Hello-Hello everybody, and welcome to the almost-weekend!
We promised more Lilly Pulitzer Stationery goodies, so here we go! First, the Note Card Books in Patchtastic and Lillywood:
At only $15 for each Set of 10 Note Cards (2 each of 5 different patterns) and envelopes, these are already a favorite here at the Prepatorium. And they haven’t even arrived yet!
Also due in around the 4th or 5th of February, these bright and cheery Large Notebooks in Animal Crackers (L) and Cabanarama (R):
The Large Notebooks are about 9″ x 12″ with an inside pocket; they will be $16.
At 6″ x 8″ the Mini-Notebooks are perfect for tossing in the tote. They also have an inside pocket, and will run $14. Below, the Mini-Notebooks in Mumsie and Bee’s Knees Patch:
A reminder that the Princess Consort has been typing his little fingers to the bone, making sure some of the Lilly merchandise is up on the Princess website for pre-ordering. The Lilly folks say they are shipping February 1st; we expect our first shipment being here by the 4th or 5th of February. Pre-ordering means your order gets out the door first when the Lilly merchandise arrives here. Pre-orders are at the top of the list and will be turned around on the same day we receive the merchandise from Lilly.
We also said we would share some sneak peeks from the market. Here is a glance at two new patterns from Scout that we went ga-ga over, starting with the Poolside Stripe:
Stripes Away is another new pattern we will be getting in mid-February.
On the topic of Inaugural fashion, the LA Times raises a question about the propriety of a First Lady borrowing jewelry, in relation to these $17,000 Loree Rodkin earrings.
Michelle Obama wore the sparklers to Sunday’s concert.
(Frankly, TP is far more fascinated by the Narciso Rodriguez ensemble in camel and black, really quite elegant IOHO.) The paper’s All the Rage blog cites rules about borrowed apparel and accessories set up when Ronald Reagan was President in the 1980s, and Mrs. Reagan was chided for her frequent borrowing of designer clothes.
“Michelle Obama wore $17,000 diamond chandelier earrings designed by Loree Rodkin to the “We Are One” concert on Sunday — not a gift from her husband, but borrowed from a Chicago retailer. The next morning, dispatches were dutifully sent out from the publicist for Rodkin to let the press know whom to credit for her ear candy. How very red carpet.”
Yikes… that seems a little cranky, no? We presume All the Rage would apply the same question to Tuesday night’s jewelry, a healthy 77.6 carats in diamonds, again, borrowed from Loree Rodkin. (Mrs. Obama is seen with U.S. Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera following her dance with President Obama.)
The Arizona Republic has a little more information on the bling (that is the proper term…yes?) in this story:
“Curious about costs, we called Moody Blues boutique in Scottsdale, which carries Loree Rodkin jewelry. There, a chain necklace with a cross pendant covered in an estimated 3 carats of diamonds is $21,000, says Catie Cerutti, store manager.
We’d hate to draw any cost-per-carat conclusions based on that, but . . . oh, who are we kidding. Our math shows that Obama could have been wearing $543,200 worth of diamonds.”
There you have it.
Now, if you are interested in sporting a knock-off of the First Lady’s Jason Wu gown, eDressMe has one available. Really.
We have an answer to our question Is Jason Wu Preppy?, asked in this post: absolutely. Without question. According to Eric Wilson’s story in today’s Times, he attended Loomis, a not-very-well-know Connecticut boarding school.
We credit the Consort for the sharp eye on this – he is such a Fashionisto. (The male version of Fashionista…hello?)
And in our “The Princess wasn’t Born Yesterday” category, we pose a question: is it possible that the “Marvelous Malia” and “Sweet Sasha” dolls pictured below have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the little girls who just moved into the White House?!
That’s what the folks at Ty say; they just released the dolls for sale, and controversy about the TyGirlz dolls is growing. An Associated Press story explains the “coincidence”:
“The Oak Brook-based company chose the names because ‘they are beautiful names,’ not because of any resemblance to Malia and Sasha Obama, said spokeswoman Tania Lundeen.”
“‘There’s nothing on the dolls that refers to the Obama girls,’ Lundeen said. ‘It would not be fair to say they are exact replications of these girls.
Oh. Silly Princess.
However – let it be said that at least the moronic company (really, this is PR Debacle 101 level stuff) put a little madras on the dolls’ cuffs and one pair of sneakers.
Do enjoy your Saturday and Sunday!