Limited Time Only-Grab Halloween Looks For Only $5 and Get a Fall Smoky Eye Kit for Just $6!
see details
Limited Time Only! Add our 7 scary beautifully Halloween Kits to your cart for just $5 ($9-$12 value). Cannot be applied to previous purchases. Offer valid online only. Offer valid while supplies last. Offer ends 11:59 PM PST 10/19/2015.

Get the Look for Just $6! Add a minimum of $25 worth of product to your shopping bag. Add the Marsala Eye Kit(SKU #51555) to your shopping bag, creating a minimum bag value of $46. Enter coupon code MARSALA at checkout to receive the Marsala Eye Kit for $6. One per order at promo price. Offer ends 11:59 PM PST 10/12/2015.

Lindsay Lohan Leggings

Thursday, January 15, 2009

So what has Lindsay Lohan been up to these days? It may be surprising to you that her latest project isn’t a new movie or a CD but instead is a Marilyn Monroe inspired line of pricey leggings. The line, 6126 features several different leggings that are by far the most expensive ones I have ever seen. One pair even goes for $132 (pictured above). I don’t know what you think about the idea of designer leggings, but I personally think it’s a bit pricey for a pretty basic item (don't get me wrong, their cute...but $132?!). Check them out at . Would you splurge on leggings, or would you rather splurge on something else? And what about the fact that they have a celebrity name on them?  Fyi, I found some leggings for a steal at Forever 21.  

113 comments email to a friend print this page tags: beauty secrets   fashion   Lindsay Lohan   
Digg Del Technorati feed FaceBook Faves FeedBurner Google MySpace StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo

To reply to another user’s comment directly, click on the Reply link in that comment box.

Click on the Thread link to expand a discussion stemming from that comment.
Aurorarose wrote:
1) 1/15/2009 11:00:48 PM
I would never spend that much on matter how cute or whose name is on them. There are so many other things that my money would be better spent on.
Reply to this
Aggie183 wrote:
2) 1/15/2009 11:12:18 PM
$132 for leggings?!? I'd rather splurge on a pair of designer jeans. I think all this hype about leggings are because they can be worn to look like skinny jeans (I've seen some really thick ones). I think it's way over done; Let leggings remain leggings. I agree, Forever 21 has a good deal on leggings. I got a pair for only $4.50 and they are okay quality.
Reply to this
blogstajen wrote:
3) 1/15/2009 11:50:57 PM
Even if i had an extra $132 laying around, i definately dont think i would spend it on leggings. the only way i see anyone doing that is if they LOVE LOVE LOVE Lindsay Lohan. even then, im not so sure. Bad idea, but at the very least, its an untapped market, i'd say. they arent that great looking either-in the pics. i might rather spend that on a bag. or jeans. still alot more than i'd spend regularly.
Reply to this
MandaPanda2144 wrote:
4) 1/15/2009 11:58:36 PM
I think 132 is way too much to pay for leggings! I'd rather spend it on a nice purse. I don't think her line will take off. I don't even think those are all that cute = /
Reply to this
Andrea228 wrote:
5) 1/16/2009 12:28:39 AM
Even though I love leggings, I wouldn't spend that much on them. I like jewelry much more!
Reply to this
Pooh2 wrote:
6) 1/16/2009 6:13:18 AM
I really don't think that I would pay that price for a pair of leggings. They only jack the price because they attached a celebrity name to them. I agree that you can find some leggings that look great without breaking your wallet.
Reply to this
Jen08 wrote:
7) 1/16/2009 6:22:05 AM
$132?! For leggings?! WOW. I don't wear leggings(I'm all about jeans, baby), but I think they are adorable on others, but c'mon! $132??? That's pretty ridiculous. I'm really curious as to who would buy them for this price.
Reply to this
Melodyanne wrote:
8) 1/16/2009 7:00:28 AM
There's no way I'd pay that much for leggings, much less from Lindsey Lohan's line. I got my leggings for $7 at Kohls, and I don't think you can really tell the difference. Leggings are hot right now, but there is still now way I'd pay that much money for something so simple.
