Ruth Langsford Dept Store

ShoppingTelly

Help Support ShoppingTelly:

Well said SF !

Given the right amount on a cheque, slebs like the Holmes' will attach themselves to anything. If QVC give their own brands names ie Cooks Essentials, Centigrade, Cozy Home, Diamonique et al, then why not give Ruthless' "range" (which is clearly a QVC own brand) another name ? answers on a postcard please, perhaps Fahrenheit (as opposed to Centigrade outdoor wear and add on the coats from Ruthless). Because Glen Campbell does an ok job in promoting Centigrade.
 
Thought I had got a bit on my soapbox! I spent a huge proportion of my working life in that industry with the scars to prove it, so these celebs who know nothing about it really irk me! Will rest my case now!
 
We (nearly all) are expert at seeing through the Q hype but there most be hundreds who are buying into the Ruthless/Hold’em vibe. Methinks these are the same folk who like Del Boy, Chunts, Spaniel Ears and lord forbid the newbies.
 
brissles said:
Well said SF !

Given the right amount on a cheque, slebs like the Holmes' will attach themselves to anything. If QVC give their own brands names ie Cooks Essentials, Centigrade, Cozy Home, Diamonique et al, then why not give Ruthless' "range" (which is clearly a QVC own brand) another name ? answers on a postcard please, perhaps Fahrenheit (as opposed to Centigrade outdoor wear and add on the coats from Ruthless). Because Glen Campbell does an ok job in promoting Centigrade.
Click to expand...
If Q were going to rebrand, then the name Ruthless would be pretty damned perfect!
 
brissles said:
Griz. yes, it crossed my mind, but I didn't know if I'd dreamt it, or whether she did have a few 'pieces' lol !
Click to expand...
The pieces of her jewelry I saw were pendants and priced very low. Maybe she's stopped producing them. If people like that type of thing, however, Frank Usher's are similarly priced but have a bit more style than hers. Both brands are made of base metal or plastic and not up my street at all.
 
Prefer Ruth to Holly. I prefer her and Eamonn to Holly and Phil. H & P rub me the wrong way.

Whenever I see the title of this thread, I have the theme for Are You Being Served running through my head. I wanted to put a link, but cannot. I still think it is one of the best theme tunes/songs out there from the 1970s.
 
maymorganlondon said:
Prefer Ruth to Holly. I prefer her and Eamonn to Holly and Phil. H & P rub me the wrong way.

Whenever I see the title of this thread, I have the theme for Are You Being Served running through my head. I wanted to put a link, but cannot. I still think it is one of the best theme tunes/songs out there from the 1970s.
Click to expand...
 
Not a fan of any of 'em. I can count on one hand the times I've watched morning magazine programmes on any channel, and as for Loose Women, I saw one of the first episodes when it first started, and that was enough for me, yet the protagonists have certainly made well paid careers out of it. Sorry, I prefer the news channels than puerile phone in quizzes that earn the channel money.
 
Where have I been? I've only just realised that Ruth's much anticipated dabble into the handbag world has arrived, and already sold out in all bar one colour! A few months back I made a prediction and I'm fairly surprised to see that only a couple of the elements I was expecting were there, and that's the feet on the bottom and the dust bag that comes with it. It's described as a tote bag, which it most certainly isn't. It's a large handbag. It's surprisingly plain apart from a removable tag bearing Ruth's initials, but it doesn't look classy at all - it's very Meh looking, in fact I'd go as far as saying it looks really boring. It's got loads of pockets, and of course Ruth went off on the usual spiel about how having to rummage around in a cavernous bag drives her absolutely mad, but then tried to save herself by saying that when you've got an organsier bag, you always know exactly what compartment you've put certain things in - Rubbish! Instead of having to do the old "dig and dump" as I've heard it called, you have to check every bliddy compartment! I know it's not a tote but I checked out leather totes on line, and even a Ted Baker one was only a few quid dearer - most of them were a good £60-£70 cheaper!
I said in an earlier thread that there's a lot of Ruth's stuff I really like, but this bag is a fail and I think you'd really have to love Ruth to be prepared to spend the amount she's asking for it plus £5.95 for postage when there's many many other leather bags to choose from which are loads nicer and a lot cheaper!
 
I'd feel embarrassed if somewhat spotted a "Ruth Langsford" logo on anything I bought ! (not likely to happen as I never buy her stuff).

What ARE QVC thinking ? are they trying to turn (their own brand) into an upmarket brand by giving Ruthless her own name labels on the outside of their garments. Amanda Wakely / Lulu Guinness / she ain't. For me she is at the Bon Marche level compared to say the Jean Muir of fashion.
 
I’m not into designer brands of any kind but, IF I was, I’d rather have a Gucci bag on my arm than a Ruth Langsford one. I doubt anyone else has heard of her, barring those in the U.K., and that’s probably because she’s never off the television, rather than because of her “fashion” range.
 
Apparently she said she wanted R. L. as a logo, but then was told someone else had got there first, who wouldn’t be happy to share.
So has had to be told to have the R. W. L. logo instead.
I believe the W stands for Wendy. 😉😂🤭
 
Virgin Media locked me out of here for the weekend, so I've only just caught up with this thread & you've all summed up Ruthie, & her designs, perfectly.
 
Me too, Twilight. I'm back on now.
Ruth's designs were intended to be affordable (untick), classic (tick if you mean boring with or without a zip, logo or piping) wardrobe staples - the latter not from my experience. I bought one of the first RL pairs of jeans and yes, they are comfortable and stretchy, but the fit isn't good. They're far too tight on the calf and far too baggy on the thigh so rather than pay the exorbitant double postage on an already expensive purchase, I kept them and wear them round the house mainly. Goodness knows what shape the designers had in mind - lollipop? Her tops are samey and way, way over my budget.

I'd rather shop at Markses and keep someone on the high street in a job. I've got all the affordable, classic, wardrobe staples I need, thank you.
 
I don't know who the 'fit' model is for designing the tops, because all her jumpers/t shirts are far too tight on the hips, which makes you look bigger. Even Ruth doesn't do her range any favours when she wears her jeans with boots, and her ill fitting tops.
 
I’m really so sick of hearing I’m a busty size 14, with the added instructions as to the fit she likes and size she would actually wear in any one item.
But then surely if Ruth has made the brand and a true 14, then she should be able to wear any of the size 14 items in the range.
Instead of this I’m a busty size 14 I’m in the 14 jacket but if I wanted it to fasten, I would go up to the 16.
But actually then me looking at the non coverage of the 14 jacket around the front of the chest, it would appear the 16 at 2” larger may only just meet and tightly fasten.
So then the next question is what about any form of thicker clothing other than the thin heart front logo t-shirt Ruth has underneath?
 
I hate all this go up go down nonsense for sizing. Why can't clothing and footwear manufacturers just make them in the standard sizes for God's sake? I buy nearly all my clothes at Asda (I'm not a fashionista obviously) but I know the sizes and they always fit. If I want something better quality I go to M&S and I'm a size 10 in everything. I'd never pay Ruth's prices for poly mumsy things or getting older person holding onto their twenties items.

CC
 

Similar threads

B
Battersea Life Episode 6: "Smoke And Mirrors"
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5,813
cazzie
cazzie

Latest posts

Back
Top