Vintage: Or, 'Are You Kidding Me?'

Pic: Lorna Dollery

I don't usually put my columns up verbatim, as the people who subscribe to my blog may not be readers of The Cork Independent (but I do link shamelessly).  This week however...

Let me explain.  Last Sunday I went carbooting with Lorna from LolaDee and sold a few items.  One item, a dress (to my immediate right in the pic above, hanging off the car boot) that Lorna had bought brand new in Italy was being scrutinised by a few ladies, who introduced themselves as owning a vintage shop.  I offered to show them my few vintage bits, they politely declined, bought the dress and tootled along on their way.

A few days later, Lorna saw their shopfront and noticed that these ladies were now selling her distinctly non-vintage dress, falsely advertising it as being vintage.  The column below is about the difference between thrift and vintage - maybe those ladies should take note.

The ability for humans to delude themselves is a wondrous thing; especially if shopping is involved and extra-super especially if second hand clothing is your vice. We disguise second-hand clothing, cloaking them with deceptive phrases like, 'thrift', 'gently used' or even, horror of horrors, 'vintage'. This humble writer knows her stuff when it comes to second-hand. Stripes have been earned, chops have been developed, cliches have been bandied without a sliver of shame that best illustrate just how much I know.


Here in Ireland, the Celtic Tiger was the wave on which the resurgent vintage phenomenon was borne and with it came a similar philosophy to its feline forefather - that of charging through the nose for inferior products just because the vendor could. There are many excellent handbooks on the subject of vintage, but since you, the reader, has picked up this great paper totally gratis, I'll give you a cod-version of second hand shopping for nada; the savvy woman's guide to second hand.



Second-hand is an umbrella term for several different types, all different but easily mistaken for one or the other of the following.


1) Gently worn clothing. You know that time you went into Brown Thomas and bought that leather trench that was sooo amazing even though it fit funny in the shoulders just because the sales were on? How amazing was that jacket? The answer is not very, because you took it home, realised that you looked like a less self-assured Shaft and buried it deep in your closet along with the Crocs, ill-fitting treggings and regrettable one-night stands, then dug it out and sold it at the local car boot. Voila, gently worn clothing. As a rule, gently worn clothing should be sold at about a third of its original price. Anything lower is a distinct bargain.


2) Thrift. The phrase 'one man's meat is another man's poison' has never been more relevant here than perhaps at a blowfish sushi convention. Thrift is usually the average stock of the very average charity shop. It is one or a combination of the following; well-worn, less than twenty years old, mass-produced and badly tailored, stained, flawed or ripped in some way. It can also be unusual or unexpected in the best possible way. Scoring a great bargain from a charity shop results in a high and a misplaced short term sense of achievement that the average Big Brother winner would be at odds to replicate. If you're a dab hand with a sewing machine, then thrift may be for you. I've seen cosmetic makeovers on oversized, psychedelic print kaftans that would put the average Swan contestant to shame.


3) Vintage. There's lots of thrift items that aspires to be vintage the way some people vie to join members-only clubs. However, if vintage was a club, there would be a very long waiting list. At least twenty years, to be specific. Vintage clothing should be in a good condition, wearable, fashionably relevant and relatively rare.Because of these factors, good vintage can be expensive. Your cheap vintage buy usually means that someone got very lucky, and that someone probably isn't you. One man's meat may be another man's poison, but there's no disputing the power of the fillet steak - maybe that's why it's so expensive.

Not So Wonderwoman

This is the new Wonderwoman.  While most people in the States are wondering why she's no longer wearing an American flag, others are wondering about the feminist implications of the addition of trousers and tough leather jacket.  Is she joining the X-Men?  Is she in Twilight or something?  No?  Well, ok then.  This can't be for ease of movement.  I realise the Wonderwoman is only two dimensional but even she must find it hard to run in PVC.

Here's my two cents:  If Wonderwoman was such a feminist figurehead then why are her tits three times the normal size now she's covering up? 

Bring back the shorts I say.

WWDVD? (What Would Diana Vreeland Do?)

I don't work in an office, but a memo of this kind would really brighten up my day.  Another testament to the genius of Diana Vreeland...

These memos were recently discovered (see full post on refinery29) - I wonder if there's more floating around?




However, these recently leaked American Apparel employee contracts make me feel a bit ill in that 'something-heavy-like-a-stone-in-the-pit-of-my-stomach' kind of way.



Full post and information on Gawker.  Please read it - it's very interesting.

The first thing that shocks me (apart from the spelling - Dock Martins anyone? And what is 'chique'? Is that really a word?) is not the fact that they tell their employees what to wear.  As a rule, retailers will make their employees wear company stock.

What is odd is that they don't want American Apparel employees wearing some American Apparel clothing because it "wrecks the image American Apparel are trying to portray".  Without being too crude - are you fucking kidding me?

Employees have been weighing in over at Gawker over unfair and slightly weird recruitment policies, which involve taking several photos of employees and encouraging managers to fire current employees who no longer fit the physical profile (this includes eyebrows, nail colour, slightly scary ethnic profiling and having chests too big to carry off crop tops).

This kills me, because I have a totally shallow love for American Apparel clothing.  I own a LOT of AA bits and pieces.  I love the block colours and the mix-and-matchability.  And I loved it in spite of the ridiculous sizing (European 12, US 8 is a size large).  I loved it even though the dollar to euro mark-up was not inconsiderable.  I loved it even though the founder, Dov Charney is apparently just like this...




There's no clothing quite like American Apparel.  But this kind of news just makes me feel like 1) I'm being told I'm not good enough for this stuff because I'm large of chest and 2) the new standards are abhorrent. This ranks a ten on the Abercrombie and Fitch ranking of creepy high-street retailers.

So, this is a serious question.  What would Diana Vreeland do?