from now on you can call me Mystic Meg

Ok, now I don't want to show off here, but, well I'm going to - I totally predicted this.

Back in March, I did a post about the Chanel temporary tattoos and suggested that high street stores such as Topshop and Urban Outfitters might take inspiration from them and bring out their own ranges. And they have!!!

This clearly means that I am psychic.

Except, not really, obviously, because this is just how fashion works - high street stores always copy take inspiration from the high-end designers. But still, I'm quite excited that the two shops I mentioned are the ones that have actually done it. I just had a quick browse through some other online stores (Miss Selfridge, New Look, H&M and ASOS) and can't find any other tattoos, though I'm sure they'll follow suit soon.

The Topshop ones are very clearly inspired by Chanel; some of the designs include birds (now I'm no ornithologist, but I'm pretty sure they're swallows), flowers and strips of chains. Funnily enough, the Chanel tattoos also had swallows, flowers and strips of chains. However, the Chanel ones were very pretty and feminine whereas I'd say the Topshop ones are little more edgy and kind of 'rock and roll' (if that's the right way to describe them - hopefully you can see what I mean from the pictures) There's five different sets available (some packs contain several small tattoos and some just contain one large one), and they're priced between £4 and £6.50.

images from Topshop.com

The Urban Outfitters tattoos are very different. Firstly they can only loosely be described as 'tattoos' as they're more like body stickers. They remind me a bit of those crystal tattoos everyone went mad for in the late 90s/early 00s. There's also only two designs available; a butterfly and a bunch of flowers. They're very pretty and sparkly and they're available in white, black and gold - I can see them being popular with festival-goers. Only problem is, Urban Outfitters have done their usual trick of going "right, new product, very pretty, quite eyecatching actually. Let's price it at something ridiculous!" The butterfly costs £14 and the flowers cost £18.

£18 for a glittery sticker?!

Sorry Urban Outfitters, but you just lost me. I know the Chanel ones were about £50, but there was loads of designs in the pack. And they were frikkin' Chanel! Anyway, maybe I'm just being a bit of a tightwad, what do you think? Would you pay £14 and £18 for these babies?

images from UrbanOutfitters.co.uk

Anyway, next chance I get, I'm heading to Topshop to get my hands on a pack - I'm particularly drawn to the chains. What do you think? Will you be sporting temporary tattoos this summer? And which do you prefer Topshop or Urban Outfitters?

Particularly peculiar

I've been a bit rubbish on the blog front of late. The main reason for this is that I'm three weeks into a new job which mainly involves me spending a large amount of time in front of a computer. Sadly, when I get home after a long day at the office (haha I work in an office now, never thought I'd see the day!), the last thing I want to do is spend more time staring at a computer screen. Obviously, for this blog to actually exist, I have to spend SOME time in front of a computer screen as, contrary to popular belief, these things don't write themselves (seriously, they don't, I've had a chat with my laptop about it and he's just not interested) so I'm going to just have to man up and accept the fact that I'm slowly destroying my eyes. So yeah, regular blogging will recommence soon, je promise. I've got so much to write about too! There's a list of ideas and photographs and all sorts!

Anyway, all that nonsense aside, tonight I wanted to talk about something that (for me at least) is a bit exciting. Recently, I've been ALL ABOUT the nail varnish; this started because I've always bitten my nails, ever since I was a VERY little curly girl, but one of the things that would dissuade me a bit from biting them was painting them nicely. So I figured I'd buy lots of colourful nail varnishes in the hope that my prettily painted nails would subdue my bitey bitey urges. It seems to have done the trick and I can officially say I'm a nail biter no more. Hurrah! Even though I've quit the habit, I still keep them painted most of the time, just because I think they look a bit more interesting and because there's SO MANY exciting colours available! I've been wearing an incredibly vibrant shade of light blue all week and, honestly, it really cheers me up to look down and see my lovely blue nails smiling back at me! (they don't literally smile, that would be terrifying.)

I've been using mainly cheap nail varnishes, such as Barry M and Collection 2000 because I like to have a wide range of colours to choose from so it obviously makes more sense to stick to the cheap and cheerful brands. However, on Thursday, my sister got a call from the Chanel counter in the Liverpool branch of John Lewis saying that they'd just got a new batch of Particuliere in. Now, just to clarify, my sister was on a waiting list for Particuliere; Chanel don't phone her up every time they get something new in, we're not that fancy in my family! Now, as you know, as much as I'd like to be, I am NOT the kind of person who would usually spend a silly amount of money on something so frivolous, and in my book, £16 for a bottle of nail varnish is definitely frivolous. However, Particuliere is pretty much the biggest nail varnish this season and has been virtually impossible to get a hold of. So when I heard that Liv was going to buy a bottle, I asked her to see if she could get me one as well. Lo and behold she did!

