Kate Upton goes “modest” for her first Vogue UK cover: beautiful or rough?

Kate Upton’s haters must be seething! The girl with the “downmarket” appeal is still getting love from “upmarket” fashion magazines. I’m glad. Kate Upton sometimes gives me Blake Lively vibes – as in, both women want high fashion acceptance but both are decidedly downmarket. But I think I like Kate more. Her “look” is more diverse than people think, and… well, I just like that there’s a model with a healthy look to her body.

Anyway, Kate scored another Vogue cover… although it’s not Anna Wintour’s doing. Kate got the January cover of Vogue UK, following a year which saw her score a Vogue Italia cover and photo shoot and a pictorial in American Vogue. Will Wintour finally succumb and give Kate a full-blown cover in 2013? I guess it depends on the reaction to this Vogue UK cover. Which I love, by the way. Kate’s “assets” are usually front and center in her pictorials, but I like the modesty and girl-next-door quality of this cover. She’s still a bombshell (look at those curves), but you’re not seeing a lot of skin. It’s nice. Here’s more:

…We have keenly documented Kate Upton’s trajectory into the world of high fashion: the blue-eyed, blonde-haired pin-up recently scored her second shoot for US Vogue , and starred on the cover of Carine Roitfeld’s bi-annual solo magazine venture, CR Fashion Book , which sold out after just two months.

Now, the curvaceous beauty better known for covering the 2012 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (the ultimate accolade if you’re the sort of model who spends 90 per cent of the time parading briefs and bikinis) has been picked by British Vogue editor Alexandra Shulman to star on the cover of the style bible’s January 2013 issue.

As Shulman explains in her editor’s letter: “When I decided to shoot Kate for our first cover of 2013, it was to kick off the year with a young woman who is not a stereotypical fashion model – although, let’s face it, she’s hardly a heffalump!”

Indeed, 20-year-old Upton’s physique doesn’t make her an obvious candidate for a high fashion role: at 5’10″ and with a generous 34C chest, her hips are some two and a half inches wider than that other famous Kate – Moss.

“It’s very rare for a girl; to move from one area of the business to the other, largely due to the fact that fashion models are almost without curves, whereas swimwear girls are celebrated for them,” adds Shulman.

With Vogue ‘s seal of approval, Kate Upton really has got the high-end fashion world at her feet.

[From The Telegraph]

Isn’t it weird that a blonde, blue-eyed, big-boobed beauty is considered “diversity” at this point? It’s because all of the established supermodels of this era – Gisele, Daria Werbowy, Coco Rocha, etc. – have a specific “look” which it is usually purposefully asexual. I think girls like Upton and Doutzen Kroes (who is probably my favorite model at this point) are trying to bring some sensuality back into modeling. Of course, a lot of it is dependent on the styling, on the photographer, on the “vision” of the pictorial or campaign. But I hope Upton is here to stay. And yes, I would like to see her on the cover of American Vogue.

Vogue UK cover courtesy of The Fashion Spot, additional pics by WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

59 Responses to “Kate Upton goes “modest” for her first Vogue UK cover: beautiful or rough?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. cmc says:

    Wow, I love the cover. She looks so beautiful!

  2. Ms Kay says:

    They are just fooling people by shoving down their throats the whole “hey look at us we are pro curvy women, we are not about size zero models!”… Bull crap!!! When it’s not her they just throw 3-4 celebrities in a row on the cover and then boom size zero models reappear as per usual… And the same cycle repeats itself.

  3. pastyousayyouneverknew says:

    Haven’t heard of her before today but she looks amazing in the cover and I love that she’s so curvy and healthy-looking!

  4. Dani says:

    Upton doesn’t even compare to Doutzen. She’s a great swimwear model, but I find it hard to take her seriously as a high fashion model.

  5. DeltaJuliet says:

    I think that SI cover was probably the worst shot of her. That was my first exposure and I didn’t find her attractive at all. Ever since then though, I find her to be absolutely gorgeous.

  6. Christina says:

    Blonde with big tits. Big deal. Pretty girl, but NOT a high fashion model. She’s fine for Playboy, but Vogue? Not so much. Anyone else remember the days when it was a serious fashion magazine?

    • RN says:

      Right? Let’s put her cover next to an old one featuring Linda Evangelista and then compare.

    • V4Real says:

      Kate is attractive but she don’t necessarily scream high fashion. Though she looks pretty on the Vogue cover, it seems like it would be more fitting if it was the cover of Glamour or Seventeen magazine.

      I wish they would try to stop marketing her as a high fashion model. She does well with SI and maybe she should get a deal with VS. But she can never hold a candle to Doutzen

      • Christina says:

        Doutzen is overrated. Yes, compared to the vacant-eyed non-entities at VS she’s great, but she’s still just a knicker model, not a high-fashion model.

