And THIS, in case you’re wondering, is why I’m letting my Lucky subscription lapse.
Not only because Lucky is doing a whole article about how the Kardashians are awesome — which last time I checked, has NOTHING TO DO WITH SHOPPING (other than the fact that they let people film them doing that) — and because they decided to have collectible Kardashion covers, which is ridiculous, but also because the fact that Lucky NEVER used to do celebrity profiles was the whole reason Lucky was Lucky and not, like, Glamour. And, for what it’s worth, I actually think Glamour is REALLY GOOD lately. Every time it shows up at my door, I’m all, “I am too old to be reading Glamour. Why do I still get this?” and then I proceed to totally enjoy it and read the whole thing, like, standing up in my entry-way. But there IS a Glamour and Glamour is good and LUCKY ISN’T GLAMOUR except apparently now it is. It’s turned itself into a half-assed Glamour without the recipes for magical chicken, but with Kardashians dressed like a mermaids gone business casual and shilling their Sears line. That is not a good trade, you guys! LOOK AT YOUR CHOICES.
Comments (91):
I was hoping you’d fug this cover… although for different reasons (yours are totally valid, though, and I agree). I thought you would fug it for Kim’s top (although the rest of the outfit isn’t great, either). It looks like someone took a picture of her wearing a white v-neck, and tried to draw a black border on the neckline in Paint. Like back when I was a kid and computers were so new and Paint was like the coolest thing you could do on a computer, so you made pictures for your mom that were even worse than what you could draw. That’s how her top looks.
Why is the black part of her neckline not fully connected to the rest of her shirt? Why does she have fins? Why is she wearing her belt(s?) like stacked bangles?
Just, WHY!?
Yeah, as a longtime Lucky reader, they’re really losing me with the last few issues. The new editor seems hell-bent on turning it into some hybrid of InStyle and every other mainstream fashion mag. And since I flat-out refuse to buy anything with the K-Krazy Krew on it, it looks like I’ll be giving this latest issue a miss.
Don’t worry, Lucky will still continue to send you their magazine years after you unsubscribe.
I know!! I have not subscribed for 6 months – hate the new editor and the direction of the magazine, its cr8p now. But I can’t get rid of the magazine.
Don’t you mean Kollectible Kardashian Kovers? This made me die a little inside; the outfit, the stories, the whole thing.
Also, Em, now I can’t stop seeing the “Paint” black v-neck.
I love Glamour! Its so much better than Cosmo. Although at 37 I feel too old to be reading either.
When HGB left, Cosmo and became Playgirl Jr. Back in the day, though, it was the BEST mag ever.
Not for nothing, but when I scrolled by this the first time, I thought it was Ashley Greene.
If the subscription wasn’t so damn cheap I would have dropped it as soon as they added the “feature” where you could order items directly from their editorials. I mean, I get it, the print business is tough these days and it’s not like fashion magazines were ever bastions of integrity, but to me that is just beyond the pale.
I didn’t read the Kardashian article, because I knew it would just make me shouty.
I thought you were going to say that this looks NOTHING like Kim Kardashian. I only knew it was her because it told me.
Honestly, I think she looks less photoshopped here than she does in real life. That’s a plus?
I’m still curious…how the [bleep] did they get so famous? I can’t watch more than 20 seconds of any of their shows before I start to twitch. And I agree, I’m so sick of Lucky lately.
I subscribed from the first issue, and I gave up on it last year. Once their original editor in chief (Kim France) & head fashion editor (Andrea Linett) left, there was NOTHING unique or interesting about Lucky. Yes, I’m a fashion nerd/snob, but there has to be a reason for me to subscribe to a magazine. Once it becomes indistinguishable from every other rag out there, I’m out.
I’m just relieved to have gotten out before a Kardashian cover invaded my house.
Ditto. It’s lost its verve.
I agree, I haven’t enjoyed my Lucky mag as much since Kim and Andrea left. And Kollectible Kardashian Kovers don’t fill the gap. At. All.