Have you ever tried to take a photograph of your own hand? It is more difficult than you'd expect.

Now I can imagine some people going "£16 on a bottle of dark baige nail varnish?! Franki, are you completely insane???" and the answer to that question is probably yes. But my reasoning for this is as follows;

• I've just started a new job so can justify treating myself a bit,
• It really is a very lovely, flattering colour and I've wanted it for ages
• If I'd been able to find a similar, cheaper alternative, I would probably have bought that instead, but I've not seen anything that's even vaguely similar.
• It's been selling out like crazy all over the place so it's quite exciting to say I own a product that's so in demand
• It's probably the only Chanel item I'll own for a very long time. Hopefully when I'm rich and successful (doing God only knows what) I'll be able to splash out on Chanel coats and bags and things, but for now, my little bottle of Particuliere will do.

LOOK! The models wore it on the Spring 2010 catwalk! I own something that's been seen on a Chanel catwalk!

I was very tempted to buy a second bottle to sell on eBay, because it's selling for WAY above the RRP, but I didn't get the chance to go into John Lewis when I was in town yesterday, and it's very probably sold out again now. Plus, I don't think Karl Lagerfeld would ever want to be my friend if he knew I was selling his wares on eBay, it just doesn't seem right somehow...

To be perfectly honest, I was expecting a lot for £16 but apart from the lovely colour, there's nothing really special about it. I mean, it's easy to apply and has a really good, smooth finish, but one of my nails chipped after a day and I'm pretty sure I hadn't done anything crazy with my hands. If I'd been playing the guitar or grating cheese or something, I'd accept it, but I'd literally done nothing! Maybe I should have applied a top coat to protect it, but then you think, for £16 it shouldn't really need a top coat, should it? I probably won't be buying any more Chanel Le Vernis Nail Colour any time soon, because, let's face it, having fancy nails is great but I'd much rather spend my money on clothes and chocolate, but it is nice to be the owner of something a bit luxurious for once. Saying that though, Nouvelle Vague is really pretty...

Temporary high

My general opinion of tattoos is that, while they can look quite cool, I'd never want one myself because, a) I'm a bit of a wimp when it comes to pain and b) well, they're very permanent aren't they? Sure, you may love having Donald Duck on your shoulder now; it's a conversation starter if nothing else, but a few years down the line, he may just serve as a big, web-footed reminder of what a complete idiot you used to be. Saying that though, a Donald Duck tattoo may be preferable to a tattoo of say, your ex's name; after he broke up with Winona Ryder, Johnny Depp changed his "Winona Forever" tattoo to "Wino Forever" (so I guess they just crossed out the "na" part?), which, quite frankly, is just bloody stupid. And even if you don't go for someone's name or a cartoon character, even if you think your tattoo is the classiest, most sophisticated piece of artistry ever to be carved into human flesh, consider this little pearl of wisdom from my mum...

how will it look when you're wearing a wedding dress?

(I can only assume that my mum is directing this thought towards women rather than men, because, let's be honest here, if the groom comes down the aisle in a wedding dress, you've probably got more to worry about than how his tattoos look)

So all in all, tattoos are not for me. However, when I was much younger I was a big fan of the temporary kind; they always seemed to come free on pre-teen magazines like Mizz and Shout. I clearly remember sitting in my room with a wet flannel pressed against my arm, counting to thirty (because you had to count to thirty or it wouldn't work) patiently waiting for the magic to happen. Sparkly suns, flowers, rainbows; I had them all! I was practically a tattoo connoisseur! Sadly though, when I was about 13, we were in school getting changed for PE and some mean girls teased me, saying that fake tattoos were 'so immature' - kids can be so cruel. After that I stopped using them. (apart from last October at my friend's hen party when I bought a pack of My Little Pony transfers and made everyone wear one - we looked AWESOME!)

But HA! In your faces, mean girls! Thanks to Chanel, temporary tattoos are making a comeback!

(images from style.com and Elle UK)

First seen adorning the limbs and decolletages of the models at the S/S 2010 show, the limited edition Chanel tattoos, (officially named "Les Trompe L'Oeil De Chanel"...I have literally no idea what that means...) are available to buy from Selfridges and Chanel stores, though they may have already sold out. Each pack contains five sheets of transfers and they cost £49 (or $75 on the Chanel site) but I just looked on eBay and they're selling for at least twice that amount.

The packs contain a selection of intricate chains, pearls, flowers, swallows and the Chanel interlocked Cs logo, and what's quite clever is that they all fit together, so you can wear as many or as few as you want.

