Well, I think there are items and styles that look as good 'then' as they do 'now', and in that sense have stood the test of time.  Also I think there are just certain things that aesthetically look good on a person - shapes / proportion / colour etc.

I don't have a desire for reenactment, at least not a conscious one, on the contrary I'm kind of turned off by it.  The phrase 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' comes to mind. 

But I do agree with you that those two words you highlighted seem to get thrown around an awful lot.

Good point, does classic mean as good as today as it did then? I suppose it does. But is our taste today eschewed by the current trends? I don't think it is really. Correct proportions have nothing to do with time do they?

Last edited by Sammy Ambrose (2013-05-16 13:59:48)

There's still an aspirational working class but their aspirations are different from those of their parents. Their parents had aspired to emulate guys 'n' gals who were (in a modern sense) heroic after a classical mould. Now the aspirations are lowered (like cheap guns, after low, slow birds), because there is no point in dreaming about being like Clark Gable, Cary G., Grace Kelly or Marilyn when (ability to kick a bladder of air aside), it is far easier to cover yourself in aggressive tattoos, stick your chin out, click your fingers, snarl at the world - and be like Wayne or Colleen Rooney and, by the time that the likes of 'Posh' Spice grab the fashion world by the short and curlies, it is common knowledge that the aspirational guns are aiming at sitting ducks and sneering.

^ Interesting, high quality, thought-provoking stuff.

Although  it's not directly related to the discussion (although perhaps it is) a memory stirred when you wrote: "Capitalism was still producing high quality clothing, made to last (although swinging London probably helped kill that concept), and people were more likely to be judged on their shoes than their car and phone."

This brought to mind a late Victorian or early 20th century publication that my grandfather gave to me when I was maybe 13. It was written by Frank Buckley and entitled Confessions  of a Capitalist. I can remember nothing of it except for a chapter that focused on the wisdom of buying quality shoes

Last edited by Sammy Ambrose (2013-05-17 06:02:37)

Some people that are "into" a certain style of dress have to smash anything their not into bits. Visions of grandeur perhaps? For sure these people often look very odd, or square to most people that aren't into the same period of fashionable dress. I suppose with the Ivy thing you'd be hard pushed to say a sack jacket is timeless if its vintage really. Its an old jacket in an old fashioned style. Its going to look what it is. I don't have a problem with people dressing in any period look, but just because its an old style and a few like minded bods are into it that doesn't make it timeless or classic.

There's a woman round our way, early 30s I'd say, who wears 40s looking clothes. I think she looks great but she does look like shes wearing 40s clothes. I'm sure she thinks its classic attire.

But then I'm a modern mod. I'm more Lardini than Lord John.

A lady whom is the ultimate example of what I mean is Leicester's Julia Wood. I'm sure she'll tell you that her morals, clothes and style are from an era of classic dress and standards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073518/Victorian-era-fan-Julia-Wood-spends-10-000-transforming-home-19th-century-wonderland.html