Home / alt.fashion / Friday, July 18, 2003
"Dana Carpender" <dcarp...@kiva.net> wrote in message
news:3F18663A.7327F...@kiva.net...
"Charles Perrin" <c.l.perrin...@att.net> wrote in message
news:fg6hhvoo196fe3i4aafttt2rn1gda9q...@4ax.com...
painting today. Going around doing touch ups here and there, in a dress.
albeit, of course, slower than they do now. And the idea of dressing above
one's station persisted into the American democratic experiment (and still does
today, I would argue).
However the catalyst for the rapid change wasn't, IMO, societal.
The first element of the catalyst was economic: the rise of the capitalist
middle–class.
The second element is the one which should be weighted more heavily: the
technological advance of the Industrial Revolution. Thread no longer had to be
spun and cloth no longer had to be woven by hand or in small collectives;
machines made cloth, and clothes, cheaper, more available, and more
extravagant. In addition, technology made it easier to import silk and other
opulent fabrics, and eventually technology made the opulent fabrics more
available and cheaper as well.
Add in a working class with some disposable income, the rise of the commercial
society and magazine culture (the latter especially actually dating back to the
19th century), and then the advent of synthetic fabrics which further drove
down the cost of cloth, and it's surprising it takes only 20 years for styles
to come back.
length blonde hair, and then I morphed into your typical 70s pre–teen: Quiana
shirts and a Farrah do. I'm not ashamed of it! It was fun to follow fashion
to the extremes my pocketbook (and my parents) would allow.
about the streamlined shifts and suits of the 60s which followed). As for a
period when women's clothes were simultaneously simple and beautiful, maybe
Regency style dresses which looked pretty comfortable but could also be made
out of very luxurious and beautiful materials.
––
Julie P.
"if you don't know what is wrong with me/then you don't know what you've
missed"––Declan McManus
Re: Why do we hate the clothes of the past?
ManualIns...@DB.com
7/18/2003 2:18:32 PM
jmgarci...@aol.complain (Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr.)
7/18/2003 7:55:50 PM
The estimable Robert Matthews wrote:
of a decade" and I have to concur. I am pleased to say I managed to ride that
decade out with minimal damage to those who see photographs of me at the time.
Grant, Fred Astaire, Adolphe Menjou, HRH Prince of Wales/Edward VIII/Duke of
Windsor, all of those guys wore simple, relaxed, supremely classic clothing.
Most of the well–dressed gentlemen of the day would sprint with the latest
issue of Esquire or Apparel Arts (the old name of GQ) to their tailors to have
stuff "run up."
Born way too late,
–Joe in SoFla
"They're such beautiful shirts. It makes me sad because I've never seen such –
such beautiful shirts before." Daisy Buchanan in F. Scott Fitzgerald's _The
Great Gatsby_ (or Trilby, at 29 Newbury...I forget)
I can't even bear to think of what I wore back in the '70s. I think
I would implode from the mortification of it.
It is not without ample reason that David Frum called the 70s "...that ghetto I would implode from the mortification of it.
of a decade" and I have to concur. I am pleased to say I managed to ride that
decade out with minimal damage to those who see photographs of me at the time.
I can't think of an era in which men's clothing was so wonderful
that I'd love to wear it
From 1932 to 1939 encapsulates it PERFECTLY for me. Doug Fairbanks Jr., Cary that I'd love to wear it
Grant, Fred Astaire, Adolphe Menjou, HRH Prince of Wales/Edward VIII/Duke of
Windsor, all of those guys wore simple, relaxed, supremely classic clothing.
Most of the well–dressed gentlemen of the day would sprint with the latest
issue of Esquire or Apparel Arts (the old name of GQ) to their tailors to have
stuff "run up."
Born way too late,
–Joe in SoFla
"They're such beautiful shirts. It makes me sad because I've never seen such –
such beautiful shirts before." Daisy Buchanan in F. Scott Fitzgerald's _The
Great Gatsby_ (or Trilby, at 29 Newbury...I forget)
Dana Carpender <dcarp...@kiva.net>
7/18/2003 4:27:22 PM
"Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr." wrote:
wide, lapels were wide, pants were wide, hair was wide, cars were
wide...
––
Dana W. Carpender
Howard Dean For President
Take Back the Democratic Party!