I haven't been able to find any really good quality images of the tattoos, but here's a video of the Chapman sisters (my absolute favourite youtube makeup artists) trying them out;

The £49 price-tag means that I won't be buying them any time soon, but they are very pretty and I can see them being a big hit with all the serious fashionistas out there. It'll be interesting to see whether Chanel has sparked a trend for temporary tattoos, I mean, most of the things we see on the catwalk do eventually trickle through to the high street and I for one would LOVE to see stores like Topshop and Urban Outfitters bring out their own versions!

The more I look at them, the more I think they're actually quite innovative. If temporary tattoos were to become a big trend, imagine how your beauty routine would change! "Foundation - check, mascara - check, lipstick - check, tattoo?" Plus, what implications would there be for accessories?! Do they replace jewellery altogether or could you wear them with necklaces and bracelets layered over? Ooooh just think of the possibilities!

What are your thoughts on these beauties? Would you wear them or do you think they're best left on the catwalk?

I don't see what anyone can see, in anyone else but you

Yesterday I had a little look-see at the Chanel Spring 2010 Couture collection, which is an interesting one for Karl Lagerfeld, who is quoted as saying "It's the first time in my whole career I've done a collection without black or navy. There's not one gold button."

Hang on, hang on; not ONE gold button?! The man's clearly a psychopath!

Don't worry, he's onto something, I promise.

Indeed, the collection, which consisted of the usual tailored shorts suits and classic, yet decadent eveningwear, was given an edgy twist with a combination of delicate pastels and punchy silver accessories.

Chan-ELLO!

I think there might be a little bit of self-referencing going on there with the shirt collar and tie, eh Karl?

Loving the mille-feuille, loving the little fingerless gloves, loving the sparkly, sparkly tights. It's a bit space-age, even a bit futuristic (only, don't tell Karl I said that, because apparently, when someone backstage at the show suggested it was futuristic, he snapped "I hate that". And then killed them. Probably).

However, if I had to say what my favourite thing was from this show, it'd have to be... the HAIR!!! Oh my goodness will you just look at it???

I think Magdalena Frackowiak has become one of my favourite models. Her face is exquisite.

Oh, wait, that one's not from the Chanel show, that's Gary Oldman as Dracula. Clearly, vampires are always one step ahead in the fashion stakes...

(hahaha I didn't even notice that pun at first!)

Aaaaaaaaaaaah! Just gorgeous! Also, I know I'm a bit late blogging about this because I've been reading about it for months, but pastel coloured/streaked hair is EVERYWHERE at the moment! I'll do a big post about this later in the week because I have lots of pictures to share, but I'm seriously thinking about buying some kind of coloured hair gel or spray or clip in coloured extensions or something, because the very pale blue in Isabeli Fontana's dark hair (first hair picture) looks fabulous! Obviously I couldn't actually dye my hair because I'd have to bleach it first and I'd clearly destroy it and curly hair is dry enough without adding bleach to the equation...

One final thing, not related to the Chanel show. I've just been online, reading an awful lot of comments and articles about this photo;

So here's the situation; Tavi Gevinson is a 13 year old girl who writes a fashion blog called Style Rookie. She started writing when she was 11 and her blog has been a huge (I mean HUGE) success - people love her, she gets sent all kind of free stuff from designers, she's been featured in magazines, she was even on the cover of Pop, and now, from what I can gather, she also occasionally writes for Pop. Anyway, her knowledge of fashion is incredible, she's clearly very passionate about it (read some of her blog and you'll see straight away) and she expresses this through her crazy way of dressing, which, whether you love it or hate, is completely unique (and I think, very brave, considering she's only 13 and has to deal with constant stupid remarks from kids at her school ). Anyway, this image, from the Dior Couture show, was Tweeted by a reporter for Grazia who was "Not best pleased to be watching couture through 13 year old Tavi's hat". Now, I have to say, common decency and sense do dictate that if you're going to any kind of seated event, fashion show, play, press conference etc, it's probably best not to wear a large hat as you'll be obscuring the views of the people behind you. However, Tavi is under 5 foot tall, so even with the hat, she's probably not much taller than an average person. Also, the hat is hardly a hat, more like an oversized piece of ribbon (let's be honest, in the image above, it's probably obscuring about 8 per cent of the gown). And it was given to her by Dior atelier, Stephen Jones. Of course she's going to wear it to the Dior show - she's a 13 year old kid! Hell, if I was going to the Dior couture show and was then given a piece of Dior couture, I'd definitely wear it and I'd attach a big neon sign to it saying "hey, have you noticed my hat? it's Dior frikkin' couture!"

