When I was in high school – before I became completely enthralled with fashion – I wondered about the meaning of the term “vintage clothes.” It seemed to me as thought people were just slapping this term on “old, worn clothes” in order to glamourize and mystify them; to give it a sense of history that is beyond us, thus reshaping our perception of these aged, used pieces. I felt that their apparent merit was mainly a product of marketing and thought of it as just another gimmick. Because the word “vintage” was associated with wine, the value of which increases as it ages, the word was conveniently adapted in the description of certain clothes.
I am now a little more receptive to the idea of “vintage clothes” but it’s a term that gets thrown around too lightly nowadays. Shouldn’t there be some standards as to whether something qualifies as “vintage.” To me, at a minimum,vintage pieces should pass a 30-year mark. It would also be preferable if they came from a recognized designer or manufacturer and possessed some era-specific characteristics (tailoring, cut, detail). You can now walk into a “vintage” shop and find old Tommy Hilfiger jeans or a dress of no recognizable stylistic origin. Is that vintage? I’ll leave it to you to decide.
What I’m wearing:
- Scarf by “Yesin Chambrey Paris“
- Jacket by “OSKA”
- Cashmere turtleneck by “Robert Rodriguez” (as seen in Dec. 27’09)
- Wool shorts by “Theory”
- Brown tights by “Holt Renfrew” (as seen in Nov. 24’09, Cashmere Dresses, Dec. 14)
- Vintage brooch (my grandmother gave me)
- Leather riding-boots (as seen in Nov. 16, Nov. 24’09)
- Long, leather gloves by “PRADA” (same length as the Prada gloves in the Gloves video, but scrunched)
- Sunglasses by “MARNI” (as seen in Dec. 27’09)
- Vintage-inspired purse by “Etienne Aigner”