Reply to this
Sassygirl wrote:
9) 1/16/2009 7:32:35 AM
Are you KIDDING ME? How much could those leggings have cost to make? This is insane. Anyone who buys these deserves to be out ten times as much money as they're spending on these leggings (which aren't even cute, BTW!) for being stupid. Fact- Lindsay Lohan doesn't have that great of a fashion sense. Fact- LiLo was probably sloshed when she "designed" these. Fact- $132 could buy ten pairs of leggings at Forever 21 and that's at full price.
Reply to this
I would never wrote:
10) 1/16/2009 10:36:26 AM
I would never pay 132 dollars for a pair of leggings. That is far too expensive, I would just stick to the forever 21 ones. You would just be paying for the brand name which doesn't matter to me.
Reply to this
CheapChick wrote:
11) 1/16/2009 11:16:02 AM
Those are way too expensive and they don't look that much better! I would rather buy the ones at Forever 21. Those are in my price range and they look the same. Plus they have a whole lot of cheap cute clothes too.
Reply to this
littlelilylovee wrote:
12) 1/16/2009 2:58:02 PM
personally I buy leggings from like walmart, I mean I am not going to pay 35 dollars for a thin cotton pair of pants. But Those leggings are cute!
Reply to this
N-Funky wrote:
13) 1/16/2009 4:07:51 PM
Spending a lot on leggings is not really worth it especially when you get really good quality ones for under 20$, try or just walk into a tjmaxx near you to find good prints.
Reply to this
legging wrote:
14) 1/16/2009 4:10:17 PM
i think that $132 for a pair of leggings is a waste of money
Reply to this
Kaaatiieeeeeeee wrote:
15) 1/16/2009 4:21:08 PM
$132 is a lot of money. That could buy me 26 pairs of leggings at Wal Mart. There, they're only $5! And I got a couple really cute pairs, and they're actually durable! They fit nice, they wear nice and they wash nice! As for LiLo's new leggings, I'm not so sure I'd spend $132 on any one clothing item, that's about three new outfits (including accessories) for me. They do have her name on them, and leggings were her trademark for quite a while, so I can see the money in her name, but like it says in the blog, Forever 21 has super cute leggings for a steal. If I had $132 to spend I would probably go to somewhere awesome like Forever 21 and have a field day with it. Their stuff is just as cute as a celebrity's pricey clothing line!
Reply to this
rorie21 wrote:
16) 1/16/2009 7:53:32 PM
I would never spend that much on one item of clothing in general, let alone leggings. Also, I don't even think those leggings are that cute, and the fact that they have Lindsay Lohan's name on them doesn't really impress me..... I guess if you had money to spare and really loved Lindsay Lohan? Also, I agree that Forever 21 has lots of cute stuff for great prices!! :]
Reply to this
CattyChic wrote:
17) 1/16/2009 10:51:14 PM
Omg g that's sso cool although I would never bbuy tjem! LOL
Reply to this
jodes1344 wrote:
18) 1/17/2009 10:14:41 AM
$132 for leggings...I can think of so many more creative ways to spend that money. Like say on E.L.F products for instance. The legging trend has gotten a little "overused" to say the least. They are only wearable if you are a size 2, ok maybe a 4 or 6, and they take the word sloppy to a new level. Not one of my favorite clothing choices, but I'm not Lindsay Lohan, so hey more power to her.
Reply to this
elfie08 wrote:
19) 1/17/2009 4:49:00 PM
yes that is definitely too expensive, at least for me. Their are some really cute shiny ones at target for like $13 also.
Reply to this
LilSweetRedHead wrote:
20) 1/18/2009 8:51:24 AM
$132 for leggins? Hmm, sounds like someone is continuing on thier drinking spree for that price. The look of them? Well, again once wondering what it is that is in that bottle she is drinking. Then again I have to admit that there are those who might fork up the cash due to her name but, seriously...$132 just for her name? Yeah, I think I will pass. With the price of those I could easily afford several different leggins that will not only look better on me but also leave me some spending cash on a new fav purse or even shoes! Maybe some of those more high profile actresses might jump at the chance to wear these overpriced cheesy leggins but for me...I'm spending my money more wisely because in the end I have to feel as if I look good and know that I didn't just spend too much money for another piece of clothing that will see more of my closet than the outside world!
