Sportsgirl has been doing a good job lately of making clothing by some of Australia’s best up-and-coming designers available at a more affordable price point.

The latest Aussie designer to team up with Sportsgirl is Konstantina Mittas. The range consists of five gorgeous short dresses, plus one top and skirt that you can mix and match with the rest of your wardrobe for something different.

The Victory dress pictured here is by far my favourite from the range. It sells for $250 - pick it up in-store or online (shipping at the Sportsgirl site is free Australia-wide for orders over $120).

By Caroline Warnes

You have to love it when Australian designer fashion labels team up with chain stores to offer their designs to the masses at more affordable prices.

The latest pairing involves Sportsgirl and Aje, which is a relatively young label that specialises in designs that are both cutting-edge and feminine.

Aje has designed a seven-piece collection for Sportsgirl, which is available online today and in-store next week. There are some really pretty pieces here, including the baby pink hot ruffle skirt and loose-fit t-shirt pictured here, which will set you back $200 all up - a great buy when compared to the pricing of the main Aje collections.

By Caroline Warnes

I know it’s getting cooler and I should probably be investing in some more sensible long-sleeved attire, but I’m of the opinion that during autumn you can still get away with sleeveless numbers.

After all, it’s still warm in the middle of the day and when it gets cooler these articles of clothing lend themselves well to layering.

I think my next purchase will be the Wish Vixen Tunic, pictured here. Although it’s definitely more suitable for warmer weather, I think it would look great tucked into black skinny jeans and paired with a pair of black suede ankle booties, which I bought last winter but only managed to wear twice. Sportsgirl currently has a similar pair - visit the site, click on shoes, then boots and they are the Frill Ankle Bootie style.

The Wish site suggests a black leather jacket would work with this top, which it would, but I also like the idea of a cream leather jacket or even a longline black knitted cardigan.

The Wish Vixen Tunic sells for $98.

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

I know it’s too early to be thinking about clothing for the cooler months right now, but I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction.

I predict that black skinny jeans are going to have a small resurgence come May or so. Call it a backlash from the doom and gloom of the global economy, but I have a feeling black is going to be bigger than ever this winter.

To avoid looking like a reject from a Metallica concert, black jeans really need to be skinny to work, and I think they look best dressed up rather than dressed down. You need light-coloured heels to lift the colour - something like the Peeptoe Shoes Miss Munroe pumps, which are oh-so-adorable but unfortunately rarely get an outing from my cupboard because they’re so damn difficult to walk in. (I’m making it my new year’s resolution to either break them in, or break my feet in.)

As a side note, another point to remember. Jeans of any colour should be neither too low or too high. A nice mid-rise cut never hurt anyone. I am so sick of seeing people’s buttcracks as they get around town in jeans way too low, or being forced to notice other cracks and crevices in jeans that are too high. Neither cut is flattering on anyone. In-between is fine.

Anyway, some black skinnies to consider, depending on your price range, include:

* Ksubi Super Skinny Zip jeans (as pictured here), $220 from MyCatwalk. Not sold on the zip detail, but loving the Christian Lacroix (I think?) heels.

* Lee Supatube, $129.95 from General Pants Co. Supatubes have the reputation of lasting forever.

* Calvin Klein Jeans Skinny, $130 from Just Jeans.

I also noticed a decent-looking pair of black skinnies in Sportsgirl the other day for $99.95.

By Caroline Warnes