Lucky for you to get out before the Ks invaded. I looked at this month’s issue and just groaned. Why would you put a person on your cover when even the tag line acknowledges that most sane people are pissed that they have to keep seeing and hearing about them?? We do NOT want to dress nor act like these people! And Kollectible versions? Triple Ugh Lucky!!!
Lucky used to be awesome–look at all these cute items, some of which I can afford, and you tell me where to get them! Now, it really is just a rather bad facsimile of the more boring fashion mags. I too am letting my subscription lapse.
How can mag editors be SO out of touch?
another example: Rihanna Banana on Esquire cover, as Sexiest Woman Alive. HahahaaaahaahaHA. No.
Bring back real models! At least models have talent, a skill. (Which i cannot say is true for KK or R, who seem to be everywhere. Their publicists are obviously talented!)
Seriously. I used to love W, and then they got a new editor and the first thing he does is put a Kardashian – NAKED – on the cover. It was right when my subscription renewal came due and that was the end of that. Talk about not knowing your audience.
Do NOT like the neckline, and also, the shiny disks on the skirt look somehow out of focus. LIke and optical illusion or 3D without the glasses. And, let’s face it, I just don’t like her, so I’m predisposed against this cover anyway.
Yeah, the disks ARE out of focus. My theory is that the skirt is so tacky that soft focus was necessary. Kinda like how they used to put vaseline or panty hose over the lens when they were doing movie close-ups back in the day.
Yes yes, the Kardashians and LUCKY are gross, but credit where it’s due: easing up on the eyeliner, shadow and mascara take about 8 years off Kim’s face in this pic. She hasn’t looked this young and fresh since the Ray J video.
I totally agree- she looks far better without her 20 pounds of makeup shallacked on her face. But really? How did they become so famous? Um, let’s see… Kim let someone film her having sex. Kongrats Kardashians. You’re so Klassy.
They became so famous because we CANNOT stop talking about them (I never watch them, but here I am, commenting on a fame whore who has none of the insane charm of Bai Ling) She does look better however without 10lbs of Makeup – she much younger than I thought – the outfit, especially the shirt however is a crime.
The skirt immediately reminded me of the Rainbow Fish (a children’s book by Marcus Pfister, well known where I come from). Some people say it’s a “cautionary tale about selfishness and vanity”.
It’s THE RAINBOW FISH! SHARE YOUR SCALES FISHY!
Remember when Lucky was all, “We are the heir(ess) to Sassy, ye olde Sassy fans”…? Sigh. At least ol’ KK looks like she got a Jane-magazine style makeunder for her cover shoot. (Which, when Jane used to do them, always ended with the makeunder-ee saying, “eh, too weird not to wear all my old spackle” and they went right back to their old ways.)
My husband got royally pissed a few years back when he realized that his Better Homes and Gardens was morphing into just another lady-mag. What the hell does beauty, fashion and health advice have to do with bettering your home or garden?
@ Elizabeth I thought the same thing. They’re all starting to look alike.
I actually think Kim looks pretty good here. She doesnt look like a drag queen, or a wax version of herself OR like she put her makeup on with a putty knife.
The skirt reminds me of the Zodiac pictures Top Model did in Cycle 4 where Lluvy was Pisces and she was pancaked with scales. Anyone else see it? ANYONE? ANYONE?
How do you even remember that?
“Kim Kardashian & her sisters spill it all.”
Yes, because they’ve been so private thus far.
Hee hee!
*zing!*
For Kim at least, “spilling it all” might cause a public health crisis.
EW!!!
The best part of this photo is the Kim quote on the inside where she says she loves the skirt because it doesn’t need accessories, yet she is wearing at least eight pieces of jewelery and a belt.
LOL, read that and ROFL’d, too.
I ditched Lucky after they put Bosworth on the cover. New editor sucks.
I can’t tell you how irritated I was when this thing showed up at my door.
What is up with Lucky nowadays? I thought it was maybe because I’ve been reading the mag for so long since it came out, but I do not like the catty that’s creeping in. DO NOT WANT.
That magazine has definitely been on the decline since Brandon Holley took over. I remember reading a NYTimes article about her, and how one of her main goals was to get more expensive items in the magazine, like several-thousand-dollar handbags, and I just thought “yeah, that’s the the problem with fashion magazines, the editorial pieces are just TOO accessible to readers….”
