# Ralph Lauren has dropped the bomb with those boots!



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

They are absolutely beautiful with this timeless design. I love the classic tartan fused in the middle, it reminds me of custom Tricker's. You can read more here.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

What, is this a kind of Rorschach test? Ok, I'll go out on a limb - those are ludicrous and I hope you're joking. Timeless design? They're a complete break from a traditional notion of a riding boot, which then leaves the question: if not for riding, when could you possibly wear those? I trust you are joking.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Epaminondas: I, for one, just double checked the date to make sure my lobotomy had no ill effects. Unfortunately, it is about four months and 27 days too late for this post...


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

I want to wear them on the mayflower


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Well, on the right lady-type person, with some spurs...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

I wanna come in on Camo's side and say those boots really burn. I would buy them, but they don't come in triple-E and they cost more than fifteen bucks. I also don't think Epam is solid on what a Rorscach test is. Unless this reminds him of Ralph Lauren:


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

Those boots are insane, I believe Ralph lost his sense of everyday classic style some time ago..


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

fred johnson said:


> Those boots are insane, I believe Ralph lost his sense of everyday classic style some time ago..


Oh you didn't hear?! they're catering to red necks now . I wonder what's next, Ford truck interiors by Ralph Lauren.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> I wanna come in on Camo's side and say those boots really burn. I would buy them, but they don't come in triple-E and they cost more than fifteen bucks. I also don't think Epam is solid on what a Rorscach test is. Unless this reminds him of Ralph Lauren:


or


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> I also don't think Epam is solid on what a Rorscach test is. Unless this reminds him of Ralph Lauren:


Well, actually, when viewed from a certain angle.....










......unless I am just seeing things.....


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> I also don't think Epam is solid on what a Rorscach [SIC] test is.


I'm well aware of what a Rorschach test is.

The point of my comment was that I supposed one would see in those boots what he subjectively chose to. The OP saw classic styling, I see fashion abuse.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Epaminondas said:


> I'm well aware of what a Rorschach test is.The point of my comment was that I supposed one would see in those boots what he subjectively chose to.


In a Rorschach test one holds up an ink blot and asks another what he sees. The tester does not then usually heap snide abuse upon the respondent, as in:



Epaminondas said:


> ...those are ludicrous and I hope you're joking. Timeless design? They're a complete break from a traditional notion of a riding boot, which then leaves the question: if not for riding, when could you possibly wear those? I trust you are joking.


So my original comment stands.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> In a Rorschach test one holds up an ink blot and asks another what he sees. The tester does not then usually heap snide abuse upon the respondent, as in:
> 
> So my original comment stands.


Well, if you followed the analogy, you'd understand that, in this case, the OP would be the "tester" who held up that card. Let it go PP - you're out of your depth.

Again, the question remains: When could anybody possible wear those things?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

You're correct, I was faulty; I turned the analogy around, unknowingly, thus stupidly. But you divert on purpose; you address the semantics only. Go back to the boot. Go back to Camo's posting of what he (and I) think is a quite swell. You don't. We understand. That's what these threads are about. They are not about belittling those whose taste isn't yours. We'll let you know when we're joking.


----------



## Merle (Aug 23, 2010)

The price tag is another bomb they dropped 

But I can say they are beautiful, although I wouldn't dare to wear them


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Epaminondas said:


> What, is this a kind of Rorschach test? Ok, I'll go out on a limb - those are ludicrous and I hope you're joking. Timeless design? They're a complete break from a traditional notion of a riding boot, which then leaves the question: if not for riding, when could you possibly wear those? I trust you are joking.


The equestrienne look has been in fashion for some time. I see women in tight riding pants, and paddock or full riding boots all the time here in the megalopolitan suburbs, women who wouldn't go near a horse. They may well have their living rooms decorated with hunting prints and horse brasses. Kind of a rich b**tch look, and thus a natural for RL. Makes me think of Leopold Bloom's sex fantasy in which women in similar getups whip him with their riding crops.

The fact that something generates different opinions doesn't make it a Rorscharch Test.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. Can they be had with Black-watch plaid inserts?


