recall

this sem's module is like a revisit to the module i did last sem. i suspected so when i looked thru the course synopsis. i chose it anyway. the lecturer seemed to be really into luxury goods. she wore a top with the burberry-esque checks and her bag's a loewe. i have one word for the things on her hands and digits: shiny. she gave some insight into the behaviour of women who're into luxury goods. summarily, her point was that they're ultimately conforming, as opposed to them claiming to being unique. i just blogged about something quite related. i agreed with her to a certain extent. 

the top's from the style guru. it didn't really go with the dress colour-wise but i wore it anyway. i think it's meant to be a babydoll top. to me, it's a no-no to tie those strings at the chest or at the back if the top's tucked in. so i tied the strings around my neck. would you approve? the hair's old hair.

here, the top's bought over from the guru at a low price. it's from that most famous local blogshop (or one of the most famous ones - i'd be really curious who would be the most famous, if a competition's conducted for them). i'll never understand how the model could wear it as a dress when she's taller than me. must be her great bod cos she didn't look vulgar in them. the jeggings were bought over from J at a low price. i didn't ask if they're also from a local blogshop. i was never really into skinnies but i think i could wear them all right. i know self-praise is no praise. i'm just being self-aware and not zard in this instance. i wore the grey frilly vest underneath the jacket for contrast (not shown here). i seldom wore denim with denim but i thought this combo was ok. do you approve?

 ^etienne aigner suede/patent boots^

you must think i'm also a label whore. lol. the more glaring truth is that i can't afford to be one. the other truth is that the insides of these boots flaked as soon as i wore them. they're vintage, you see.

^they're not knee-highs. were you fooled?^