It’s Thursday night and I’m this close to leaving for New York Fashion Week…I’m driving around suburban Philadelphia looking for some simple, black tights. The ones with feet. Remember those?
This week, I hit up all of my fave discount stores looking for inexpensive black tights. The display at TJ Maxx was so haphazard and sparse that it took me all of three seconds to determine they didn’t have what I was looking for. I almost laughed at the selection at Marshall’s…pretty pitiful. I got momentarily giddy at Daffy’s when I saw an entire wall of tights. Unfortunately, Daffy and I have different definitions of the term “tights.” Daffy’s seems to think that leggings and tights are the same thing; and I was perturbed to find that none of Daffy’s black “tights” had feet.
Did I miss the memo? Since when did a basic pair of tights become so the proverbial needle in a haystack? Call me old fashioned, but I want some damned tights, with feet. None of this newfangled, no-feet nonsense. I bet there’s a a guy (with a foot fetish) behind this whole legging trend.
Anyway, my next stop was Express. The store was nearby and I had a $25 gift card – so I decided to do a drive by. And you know what? They wanted to charge me $16.50 for one pair of black tights! Oh, no no no. Homey don’t play that. Even with their “buy one, get one half off” deal, I would have maxed out my gift card – and still have had to reach in my pocket.
Determined to find the elusive simple, black tights for under $6 (which is what I’m used to paying) – I dropped by Burlington Coat Factory today…and was blown away at what I found. A hot mess…that’s the best way I can describe it. I saw trouser socks, pantyhose, athletic socks, knee highs, gold lame leggings, and these sweater leggings with a ruched seam at the bottom (which were hella cool – but not what I was there for). What I didn’t spy was my black tights. So, as a last resort, I dug into a hodgepodge of hosiery on the clearance table – and found several pairs of black tights. Problem was that they didn’t have any kind of packaging. In fact, they looked like some lady undressed in store and left a souvenir on the sale display. There was a $3.99 price tag stuck to them – with no indication of size or brand. Just some sad looking tights.