        Linda Evangelista? Now THAT is a model. Still in demand, even in her 40s. Will anyone be calling Kate, or even Doutzen in 20 years time? I doubt it.

    • sunny says:

      yeah, honestly, us vogue, like, *never* puts models on the cover, unless it is a model who is also a celeb in her own right (gisele, kate, maybe naomi or linda). or, like, when they do the once every 2 years or so compilation model cover, where they pick maybe 5 girls really hot at the moment to put on a cover together.

      even though i don’t have passionate feelings about kate upton either way, i would actually looove to see her on a solo cover, simply because she represents something they never do any more (a non-supersupersupermodel alone on the cover) in lieu of picking the saaaame 20 or so actresses to promote their (mostly godawful) films.

    • Skeksis says:

      I agree. I don’t think there’s anything chic or fashionable about her. I actually think she’s pretty tacky-looking.

  7. SmokeyBlues says:

    I actually just clicked on this article soon could finally see who this Kate Upton chic is. First impression: very pretty but not unique. I don’t get the hype about her.

  8. bns says:

    I’m just glad to see models on magazine covers. Actors and singers don’t belong there.

    • TheOneAndOnly says:

      Linda was and is a stunner, but Yasmeen Ghauri is the underrated glamazon from that era; it’s amazing when you go on youtube,google models/shows/photo montages/covers from that era (80s-90s), how beautiful, attractive, and FUN the models and photos,cover shots were – the people that run the fashion biz are idiots for throwing it all away for aneorixic sticks and sucking up to two-bit celebutards.
      Ms. shulman is wrong – models from that era often moved between high fashion and commercial ads.

  9. Amelia says:

    For goodness sake, either change the hair or change the eyebrows!!
    Dark, bold brows do not suit bleached hair! Kate and Miley Cyrus need an eyebrow intervention.

    • RN says:

      I was about to write the same thing. I think she could class up her look by warming up her hair color. As it stands, it looks cheaply dyed.

    • Ellecee says:

      actually, i’m a natural blonde with naturally dark eyebrows. its not that uncommon. i do have a few straggler blonde hairs that’ll pop up in my brows every now and then and look really ridiculous. i think the tone of my brows matches the tone of my hair though. i do highlight and lowlight my hair to break up the color a bit. i think kate’s brows on the vogue cover have been photoshopped a bit, which is why they look so strange.

      • lizbet says:

        There are some great comments here, and I really don’t have much to add, so I’ll recap: AWFUL EYEBROWS, even if they are natural.

        Budget Marilyn Monroe, for sure; she doesn’t look starved enough in the face for high fashion.

        This is just trading one female stereotype (skinny, starving bitch) for another (big-boobed blonde). I see nothing new or commendable about that.

  10. Jackson says:

    Yeah, I don’t get the hype about this chick either. I’m not sure I would classify her look as “downmarket” but I know I wouldn’t call it “high fashion” either. She looks like she belongs on the cover of Seventeen, not Vogue.

    • Christina says:

      I think it’s a very obvious ploy from Vogue to deflect the criticism they get for using overly skinny models. I mean, look at the headline ‘the model who keeps it real’. What? Kate’s body – tall, slim but with big tits – is just as unattainable for most women as Coco Rocha’s. Maybe more so. Vogue just want to congratulate themselves on how open-minded they are – instead they’ve just substituted one stereotypical notion of female beauty – the pnuematic blonde – for another – the stick thin model. BORING!

  11. KellyinSeattle says:

    I think she looks good. Baby’s got back! She and Jessica “Timberlake” both have great asses.

    • mally says:

      eh i think thats photoshop and sometimes i think she wears those booty pop panties for appearances bc if you really study kate uptons work, like prior to when she got the SI cover, she has a very tiny, hardly discernible ass and that was when she weighed more than she weighs now.

  12. Jenna says:

    I just do not get her appeal. Sure she’s a pretty face and no she’s not the typical runway model when it comes to body type but…I’m just eh about her. She kind of reminds me of a budget Anna Nicole or something. I just can’t bring myself to go gaga over her. =/

  13. TheOneAndOnly says:

    I’m in general agreement with everyone’s comments esp. bns; at least they are putting a model – any model – on the cover, not like here in the US where the same 20-30 celebs/”musical artists” that have movies or cds coming out are thrown on. It’s been stated many times that once the conglomerates bought interests in fashion mags they would just be used as extensions and/or commercials for tv/music/movie corporations hence the Swiftys/rihanna/blake livelys,etc. on US vogue.
    But hey, I’m a fan of the 90s supermodels, go on the fashion spot or bellazon if you want to see great beauties on covers, Kate is nothing compared to the Trinity or Yasmeen,Nadja,Claudia,Nadege, etc. stars of the 90s.
    Although i wouldn’t consider myself a fashionista, true fashionistas despise seeing celebs on Vogue,Elle, etc., but they’ll take Kate over the next celeb promoting something.

