LuLuLemon LuLuLemon

kk117

who likes wearing this brand?  why u like it if u do?  please contribute. thank you

Caffie

I like to wear it because it's comfortable...

Alcoholic

imo
lulu & tna = 呃錢

besides, i barely see any girls wear it nice.
it's either fat @$$, or C9 運動裝.
but seriously, i've seen 靚妹襯高跟鞋，or 故意地著黎露底。

ding, 連我有個岩岩grade 6既表妹都識帶我舅父去metro買條$90既褲比她著返學，因為佢話學校D同學個個都"興"著喎。冇眼睇。

Rainy

lulu & tna = 呃錢

bluemountain

原帖由 Rainy 於 2008-4-14 01:28 發表
lulu & tna = 呃錢

Yeah!  I agree with that, it's just a trend to wear those brand names. May be he material is very comfortable but not everyone wears look good. Somebody told LuLu is made in Canada and some factory take part of the LuLu product without the brand name, and sell $15-20 in a little store

fibbi

I have a tna pant (or caprice (not sure the spelling), the material is very comfortable and "long lasting". I put in the washer+dryer all the time and it lasts long!
So I guess it worth the price.

its_visa

tna is not that long lasting @ all compare to lululemon...
if you wear tna for a period of time....LINT will start showing in the inner thighs part and wherever that "rubs" the most...
but lululemon's pants does not...so i think lululemon is worth the price more than getting TNA ones...

Caffie

原帖由 fibbi 於 2008-4-15 09:07 發表
I have a tna pant (or caprice (not sure the spelling), the material is very comfortable and "long lasting". I put in the washer+dryer all the time and it lasts long!
So I guess it worth the price.

Ya ya I think so too. I got my first pair of tna pants when I was in grade 8 (almost 5 years ago) and still wear it now, it's still in perfect quality too.

fibbi

原帖由 its_visa 於 2008-4-15 09:51 發表
tna is not that long lasting @ all compare to lululemon...
if you wear tna for a period of time....LINT will start showing in the inner thighs part and wherever that "rubs" the most...
but lululemon's ...

I guess it also depends on the material. My TNA pant is cotton (not like those fast dry frabic). I guess those fancy material will get lint more easily?

low_B

is too $$$$