I know. A friend just commented to me that she doesn’t read Lucky to decide which $2000 dress to pick up this weekend, and I think that is on the nose.
Yes, this. Exactly. I’d read Vogue if I wanted to look at “stuff I could never afford in a million years.”
Why on earth would they have “collectible” versions of a Kardashian magazine cover?? The very word “collectible” implies something that is rare, and thus, highly valued for it’s rarity/quality. The Kardashians are everywhere (even the little non-Actual Kardashian ones) so, the issue of quality aside, what’s so rare about one of them on a magazine cover?
I’ve become a bit of a snob in my early middle age, so the only magazine I still subscribe to is Vanity Fair. But if Graydon Carter suddenly loses his mind and puts one of them on the cover, I am OUT!
How the *bleep*? They really have to ask that question?
Because of her *bleep* tape. They need to stop fronting like they got fame because of talent lol
The only good thing about Lucky now is Jean Godfrey-June, the beauty director. She’s the only reason I still read, and I flip directly to her section when I get the magazine (a subscription that will never die).
The new editor has really gone against the original mission of the magazine and it sucks now. I don’t read Lucky for the articles, and never did. I wish they’d eschew celebs again and go back to models on the cover.
On topic, this shirt looks like Kim K’s boobs busted right through it. Kourtney’s cover is the best of the 3 and I wish I’d gotten that one – I’m assuming Kim was Spekial for Subskribers.
Remember The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror where all the billboards came to life and attacked the town? The problem was solved when Paul Anka wrote a jingle explaining that the monsters are only attacking because people were paying attention, his advice: Just don’t look at the monsters.
Let’s all apply that to the Kardashians.
HA! My sister in law and I spent this weekend sitting outside looking at Lucky. She was horrified that Kim was on the cover. She refused to read the article(except for a brief snicker about their clothes being sold at Sears). Does the woman wear anything that doesn’t make her look like the seems are holding on for dear life? We’d all be shot in the eye by those sequins!
Sears, people. SEARS. Not even Target. Not even Jaques Penne’. Where you get your lawnmowers, water softeners, and Craftsman socket sets.
Yeah, because when you think Awesome Fashiony Things, you think Sears. I always make it a point to buy my wardrobe and my torque wrenches from the same store… brand loyalty you know.
/end sarcasm
(I also now dislike Lucky immensely. It used to be a great place to find reasonably affordable things and maybe even mix them up a little. Like so many others have said, now it just feels like same old, same old. The articles aren’t even good.)
You know, I had to teach my niece a lesson because she is 17 and impressionable by this – “but Kim’s so pretty” if I had a nickel for every time that has been uttered…oy..but I took her to Sears and showed her the clothes. No kidding. The clothing has a smell – horrid. Like its flammable? I told her to turn this one lace blouse inside out and look at the seams and see how they are all uneven? This is what they want you to pay $79 for. She was a bit dismayed and then I showed her this particularly hideous jumpsuit. I told her about scammers and grifters and how people hit something while its hot so they can get the most money. In other words, I had to explain slowly that they are not our friends. They want our money and nothing more and no, they don’t wear these clothes without asbestos underwear.
But I wish, I wish, I wish I owned that outfit.
And I NEVER thought I’d say that about anything KK wore.
You do? Really?
I got a free subscription and I never even open the bag it comes in, that’s how disinterested I am in this Lucky magazine.
I love the skirt…it’s so shiny and pretty. And it reminds me of children’s books. Must have.
I think it’s a Kardashian Collection skirt, actually, so you CAN!
Oh. Never mind then.
call me crazy, but i like the outfit.
You crazy.
LOL
crazy.
This is exactly what went through my mind when I saw this (my last issue) of Lucky. Except not as funny.
I am not renewing my subscription and sent Lucky a letter telling them why. I know it won’t change anything,but it made me feel better! And I have been a subscriber since issue number one too. I think KK looks almost pretty if it werent for the ridiculous accessories.
