rykiel recap

This past Saturday, I schlepped to the Michigan Avenue H&M to peruse, pet, and purchase some of the Sonia Rykiel for H&M collaboration. Am I a sucker for pseudo-Parisian lingerie? Do I own more robes than a choir? Am I mildly obsessed with the idea of owning only matching sets of underthings?
Yes, yes, and yes.

And I know this is late, as the collection has been out for several days now, but it seems like there's not a lot of crazy excitement about this capsule collection, so your H&M has probably not been overrun by frenzied Rykiel hoarders. (You'd think that the Michigan Avenue H&M would have been a mob scene on Saturday, yes? It wasn't at all: I was one of maybe four people shuffling through the Rykiel racks. Racked NY seems to have had the same experience.)

I tried on nearly everything, because this is one of the few times in my life H&M has actually had a full rack of options with every size available. Good sizing news: the bras go up to a 38D! Bad sizing news: they run small. Euro-bras, maybe? In reality, they probably top out at about a 36D or 34DD. (The band sizes seem much smaller than indicated.)

As far as construction, I was pleasantly surprised to see how much silk was involved, in lieu of the all-polyester-all-the-time I was expecting. The stripey chemise was 100% poly, though, which saddened me. A girl can never own too many slightly impractical chemises, I feel.

And on the "impractical" note, I couldn't bring myself to get excited about the rosette bras, no matter how adorable they are. (They are, in fact, seriously adorable. Very Blair Waldorf.) If only the rosettes were detachable, I'd have seriously considered them, but the lumpy-boob look wasn't something I was looking forward to rocking. And the sheer black silk pajama pants vex me. They're not so much "slightly sheer" as "completely translucent". Why bother with pants at that point, really? As I assume they are categorized under "lingerie you wear solely to look hot", but at that point, I'd argue that simply not wearing pants is a far sexier choice than wearing baggy black see-through pajama pants.

That pillow is for sale. I have no idea why you'd buy it.

The collection also has these microfibery bras that looked totally promising: until I saw the rhinestone detail. No. Just say no to bedazzling. The sparkly appliqu├ęs say "belle", which is less awful than "sexy" or "hottie" or something equally nausea-inducing... but still, no. Don't do it.

The kimono robes were the far-and-away winners, in my mind. Perhaps because a robe can't really "run small", so the issues of fit were moot? Perhaps because they were 100% silk and had perfect kimono-detail sleeves that were awesome without being overly floppy? (You don't want to know how many times I've accidentally dragged the sleeve of my actual kimono through a bowl of oatmeal in the morning. I keep forgetting that the sleeves hang like two feet below my arms.)
(All images via H&M)

The peach long robe with the black trim is gorgeous. So, so gorgeous. But it is also far more money than I want to spend on a robe, even if it is 100% silk. I was sorely tempted, but the static-cling issues I was having while in the dressing room with this robe thankfully tipped my opinion to the "you don't need this" side.
The short black kimono robe, however, is another thing. It's hanging out in my bathroom, looking perfectly drapey and elegant and let's face it, a thin silk robe isn't exactly winter lounging wear, but I don't care.

Things I thought I'd go nuts for: lace underthings, 50's-glam satin matched sets, silk robes.
Things I actually loved: silk robes.
Things I just don't understand: seriously, a rhinestoned velvet pillow?

No comments: