Today's Special Value

[elated]

---

@Janis Irene wrote:

A couple of weeks ago it was that hideous boxy Logo shirt with the ruffle at the hip. Now it's these ridiculous pants! Is QVC trying to make people laugh at us? Wear that hideous top with these pants together and your Wal-Mart clothes look chic in comparison! They need to start adding some class to their clothing line or I'm not even going to check what their TSP anymore.

---

I agree these TSV's look like something that would be in a garage sale. If you think the last TSV fom Logo was bad wait until you see the one on 3/27. It is a zip-front cardigan with lace back. It looks like a maternity top. I guess if you want style this is not the place to buy it.

[ROMARY]

They look nice on everyone, so far, that I've seen. Including plus sizes (Maria, etc.).   As an after thought: Also, nice to see Medium Size model Bonnie (and others) on many of the style shows! 

[lessismsore]

1. The pockets give an unattractive look with them plastered on your thigh and with the seam on the horizontal  right across  the thigh gives a look of wearing a shaper or a girdle.

2. The length is so unattractive and will make your legs look shorter.

3. The banding is so wrong for most woman with any extra weight on their legs/hips/thighs.

Yet it sounds like they have sold over 60,000! Go figure that!

The fabric looks nice and comfortable and I almost bought her cargo style TSV, thinking I would remove the stupid looking banding at the bottom of the leg that made them appear more like Hammer pants and I really liked those pockets much better than this new version.

[elated]

---

@lessismsore wrote:

1. The pockets give an unattractive look with them plastered on your thigh and with the seam on the horizontal  right across  the thigh gives a look of wearing a shaper or a girdle.

2. The length is so unattractive and will make your legs look shorter.

3. The banding is so wrong for most woman with any extra weight on their legs/hips/thighs.

Yet it sounds like they have sold over 60,000! Go figure that!

The fabric looks nice and comfortable and I almost bought her cargo style TSV, thinking I would remove the stupid looking banding at the bottom of the leg that made them appear more like Hammer pants and I really liked those pockets much better than this new version.

---

I know that 60,000 sounds like a lot of pants to sell but when you consider the viewing audience, this is a drop in the bucket.

[homedecorator]

---

@Patagonia12 wrote:
She said these pants would go for $250 at her former store. I don't think so.

---

Haha I love when she talks about the outrageous prices at her old store..no wonder it's out of business!!!! 

I am not a fan of these pants, they look like sweatpants that are too short. They're all wearing them with such high heels/ wedges- just don't get the look!

[ROMARY]

I'll bet that very high-end stores in CA, and elsewhere across the country are very expensive.  There are a lot of folks out there with plenty of cash to spend these days.  A simple tee could cost hundreds.  'Supply and demand.'

[Breamy]

These pants appear to me that they would only look good if you were a size 2!  

[barrel racer]

I have Lisa's  pants from last year and they are wonderful. I have the black and would have them all if I still worked. I am not getting today's tsv as I don't like crop pants. They don't look like MC Hammer pants unless you order too big.  I am 5'5" and wear the xs but next time will order the xxs.  Not everyone can wear them, I think you need to have long slim legs.

[MarkeieMark]

And they get rid of George Simonton.

[homedecorator]

---

@ROMARY wrote:

I'll bet that very high-end stores in CA, and elsewhere across the country are very expensive.  There are a lot of folks out there with plenty of cash to spend these days.  A simple tee could cost hundreds.  'Supply and demand.'

---

I agree some would pay that or more, but not for an actress/ reality star brand. It would be for a high-end, well known designer.