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

_Ball_ is the word you're looking for. RL dropped the *ball *on these.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Can they be had with Black-watch plaid inserts?


if Tricker's can do it why not RL


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

camorristi said:


> if Tricker's can do it why not RL


The issue isn't the fabric inserted in the boot, per se. I have no objection to these ankle boots, other than that they should have a used a better looking fabric.

The problem with the boots pictured in the first post is that they are ludicrous - as I said.

They are "equestrian inspired" but, again, I ask: Where would you wear these? I can imagine some fancy boy showing up in "The Sartorialist" sporting these in NYC or San Francisco either actually wearing jodhpurs or tucking his pants into them, but that's about it.

As far as riding boots go - there's a reason that riding boots are all leather: the shaft of the boot will be next to the horse's sides and will be in contact with horse sweat/body oils - those plaid inserts would be stained, stink, and decay within weeks of any actual riding. Also, the buckle over the instep would get in the way of attaching spurs (querry: why would one need such a strap on riding boots?). Finally, the brown tops on the boots are, as I understand it, usually reserved for the Master of a hunt. So, per usual, Lifschitz takes a vague idea of something "high class," bastardizes it, makes it ridiculous and vulgar and offers it back to the middling social climbers. There's nothing "classic" about those boots - they are a sartorial mongrel. I'm sure they'd look fine on a woman, but with the above noted exceptions, I can't really imagine a man wearing them - was this really suppose to be posted in the Trad forum instead of the Fashion forum?

What those boots REALLY look like are not "equestrian inspired" boots, but Chippewa snake boots. See, e.g.:

https://www.chippewaboots.com/boots//L23913

Note the fabric cordura insert and the strap over the instep (in this case, no spurs to worry about). I suspect, however, that no matter where you wore those Lifschitz abominations - either riding or upland shooting in snake country you would be justly mocked in either case.

But please - don't listen to me. Please buy a pair and post a picture of yourself wearing them in public - and make sure you show off those plaid boot shafts! You wouldn't want trouser legs to cover up those fancy beauties!

P.S., and I forgot to mention the obnoxious branding on the outside leather top of the boot.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Epaminondas said:


> ]
> 
> ]
> 
> ...


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> Lighten up - we know that.


Aparently, not everyone does.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Since this thread is about both semantics _and_ taste, I wonder if my description of these boots would be considered one word or two. Two--I think. Butt ugly.


----------



## 4dgt90 (Dec 2, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> So, per usual, Lifschitz takes a vague idea of something "high class," bastardizes it, makes it ridiculous and vulgar and offers it back to the middling social climbers.


i laughed out loud.


----------



## Peachey Carnehan (Apr 18, 2009)

too loud, even for me.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Wait a minute, I went to the site, you mean these are boots for *guys? *I thought they were more czyk crap, like those Chooey Balonica things. And the "proprietor plaque"? Somebody interfacing pro-actively outside the paradigm found a new little buzzword for "whacking great silly ass logo"


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

According to urbandictionary.com, "to drop a bomb" means to take a dump. But camorristi likes the boots. Can one apply a syllogism?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Alright so everyone is getting shaft insecurity, what do you think after I've chopped that sucker? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Looks like a very angry fox with goat horns and two pairs of eyes.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> You're correct, I was faulty; I turned the analogy around, unknowingly, thus stupidly. But you divert on purpose; you address the semantics only. Go back to the boot. Go back to Camo's posting of what he (and I) think is a quite swell. You don't. We understand. That's what these threads are about. They are not about belittling those whose taste isn't yours. We'll let you know when we're joking.


Careful, Peak and Pine, or he'll accuse you of being a public school student.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Hadn't bothered to wade through Epam's last screed until Rambler highlighted this (thank you):



Epaminondas said:


> So, per usual, Lifschitz takes a vague idea of something "high class," bastardizes it, makes it ridiculous and vulgar and offers it back to the middling social climbers.


Very much like when the President is referred to as Barack _Hussein_ Obama, which suggests he might, wink, wink, be a Muslim, calling Ralph Lauren _Lifschitz _is done so you'll understand he's a Jew, without the winks. And Jews, as we all know, like Gatsby, né Gatz, cannot possibly understand the refinements of we WASPS. Or wee WASPS, since Epam's post has made me feel very small.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Three words : Ugly! Effeminate! Joke!


