This Just In


Yes, I am a cranky old man

And I am not paying $350 for a goddam pair of jeans.

On the other hand, isn’t this guy adorable?

Secret Agent Fred and I went out for drinks tonight and I had a “Gaupo” which turns out to be basically a margarita made with grapefruit juice.  Tasty.  I might be a tiny bit loaded.

8 responses »

  1. $350 is roughly about £225. Who in real life would spend that on a pair of jeans? the most I've paid for jeans was £100 for a pair of Diesel vintage and then I couldn't tell the difference between those and the ones I bought from Madhouse for £5.99.


  2. yet i would gladly pay $350 for the guy. gladly.

    money well spent IS money well spent.

    i shriek loudly these days as i peruse the stacks of jeans that all
    remind me of the tacky things available in the 70s that i didn't buy THEN!


  3. I remember the '70s, when J.C. Penney (any relation to J.C. Peenee?) advertised their store-brand Plain Pockets jeans to be the equivalent of Levi's, minus the decorative stitches on the back pockets. At the time, the Penney's version sold for $5 to $10 less than Levi's.

    I bought them, I wore them, and I wish Penney's still sold them — because the claims were 100% true. I recently cleaned out my closet and found a pair I passed down to a 20-something nephew. He loves them, and has expressed a wish I had found more in his size!

    As for the designer labels, the only ones I've found to be anywhere near halfway worth their MSRB have been Polo and Calvin Klein. And I mean “halfway” — they were a better value when purchased from T.J. Maxx or Marshall's, and only when marked down to about 40% of any department store's sale prices.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s