• Thu, Apr 5 2012

Charlize Theron’s Tattoo ‘Ruins’ Her British Vogue Cover

After reading on some fashion blogs that Charlize Theron‘s tattoo “ruined” her British Vogue cover that came out today, I wondered what tattoo could possibly be so awful that it would wreck the combination of Theron’s beauty and Vogue‘s flawless styling.

Answer: no tattoo, of course, at least not this one. People who complain about a tiny ankle tattoo marring Theron’s untouchable Grace Kelly-esque beauty need to go hang out with this guy for a while:

But while you’re here, I will tell you that Theron’s tattoo is of a Koi fish, and it’s actually a matching tattoo she got with her mom. In light of that, I think it’s rather sweet that the Vogue editors didn’t Photoshop it out (which they easily could have done), because now her mom gets to be excited not only about seeing her daughter on the cover of British Vogue, but about seeing her own tattoo there as well, like some kind of awesome, silent shout-out from her kid.

Here’s a better picture of it:

(Via The Fashion Spot)

Share This Post:
  • Ashley Cardiff

    I’m actually pretty surprised Vogue didn’t ‘Shop it out.

    And obviously she looks lovely.

  • Lyric Marley

    Why didnt they just photoshop it. Rihanaa did an awesome cover and she has multiple tats. I do think its a bit distracting though small but I would say it ruined it. It just took some focus away from her flawlessness especially given the look they are going for!

    • LCT

      And how does a tiny tattoo “ruin…her flawlessness”? I fail to see how a small, tasteful, well-done, sentimental tattoo ruins her. And what specifically are you speaking about when you say “the look they are going for”? I think the “look they are going for” is elegant, dreamlike, and sophisticated–and I think they accomplished that, with or without the tattoo.

    • http://twitter.com/nichobert nich obert

      Think the commenters point was that they thought the tattoo looked bad

    • Rebecca

      Why I don’t think the tattoo works with this look is because I don’t think this particular tattoo is very attractive or well done. It looks like a distracting blob. Now, if she had some striking art snaking up her arm or something, that would look very cool. I just don’t think it’s a very attractive tattoo.

  • jrd

    I don’t think that the tattoo should have been photoshopped out. I also don’t think that her face should have been photoshopped to where she looks at least ten years younger than she is.

  • Carla

    Vogue does label her as a “Modern Glamour Star”. Maybe that’s why they omitted the conservative photoshopping out of her tattoo?

  • Jenny

    I’m more horrified by the shape of her foot in that heel. It looks insanely painful.

  • Moe

    She’s gorgeous as usual. I would not be surprised if Vogue tried to remove but she had them put it back in.

    As for the “Grace Kelly-esque beauty” you mentioned. I am shocked that she is not in talks for the part of GK instead of Nicole Kidman.

  • Kacobro

    I’m confused as to why they didn’t ‘shop her tattoo (although I couldn’t care less) but they DID ‘shop her beautiful face until she was almost unrecognizable.

  • charlotte

    perfect, its just beautiful. i love that vogue didnt photoshop it out because its apart of charlize and who she is :)