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

My wife has a pair that's similar, but they are all leather, and don't have the gaudy logo leather around the top. She likes them a good bit and they look quite nice on her, but she only wears them with jeans or khakis and not tucked in. So I guess the only real similarity is the bottom part that can be seen under the pants. She also got them at Century 21, as there is no way she would ever pay those bloated RL prices, haha.


----------



## Mr. Tweed (Apr 9, 2009)

Epaminondas said:


> You wouldn't want trouser legs to cover up those fancy beauties!


Trousers? Oh no, those boots are to be worn with a matching plaid kilt. Just cannot seem to find that kilt over at RL...

Yours,
Mr. Tweed


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Hadn't bothered to wade through Epam's last screed until Rambler highlighted this (thank you):
> 
> Very much like when the President is referred to as Barack _Hussein_ Obama, which suggests he might, wink, wink, be a Muslim, calling Ralph Lauren _Lifschitz _is done so you'll understand he's a Jew, without the winks. And Jews, as we all know, like Gatsby, né Gatz, cannot possibly understand the refinements of we WASPS. Or wee WASPS, since Epam's post has made me feel very small.


Well said.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

^ Yes, bless you PP, I wasn't going to touch that one, but I think it's fair to say that without Jewish garment manufacturers there would be no trad, no ivy. One of the best posts ever was a little memoir by Scott Anderson, of Anderson-Little, about growing up Jewish in the WASPy world of the 50s.


----------



## cumberlandpeal (May 12, 2006)

Very humorous design. Quite funny.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Hadn't bothered to wade through Epam's last screed until Rambler highlighted this (thank you):
> 
> Very much like when the President is referred to as Barack _Hussein_ Obama, which suggests he might, wink, wink, be a Muslim, calling Ralph Lauren _Lifschitz _is done so you'll understand he's a Jew, without the winks. And Jews, as we all know, like Gatsby, né Gatz, cannot possibly understand the refinements of we WASPS. Or wee WASPS, since Epam's post has made me feel very small.


I certainly concur with that , my initial purpose of posting this thread was to show you the decline of originality in RL's recent collections, as evidenced by their Fall collection.


----------



## Mazama (May 21, 2009)

camorristi said:


> if Tricker's can do it why not RL


Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they should.

I like RL sportswear, especially shirts and polos, but don't get the appeal of their "interpretations" of classic outdoor clothes. Why buy one of their boot, down jacket or other outerwear "interpretations" when for about half the cost you can buy the superior original. RL currently shows a imported, made from inferior materials knock-off of a red plaid Filson cruiser for $600+ while the original can be purchased for less than $300. Just sayin'.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

camorristi said:


> ... my initial purpose of posting this thread was to show you the decline of originality in RL's recent collections...


It was??? You mean you don't really like those boots and my sticking up for you was just me peeing in the wind? Peak's been had.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Mazama said:


> RL currently shows an i*mported, made from inferior materials knock-off* of a red plaid Filson cruiser for $600+ while the original can be purchased for less than $300. Just sayin'.


Whoa. What inferior materials? Imported is bad? Knock off? What knock off? Filson hardly holds the patent on a Mackinaw. Everyone from Bean to Woolwich to Carter to Bemidji to Chippewa to Johnson to Pendleton makes or has made one. You're too hard on Ralph. Ralph likes you. You mustn't hurt his feelings.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Very much like when the President is referred to as Barack _Hussein_ Obama, which suggests he might, wink, wink, be a Muslim, calling Ralph Lauren _Lifschitz _is done so you'll understand he's a Jew, without the winks. And Jews, as we all know, like Gatsby, né Gatz, cannot possibly understand the refinements of we WASPS. Or wee WASPS, since Epam's post has made me feel very small.


You know - a person like you is going to see what he wants to see. I won't deign to go into my background as a rebuttal.

I used Ralph's real last name to suggest that those boots are as big a fraud as his marketing name/persona and that those boots are as ludicrous as the fatasy life he tries to create. There was no intended smear against his being Jewish - nor do I think anyone would see one unless he were scouring for an avenue of cheap attack. Suffice to say, if his name were Archie Leach and he was attempting to market "upscale" sartorial mixed metaphors and abominations like those stupid boots I would have mockingly pointed out the use of "Cary Grant" to sell his "image" as well - it's the badly done and the inauthentic that bothers me, not whatever religion he may or may not have. How my post suddenly elicited a response that then included muslims, WASPs, or Obama (none of which I mentioned) is beyond me and it demonstartes how far afield your mind roams when it wants to see an enemy. The word transference comes to mind - look into it.