Reply to this
Kelly Nicole wrote:
21) 1/18/2009 7:41:42 PM
I think thats too much to spend on leggings! I'd rather spend that on another piece of clothing, maybe some nice pants or jeans or something like that. Either that or go on an E.L.F shopping
Reply to this
Mtz wrote:
22) 1/19/2009 2:48:11 AM
I could never buy leggings for that much money I would buy a hand bag or this else
Reply to this
reallytrully95 wrote:
23) 1/20/2009 12:21:09 AM
personaly I think they are cute but 132$? That's just over the top for a price of fabric designed by"lindsay lohan"
Reply to this
victoria_vicky wrote:
24) 1/20/2009 1:08:02 AM
i agree they are cute but not worth the money at all but then againg if you have to money to buy it and it won't hurt your pocket why not
Reply to this
pmga wrote:
25) 1/20/2009 12:08:19 PM
I would never splurge on leggings - I am too likely to rip them or forget them at the laundromat. I would rather have basic leggings and let the rest of my outfit steal the show.
Reply to this
eyecandy007 wrote:
26) 1/20/2009 12:17:12 PM
I would never spend that much money on leggins that is insane.. sorry but in this day when everyone is lookin to save the last thing we wnat to spend that amt of money on is leggins.. hit TJ Maxx and save some dough!
Reply to this
sgumer wrote:
27) 1/20/2009 1:54:36 PM
that is very expensive for some leggings. i think she could spend her time a little better than that. i would not buy them at that price.
Reply to this
jena wrote:
28) 1/20/2009 1:55:11 PM
I would not splurge on a pair of leggings. They only last so long, anyway, so they're not a great investment. The celebrity name does not make me want to buy them, either.
Reply to this
jesterisme wrote:
29) 1/20/2009 1:08:47 AM
Never ever ever!!! would I spend $132 on leggings! They are glorified tights! You can get 2 full out fits with accessories shopping right with that kind of money... The leggings don't even look that unique, and bearing a celebrity name doesn't impress me. A designer name will rarely influence my decision to buy something, and these leggings would get left on the shelf by me.
Reply to this
kitr wrote:
30) 1/20/2009 1:56:13 PM
to be perfectly honest, the leggings simply are not worth as much as they cost. Find them somewhere else cheaper. End of story
Reply to this
kitrh wrote:
31) 1/20/2009 1:58:09 PM
these leggings are not even that cute you can find cuter ones elsewhere for five bucks
Reply to this
stjohne wrote:
32) 1/20/2009 3:08:46 PM
I think $132 is a ridiculous price to pay for leggings.
Reply to this
NoThanks wrote:
33) 1/20/2009 3:52:18 PM
There are very few things in my wardrobe that I would splurge on, and leggings are certainly not one of them. Even if they are higher quality than the cheap ones I buy, I could buy twenty pairs for that much money and it wouldn't be a big deal if I ruined them!
Reply to this
bhfo wrote:
34) 1/20/2009 4:03:31 PM
these are too expensive, they have some just like them at forever 21.
Reply to this
Lipglosslover wrote:
35) 1/20/2009 5:11:30 PM
I'm not too keen on designer leggings. I've bought leggings for $10-that's a deal to me! On this blog, the bottom left picture looks alright to me. Match it up with a long sweater and tall boots and your set!
Reply to this
E wrote:
36) 1/20/2009 5:25:24 PM
$132 for leggings is ridiculous. i don't consider it a staple item like jeans or a nice jacket. i'd rather get some $10 or $20 leggings from a decent company and spend the rest on something i can get more use out of.
Reply to this
tubagirl wrote:
37) 1/20/2009 5:26:05 PM
these are definitley different leggings. I might buy a pair of the metallic ones (theyre really cute )if i couldnt find ones like them else wheres.
Reply to this
samatpsu209 wrote:
38) 1/20/2009 5:29:45 PM
I would not splurge on these leggings no matter the lable. Also, hmmm, to splurge $132? I think I could make $132 go a long way. I would not spend it all in the same place.