    • LAK says:

      Looking at all those 80s/90s models, they each had a look that was different and memorable. And because the pool was more diverse, you could appreciate different types of beauty, From the Nadja to Veronica.

      Even the ‘ugly’ supermodels were stunning eg Kirsten Mcmenamy. i love that she’s come back to fashion and still refuses to conform.

      i know people bitch about Kate Moss but she was unique too at that time for being beautiful in an ordinary way.

      These days they are all identikit, bland catalogue models.

  14. Erinn says:

    I didn’t like her very much. I still am not a ‘fan’ of hers, but this cover is a lot better. I just don’t understand the hype about her. Yeah, it’s nice that she’s not a stick figure model, but there’s nothing high fashion about her; she’s a pretty face and a nice body. But that doesn’t make a model.

  15. lambchops says:

    Is this is considered rough, my last thread of self esteem has disintegrated. I’ll take looking this rough any day.

  16. Jae says:

    The girl is obviously beautiful, sexy, hot, etc., but…

    But I’m not so sure I want ‘sexy’ back in high fashion. This. Kate with her boobies, her bleach blonde hair, her desidedly sensual face with full-lipped mouth always semi-open… this is very ‘let’s make fashion appealing to heterosexual men’!

    She, once again, is a beautiful woman, but the standarts according to which she is ‘it’… they are not about women, you know?

    In some way this is progress, but in others this is just invading the ‘traditionaly’ women and gay men space with the straight male gaze.

    • Christina says:

      Kate’s face is too bland and uninteresting to be beautiful, but she’s certainly very pretty.

      Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. Why should women be grateful for having a budget Marilyn Monroe as the latest ‘thing’ in fashion? Fashion is one of those things which is all about women. Men – most men at any rate – don’t ‘get’ it and that’s fine, it’s not about them. Having a model who looks like she’s just run out of a Playboy shoot on the cover of Vogue isn’t progress. At all.

  17. Stephanie says:

    Beautiful woman and an awesome cover! I love it that she has some meat on her bones.

  18. Stuart Horsely says:

    You can see the implant outlines, lol. And the men go crazy for her “real” boobs. They’re not.

  19. Mew says:

    Her eyebrows are so disturbing in the cover, I just can’t even find words to describe how disturbing. It’s not a good look, no matter how you look at it. Eugh!

    It’s also hard to believe that she would be only C cup and have only 2 inches bigger hips than Kate Moss.

  20. virginia5 says:

    sorry but, how does she represent diversity??? she is a typical big boobed, blonde, white girl.

    Still don’t get the hype with her!

    this cover is bland, and nothing about it seems vogue!

    and no I’m not some ugly jealous fatass sitting behind a computer screen.

    Just because some people find her attractive doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to agree!

    • mally says:

      absolutely agree with you. am i supposed to applaud her landing the cover when she’s yet another manifestation of the status-quo eurocentric, white girl blond blue eyes big boobs ideal? ha. yeah right. so she has a wider waist than other models? wow. what a big step. shes not a big girl–she has skinny arms and skinny legs, which plus her huge rack make her body pretty unattainable for most women.

  21. G says:

    I guess she doesn’t look mean and bitchy enough for high fashion.

  22. Holden says:

    Love her, think she’s the hottest thing going right now.

  23. Camille (TheOriginal) says:

    I think it’s a budget looking cover. Sorry, but I do. I miss the 80s/90s Super models. This girl just has no charisma and although she is cute/pretty I don’t think she suits high fashion.

    Just m2c.

  24. LAK says:

    Alexander Shulman is a terrible Vogue Editor. She started out being quite daring but clearly over time she’s been intimidated by her paymasters to play safe and boring at all times. So yes for her, boobs presented this way is quite daring. Can anyone tell the difference between this styling and Jennifer Lawrence styling last month. At a quick glance, without knowing who they are, would you tell that it’s two different people?

    British vogue uses the same 3-5 models on their covers every year, with the occasional celebrity detour. Kate Moss seems to have taken up permanent residency and the magazine is so tired. no creative spark. nothing. No diversity of shoots, designers, models etc.

  25. aston martin says:

    I think the styling is off here. Are they trying to go vampy/Jayne Mansfield thing, or more of a 70′s Farrah thing? Either way, her Jessica Rabbit body is unstoppable. She doesn’t speak like the brightest light in the sky, but then again just last year she was a TEENAGER.

  26. Izzy V. says:

    Ugh, that last picture of her is horrid. Her hair is fried, she has horrible roots an her posture is terrible. I like her in general, but she looks very plain and unattractive in those last two photos…

  27. Adrien says:

    Kate Upton looks better than most VS models. She has that ditzy vibe but at least she does not flash her titays around. She’s very wholesome.