.......and those boots are absolute crap.

I


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Epaminondas said:


> I used Ralph's real last name to suggest that those boots are as big a fraud as his marketing name/persona and that those boots are as ludicrous as the fatasy life he tries to create.


The man changed his name. Legally. Ethnicity aside, it's insulting to refer to him by his former name. Especially so when you intend it as part of a smear--even if the smear doesn't extend to his heritage.

And yes, the boots are absolute crap.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Epaminondas said:


> You know - a person like you is going to see what he wants to see. I won't deign to go into my background as a rebuttal.


After your performance here, I'm not sure anyone's really interested in your background. You've written a series of the snottiest posts within memory and, as you've read, I am not alone in that view. Your tortured explanation of referring to Ralph Lauren by his Bronx moniker doesn't wash. I am not interested in what you think of Ralph Lauren or, after this, what you think about anything at all. Deign that.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Deign that.


Sir, you have a way with words.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> After your performance here, I'm not sure anyone's really interested in your background. You've written a series of the snottiest posts within memory and, as you've read, I am not alone in that view. Your tortured explanation of referring to Ralph Lauren by his Bronx moniker doesn't wash. I am not interested in what you think of Ralph Lauren or, after this, what you think about anything at all. Deign that.


Feel better?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> After your performance here, I'm not sure anyone's really interested in your background. You've written a series of the snottiest posts within memory and, as you've read, I am not alone in that view. Your tortured explanation of referring to Ralph Lauren by his Bronx moniker doesn't wash. I am not interested in what you think of Ralph Lauren or, after this, what you think about anything at all. Deign that.


Time magazine once quoted RL about his name change: "My given name has the word **** in it," he told Time. "When I was a kid, the other kids would make a lot of fun of me. It was a tough name. That's why I decided to change it."

I'm on your side sir! You're right and they're wrong.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> I'm on your side sir! You're right and they're wrong.


Why is it "right" not to give Epam the benefit of the doubt and inject a divisive political spin into this forum??

AGAIN!!

As is the MO of certain personalities.

I empathize with RL and his name change but those boots dreadful!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Guys, if you're going to dredge up recent Interchange conversations, you may as well do it where they started...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

camorristi said:


> my initial purpose of posting this thread was to show you the decline of originality in RL's recent collections, as evidenced by their.


That was what I always thought, because I assumed (correctly I now know) that you knew that "dropped the bomb" was a term indicating surprise.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That was what I always thought, because I assumed (correctly I now know) that you knew that "dropped the bomb" was a term indicating surprise.


That would be "dropped _a_ bomb" Ormonde. "Dropped _the_ bomb" refers to nuclear weapons, or, we learn, taking a dump. A small, and quite possibly cunning misuse of idiom lies behind this controversy :drunken_smilie:


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Perhaps he meant (tongue in cheek) that they were "Da Bomb!", which is, I believe, a current term meaning "really swell"


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

yeah, that was my first take.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That was what I always thought, because I assumed (correctly I now know) that you knew that "dropped the bomb" was a term indicating surprise.


Isn't that a "bombshell"?


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

The OP may have thought those boots were dynamite, but that notion was pretty quickly torpedoed when Epaminondas (followed by others) shot him down. Ralph Lauren's name and heritage has proved to be an even more explosive topic, but I'm sure the OP didn't mean to touch off such a conversational land mine.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I almost, *almost, *get the impression that Epam is fulminating against the idiot public that eats this stuff up. After all, what's more red blooded real American than making a trainload of money?

I've always thought that Ralph L. was putting one over on people who had to buy taste, but, hey, it's called the market, and it's perfect, right?

