ralph lauren

Photo: Billy Farrell / BFAnyc.com

—Bee-Shyuan Chang

“It’s not cheap,” Decades proprietor Cameron Silver said at the Crosby Hotel. “That’s the amazing thing about costume jewelry. I rejected it for years at first because I thought, ‘Who wants to spend $2,000 on a glass necklace?’ It requires education. It’s the design, the final product, that is incredibly valuable.” The retailer (and soon-to-be Bravo reality TV star) has since swung to the other side, so much so that Silver was even talking men’s costume pieces. But he was in like-minded company last night: Silver joined fellow panelists Mad Men costume designer Janie Bryant, Candy Pratts Price, and Miriam Haskell president Gabrielle Fialkoff in a CFDA-sponsored discussion on the heritage and business of costume jewelry.

Moderated by Town & Country accessories director Stellene Volandes, the conversation steered from a beginner’s history lesson (Coco Chanel and Miriam Haskell were chummy costume jewelry colleagues) to the modern-day obsession with celebrity (Michelle Obama created an online ordering frenzy for the Miriam Haskell chandelier earrings she wore to the State Dinner this past March). Bryant, for one, was well accustomed to celebrities and the role costume jewelry can play. “For Joan, she has this pen necklace and I think of it as her sword,” the costume designer said of the character the actress Christina Hendricks plays in Mad Men. “It’s funny because Christina never wants to part with it. The actress can become attached to the jewelry, too.”

A tip for the AMC show’s many fashion followers: Bryant found the signature piece in an unlikely “dirty little tin of jewelry at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.” And despite delays and some nail-biting negotiations, it looks like there were will be plenty of episodes with vintage finds ahead. “I was never worried,” Bryant told Style.com post-discussion, about the show being renewed for Season 5. “I had faith.”

Photo: Evan Joseph

“It’s all metal—it feels like one big piece of jewelry,” jewelry designer Irene Neuwirth tells Style.com of her 57 Walker Street pop-up store, which opens today. The L.A.-based designer teamed up with architect Marc Fornes to transform the 1,800-square-foot BOFFO Building Fashion space, previously home to Nicola’s by Nicola Formichetti , into a glimmering and lavish retail shop to showcase her latest designs. The space is complete with golden latticework etched with stars from the ceiling to the floor and a living wall. “I thought it would be funny to mix something organic with something very modern,” Neuwirth explains.

She also planted moss and branches next to her new opal and sapphire creations, along with her signature long gold chain offerings. “A lot of them are pieces that people haven’t seen yet because I’m always creating one-of-a-kind things,” says Neuwirth, whose work is a favorite among the likes of Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, Reese Witherspoon, and Iman. The store opens today and remains open for two weeks.
—Kristin Studeman

This spiky little denim purse recalls tough girl Suzi Quatro from the ’70s.

Why? It’s cute but still looks a little dangerous. Plus, it has the three aggro-chic staples: leather, chains and denim.

The size and shape of this purse is a nice alternative to all of my gold grommets and studs that have invaded my closet and my life.

I do like to mix the metals every once in a while, too. Skip the silver chains around the wrist and neck and break out that bling. I’ll be wearing this with jeans and a leather jacket or a faux-fur vest.

What’s also great about this not-your-standard-evening-bag satchel is that I can leave the big old super-sized day bag behind and proudly display this at night and give my back a rest! (Lugging fashions “it” bags look a little dopey when you’re out for a cocktail.)

But the best thing is, it’s only $32.

PRODUCT DETAILS
- Striped insets and chain link fringe
- Beaded drawstring closure and 3 interior compartments
- Cotton
- Measures approximately 8″W, 5 1/2″H, 3″D

Buy it here.

The designer Nicole Farhi has shed light on one of fashion’s darkest secrets: the celebrities adorning the front row of fashion shows are not always there just for the love of haute couture. Sometimes they are paid to turn up.