Reply to this
musicalnotes wrote:
39) 1/20/2009 5:31:07 PM
I think leggings are cute and all that but I wouldn't spend $132 on them! probably not more than $20 actually! I'd rather spend money like that on clothes or shoes I need. It doesn't matter what celebrity name is on a clothing item; I'd just as soon spend money on something similar without a major name on it and save a little to spend on whatever I'm looking for at the moment.
Reply to this
yeahdonna wrote:
40) 1/20/2009 5:46:00 PM
wow, $132. I got a pair of leggings from Marshall's for $5 and they look and feel nice to me...I don't know if I'd spend that much on leggings, unless they were super comfortable and made me look 10 lbs lighter :-)
Reply to this
thegoodellen wrote:
41) 1/20/2009 6:13:17 PM
That amount of money for leggings is RIDICULOUS! I would rather spend the money on just about anything different. Leggings are so faddy anyways. She should take the time to design something a little more timeless.
Reply to this
Flora wrote:
42) 1/20/2009 6:47:22 PM
I think it is insane to spend $132 for a pair of leggings!! I have found some great pairs at Forever 21 too... and Charlotte Russe! I think the most I have spent on a pair of leggings was $25 at Express, and I thought that was too much!!
Reply to this
tropicalgirl wrote:
43) 1/20/2009 7:10:31 PM
Personally, I think this is stupid. Why spend 132$ for a pair of leggings, when you can have a pair for somthing like max. 30$! I would rather spend the money for something less basic... like a nice pair of shoes. Heck, you can even buy a coat!
Reply to this
lyda wrote:
44) 1/20/2009 7:17:14 PM
this waist, butt and legs will never be seen in leggings. of course i'm a sweat pant person. i suppose semi-undimensional gals can get away with it. pay that price? - don't think so.
Reply to this
jennyx7 wrote:
45) 1/20/2009 7:35:15 PM
i actually just bought a pair of leggings that look like the one in the bottom left i dont know if i have anything to wear them with but i love wearing them
Reply to this
carmenc wrote:
46) 1/20/2009 7:51:52 PM
Oh wow...$132? That's really pricey for just a pair of leggings. I mean, they're nice and all but for $132? I'm out. With $132, you could buy so many better things. Personally, I'd probably buy a pair of shoes (I have quite an obsession). It's absurd these days how many celebrities go into the designing industry (fashion industry?)and make clothes with these CRAZY price tags.
Reply to this
piinkiie wrote:
47) 1/20/2009 9:25:42 PM
Oh my god. I would never spend so much on just a pair of legging. It doesn't make me look good anyways. The leg warmers look similar to these, but look much better! and are super cheaper!
Reply to this
KY Mom wrote:
48) 1/20/2009 10:13:21 PM
I don't care who you are or where you live- those leggings are just in poor taste and bad fashion (unless you are a stick thin teenager). Being a 35 yr. old mother of one, who is constantly on the run, I would NEVER be caught in leggings outside the house. The upper left pic with knee pads is just weird looking - who needs knee pads on pants? The top right appear to be painted latex pants from a lingerie shop; tacky! The lower right animal print half leggings are too short to be socks and are useless. I am all for comfort, but really leggings are an outdated fashion "don't" that I hope don't catch on again!
Reply to this
domcynkay01 wrote:
49) 1/21/2009 2:44:53 AM
I am shocked that leg warmers are back in style! Im curious to see what the trend will be when my kids grow older!
Reply to this
uneek25 wrote:
50) 1/21/2009 3:03:36 AM
I would never spend that much money on a pair of leggings just because it has a celebrity's name on it. I could probably fine something similar to that for a way cheaper price.