Also, if the Grazia reporter had such a problem with the hat, she could have asked Tavi to take it off, instead of passive-aggressively Tweeting about it. I can only wonder whether she was more miffed about being seated behind Tavi's hat, or behind Tavi herself, a 13 year old blogger...

The thing is, regardless of whether or not she should have worn the hat, the thing that really got me about this whole incident is how many hateful, nasty comments have since been made about Tavi. The mix of comments included outraged statements about how she should have been in school at the time/she's growing up too fast/she knows nothing about fashion in the first place/a 13 year old has no right to be at a Dior Couture show/her parents have a lot to answer for etc etc moan moan moan blah blah blah. Regardless of what you may think about her, Tavi is a child and a lot of the people who made those comments (some of the worst ones were here) should hang their heads in shame as they are clearly adults. While it may seem a little precocious for a 13 year old to be attending a Paris Couture show, is it any worse than people like Dakota Fanning and Abigail Breslin and all the other zillions of child stars out there, who have pretty much grown up in the spotlight, surrounded by adults, learning God knows what on film sets and generally living a very different life to that of other children their age? From what I can gather from her blog, Tavi seems like a very intelligent, if a little eccentric, down to earth kid, who goes to school and watches cartoons and acts silly, just like other kids her age. She just happens to have an obsession with fashion that has led to a lot of doors being opened to her at a very young age. And quite, frankly, if she's causing such a stir in the fashion world at 13, think what she could do when she's actually old enough to cause some real damage. Tavi, you have the little curly girl's backing all the way! I salute you!

...although, she did meet James Franco at a party which means I have to hate her a little bit...

Resort 2010 - the story so far...

Hello my little loves! Apologies for not having posted very much lately - haven't been feeling particularly inspired (this mainly comes from the fact I haven't been shopping in a LONG time -trying to be good and not spend money in the frivolous way I usually do).

Don't fret though, have got a few posts coming up which should be quite interesting. I'm working on something in particular that will probably be a big'un, not sure how long it's going to take me, because I want it to be well-written, but soon, children, soon. Anyways, over the past week or so, a few Resort collections for 2010 have popped up, so here's some of my favourite pieces so far...
Compared to the Bottega Veneta and Chanel collections (which I'm going to talk about in just a moment), Erdem was minimal to say the least. The pieces were relaxed yet elegant; lots of feminine, wearable dresses and skirts, which not only looked stylish, but also really comfortable. (does that make me sound like an old women? "Oh it looks SO comfortable!") I love the floor-length cocktail dress with the slouchy t-shirt neckline. The floral prints reminded a little bit of recent Basso and Brooke collections, but then, Basso Brooke are print fiends so it's easy to make a connection...

The Chanel show took place in Venice, one of Coco Chanel's favourite locations, and the show itself, according to style.com, was full of clever references to the city, most of which I would never get because I'm not very up on my knowledge of Venetian history. Regardless of references, this show was ridiculously good and I'm particularly loving the 1920s-style hair and makeup; those dark, smudgy eyes look FA-HAB-ULOUS! Also really enjoying the nautical feel of the beachwear and quite desperately want the bag in the first photo!

So, this is a reference to gondoliers, right?

Other highlights for me, include, this incredibly decadent, dirty gold dress with matching cardigan type thing (it's hard to tell from the picture, ok?!) and that lovely, uber-1920s lacy number.

And finally, proof that Karl Lagerfeld is not only a genius, but also has a sense of humour;

Sunglasses, on a stick! Like a masquerade masque! How can nobody have thought of this before?!

Despite Chanel's crazy eye-wear, my favourite collection so far has been that of Bottega Veneta, as it made me have one of those moments where I just kept going "Oh, but I love it all!" Very chic, very simple, very cool. Tomas Maier went in a very different direction with this show, opting for vibrant block shades of oranges, pinks and blues, rather than the usual, more subdued tones. I just love the really relaxed tailoring of these first pieces;

After the smart stuff came some playful beachwear and killer accessories. Massive necklaces are well and truly here to stay - they're everywhere! Also, isn't it weird how, what is ultimately a black pair of Bridget Jones pants, can look so glam?

Last of all came these beautiful gowns. Sometimes less really is more - no frills, no embroidery, no fuss. Just lots of lovely, floaty fabric. Imagine being clad in that much pink!

Chanel Iman has stolen my heart a little bit - she is truly FIERCE! And with a name like Chanel Iman, it'd be a crime for her not to be...

So that's what we've got so far from the Resort shows. There will surely be more coming soon - I'll keep you posted!

(all photos from style.com)