Fashion designer Nicole Farhi in front of the conservatory in her Hampstead garden. Photo: LAURA PANNACK
Dark secret behind fashion for celebrity front rows
BY Adam Lusher | 04 March 2012

Knowing that they can generate publicity by having a star photographed on the front row of a show, some fashion houses or their public relations agents will pay tens of thousands of pounds for an appearance.

Whilst rumours about the practice have circulated among fashion insiders in recent years, those involved have declined to comment publicly.

But now Farhi, the French-born, London-based couturier, has become the first major designer to talk openly about it.

In an outspoken condemnation of the tactic,wholesale Christian Audigier hoodies, she tells The Sunday Telegraph’s Stella magazine: “It is so unprofessional. I have never paid a celebrity and I will never do it. It’s stupid.

“What do they show you in the papers after a fashion show? Not the clothes, but the celebrities who are being paid to sit at the show.”

Farhi, 65, added that she was determined to expose the practice, despite knowing she would face the fury of many in the industry.

She says in the interview, to be published next weekend: “They will all hate me for it. I don’t give a —- because I think it is abominable.”

Other fashion insiders admitted that front row appearance fees were becoming increasingly common, but were reluctant to discuss them openly.

One said: “It would be professional suicide for me to say anything. I wouldn’t be able to tell you how much [is paid] to whom. It’s all a bit cloak and dagger.”

Another said that the fashion world did not want to destroy the magic for the public – “It’s a bit like Santa Claus.”

Some British fashion figures, however, backed Farhi.

Emma Whitehair, a London-based fashion PR, said: “There need to be more designers like Nicole Farhi who are not paying so-called talent to come to sit on the front row.”

Miss Whitehair, who runs White Smoke Communications, said her agency never paid, but admitted: “In other places it was completely the norm, part of what was called ‘talent wrangling’. I know for an absolute fact they would pay celebrities to sit on the front row. It’s unfair: some people secure talent because they have genuine friendships and the celebrity likes the brand. Others have paid.”

Front row appearance fees are thought to have originated in the US and spread rapidly.

Abe Gurko, the head of Abe, a fashion talent services and public relations company in New York, said: “There is no doubt that it has evolved quickly, as recently as in the past three years.

“Once word got out that people were being paid, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. They [the demands] kept coming.

“I had a manager say ‘She will do it for $125,000′ [£78,000]. I said ‘Have a nice day’ .”

Mr Gurko said he would arrange only travel costs and expenses.

“The most I paid was about 18 months ago: $25,000 for flights for two people for a European star, the hotel, clothes, make-up, the car and driver for three days. She was worth every nickel.”

He stressed, however, that when it came to actual appearance fees, “I wouldn’t give a dime”.

He added: “All this back-room dealing cheapens the whole business. And I don’t think it’s going to stop.”

The issue itself—the much-blogged,Cheap Versace Outlet, Lady Gaga-covered September Vanity Fair—doesn’t hit stands until Thursday, but royal watchers, social chroniclers, and the legions of Little Monsters can get the answers they’ve waited for today: VF’s International Best-Dressed List is now online.

Conclusions? It’s a good time to be in politics. Michelle Obama made the women’s list, as did SamCam (a.k.a. Samantha Cameron, wife of Britain’s new prime minister, David Cameron), and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. Carey Mulligan and Diane Kruger made their first appearances on the women’s list as well. On the Originals list, Lady Gaga makes her debut, joining Helena Bonham Carter, John Galliano, and the Duchess of Alba, among others. On the men’s side, Waris Ahluwahlia shares space with Javier Bardem, Alec Baldwin (on the list after a 21-year hiatus), and André Balazs, to name a few. And the fashion industry is repped by Tory Burch, Marchesa’s Georgina Chapman, Alice + Oliva’s Stacey Bendet, Alber Elbaz, and Glamour’s Cindi Leive.

The complete list—including couples, sibling pairs, and the hall of fame—is now up at www.vanityfair.com.