Reply to this
terry0741 wrote:
51) 1/21/2009 3:08:18 AM
woah $132! I wonder who has bought these already? I would not spend that much on a pair of leggings even if lindsay lohan made them. I could get an entire outfit for that much :)
Reply to this
bladeer wrote:
52) 1/21/2009 8:47:15 AM
these leggings are pretty jazzy and i think i must have a pair for my wardrobe
Reply to this
honeykins2 wrote:
53) 1/21/2009 9:37:07 AM
I myseld would not pay that much.They aren't even nice looking.Why would you cover up nice looking legs with an expensive item. like this.The average person has other things they would rather spend their money on.This is for people who need something new to lavish themselves in.Its okay if your gonna be in the STAR magazine or on the red carpet somewhere.But,thats my opinion,others might want to splurge for these leggings.
Reply to this
leggings wrote:
54) 1/21/2009 10:45:23 AM
i think they are very cute for my tweenie daughter but i could not see myself spending that much on one pair of leggings!! i love them though, but they need to be much cheaper
Reply to this
lylytiger wrote:
55) 1/21/2009 12:11:23 PM
Way too pricey, but then i think they target LA celebrities and fashionista gals. I saw one priced at 120 down to 20 at Daffy's (still regret I didn't get it, there was only one in the rack) :(
Reply to this
SweetPrincess wrote:
56) 1/21/2009 12:32:17 PM
I would definitely NOT spend $132 precious dollars on a pair of leggings, no matter how famoous the name brand is! I'd rather spend that kind of money on a camera, or a manicure, or anything! Congrats on that great buy at Forever 21!!
Reply to this
soccerchick16 wrote:
57) 1/21/2009 1:34:38 PM
definately splurge on something else. but they are cute! definately wait until their on discount=D
Reply to this
CactusGirl wrote:
58) 1/21/2009 2:15:34 PM
I like the leopard ones, but the first ones crack me up, why do you need knee pads? LOL.
Reply to this
A Dreamer I am wrote:
59) 1/21/2009 6:00:49 PM
To be honest I dont know who would splurge on $132 leggingd. Not, I for sure!! Why waste $132 for a pair of leggings that cost $5.99 at the locsl store. I would however, use that money and buy jeans, tee's, socks and anything else cool lool.
Reply to this
Anonymous wrote:
60) 1/21/2009 7:53:41 PM
That's really expensive for leggings... and I don't even wear them. I agree, they're not worth it.
Reply to this
Windsnap7 wrote:
61) 1/21/2009 8:11:22 PM
I think thosse leggings are overrated. I would never pay that much. You can get cute leggings at Claire's for, like, 7$.
Reply to this
pixiecheeks wrote:
62) 1/21/2009 8:19:00 PM
honestly, the leggings are far too expensive considering they are an old trend. there are several stores who sell legginings from even $5 so who would really invest on a pair of $100+ leggings really cant tell the difference. good luck miss lohan but the leggings are a definite miss for me.
Reply to this
citrus wrote:
63) 1/21/2009 8:31:46 PM
i absolutely would never spend more then 7.00 on leggings, but just watch people do pay that much. i have never been into buying a product because of a name. No way I am going to save my money on buying something else, like more elf products.
Reply to this
amanda abstraction yo wrote:
64) 1/21/2009 8:59:30 PM
awwh these are adorable (: i'm gonna go buy some next time i go to the mall :D
Reply to this
tiffany_marie_102 wrote:
65) 1/21/2009 10:21:28 PM
I would never spend that much on leggings...the third pair is cute though.
1 Reply | Reply to this | Open Thread
wilcofan wrote:
66) 1/21/2009 10:56:01 PM
I like leggings, but it's just a trend. Spending that much on one pair seems wasteful. I would be happy with Forever 21 too!
Reply to this
o0dollface0o wrote:
67) 1/21/2009 11:59:33 PM
uum is it just leggings? and is everything else of hers expensive have any other celebs worn them? thats outrageous its comforting to know that some people can still afford to blow 100+ dollars on leggings during these trying economic times...nooot.
Reply to this
melrosegirl wrote:
68) 1/22/2009 3:38:49 AM
I wouldn't spend over $5 for leggings let alone $100! Are these leggings made of magic? lol Putting the jokes aside, I would rather save my money for products that are worth buying (like ELF for example) and that can give me a bang for my buck. Lohan's name on this product doesn't change a thing; a name is just name and leggings are just leggings. Hell, I could even sew a pair of leggings myself and I'm not even pro at needlework.
