Fashionista.com - - Vanessa Minnillo, Sans Knife

Jun 06, 2007 @ 10:18am

We've never loved Vanessa Minnillo - dating Nick Lachey? Ew. - but we do understand that like it or not, she's something of a style icon for millions of younger girls parked in front of TRL.

Perhaps that's why Lucky chose to put the VJ on their latest cover - it's an easy way to lure some of Seventeen's audience over to Conde Nast, and besides, Vanessa probably does love to shop, and she probably loves to talk about it even more. That's one of her photos from the upcoming issue, at left.

The cover comes at an interesting time, as Vanessa's been catching some heat for her latest candid photos, where she's snapped playing with Lindsay Lohan and a very sharp knife.

The thing is, these are exactly the sort of antics that many in the fashion industry seem to love. After Kate's cocain scandal, she booked more campaigns than ever. Lindsay Lohan's first rehab stint brings a Jill Stuart series. May Anderson gets arrested, then booked for the Dior Cruise runway (nevermind that she couldn't walk down it...)

And Vanessa? We're betting she lands a mid-market designer campaign by summer. Sure, Candie's and Lipsmackers won't touch her, but wouldn't she look cute in Luca Luca?

posted by anon

Jun 06, 2007 10:39AM

a) i think you mean Jill STUART
b) Nick L. is a GEM!
xo

posted by Meagan

Jun 06, 2007 10:45AM

I think she is revolting.. I have always thought Nick should dump her and move on to someone who is less needy. The knife pictures are a terrible example to set for all those young girls who, dreadfully, might be looking up to her!

posted by

Jun 06, 2007 10:48AM

blah i have never liked her either. she seems like a brat. and the last thing that comes to mind when i see a photo of her is "fashion"

and, it'll be harder to sell her style to 13 year olds in texas now that shes booted for trl and et :)

posted by Laia

Jun 06, 2007 11:29AM

I think that was a really BAD idea to put her on the cover. I mean... talk about a non-celebrity to put on the cover, seriously.
I think it really lowers the quality standard of the magazine. ugh.

posted by HeatherChandler

Jun 06, 2007 11:36AM

Pathetic...

posted by Fauchon Junkie

Jun 06, 2007 11:37AM

You gave me an opening with the Luca Luca reference.

I went to their recently sample sale and was SHOCKED at how matronly the overall line was compared to the spectacle of the runway shows.

I went for sex and found afternoon cafe with a little dolce on the side.

posted by liz

Jun 06, 2007 1:11PM

i never thought lucky was that ground breaking when it comes to fashion, it always just seems like loads of ads for average clothing without much substance. this just confirms that.

posted by LvH

Jun 06, 2007 1:33PM

Darlings she already booked a low-market designer campaign! for BONGO

http://www.popoholic.com/2007/04/27/vanessa-minnillo-bongo-ads/

Lucky is terribly pedestrian so I have no problem with some VJ being on its cover. The clothes in Lucky are usually hideous and the way they put them together in features is even worse.

posted by a8

Jun 06, 2007 4:48PM

I just read their publisher saying something along the lines of their readers being increasingly upscale like, "You have to have money to read this magazine." And yet they have made some really questionable cover choices as of late (Avril Lavigne? Rosario Dawson?), and the covers have been horribly styled. Vanessa Minillo has to be the lowest of the low, because she is just horrible and so downmarket that I don't see how it fits in with the affluent readership they claim to have.

Jun 07, 2007 4:02PM

use spell check