Take Back America!
http://www.deanforamerica.com
The estimable Robert Matthews wrote:
It is not without ample reason that David Frum called the 70s "...that ghetto
of a decade" and I have to concur.
Spy magazine dubbed it the Wide Decade –– ties were wide, collars were It is not without ample reason that David Frum called the 70s "...that ghetto
of a decade" and I have to concur.
wide, lapels were wide, pants were wide, hair was wide, cars were
wide...
––
Dana W. Carpender
Howard Dean For President
Take Back the Democratic Party!
Take Back America!
http://www.deanforamerica.com
"K" <Kthyn...@aol.com>
7/18/2003 3:18:32 PM
"Dana Carpender" <dcarp...@kiva.net> wrote in message
news:3F18663A.7327F...@kiva.net...
"Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr." wrote:
Spy magazine dubbed it the Wide Decade –– ties were wide, collars were
wide, lapels were wide, pants were wide, hair was wide, cars were
wide...
Now, our butts are wider. Spy magazine dubbed it the Wide Decade –– ties were wide, collars were
wide, lapels were wide, pants were wide, hair was wide, cars were
wide...
feaud...@yah00.forspamhaters.c0m (FeAudrey)
7/19/2003 1:01:28 AM
In article <20030718155550.13054.00000...@mb–m10.aol.com>,
jmgarci...@aol.complain says...
that I'd love to wear it
And as for wearing it now: go to a fabric store and look at the _Vogue_
pattern book's "Vintage Vogue" section. Or, on–line:
http://store.sewingtoday.com/cgi–bin/voguepatterns/shop.cgi?s.list.20006.x=1&UK
=30637748
('20s through '60s or so, but mostly '30 and pre–New Look '40s –– catalog has
more)
––
Visit my Iron Age Pages for technical and fun stuff (holiday specials, too)!
http://pages.prodigy.net/feaudrey
jmgarci...@aol.complain says...
(somebody said)
I can't think of an era in which men's clothing was so wonderful that I'd love to wear it
From 1932 to 1939 encapsulates it PERFECTLY for me. Doug Fairbanks Jr., Cary
Grant, Fred Astaire, Adolphe Menjou, HRH Prince of Wales/Edward VIII/Duke of
Windsor, all of those guys wore simple, relaxed, supremely classic clothing.
Most of the well–dressed gentlemen of the day would sprint with the latest
issue of Esquire or Apparel Arts (the old name of GQ) to their tailors to have
stuff "run up."
Born way too late,
The women's clothing of that era was also DIVINE. Grant, Fred Astaire, Adolphe Menjou, HRH Prince of Wales/Edward VIII/Duke of
Windsor, all of those guys wore simple, relaxed, supremely classic clothing.
Most of the well–dressed gentlemen of the day would sprint with the latest
issue of Esquire or Apparel Arts (the old name of GQ) to their tailors to have
stuff "run up."
Born way too late,
And as for wearing it now: go to a fabric store and look at the _Vogue_
pattern book's "Vintage Vogue" section. Or, on–line:
http://store.sewingtoday.com/cgi–bin/voguepatterns/shop.cgi?s.list.20006.x=1&UK
=30637748
('20s through '60s or so, but mostly '30 and pre–New Look '40s –– catalog has
more)
––
Visit my Iron Age Pages for technical and fun stuff (holiday specials, too)!
http://pages.prodigy.net/feaudrey
jmgarci...@aol.complain (Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr.)
7/19/2003 2:06:43 AM
FeAudry said:
agree.
–Joe in SoFla
This space for rent.
The women's clothing of that era was also DIVINE.
I haven't given it the scrutiny I have given menswear, but I'm inclined to agree.
–Joe in SoFla
This space for rent.
"K" <Kthyn...@aol.com>
7/18/2003 6:24:09 PM
"Charles Perrin" <c.l.perrin...@att.net> wrote in message
news:fg6hhvoo196fe3i4aafttt2rn1gda9q...@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:18:32 –0700, "K" <Kthyn...@aol.com> wrote:
That's because we're Krafted that way. <grin/duck>
Haha. I thought it was from sitting at the computer too much. I was That's because we're Krafted that way. <grin/duck>
painting today. Going around doing touch ups here and there, in a dress.
p...@midway.uchicago.edu (Trilby)
7/19/2003 5:53:19 AM
In article <20030718155550.13054.00000...@mb–m10.aol.com>,
Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr. <jmgarci...@aol.complain> wrote:
That was because when the 70s started, you were six years old.