Reply to this
dfarr wrote:
69) 1/22/2009 5:05:14 AM
In no way, shape or form are ANY leggings worth $132... unless they're encrusted with diamonds or something. Even at a high end upscale store, you can find leggings for under $50.
Reply to this
usmsurvivor wrote:
70) 1/22/2009 9:21:41 AM
$132 is too much for leggings. With today's economy, people are more careful on where they're spending their money. I'd personally rather spend the money on some nice jeans or a warm winter coat.
Reply to this
UptownGirl01 wrote:
71) 1/22/2009 10:03:21 AM
They're pretty cute, but not worth the extra $100 mark-up for LL's name on the tag. If I wore leggings, American Apparel has a great selection at much more reasonable prices. As e.l.f. fans, we all know that a higher price and/or a fancy name don't necessarily get you much more than an emptier wallet!
Reply to this
dubgirl wrote:
72) 1/22/2009 11:34:50 AM
I wouldn't spend my money on a pair of leggings that would cost more than the rest of my outfit! I rather splurge on a pair of shoes instead!
Reply to this
Princess25 wrote:
73) 1/22/2009 12:34:35 PM
I find it quite ridiculous for people to pay so much for a pair of leggings. Like the article said they are a simple accessory, it shouldn't cost so much. The designer, in this case, Lindsay Lohan, is just plain greedy and wants to make money one way or another. Don't pay that much for leggings.
Reply to this
tojolomo wrote:
74) 1/22/2009 12:47:26 PM
Personally, I don't get the concept of leggings. They're nothing more than tights except women think they don't have to wear pants or a skirt with them! I'll stick to jeans, thanks.
Reply to this
tsu702 wrote:
75) 1/22/2009 2:10:01 PM
I would never spend that much on leggings. My daughter wears them with her skirts and hers only cost 10.00 or less!
Reply to this
dest wrote:
76) 1/22/2009 2:30:11 PM
I haven't heard anything about her lately
1 Reply | Reply to this | Open Thread
Mya wrote:
77) 1/22/2009 2:32:13 PM
I always buy leggings from forever 21, for such a trendy item its worth spending a comfortable amount rather than a fortune, plus I find its better quality than some of the younger 'tween' store clothing.
Reply to this
watt0306 wrote:
78) 1/22/2009 2:50:08 PM
Yuck, I really don't like leggings!! They only look good if you are very tall and thin!
Reply to this
Katydid wrote:
79) 1/22/2009 4:06:46 PM
I wouldn't pay over $100 for leggings, regardless of who designed them.
Reply to this
annie7110 wrote:
80) 1/22/2009 4:16:34 PM
I would never spend that much on a pair of leggings!!! Her leggings are cute but this is a recession. I would much rather spend that money on something especially since leggings are a temporary trend. I rather spend the money on something that is a classic then the in the moment trend. Leggings are the type of items that people should skimp but i guess if you have that kind of money then you can spend it.
Reply to this
bimbi284 wrote:
81) 1/22/2009 5:17:07 PM
I would NEVER spend that kinda money on a pair of can get the very same look with a pair for $20 or less! Seriously Lindsay, you better re-think this one. Plus, I don't think leggings will be around forever, they are popular now, sure...but if she was looking to make good money, she should have invested in something with some longevity.
Reply to this
maty wrote:
82) 1/22/2009 6:08:37 PM
Leggings are not my thing, but some peoeple can pull them off !
Reply to this
christina is the best. wrote:
83) 1/22/2009 6:11:41 PM
that is way to much to pay that much for leggings! seriouly id rathwer just go to my walmart!
Reply to this
LACCA wrote:
84) 1/22/2009 6:30:08 PM
I don't know what she's thinking. I would never spend that much money on leggings. They're not even that cute.
Reply to this
alm1217 wrote:
85) 1/22/2009 6:31:05 PM
I would rather splurge on a purse or new cosmetics! I'm cheap when it comes to clothes and I can't justify that must money for something you'd only wear every now and least with a purse you can carry it everyday...