It does remind me of a Dave Barry column that referred to the "PJ O'Irishname" bars which honestly should be called "14 Proctologists' Tax Shelter"


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

One thing to keep in mind is the degree to which Mr. Lauren built his empire on a vision of glamour and prestige that was itself extremely racialized. That may not be obvious to younger people. If you look at Polo ad campaigns today, they seem adequately diverse. But this wasn't always the case. Back in the 1970's and 1980's, he was selling fashion with strong upper class preppy themes featuring models who seemed quite uniformly to have distinctively WASPY features. Even at the time, many people viewed this as a pretty retrograde take on style. Rightly or wrongly, I think Lauren's own strategy to associate his ideal style so closely with particular ethnic phenotypes made his own ethnicity more of an issue than might otherwise be the case.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Isn't that a "bombshell"?


What are you, a bomb-thrower??


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

An entertaining thread - the boots are very odd indeed but not entirely make-believe, as there was/is a not dissimilar style of riding boot known as a Newmarket, with canvas in place of the tartan.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

And I believe those were worn by the British Navy as they attempted to invade the Malvinas a while back.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> And I believe those were worn by the British Navy as they attempted to invade the Malvinas a while back.


Why P&P, it's your old hobby horse again! Did you say _attempted_? You almost make it sound as if the jolly Jack Tars had _failed_ to give those scoundrel argies* the thorough spanking they so richly deserved.

*P&P it was a struggle to resist various alternative epithets, I know you are sensitive about these things.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

AldenPyle said:


> One thing to keep in mind is the degree to which Mr. Lauren built his empire on a vision of glamour and prestige that was itself extremely racialized. That may not be obvious to younger people. If you look at Polo ad campaigns today, they seem adequately diverse. But this wasn't always the case. Back in the 1970's and 1980's, he was selling fashion with strong upper class preppy themes featuring models who seemed quite uniformly to have distinctively WASPY features. Even at the time, many people viewed this as a pretty retrograde take on style. Rightly or wrongly, I think Lauren's own strategy to associate his ideal style so closely with particular ethnic phenotypes made his own ethnicity more of an issue than might otherwise be the case.


Most certainly, AP. It's what put me in mind of the ludicrous sex fantasy in _Ulysses, _above. One could say the same thing about many Hollywood classics of the 30s as well, and the Gatsby, nee Gatz reference above, with his gonnegion to Meyer Wolfsheim.


----------



## snakeroot (Aug 30, 2008)

*Ralph L.*

I believe the phrase is "Ralph Lauren has finally jumped the shark with those boots". They really have veered completely into the realm of self-parody.

Whatever I may think of his current state I will not brook any criticism of the Lauren models of the golden 80's, in particular the ineffable . Monochrome THIS, as Mr. Situation would say.

Regards,


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

:deadhorse-a:

"Jumped the shark" would be fine if the op had intended straightforward ridicule of the boots. If he was ironically mocking them, as he later says, then saying "jumped the shark" would have tipped his hand, since he was speaking tongue-in-cheek to indulge in a little bear-baiting, rather than being accused of shooting fish in a barrel. Since there is no way of knowing what "dropped the bomb," a misapplied cliche, might mean, he was able to carry out his sinister secret purpose. Or perhaps, having unleashed a firestorm of contempt, he changed his mind about the boots.

I agree with Centaur that the boots themselves are just tarted up Newmarkets.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Epaminondas said:


> The issue isn't the fabric inserted in the boot, per se. I have no objection to these ankle boots, other than that they should have a used a better looking fabric.
> 
> The problem with the boots pictured in the first post is that they are ludicrous - as I said.
> 
> ...


Actually don't lighten up Epaminondas! I am in complete agreement in terms of your assessment. Both the RL as well as the Trickers should be prescribed for individuals not wishing to have children because no woman in her right mind would dare be caught in public, much less in private, with a man wearing these birth control specials.

I believe there are still areas of Brooklyn where one might be beaten wearing these gems!

It's nothing personal but I just can't imagine where one might wear either pair. (especially the knee highs)

On the other hand fashion is subjective and I believe there is no greater area of subjectivity within the fashion world than in footwear,....

:icon_smile:
My best,


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

127.72 MHz said:


> Actually don't lighten up Epaminondas! I am in complete agreement in terms of your assessment.


Maybe you two should get a room.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

Sadly, the boots in question aren't even the most ridiculous shoes on the website.

Witness:

www.ralphlauren.com/product/index.j...1898623&ab=viewall&view=all&parentPage=family

Imagine showing up for gym class in these things.


