Home | Manolo for the Home | Manolo's Shoe Blog | Manolo's Food Blog | Manolo for the Men | Manolo for the Brides | Manolo for the Big Girl | Teeny Manolo
Basement of the Bargains | The Consolation of the Shoes | The Gallery of the Horrors | Manolo's Forums | Super Fantastic Newsletter |Talk to Manolo!


December 5th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Is this a new austerity program? Instead of foolishly spending money on classy beautiful clothes for the red carpet, just wear your undies? Or was this a “working girl” gathering?
December 6th, 2009 at 8:33 am
And if you think about it, the Robert Palmer Girls were considered to be the epitome of hotness in their time. And comparing both pictures, I still think they are. Sometimes, more is, well, more.
Plus, I really don’t get the ubiquitous “no pants” look.
December 6th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I agree, the Robert Palmer girls were much sexier (so much so that when I saw the picture and realized half the skirts were knee-length, I did a double-take; I remember it being much more shocking than it seems now).
Also, what is it with everyone wanting to look like a two-bit Kardashian nowadays? Honestly, do you think you could tell the bottom band members apart if you saw them in a police lineup?
December 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I was born ´71 and whenever i saw the Palmer girls, i thought: “When i´m grown up, i want to look like them.” I hope girls today don´t want to look like, well, who are they anyway?
December 7th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
They are “The Saturdays” but what’s the point of learning their names when they’re really just Pussycat Dolls Mark V or VI?
Which reminds me of the time I was reading a small town newspaper’s fashion column, the highlight of which was the time the columnist got mistaken for a member of the Pussycat Dolls.
Not! A! Good! Look!