Reply to this
hollyk wrote:
86) 1/22/2009 6:42:57 PM
What craaazy amount she's asking for! I think I'd rather save my money for something that won't fall out of style so fast.
Reply to this
JoshsGirl wrote:
87) 1/22/2009 6:56:43 PM
Hello 1980's with a fierce comeback...There is no way i would pay the outrageous price for leggings! Cmon Seriously in this economy...I can find far better ways to spend money than on leggings, which are cute but not THAT cute!
Reply to this
sammerz wrote:
88) 1/22/2009 7:03:05 PM
Yeah what a waste like everyone else has said, honestly in my opinion i don't like them, not on me at least but to each their own. I could buy a nice outfit for that price our a lot of e.l.f. makeup lol
Reply to this
niki02girl wrote:
89) 1/22/2009 7:41:52 PM
as much as I love leggings, I wouldn't pay more than $7 or $8 for a pair. I can get nice pairs at discount retailers like Kohl's and K-Mart
Reply to this
¢¾makeup¢¾lovahh¢¾ wrote:
90) 1/22/2009 8:22:38 PM
omg! those are ahdorable but kinda outta my price range i could over 100 elf items for that price.thats why i love you guys!
Reply to this
lfbc03 wrote:
91) 1/22/2009 8:33:28 PM
not cute at all!!! and the price. Yikes!
Reply to this
Mz Tish wrote:
92) 1/22/2009 8:17:38 PM
Her items are nice but overpriced. I visited the website and saw her version of liquid leggings are $99! That is m0re than the original brand of those jeans which are $88. I saw the same style of liquid leggings at target and macy's for under 20! I would ot buy a pair of leggings just because a celebrity made them. Also, if I was to splurge on something, it would be something I could wear more often like a coat or pair of shoes and could mix and match different outfits with.
Reply to this
TRenee wrote:
93) 1/22/2009 9:18:47 PM
I don't think I could ever spend this much money on a pair of leggings. Celebrities often create clothing lines and just because their name is attached to it, they hike up the prices... its ridiculous. I'd never.
Reply to this
Annie1121 wrote:
94) 1/22/2009 9:22:11 PM
Honestly these leggings look really cute but I wouldn't splurge that much. I would rather like to have nicer jeans, shirts, and makeup. Leggings are something that I don't wear everyday. I want to splurge on things that I can use everyday rather than once in awhile:) There is my scoop on these leggings!
Reply to this
d12awn wrote:
95) 1/22/2009 10:36:11 PM
i get mine at forever 21. they're great!
Reply to this
Deandra B. wrote:
96) 1/23/2009 12:32:09 AM
I would never spend that much on leggings. NEVER.
Reply to this
DG wrote:
97) 1/23/2009 12:39:53 AM
I think that would be such an extravagant purchase, especially with a recession underway. Even I was a millionaire, I would never splurge on these.
Reply to this
Yef wrote:
98) 1/23/2009 1:07:31 AM
Leggings are still trendy? The glistening ones kind of creep me out so probably no to the splurge thing.
Reply to this
angelicrose331 wrote:
99) 1/23/2009 4:16:23 PM
NEVER NEVER NEVER would I spend that much I would rather buy something more useful
Reply to this
alrodri wrote:
100) 1/23/2009 5:06:19 PM
yea right elf makeup wayyy better but that is alot of makeup
Reply to this
melodyrose16 wrote:
101) 1/24/2009 3:41:21 PM
I'd much rather save the money and splurge on something a lot more a new pair of shoes!!
Reply to this
scorpio23 wrote:
102) 1/24/2009 9:19:42 PM
Are you kidding? They are leggings! I could see spending maybe half that on a very nice, well made product with awesome material that doesn't shrink etc. etc. etc. But come on! No one pays attention to the brand of your leggings! Spend that money on something else and get the $5 ones at Forever 21 or any other normal store!
Reply to this
CeeCeeS wrote:
103) 1/25/2009 5:12:19 PM
I'm sorry. They are probably very nice leggings, but I can go to Walmart and get some that are just as nice for around $15 dollars and still have money left over for other groceries. I just can't see spending that kind of money on something just because some celebrity has her name on them.
