerading as Richard Tyler: 2 for 3, with offers of $90 and $110.

    A “nifty project” is something that you could call this, maybe. Maybe.

    It’s borderline fraud. Irregardless of “BRAND NAMES ARE SUPERFICIAL DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY/CELEBRITY/(whatever you crazy kids are raging against these days)” it’s still fraud.

  24. sassenach says:

    Photo checklist:

    Tight black jeans? Check
    High heels? Check.
    Smirk? Check.

  25. Trai_Dep says:

    The chix ain’t gonna be really kewl unless seen hoovering phat lines w/ that Babyshambles dude… I just sayin’…

  26. TedSez says:

    @markymags: Ah, no, because then it wouldn’t be what actually happened. Also, it would no longer be A JOKE.