Khloe Kardashian’s Monaco Grand Prix Outfit: Get the Look

Five pieces credited, $57,800. That is the most expensive outfit we have ever priced, and it is not close — the previous record was $18,810.

But the number is misleading, and the reason it is misleading is the whole point of this page. The bag is $55,000 of it. Everything else — the top, the leggings, the sandals, the sunglasses — comes to $2,800 between them. Take the bag out of the photograph and you are looking at a black tank, black capri leggings and flip-flops.

Which is more or less what she is wearing. This is gym clothes with one object in the hand that costs more than a car.

The top

Black, ribbed, fitted, with a deep V and a seam under the bust that gives it some shape rather than hanging straight. Silk jersey is what makes the original drape the way it does — it is heavier than cotton and moves differently.

You will not get silk at this price and you do not need to. What you need is the rib and the V. The rib gives the fabric structure so it holds against the body; the seam under the bust is what stops it reading as a vest.

The leggings

Black, high-waisted, finishing mid-calf. The shapewear construction is the part you are paying for — compression through the waist and thigh, and a thicker fabric that does not go sheer under stress.

That last point is the one to check when buying cheaper. A thin legging in black photographs badly in bright light. Look for a listing that mentions squat-proof or opaque, and buy the heavier weight if there is a choice.

Length matters too: these stop mid-calf, not at the ankle. That crop is deliberate and it is what makes the flat sandal work underneath.

The sandals

A completely plain black leather flip-flop. No hardware, no logo, no platform. The Row’s entire proposition is charging four figures for things that look like nothing, and this is the purest example of it we have priced.

There is genuinely nothing to replicate beyond the shape: thin sole, simple toe post, black. Buy leather rather than rubber if you can — that is the one visible difference, and it is what keeps this from reading as beachwear.

The sunglasses

Chunky black acetate, rectangular with a slight upward lift at the outer corner. Not a dramatic cat-eye — the angle is subtle, which is what keeps them from looking retro.

Thick frame, dark lens, no metal detailing. On an outfit with this little going on, the glasses and the bag are the only two hard objects, so the frame wants to be solid rather than delicate.

The bag

This one needs saying plainly. The Kelly is not just an expensive bag, it is a protected shape. Hermès pursues lookalikes more aggressively than almost any brand in fashion, and a bag built to imitate that silhouette — the trapezoid body, the front flap, the turn-lock and strap arrangement — is not a dupe, it is a counterfeit. We are not linking one.

What we have listed is a small silver crystal-covered evening clutch. It is not a Kelly and does not pretend to be. What it shares is the thing that actually matters in the photograph: a small, hard, brilliantly reflective object carried in the hand, against an outfit that is otherwise entirely matte black.

That contrast is the outfit. The bag is doing the work not because it is a Kelly — nobody across the street can tell — but because it is the only thing catching light.

We have left the saving figure off this row deliberately. Twenty-four dollars against fifty-five thousand is not a comparison worth making, and the lizard skin, the hand-stitching and the fifty years of waiting-list mythology are not things a clutch replaces.

The uncredited part

Three things in the photograph are not on the list: gold drop earrings, a fine bracelet, and a black jacket carried over the arm rather than worn.

The jacket is worth noticing. Carried like that it adds a vertical line down one side of the body and stops the outfit reading as pure activewear. It is the difference between someone dressed for the gym and someone dressed to be photographed at a Grand Prix.

What it costs

Five pieces, $102.24 against $57,800. That is 99.8 per cent less — a number so large it stops being useful.

So here is the more honest one. Ignore the bag, and the outfit cost $2,800. Our version of those four items comes to $78.25, which is 97.2 per cent less. That is the real comparison, and it is in line with everything else on this site.

The lesson is not that you can have a $57,800 outfit for a hundred dollars. It is that $55,000 of that outfit was one object, and the other four pieces were a black top, black leggings and flip-flops.

Prices checked 2 September 2026 and will move. Fashion Place earns a commission on some links at no extra cost to you.

More looks like this

Also GucciMadonna Outfit in London: Dolce & Gabbana Satin, Lace and a CorsetAlso GucciKim Kardashian Outfit in Chicago: SKIMS Dress and Hermès Kelly CutAlso GucciCristiano Ronaldo Outfit in Portugal: Gucci Striped Shirt and LoafersAlso Saint LaurentSydney Sweeney Outfit in Venice: Vintage Vivienne Westwood Lace Dress