Reply to this
dragonsgirl wrote:
104) 1/26/2009 6:49:28 AM
Eventually these are going to be going somewhere for ninety percent off because nobody in their right mind buys a hundred dollar pair of leggings. Then again, there's always people not in their right minds in this world. The only designer clothes I buy are shoes because it doesn't pay to get cheap ones at Wallyworld and have them die after two or three months.
Reply to this
kat715 wrote:
105) 1/26/2009 2:02:58 PM
omg that much for leggings you can get them somewhere elsee for way cheaper
1 Reply | Reply to this | Open Thread
lindy129 wrote:
106) 1/29/2009 12:35:44 AM
i have always been a real big fan of leggins but i favor the ones that are brightly colored and the ones that look like tattoos
Reply to this
sami suhine wrote:
107) 1/29/2009 7:49:16 PM
I wouldn't pay 132 dollars for a pair of fugly leggings! Ugh. It's not like she's a famous designer..come on! (What's up with the knee pads on the first one?!)
Reply to this
Darko wrote:
108) 2/2/2009 2:53:08 PM
I love leggings, but not at that price. With a little looking around I'm sure you could do just as much with a lot less cash.
Reply to this
silvermage2000 wrote:
109) 2/9/2009 8:14:47 PM
These are kind of cool thought but abit high in price.
Reply to this
leashanna wrote:
110) 5/13/2013 4:59:25 PM
i would never buy leggings that expensive...who would its a waste
Reply to this

Live chat by BoldChat
e.l.f. RSS Feed elf Cosmetics blog RSS feed
elf Cosmetics
most popular

elf Cosmetics

elf Cosmetics
July 2015 (1)
June 2015 (3)
May 2015 (4)
April 2015 (4)
March 2015 (5)
February 2015 (1)
January 2015 (6)
December 2014 (4)
November 2014 (7)
October 2014 (15)
September 2014 (13)
August 2014 (11)
July 2014 (16)
June 2014 (18)
May 2014 (19)
April 2014 (18)
March 2014 (18)
February 2014 (10)
January 2014 (21)
December 2013 (5)
November 2013 (9)
October 2013 (18)
September 2013 (13)
August 2013 (13)
July 2013 (21)
June 2013 (12)
May 2013 (7)
April 2013 (22)
March 2013 (13)
February 2013 (14)
January 2013 (28)
December 2012 (8)
November 2012 (8)
October 2012 (16)
September 2012 (12)
August 2012 (13)
July 2012 (14)
June 2012 (21)
May 2012 (20)
April 2012 (23)
March 2012 (20)
February 2012 (15)
January 2012 (16)
December 2011 (13)
November 2011 (16)
October 2011 (16)
September 2011 (20)
August 2011 (16)
July 2011 (12)
June 2011 (11)
May 2011 (15)
April 2011 (12)
March 2011 (15)
February 2011 (15)
January 2011 (14)
December 2010 (8)
November 2010 (5)
October 2010 (9)
September 2010 (13)
August 2010 (18)
July 2010 (10)
June 2010 (18)
May 2010 (23)
April 2010 (22)
March 2010 (31)
February 2010 (21)
January 2010 (19)
December 2009 (15)
November 2009 (20)
October 2009 (18)
September 2009 (19)
August 2009 (14)
July 2009 (25)
June 2009 (25)
May 2009 (9)
April 2009 (8)
March 2009 (10)
February 2009 (6)
January 2009 (7)

elf Cosmetics
  • elf cosmetics UK site
  • elf cosmetics French Site
  • elf cosmetics Australia Site
  • elf cosmetics Spain Site
  • elf cosmetics Italy Site
  • elf cosmetics Netherlands Site
  • elf cosmetics Belgium Site
  • elf cosmetics Mexico Site
  • elf cosmetics Romanian Site
  • elf cosmetics Thailand Site
  • elf cosmetics Denmark Site
  • elf cosmetics Sweden Site
  • elf cosmetics Norway Site
  • elf cosmetics Swiss Site
  • PETA
  • Cruelty Free
  • PayPal Certified
SSL Certificate