July 29, 2008

That gorgeous, undulating facade.

Here are 2 more shots of that facade I already raved about:

Harry Winston on Rodeo Drive

Harry Winston on Rodeo Drive

It is the Harry Winston store on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. You may be reluctant to step inside if you are not in the market for expensive jewelry, but please, go in anyway. The interior is truly beautiful, especially the ceilings in the oval antechamber and the main, rectangular part of the store. I would have loved to take some pictures of it, and I even asked if I could, though, as expected, the answer was no. The reason given surprised me a little: "For security reasons."

It made me think of this:


Joe said...

Speaking of photographs, I'd sure like that Pamela Anderson PETA ad to go away or at least replace the half naked women with someone who doesn't want to make me vomit.

Ann Althouse said...

The ad is up for a month. If you hate it, buy some KFC.

MadisonMan said...

When people can't think of a good reason to forbid, they'll say for security reasons. Or they'll say It's policy. In either case, no thinking is required.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The facade looks like unsealed plywood that got wet.

It makes very good sense that they don't allow photos inside a high end jewelry store for security reasons.

XWL said...

The most unnatural thing about that photo in the ad isn't the third arm, or her hair color, or her skin tone, it's that flesh-covered balloon (and presumably helium filled, which would explain why she's holding it that way) that seems to be trying to float off her chest.

blake said...

The ad is up for a month. If you hate it, buy some KFC.

Hmmm. I only eat KFC once a decade, and had my occasion last year.

Well, I guess I don't have to eat it.

OTOH, I don't even see the ad. (I don't have an electronic ad-blocker, just a very effective biological one.)

Ruth Anne Adams said...

That Althouse vortex hit 5.8 on the richter scale. Are you O.K?

veni vidi vici said...

I always thought the point of that Harry Winston facade was to look like wrapping paper, or has that point already been made?

On the subject of asinine "for security reasons" douchebags giving the nay-say to in-store photography, the wife, 2-year-old gal and I were in Vegas recently in the Gucci store at Caesars, where my daughter spontaneously began grabbing shoes (one at a time, then brought back to the display before taking another) and trying them on. I pulled out the camera and began taking a series of very funny photos of her in the act; this went on for awhile without incident. After I'd taken about 10 pics and was about to continue, some security douche with the telex tube in his ear came over and apologized that no photography was allowed in the store, so "No can do", in the words of Hall & Oates. I couldn't resist asking, "So, how do you feel about the roll I just shot in here?"

MadisonMan is correct: the "for security reasons" ruse is just easy verbiage for dumbasses to reach for when they're trying to "flex their power" (SM) but not trying hard enough to find a basis.