If you’re stocking up for winter, then you need to head into your nearest Portmans store by tomorrow to get 40% off all full-priced merchandise.

To claim the discount, you’ll need to be a Portmans Eport Member, so make sure you sign up online first.

Portmans has some gorgeous and affordable pieces for winter in-store at the moment, and the 40% discount makes them even more affordable.

I love this look for casual days in the office plus weekend lunches during the winter months.

By Caroline Warnes

If you’ve been eyeing off any of the fabulous new season stock Portmans has in-store at the moment, now is the time to strike.

If you spend $200 in any one transaction before February 21, you’ll get $50 back.

I had a quick look at the website and was quite taken with this outfit - a very smart black top and pencil skirt which would be ideal for work.

The top and skirt together come to $209.90, so by my calculations if you buy them in conjunction with this special offer, you’ll only pay $159.90.

You can find your nearest Portmans store at the website.

By Caroline Warnes

Usually the words “floral dress” are enough to strike fear into most people’s hearts, but in the case of this Portmans floral dress, I think I’m a convert.

Usually floral dresses are something best left to the blue rinse set, but the cut, colour and fabric pattern (not to mention the short hemline) are enough to make this floral dress one for a younger market.

Given that the dress is quite busy, I think it would be best work with basic accessories and jewellery - I’d skip the bead necklaces and bangles as shown in the picture and team it with really basic peep toe heels and casual hair.

The dress sells for $129.95 and is available now.

By Caroline Warnes

I do tend to bang on about basic (and unbasic) black dresses a fair bit, so thought I would finish the week with a splash of colour.

This Portmans Hot House Flowers tiered maxi dress is a great option for summer. Maxi dresses are one of my great loves because they manage to hide a whole host of figures flaws, and I actually love the colours and strapless design of this particular one.

It would look great with gold or bronze shoes and accessories for both day and night.

At $139.95, it isn’t the cheapest maxi dress around, but you could probably get away with wearing this design for at least a couple of summers.

By Caroline Warnes

High-end Australian designer label Camilla and Marc is the latest to launch a “capsule” collection at a chain-store - this time for Portmans.

The Camilla and Marc Portmans collection has a strong emphasis on racewear for the upcoming carnival, consisting entirely of dresses and structured jackets.

To tell you the truth, despite this being billed as “racewear”, I have my doubts about the majority of the dresses being appropriate for the track, with the hemlines a little too short on most (and I’m also not too keen on dresses with glittery embellishments for the races, because it is after all a daytime event).

However there are some nice dresses here for cocktail and semi-formal events, although I do think it may be a little too pricey for a “capsule” collection ($350 for a dress at Portmans? Who would have thought…), however if you compare it to the main Camilla and Marc line, it’s a relative bargain.

My pick of the bunch isn’t one of the dresses, but the Marla jacket, pictured here, which will also sell for $350. I do love the jacket’s shape, which is slightly reminiscent of recent Balmain designs, though the shoulders aren’t quite as “sharp”.

The Camilla and Marc collection is in-store at Portmans this Saturday, October 3.

By Caroline Warnes

Lately I have come to realise that the sizing of women’s clothes in Australia is out of control and needs a complete overhaul.

How is it that our sizing can fluctuate so dramatically from one store to another? When shopping for a pair of pants, I can range anywhere from a size 8 in the likes of Rodney Clark, to a size 10 in Witchery, Sportsgirl, Portmans and so on, to a likely size 12 in somewhere like Supre, or perhaps even a size 14 on a fat day. I don’t know this for sure because I don’t try stuff on at Supre, but it’s a reasonable assumption given the target market.

Apparently over the past few decades as we as a nation have gradually gotten bigger, standardised sizing has gone out the window to make us feel better about ourselves. This is called vanity sizing, for example, you’re more likely to buy something if it has a smaller number on the tag.

Oh, and by the way, as a depressing aside. You know how everyone likes to say Marilyn Monroe was a size 16? Yeah, she was a size 16 by 1950s/60s standards, but that is no bigger than a size 12 by today’s measurements. Go into any vintage clothing store and see what I mean.

Inconsistent sizing bothers me no end and really slows you down if you’re on a shopping expedition because you’re grabbing wrong sizes from store to store. Not to mention it really makes you hesitant to buy online when you’re not even sure what size you are. I can even vary in sizing within a particular store. I mean, what the?

And then the other day I stumbled across this piece of tripe on the SMH, where the author basically calls anyone who is a size 14 “fat”. OK, thanks for that. For starters, consider the inconsistent sizing issue. Does this mean that if I only ever buy pants at Rodney Clark then I will never have a weight problem? But if I stumble into Supre when I’m retaining fluid, should I immediately flagellate myself and embark on a foolish crash diet.

And then there is the fact that height also comes into play. If someone is barely five foot, small-framed and is a size 14, it’s a fair assumption to make that they are likely to be overweight. But if someone is skimming six feet and has an athletic physique, a size 14 would look quite in proportion.

What business is it of some hack on the SMH to arbitrarily assign a number to decide when someone is considered overweight. A person’s weight is a medical issue between that individual and their healthcare practitioner and should be treated as such.

Yes, we as a nation are getting heavier however I believe it is up to the individual to decide what they are going to do about it. Personally, I feel uncomfortable when I put on weight and usually end up doing something about it. Sometimes my reaction is a bit delayed because yes, losing weight is hard, but eventually I get there. However it is no business of mine what someone else weighs or what size is written on their clothing.

Many people believe that people being overweight is a burden on the healthcare system and therefore they as taxpayers have the right to judge anyone who is larger. While this may be true, there is a number of conditions and lifestyle choices that have the potential to end up being a burden on the healthcare system, including but not limited to:

* Smoking
* Drinking
* Driving erratically
* Crossing the road against the red lights
* Growing older
* Swimming at Sydney beaches during shark season
* Eating ice-cream at the Coogee Bay Hotel

And the list goes on. Can everyone honestly say that they live a perfectly clean life with no potential for illness or injury? This is what we HAVE a healthcare system for in the first place.

Anyway, I realise I’ve veered off my original point somewhat. So to sum up, bring back standardised clothes sizing.

By Caroline Warnes