----------



## Joe Tradly (Jan 21, 2006)

I know of someone who will have them _post haste_.

JB


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Joe Tradly said:


> I know of someone who will have them _post haste_.
> 
> JB


In case you haven't heard, they've adapted! I hope you know who this is. :devil:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Why is Sarah Silverman doing ads for Ralph Lauren?


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Some of you boys sure can get worked up over a picure of footwear no one would wear to a rat killin'. Especially given the price tag.ic12337:


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

To thee uninitiated and just plain ignurnt, they're Scots camouflage mohrland field boots anomaly tagged "O'Rourke". If the canvas were solid khaki-sage and ballistic Cordura® itz OK as a snake boot? Howzabout military camo splotches? That less ridiculous?

There's precedent, Argyle sox wearers.









For y'all Psychology Today true believers, this 'ere's 3D Rubix Rhoarshack. See Mama's uterus? Dolly Parton?

OkeeDoughKee, back to the umpteenth cordovan thread.

(the innerweb, what a hoot)


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

Those boots would look perfect with this outfit.


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

Cardinals5 said:


> Those boots would look perfect with this outfit.


You know, I couldn't pull this outfit off but I think tis actually really beautiful in a "piece of artwork" sort of way. The colors all work together along a common theme, and the different sizings in all the patterns are distinct enough that there is no disharmony there either. Putting aside thinking of it as clothes at all, its just a really beautiful assembly of colors, patterns and shapes and reflects well on the skill/talent/aesthetic senses of the person who put the items together into a composition.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Cardinals5 said:


> Those boots would look perfect with this outfit.


Interesting collar!


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Cardinals5 said:


> Those boots would look perfect with this outfit.


This looks very impressive, very lord-of-the-manor, tally-ho old chap. Viscount Crumbley-Cakke at his estate near Grunting-on-Potty. If I tried it, I'd probably look like Eliza's dad in "My Fair Lady"


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

phyrpowr said:


> This looks very impressive, very lord-of-the-manor, tally-ho old chap. Viscount Crumbley-Cakke at his estate near Grunting-on-Potty. If I tried it, I'd probably look like Eliza's dad in "My Fair Lady"


The padrino who could have someone's ear cut :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The Rambler said:


> That would be "dropped _a_ bomb" Ormonde. "Dropped _the_ bomb" refers to nuclear weapons, or, we learn, taking a dump. A small, and quite possibly cunning misuse of idiom lies behind this controversy :drunken_smilie:


I hear you, but "Dropped the bomb", in European usage at least, is quite often used to indicate a definite as opposed to an indefinite (using a) undetermined surprise element, for example, "Today NN, film director dropped the bomb that he and the 30 year younger actor NN would be getting married in the summer". And that is the usage you can regularly see in newspapers and magazines and hear on TV and radio.

Dropped a bomb does not work in such definite contexts.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

According to McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, to drop a bomb means to announce shocking news.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

camorristi said:


> According to McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, to drop a bomb means to announce shocking news.


Exactly, shocking, surprise, unexpected news.


----------



## TweedyDon (Aug 31, 2007)

Joe Tradly said:


> I know of someone who will have them _post haste_.
> 
> JB


I'm not sure if this link originally took one to the image it now does, JT, but *thank you*! :biggrin:


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

TweedyDon said:


> I'm not sure if this link originally took one to the image it now does, JT, but *thank you*! :biggrin:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I still can't understand everyone's obsession with this woman.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

I don't think it can be explained. It just is.

I would wear jorts for her if she wanted...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Taken Aback said:


> I don't think it can be explained. It just is.
> 
> I would wear jorts for her if she wanted...


I'd wear those @#$%?! plaid boots for her, in public!


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Jovan said:


> I still can't understand everyone's obsession with this woman.


Uhhhh...pretty fundemental I'd say. A good-looking curvy women in alluring lingerie what's not to obcess about?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I still can't understand everyone's obsession with this woman.


In July 2010 Hendricks' hourglass figure was highlighted as a positive influence for women by UK Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstonehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Featherstone who said "Christina Hendricks is absolutely fabulous...We need more of these role models. There is such a sensation when there is a curvy role model. It shouldn't be so unusual."