In the great "What was I thinking????" score in the sky, widdle t–shirts
and widdle corduroy overalls simply can't do all that much damage.
Even if you were running around in Charlie Brown striped knit shirts, no
one would care all that much.
Elderly,
Priscilla
––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in puppetland!"
Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr. <jmgarci...@aol.complain> wrote:
The estimable Robert Matthews wrote:
It is not without ample reason that David Frum called the 70s "...that ghetto
of a decade" and I have to concur. I am pleased to say I managed to ride that
decade out with minimal damage to those who see photographs of me at the time.
Um ... Joe? It is not without ample reason that David Frum called the 70s "...that ghetto
of a decade" and I have to concur. I am pleased to say I managed to ride that
decade out with minimal damage to those who see photographs of me at the time.
That was because when the 70s started, you were six years old.
In the great "What was I thinking????" score in the sky, widdle t–shirts
and widdle corduroy overalls simply can't do all that much damage.
Even if you were running around in Charlie Brown striped knit shirts, no
one would care all that much.
Elderly,
Priscilla
––
p...@midway.uchicago.edu "Here comes the most beautiful woman in puppetland!"
jmgarci...@aol.complain (Jpoijhgwedfg M. Gtgiokjhderfg Jr.)
7/19/2003 11:43:56 AM
On the matter of my startorial disposition during the loathsome 1970s, Trilby
attempted:
being 15 with the full flush of hormones and the pressure to (I have been told,
I never bothered to notice) conform AND the Charybdis of the Late 70s being the
hideous end of that appalling decade.
Being 14 at the start of the decade and 23 at the end and spending that entire
time (more or less) with one's sense of sartorial dignity intact, well, HELL
that's what called "a gimme."
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
attempted:
Um ... Joe?
That was because when the 70s started, you were six years old.
In the great "What was I thinking????" score in the sky, widdle t–shirts
and widdle corduroy overalls simply can't do all that much damage.
Even if you were running around in Charlie Brown striped knit shirts, no
one would care all that much.
Ah, but when the 1970s ended I was *15*. In which one has to face the Scylla of That was because when the 70s started, you were six years old.
In the great "What was I thinking????" score in the sky, widdle t–shirts
and widdle corduroy overalls simply can't do all that much damage.
Even if you were running around in Charlie Brown striped knit shirts, no
one would care all that much.
being 15 with the full flush of hormones and the pressure to (I have been told,
I never bothered to notice) conform AND the Charybdis of the Late 70s being the
hideous end of that appalling decade.
Being 14 at the start of the decade and 23 at the end and spending that entire
time (more or less) with one's sense of sartorial dignity intact, well, HELL
that's what called "a gimme."
–Joe in SoFla
I don't care, and you can't make me.
jjjjju...@aol.comehither (Jjjjjulie)
7/18/2003 10:12:24 PM
From: Robert Matthews pyra...@ns.deleteme.sympatico.nospam.ca
In article <3F182764.3878E...@kiva.net>,
Dana Carpender <dcarp...@kiva.net> wrote:
I don't pretend to be an expert on the topic, but there are two
things that I know.
1) It's relatively new. Ancient Egyptian culture, to take a pretty
good example, was exceedingly stable: things didn't change much from
year to year, or century to century, and their worldview was that things
as they are are going to remain this way until the end of time. The
whole idea of perpetually changing fashions would have baffled them
completely.
2) It's a sure sign that a culture is both wealthy and not
particularly stratified socially. You obviously need a great deal of
societal wealth to support the industries that make perpetually changing
fashion possible, and you also need those changes to be able to filter
down to the lower classes (for lack of a better term). Pre–revolutionary
France, for example, took their stratification very seriously, and the
commoners weren't allowed to dress like their betters. Eventually the
ostentation got to be so extreme that sumptuary laws were enacted to
prevent the rabble from being so disgusted at the idle wealth of the
idle wealthy that they revolted. (Pre–revolutionary France didn't catch
on until it was much too late.) So when you have a culture with enough
money that it doesn't in general have to worry about where its next meal
is coming from or when the barbarians are going to knock down the walls,
and with enough social mobility and permissiveness that even poor people
can wear cheap knockoffs of nice–looking clothes in imitation of the
rich, the stage is set for the never–ending rondelay of fashion.
