new york fugging city

Dear Kate: Those Who Do Not Learn From a Topshop Line…

From left, the Star Print! The Kate Face! The Clown Top! The Horror! The Horror!Images courtesy of Topshop.

When Kate Moss’s Topshop line first debuted last April, we made no secret of the fact that it wasn’t our cup of Earl Grey. Indeed, the words “crap” and “fashion myopia” may have been invoked to describe what was, essentially, the clothing equivalent of designer-imposter perfume: a stale take on looks more talented people had already executed. Now, almost a year later, a sneak peek of her latest collection merely affirms our opinion that Kate Moss, a supermodel for practically half her life at this point, brings about as much fresh perspective to fashion as Lauren Conrad does.

In part, Kate’s new range is more of the same as last time – tight jeans, hot pants, lace-up skinny trousers, and fringed, garish waistcoats. In addition to feeling very Last Summer at Glastonbury, these are all versions of things we’re pretty sure Kate acquired long ago from actual designers and has already worn to one of her infamous birthday orgies. It’s surprising that Kate would return to the same well once again. Of course, it’s also surprising that she seems to believe the average Topshop customer would want to wear hot pants and a silk tailcoat, but perhaps we’re just on the wrong side of the pond. Despite what the untouched racks of Kate Moss gear at Barneys may suggest, her lines tend to do pretty well across the pond. But maybe the kids in London have finally tired of dressing like extras from a Rockettes ode to Royal Ascot — the Daily Mail notes that, contrary to launches past, this time around there were no crowds waiting to see Kate’s latest.

There’s also a new problem in the mix: Though we are at least vaguely amused by her crazy copycat clothes, Kate unfortunately happens to be a pretty dull designer once she runs out of stuff in her closet to remake. The line has been haphazardly fleshed out with everything from flimsy Old Navy–style tees to run-of-the-mill strappy dresses and boring tanks, pausing occasionally to include stuff that is intriguing but only in how completely random it is. Standout disasters in that vein include a blue “star print blouse” that we’re pretty sure Bea Arthur once wore on Maude, and a silk monochrome mess called a “clown frill long-sleeved top,” which is guaranteed to suck in all those ladies who’ve long dreamed of a gig making balloon animals at the Met Costume Institute Ball.

All of these sartorial attempts might be considerably more entertaining were it not for the inflated cost of each piece — think Forever 21 quality at Banana Republic prices. Kate even hopes you’ll pay twenty pounds – upwards of $40 – for a T-shirt with her face on it, a venture which has likewise already been explored by another fine designer: Paris Hilton. When you’re Kate freaking Moss and you’re nibbling at Paris’s sloppy seconds, it’s time for a little self-examination.

Just looking at Kate’s lackluster collection fills us with terrible dread about the myriad celebrity vanity collections coming down the pike, like Rachel Bilson for DKNY or Avril Lavigne’s line for Kohl’s (not that we ever had very high hopes for that one, unless it’s solely a line of hoodies and girl ties). Granted, we may not be the biggest Kate Moss fans — can you tell? — but we’ll give her this: She has spent the last fifteen years modeling exceptional, trend-setting clothing for top designers and being surrounded by skilled fashion professionals. If she hasn’t picked up anything along the way, what hope can we have for Pete Wentz? —The Fug Girls

Earlier: Kate’s Topshop Line: Perfect Clothes for the Hungry and Sullen

Further adventures in celebrity design:
Rachel Bilson Designs Line for DKNY
Avril Lavigne Launches Tragic Juniors’ Brand
Pete Wentz Designs, Wears Women’s Clothes

For more of the Fug Girls, check out their archive.

Dear Kate: Those Who Do Not Learn From a Topshop Line…