Take it easy Mr.MP hehe


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> Uhhhh...pretty fundemental I'd say. A good-looking curvy women in alluring lingerie what's not to obcess about?


You forgot the red hair...escape _might_ have been theoretically possible otherwise.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

I _love_ the red hair as well. On the other hand...I don't think escape would even be theoretically regardless of hair color. But, the red definately ups the ante...no doubt about it. Gee, this is a lot more fun than commenting on those hideous boots:biggrin2:


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I still can't understand everyone's obsession with this woman.


I know what you mean. Red-headed _and_ fat? No thanks.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

camorristi said:


> According to McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, to drop a bomb means to announce shocking news.


Yet before you called them "timeless." You like to make things up as you go along.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> I know what you mean. Red-headed _and_ fat? No thanks.


I popped that statement into Google images, and no pics of her came up. It would seem you're in the minority with that opinion.

On another note, I may need to burn my eyes out now...


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Pentheos said:


> I know what you mean. Red-headed _and_ fat? No thanks.


Fat?! You've been seduced by those stick women boy. That gal is what's known as a WOMAN. Honor compells that she be defended against all who would speak a word of besmirchment against her. Wait a minute, this *is* the thread where supposedly grown men are seriously discussing plaid boots. There is no honor here! I'm also beginning to wonder about the "T" levels.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> I know what you mean. Red-headed _and_ fat? No thanks.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Take a look at Christina Hendricks as she appeared on Firefly. Now take a look at her. You know where she's been in the meantime? At the trough.

Oh, and another thing. Lots of people say, "she's a woman, that's what real women look like" (see above). Hate to break it to you, but those puppies aren't real.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> Take a look at Christina Hendricks as she appeared on Firefly. Now take a look at her. You know where she's been in the meantime? At the trough.
> 
> Oh, and another thing. Lots of people say, "she's a woman, that's what real women look like" (see above). Hate to break it to you, but those puppies aren't real.


Got your point, no further explanation needed. Now, let us enjoy THE woman :icon_smile_big:. On a side note, men used to wear tall riding boots in the 1910's.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

I do remember her from back then, and she did put on a few pounds since, but "trough"? No, she hasn't crossed that line...yet.

I think most know the latter. As a spokesperson for the majority...we're not happy about it, but have learned to live with it.


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Take a look at Christina Hendricks as she appeared on Firefly. Now take a look at her. You know where she's been in the meantime? At the trough.
> 
> Oh, and another thing. Lots of people say, "she's a woman, that's what real women look like" (see above). Hate to break it to you, but those puppies aren't real.


She's not my type (among prominent defects: red-head from a bottle and surgically altered tracts of land, as you noted) , but Firefly was, apparently, done in 2002 when she was 27; she's now 35. Nothing good happened to my physique in my mid 30s. She may have put on a couple of pounds - most who are not genetically blessed tend to in their mid-thirties. I doubt she's any "fatter" than Marilyn Monroe at age 37. The "food trough" things is a bit rough; I'm not sure her waist could get much narrower without starvation. She has broad hips - I suspect that's skeletal/genetic. Twiggy, she's not.

BTW, the boots in the OP still suck.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

You guys said "tomato," I say "Old Country Buffet."


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Pentheos: You _are_ joking, right? Hendricks isn't fat by any stretch.

camorristi: I acknowledge that she's considered a positive image in today's heroin-chic world and applaud that. She's not bad looking at all, just not my type. As far as curvy women go, I don't think you can beat Scarlett Johansson.


----------



## chacend (Mar 4, 2008)

Epaminondas said:


> BTW, the boots in the OP still suck.


Only thing that fixes that is her in those boots and nothing else.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Epaminondas said:


> I'm not sure her waist could get much narrower without starvation.


It's called a girdle and/or corset.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Will one of our gun-totin' members please kindly shoot this thread and put it out its misery?


----------



## g.michael (Jul 9, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> Since this thread is about both semantics _and_ taste, I wonder if my description of these boots would be considered one word or two. Two--I think. Butt ugly.


I can shorten your description to one word--"bugly". Not to be confused with "fugly". These boots are both.

Boy this thread took a weird turn somewhere near Cleveland.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

I imagine an uber-chav wearing this pair of boots at a local shopping mall.


----------