Photo: Francis Specker / CBS / Landov

One of the highlights of a Fendi show is always the accessories, and Silvia Venturini Fendi’s bags for her family’s house are deservedly adored. But don’t miss the jewelry this season—if you ask us, it’s the must-buy from Lagerfeld and Fendi’s strong new collection. All the action is on the wrist this time around, with oversized, chain-link bracelets piling on top of colorful, graphic watches, and F-clasp enamel bangles. Blink and you might’ve missed them as they sped down the runway-which reason enough to give a close look through all of our runway details. Click here to see close-ups of the Fendi jewelry, bags,Discount Tiffany Jewelry, and shoes, and click the details tab here for all of the Spring 2011 detail shots we’ve run so far.

Photo: Gianni Pucci / GoRunway.com

NEW YORK (Reuters) Legal wrangling over the proposed $8.5 billion settlement of some of Bank of America Corp’s (BAC.N) mortgage-backed securities liability could drag through the courts for years, a top appeals court judge said during arguments in the case.

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York is weighing whether last June’s Bank of America accord, which has been closely watched by other banks and bondholders, is a matter for federal court review or belongs in state court where it was first filed.

The settlement was intended to help Bank of America address much of its remaining legal liability from its ill-fated 2008 purchase of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp. But some investors have challenged the deal,wholesale Coogi jeans, saying the payout is too low and want it to get more scrutiny from a federal judge.

Regardless of what the appeals court decides, the case “could come back to us,” Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs said on Wednesday.

Jacobs and two other appeals judges did not indicate how they would rule.

Robert Madden, a lawyer for about two dozen institutional investors with tens billions of dollars at stake in the settlement, said at the hearing the matter could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The investors he represents, including BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) and Allianz SE’s (ALVG.DE) Pimco, believe the settlement should be returned to state court, as does Bank of America and trustee Bank of New York Mellon Corp (BK.N).

Madden told the three-judge panel that more litigation surrounding the settlement could lead to the federal judge’s work turning out “to be a waste of time.”

The Bank of America pact was intended to address claims by investors who said the seemingly safe securities they bought proved toxic because they were backed by risky home loans based on faulty underwriting practices.

The agreement, which applied to 530 mortgage securitization trusts with $174 billion of unpaid principal, was seen as a template for other banks facing mortgage-backed securities breach-of-contract claims.

The same law firm that negotiated the Bank of America pact for institutional investors, Gibbs & Bruns, has also sent demands for an investigation to trustees overseeing mortgage securities sponsored by JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Morgan Stanley (MS.N) and Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N). If the settlement remains tied up in court, it could potentially also delay resolution of similar claims against other banks.

Initially, the Bank of America settlement was sent to a New York State Supreme Court judge in Manhattan to review. It was in state court that the parties used a New York trust law known as Article 77 that is normally reserved for resolving family trust issues.

But the agreement drew criticism from investors, including a group known as Walnut Place LLC, who were not part of the talks, but would be bound by the settlement terms. They complained the $8.5 billion payout was too low and wanted the case moved to federal court for more review. Walnut Place is the hedge fund Baupost Group, according to court documents.

In October, U.S. District Judge William Pauley ruled that the proposed settlement belonged in his court, citing “core federal interests” in the integrity of banks and securities markets.

Jacobs indicated on Wednesday that, even if the appeals panel affirmed Pauley’s decision and he eventually signed off on a settlement in federal court, the litigation would not end there.

Appeals court Judges Peter Hall and Raymond Lohier were also on Wednesday’s panel. Hall focused on arguments by Walnut Place that the accord was a “mass action” involving hundreds of trusts.

“I don’t even see it as a mass action because it didn’t start out as such,” Hall said during the one-hour long hearing, referring to the case’s introduction in state court as a settlement rather than a lawsuit on behalf of a class of plaintiffs.

The case is Bank of New York Mellon v. Walnut Place LLC et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-4571.