Enough with the Kardashians already!! And the skirt brings me back – to the days I read ‘Rainbow Fish’ over and over to my kids. So thanks for that, I guess.
Yes! I’m a Lucky subscriber and the first thing I thought when I saw this cover is “WTF with the Rainbow Fish skirt?” I skipped right past the article – I shun all things Kardashian.
And word on the declining quality of the magazine. Kim France and Andrea Linnet were Sassy castoffs and they brought that tone with them to Lucky, but that tone left with them, which is a bummer. It feels like it wants to be Vogue-lite and I don’t read i>Vogue on purpose.
Yuck. Everything from the “model” to the outfit to the hair to the cover text. There is no good here.
I let my “Lucky” subscription lapse this year as well. Why can’t magazine put MODELS back on the covers?!? I miss those cover so much. We need a supermodel revival.
We do, Dana, we DO need a supermodel revival. I’ve been calling out for one for years. Please stop the faux-celeb-as-model (and the celeb-as-model) madness!
Word…Lucky, when you fired Kim France, the whole thing went to hell. ALSO, i “tried” to let my subscription lapse, but they continue to send to me. It’s been almost a year, and I still receive it every month with a bill telling me it will be my last one unless I pay them….and then 3 weeks later, the next month comes.
So, moral of the story is…Luck is free.
Early Lucky WAS cool, and the only print mag I subscribe to is The New Yorker (since Spy went under the first time). Dropped Lucky after the first year or two, when the price point began creeping up.
Well, I am tired of seeing them – I don’t watch TV or read magazines, so I’m baffled at how they stil manage to infiltrate my life – but I don’t think the cover itself is half bad. I have to admit I kind of covet her hair.
If you let your eyes go unfocused and/or squint your eyes at her skirt…..it looks like a scary face or ostrich or something. Now that I’ve seen a face, I can’t unsee it. I hate this time of year with all the ghost shows on TV. I’m seeing the supernatural in Kardashian klothing. Great.
I will not buy any magazine with a Kardashian on the cover, but their omnipresence on the newstand must make that a minority opinion. As celebrities they “give good magazine”, as a tabloid editor put it. And compared to extreme ectomorphs like fashion models and many A-list actresses, they do offer some physical diversity.
Looking forward to the backlash, but it’s a long time coming … Still, at least we don’t have Paris Hilton shoved at us so much now – remember when she made the cover of Vanity Fair a few years ago? (discontinued my subscription after that issue).
And, THAT is why I only subscribe to House Beautiful! I know it says “The Magazine About Shopping”, but I’m not buying what they’re selling… They should change the magazine’s name to “Yucky”!
I actually think this is quite cute, apart from the weird detached neckline on the top – the skirt is pretty and fun, and she looks much nicer with a more “natural” makeup look. Great hair, too. =)
The Kardashian sisters “spill it all”….what could be left?
“Spill all”… Funny, when it comes to them, that phrase doesn’t make me think gossip or deets, but rather fluids of some sort.
To “myawfulroommate” — I agree, and I always love a Simpsons reference!
Kim, the only Kardashian I can identify, is a pretty girl. However, her sense of personal adornment makes her sooooo ugly to me. It’s is so over-the-top ostentatious and whorish — every outfit is too darn much of everything: ultra-high heels, too much cleavage, some “look at me” loud element like an animal print or sequins, gigantic expensive bags, bling and so much makeup that she looks like her face has been dipped in a candy coated shell. Every time I look at her I think, wow, she looks like a REALLY expensive call girl.
Though her face looks a bit more natural here (a good thing) and I actually think the side part is more flattering that the middle part on her, this outfit just typifies her “too much” sense of style only (who styled this?) nothing seems to go with anything else in this outfit! Say what you will about her overblown style, but most of the time everything seems at least meant to go together whereas this looks like it was chosen with a blindfold.
so glad i’m not the only one that was annoyed with kim k. being on the cover of lucky – GO AWAY!!
Long time reader, first time commenter.
