Alphabet Fashion Soup - C is for...Chloe

I am straying back onto the beaten track now. I could merrily delve into relative obscurity and find you a little hidden gem, but I'm not going to. Because I bloody love Chloe.
I'm not sure why, as it's completely against my usual aesthetic. Wait, that's probably why. The Chloe woman is grown-up, classy and yet alluring, but not try-hard. Flesh of choice is the leg, not the cleavage, and the hair is big, glossy, Leighton-Meester fabulousness. And the Chloe woman seems to have a thing for soft leather shorts. Sold.
The Chloe name is a golden oldie (literally, if the AW campaign is anything to go by), dating back to 1952. Back in the day its easy chic was dreamed up to counteract the couture effect, and the list of designers who have helped with this goal through time reads like a who's who of the fabulous, including Karl Lagerfeld and Stella McCartney. It's currently spearheaded by a Brit (so that makes it even more awesome) and is still continuing on its mission of giving us wearable chic, or, in the words of label founder Gaby Aghion, 'luxury pret-a-porter'. Cheers Gaby!
(It might amuse you to know that I asked Grazia's Paula Reed at Style 118 for places to buy fresh spring and summer suits, and she suggested Chloe. Which is true. Except I did tell her I was an unemployed graduate. Ah well, writing 'just bog off down to M&S' doesn't look so good in a glossy of that calibre.)
So let's have a look at some of Chloe's latest examples of gorgeousness.

Ah Freja. If only I would look that good in leather shorts. It's like Peter Pan meets Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves.


And come the end of Lent (I've given up shopping, would you believe it?) I will be hot-footing it to River Island to pick up these Chloe-a-like boots. Now I just need a poncho, some leather shorts and long lithe limbs. And a cornfield.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.