(Reporting By Grant McCool and Alison Frankel; Editing by Martha Graybow and Andre Grenon)

WASHINGTON Congressional Republicans on Wednesday vowed to block the Obama administration from sharply cutting the U.S. nuclear force, calling potential reductions of as much as 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons “reckless lunacy.”

Pointing to the growing number of trouble spots, from Iran to Syria to Egypt, members of the House Armed Services Committee said any significant cuts would undermine the U.S. ability to deter aggression. The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that the administration is weighing several options for new reductions from the current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that no decision has been made and maintaining the current level is one of the options. But that did little to assuage GOP lawmakers.

“I just want to go on record as saying that there are many of us that are going to do everything we possibly can to make sure that this preposterous notion does not gain any real traction,” said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

The most modest option under discussion would return the United States to a level not seen in more than half a century, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. pushed ahead in a Cold War nuclear arms race. The administration is weighing at least three options for lower total numbers, cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400.

Although Dempsey said maintaining the status quo is one option, further cuts are consistent with President Barack Obama’s 2009 promise to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons and the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which called for an “implementation study” by the Defense Department to review the nation’s nuclear deterrence requirements with an eye toward further reductions in the size of the arsenal.

Last March, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon said the administration was making preparations for the next round of nuclear reductions.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, complained that such a step would encourage other nations to advance their nuclear programs. Fearing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the United States and the international community have imposed tough sanctions on Tehran.

“If they see that we are going to come down from 1,500 to some number in the low to middle hundreds, it does nothing but encourage our enemies and discourage our friends,” Thornberry said. “And the result of that is more nuclear weapons programs all across the world, which would seem to me to be something that we would not want to have happen.”

Panetta said a number of options are being discussed but provided no specifics. He insisted any decision would be part of a treaty that would have to be ratified by the Senate.

“As you know, reductions that have been made,wholesale Juicy Couture t-shirts, at least in this administration, have only been made as part of the START process and not outside of that process. And I would expect that that would be the same in the future,” Panetta said.

Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, raised serious concerns about cuts of 80 percent. Franks called that “reckless lunacy.” In a statement, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., accused Obama of “catering to his liberal base that believes that if we unilaterally disarm, the rest of the world will follow suit and threats to our national security will just go away.”

Rose Gottemoeller, the State Department’s top arms control official, told reporters Wednesday that although the administration is not yet ready to begin a new round of nuclear arms reduction negotiations with Russia, officials on both sides already are holding “serious discussions” on issues that should be settled before negotiations begin.

She said such discussions have begun, for example, on reaching a common understanding of which sets of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons should be included in the “strategic” category and which are “non-strategic.” The difference is important because until now, U.S.-Russian nuclear arms negotiations have dealt only with strategic weapons, which traditionally are defined as those capable of reaching either the U.S. or Russian homeland. The Russians argue that U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe should be included in the “strategic” category; the U.S. disagrees.

Panetta and Dempsey were pressed on the issue during their second day of congressional testimony on Obama’s defense budget for 2013. Democrats and Republicans are resisting proposed cuts in the size of the Army and Marine Corps, cutbacks on shipbuilding, delays in the purchase of some fighter jets and weapons systems and another round of domestic base closings.

Overall, the budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 would provide $525.4 billion in base spending and another $88.5 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The total is nearly $32 billion less than this year’s budget.

Panetta repeatedly reminded lawmakers that the cuts were dictated by the budget agreement reached by Obama and Congress last summer, a pact supported by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., and many other members of the committee.

“The bottom line here is we were handed a number for defense reductions. We stepped up to the plate, we met our obligations to try to do this in a way that would still preserve for us an effective force to deal with the threats,” Panetta said.

Committee Republicans argued that Obama had called for $400 billion in reductions over 10 years last April, months before the deficit-cutting plan.

Looking at future budgets, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the panel’s top Democrat, said that in reality the cuts are a reduction in projected spending.

“It’s a decrease in the increase,” Smith said.