I agree and disagree. Fashions did change in the 18th and 19th centuries, Dana Carpender <dcarp...@kiva.net> wrote:
I don't pretend to be an expert on the topic, but there are two
things that I know.
1) It's relatively new. Ancient Egyptian culture, to take a pretty
good example, was exceedingly stable: things didn't change much from
year to year, or century to century, and their worldview was that things
as they are are going to remain this way until the end of time. The
whole idea of perpetually changing fashions would have baffled them
completely.
2) It's a sure sign that a culture is both wealthy and not
particularly stratified socially. You obviously need a great deal of
societal wealth to support the industries that make perpetually changing
fashion possible, and you also need those changes to be able to filter
down to the lower classes (for lack of a better term). Pre–revolutionary
France, for example, took their stratification very seriously, and the
commoners weren't allowed to dress like their betters. Eventually the
ostentation got to be so extreme that sumptuary laws were enacted to
prevent the rabble from being so disgusted at the idle wealth of the
idle wealthy that they revolted. (Pre–revolutionary France didn't catch
on until it was much too late.) So when you have a culture with enough
money that it doesn't in general have to worry about where its next meal
is coming from or when the barbarians are going to knock down the walls,
and with enough social mobility and permissiveness that even poor people
can wear cheap knockoffs of nice–looking clothes in imitation of the
rich, the stage is set for the never–ending rondelay of fashion.
albeit, of course, slower than they do now. And the idea of dressing above
one's station persisted into the American democratic experiment (and still does
today, I would argue).
However the catalyst for the rapid change wasn't, IMO, societal.
The first element of the catalyst was economic: the rise of the capitalist
middle–class.
The second element is the one which should be weighted more heavily: the
technological advance of the Industrial Revolution. Thread no longer had to be
spun and cloth no longer had to be woven by hand or in small collectives;
machines made cloth, and clothes, cheaper, more available, and more
extravagant. In addition, technology made it easier to import silk and other
opulent fabrics, and eventually technology made the opulent fabrics more
available and cheaper as well.
Add in a working class with some disposable income, the rise of the commercial
society and magazine culture (the latter especially actually dating back to the
19th century), and then the advent of synthetic fabrics which further drove
down the cost of cloth, and it's surprising it takes only 20 years for styles
to come back.
I can't even bear to think of what I wore back in the '70s. I think
I would implode from the mortification of it.
I was a peace and love hippie; tied dyed shirts, embroidered jeans, and waist I would implode from the mortification of it.
length blonde hair, and then I morphed into your typical 70s pre–teen: Quiana
shirts and a Farrah do. I'm not ashamed of it! It was fun to follow fashion
to the extremes my pocketbook (and my parents) would allow.
(P.S. I can't think of an era in which men's clothing was so wonderful
that I'd love to wear it, but I have to say that when I was watching the
movie "Far From Heaven", I was purring with pleasure: the women's
clothing was so beautiful and so flattering––smartly tailored dresses
with fitted bodices, nipped–in waists and flaring skirts, in simple but
luxurious fabric––that I wished women still wore such clothing. For all
I know it was miserably uncomfortable, but has there ever been an era in
which the general style for women was simultaneously simple and
beautiful to that extent?)
I agree about the clothes in that film in that period (and I'm also still wild that I'd love to wear it, but I have to say that when I was watching the
movie "Far From Heaven", I was purring with pleasure: the women's
clothing was so beautiful and so flattering––smartly tailored dresses
with fitted bodices, nipped–in waists and flaring skirts, in simple but
luxurious fabric––that I wished women still wore such clothing. For all
I know it was miserably uncomfortable, but has there ever been an era in
which the general style for women was simultaneously simple and
beautiful to that extent?)
about the streamlined shifts and suits of the 60s which followed). As for a
period when women's clothes were simultaneously simple and beautiful, maybe
Regency style dresses which looked pretty comfortable but could also be made
out of very luxurious and beautiful materials.
––
Julie P.
"if you don't know what is wrong with me/then you don't know what you've
missed"––Declan McManus