I had to chime in on the cancellation of Lucky. I also let my subscription lapse because I can’t freakin’ stand it when every fashion mag has NO IDEA what the word “bargain” means anymore. They’re all, “Check out this reasonably priced bag: it’s only $250!” Get a grip. We are in a recession. I know nobody who would spend that right now, let alone the $1000 + crap they are always showing us.
The best thing that came out of this cover for me was finding out how may other people are pissed at the crap Lucky has become. It used to show affordable clothing on real people, and now the only thing that’s cheap are the cover models. And I know that they have to make a buck, but when they try to hawk products they don’t even bother to convince me that they’re effective, or likable, or that a staff member even tried them. It’s just a product list. At least Domino died a dignified death.
Any suggestions on a fashion magazine that won’t make me seethingly angry?
Brandon Holley is the same editor who ran Jane into the ground. I was just about to let my Jane subscription lapse when they went under. I haven’t given up on Lucky yet, but I do find that I’m not using their little stickers to mark pages anymore, because there’s nothing I want to mark off.
To be fair, it’s kind of like how GFY used to be before all the ads popping up all over the place. Seriously, what is UP with all the Downy ads?? Hurting my eyes.
This outfit is a hot mess. Nothing works. The top is wrong for the skirt; the accessories are wrong for everything. Plus, as a curvy, petite woman like Kim I know that the last thing we need to wear is a shiny, layered skirt that falls about two inches too short. And aside from all that, I’m also not sure I can get into that hairstyle. It’s a little too “modern Valley Girl” for me. Kim looks great when she’s all glamed up; trying to do mix and match shiny bohemian is not her thing. I can’t blame her though; it’s just poor styling.
Blarmp…. I used to love Glamour until it got Bonnie Fuller as its editor, about maybe 8 or 10 years ago (the same one who revived the ailing YM magazine back in the day). Then it became Cosmo Lite. I’m sorry, I just can’t buy a magazine where the biggest headline on the cover is some variation on “The ONE sexy act he’s DYING for in bed… but is too shy to ask”… all the lame sex tips which are like “Try making love with the lights ON… stimulate his nipples…” Thanks a lot for those really avant-garde tips.
Anyway. Now the only “women’s magazine” I can bear to read is Marie Claire, but even it is formulaic: true crime survival story of the month, scoundrel relationship story of the month, assorted outrages of the month… oh, and some fashion. Tim Gunn’s column is fun, though.
I also want to agree with some others here who say they wish magazines would go back to put models on the covers, rather than celebrities!
When I see a celebrity, say, ScarJo, on a cover, I can’t dissociate her from all the stupid movies she’s been in, all the stupid things she’s said in interviews, her sordid love life, etc. And because of that, I just cannot buy the magazine. They are actually LOSING my business because of this celebrity-worship thing.
I really want to go watch some George Michael videos now.
maybe Glamour sells and Lucky doesn’t in which case it is Unlucky and tragic because it did indeed stand out from the pack as not “just another one of those…”
ahem. i’ll think you’ll find it’s kollectible kardashian kovers.
This cover has been haunting me for days and I finally get who she looks like – Dawn from the first season of True Blood! And it’s not like I’d ever WISH someone strangled by a creepy highway worker with a terrible Cajun accent, but if I did…
This issue was the last straw. This magazine was about making fashion shopping more accessible originally; no more. I suppose they feel that in keeping with what is left of original premise is to use the best examples of what it is to sell yourself cheaply. Too bad so many people admire that. Style and taste is long dead.
The whole Lucky thing is unfortunate. After reading this post, I actually looked at the magazine, and almost all the claims on the cover are bogus. The “Perfect Hair All Day Long” is a piece about platinum blonde hair only. “Mix and Match: Instant Ways to Dress Your Prettiest” is about layering for increasingly colder weather, not really about how to look pretty. Also, something is rubbing me the wrong way about the use of “pretty” as a description of how I want to dress, I’d rather be stylish or elegant. And then “25 Hot Trends That Won’t Go Out of Style” doesn’t even seem to be in the magazine. I couldn’t find any reference to it in the contents, and I couldn’t figure out on my own which feature they were refering to, so it’s like they are just throwing popular words up on the cover and seeing what sticks. Ick.
Very disappointed in Lucky.