user: IN: Aprons on Parade: From the Rabbit Hole to the Kitchen
Ever since Alice fell down the rabbit hole in her white pinafore, aprons have been something of a fashion statement.

That bib was her most identifiable accessory, a signpost of the seductive tension between traditional girlhood and rebellion, as embodied by the character herself.

This year is the 150th anniversary of the Lewis Carroll classic “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.” And as “The Alice Look,” a new exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum of Childhood in London, illustrates, the fashion world has been obsessed by her style ever since the book was published.

Alice showed that an apron, like a handbag or a pair of shoes, is a highly efficient conduit of individual identity. It can transform a look and change an expectation.

And not only on the catwalk, but also in the kitchen. No wonder we have appropriated the once-utilitarian chef’s apron as our own. It doesn’t just protect from sauce splatter, grease stains and beet juice; it also projects personality and aesthetic choice, no matter the skill level or the ambition.

This perhaps explains why, just as there are aprons in fashion (see the tough smithlike leather aprons and apron dresses in last February’s Fendi show and the cartoonish 1950s pinafore styles at Miu Miu), there are fashions in aprons.

There are workmen’s aprons, which are the culinary equivalent of streetwear: hardy leather and denim or selvage numbers with grommets and pockets that telegraph a tough-chef look, the better to carve up a goat and roast its carcass. The model might be the Stanley & Sons leather lap apron ($143), or the Search & Rescue split-leg apron (about $195). It’s expensive to look so hard-core.

There are decorative sunny aprons, like the black-and-white check from MacKenzie-Childs ($78) or the diner-stripe from Kate Spade ($30), the signifiers of the playful nature of the kitchen. These are good aprons for the sweet set, and for those who are fond of giving tradition a tweak.

(Note: There is a difference between the “fun” apron and the “funny” apron — you know, the ones with naked bodies superimposed on the wearer’s body, or other sort of faux trompe l’oeil prints. The latter is a joke item, like the novelty tie, and is best avoided lest the joke be on you.)

And there are tailored, minimal versions that are the culinary equivalent of, say, a Céline bag, so understated that they demand a level of connoisseurship to be understood. Think of aprons like Hedley & Bennett’s color-blocked waist-tied styles (from $40, on sale) or the Marcy Butler Italian linen V-neck Carol ($118) as a piece of tied-on sartorial semiology that reflects a fondness for both Scandinavia and the chemistry lab.

“Curiouser and curiouser,” as Alice might say? Not at all. You’d feel like a pretender in a chef’s toque or checkered pants, but in an apron of your own choice, you can feel like yourself. It’s simply a matter of taste. In more than one sense of the word.

A version of this article appears in print on June 24, 2015, on page D7 of the New York edition with the headline: Up From the Rabbit Hole, Apron in Tow. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
What is a short summary of the above article?

OUT: From runway to kitchen, an apron can project personality and style, just as Alice’s did in Wonderland way back when.


Input: Cramer: Beware this red flag
Another rule that has led Cramer to become a better investor is to set a bottom line to purchase stock.

"What's this rule? Simple: never buy any stock above your cost basis, or the average price you've paid to build up your current position, unless something truly transformative has happened at the company."

In other words, if you determine $25 is your buy price, and you scale into a full position at an average price of $25, but then your stock subsequently rallies to $30, don't increase the size of your position at $30, even if you think there's more upside ahead.

There is however, an exception to Cramer's cost basis rule. "It's okay to pay a higher price for a stock if something's changed at the company that makes you believe the stock could increase dramatically."

However if the stock is simply rallying with the rest of the market without a specific catalyst, then Cramer's rule remains solidly in effect.

Read More Cramer's draconian rule that really drives profits

Sometimes even a sell strategy is so obvious, Cramer can almost see you rolling your eyes, right through the TV.

After sifting through his own results and finding he wasn't always following this simple strategy himself, Cramer felt it had to be put into words, no matter what facial expressions may follow.

"The rule is very simple," Cramer said. "If you own a stock and it refuses to go higher when the market rallies over several days, you should probably sell it."

The rule seems so obvious, Cramer almost feels sheepish repeating it. But, it's a rule that could boost your bottom line significantly, and because it can do that, Cramer would shout it from the rooftops if necessary.

"For example, when PC stocks started to falter on big up days in 2008, it was an early sign that the space was facing something greater than a cyclical downswing," Cramer explained.

And even though some of these stocks had generated enormous gains, the strategic move was to sell.

"Ultimately the price action was a sign that smartphones were about to make PC's far less relevant," Cramer explained. Investors didn't know that at the time; but the lack of an advance on big up days telegraphed that something wasn't right.

Read MoreCramer: Sell strategy used by too few investors
What was this article about?
++++++++++
It's about: "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer shares a sign that your stocks might be in trouble.


Q: Q. and A.: Sprechen Sie Elvish, Esperanto, Klingon, Na’vi?

As Na’vi – the language devised for James Cameron’s movie “Avatar” – becomes the latest addition to the dictionary of new dictionaries, co-vocabularists are invited to submit questions to two experts in the field of invented languages.

Will Klingon conquer the world? Why did Esperanto not? Is there still hope for an invented universal language?

· Paul Frommer is Professor of Clinical Management Communication at the University of Southern California. In 2005, he was hired by James Cameron to develop a language – complete with a consistent sound system, grammar, orthography and syntax – for the 10-foot-tall blue inhabitants of the planet Pandora. Na’vi currently has a vocabulary of over 1,000 words, though Paul is adding to the lexicon all the time and hopes soon to publish a guide to his creation.

· Arika Okrent is a linguist and the author of “In the Land of Invented Languages,” a history of artificial languages, in which she tells the story of hundreds of years of attempts to build a better language. In the name of research, she became proficient in Esperanto, earned her first level certification in Klingon, and fearlessly trod through the thickets of Wilkins’s Philosophical Language (a 17th century language of truth), and lojban (a 20th century language of logic).

Questions on constructed languages – from the mechanics of creation to the purposes they serve – may be posted as comments below or emailed.

Comments are now closed. Paul and Arika will return with their answers in a week or so.

Comments are no longer being accepted.
What are the most important parts of this text?

A:

assistant: As Na'vi - the language devised for James Cameron's movie "Avatar" - becomes the latest addition to the dictionary of new dictionaries, co-vocabularists are invited to submit questions to two experts in the field of invented languages.