Lightbulb! Semantics and classic vs. timeless - YouLookFab Forum

Category

General

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

Lightbulb! Semantics and classic vs. timeless

catgirl

Veteran

Angie's post today made a lightbulb go off over my dim head. Our whole discussion about a classic vs. dated item confused me. But today Angie referred to classics not always being timeless, and there is the key! A item like a navy blazer might be classic, but a particular blazer is not timeless. So classic refers to a genre (whereas dated is not a genre but an adjective, so they are not oppositional as I'd imagined- i.e. its not dated vs, classic but a "dated classic").

Sorry if this is too esoteric or totally obvious, but you know I love me some over analysis and fashion semantics! Plus it cleared my poor brain...

With this in mind I feel accessories are more likely to be timeless - diamond studs, a Burberry scarf, a Chanel purse.

Whaddya think? On the money or off my rocker?

General

32 replies

Latest reply was from deb

Aziraphale

Veteran

On the money. The details -- stance, lapels, etc -- of the classic navy blazer you refer to can change over time, and make an item appear dated, but yes, blazers in general are always classic.

I think certain accessories are timeless. The ones you mention definitely are.

milehighstyle (Linda)

Veteran

Pretty sure you are right on the money. The classic items of clothing will get subtle updates over the years (lapel size, sleeve width, shoulder structure) and will eventually look dated (not to mention worn) after a while. And I agree completely on accessories having more staying power and the ability to be passed down through generations.

Mochi

Veteran

Since we now know the talk is about Ideals, not Particular Items, it works for me.

unfrumped

Veteran

You said it lots better than how I mangled it in my reply to your post on dated-ness.

Hence, "modern classic."

So, what is interesting is, how to have, if not time-less, a number of "time-long" items that make it worthwhile to have made an investment in effort and $$ to get them.

Sure, a classic blazer may not be timeless as in forever, but can it not be time-worthy? Else the whole idea of quality must practically fly out the window as few people could replace investment shoes (well, I admit shoes are an issue if worn frequently because they may wear out, even with cobblering), trousers,jackets, good quality wool sweaters, handbags every 2-3 years.

catgirl

Veteran

Unfrumped, good point!

deb

Veteran

Yes, it is all in the details. Maybe we need a fashion dictionary here to refer to. Then as the definitions change we can line them out and add the new (a la Word)

rae

(website)

Veteran

Yes! And that also explains why very artsy or signature items can be timeless.

Gaylene

Veteran

Makes perfect sense to me to not use classic and timelessness as synonyms. And I like unfrumped's addendum that a classic (in terms of genre) can have more longevity because its design is often not quite as closely linked to whatever is trending at a particular moment which makes it more likely to fit whatever is current over multiple seasons.

But I also think that very few items are timeless in that their design remains more or less consistent in terms of fabrication, silhouette, and fit over decades. In my opinion, the term iconic is probably overused to describe items that reference the original, but are not really the same in terms of fit, fabrication, color, and shape; those subtle alterations are what makes the "iconic" item remain fresh and interesting. Even classic iconic items can look dated. Choosing to wear the "original" item from the back of your closet or from a thrift shop is a personal style choice, much like Ines de Fressange's choice of a man's blazer over a woman's cut.

Anonymous

I couldn't have said it better, alaskagirl.

@ Unfrumped: By necessity, I used to have to wear my clothes for years, so I paid a lot more attention to quality than I do now. That said, when I was out of the country for 8 years and then moved back (no internet or anything during that time to keep track of the styles), my wardrobe was out of date and I had to replace most of it. My clothing was not worn out, but the style was all '80s and when I moved back to the States, it was 1998. It was like I was in a time warp or something. Now that I have more disposable income, I still look for quality basics that can be worn for several years, but I no longer worry about keeping something in my closet for a decade or more. What would be the point? A decade from now, there might be a few classics in my closet that I'll still want to wear, but I'm sure I'll want to update my look.

unfrumped

Veteran

Yes!--quality is not exactly over-hyped, and Angie makes a good point that quality has multiple aspects and is available at many price points; but very expensive clothing advertised as "timeless" or "investment" seems to be somewhat mythical. Combined with, if I'm going to buy not-timeless items of high quality and high love + fairly high cost, I will need to run a much smaller stable. This is where I am heading. Not to be minimal, but to have high happiness factor and less meh.

AnnieMouse

Veteran

Gaylene makes some excellent points in re: "timeless" vs. "classic" vs. "iconic." Thank you for that specific point - in that case, "iconic" would be the Dean/ Brando leather jacket, or the Frye Campus boot (my pair from 5 years ago is identical to my Mom's pair from 1978). "Classic" would be an update on either of those items, and "timless" would be the style itself.

*wraps brain around*

OK, I think I've got it now. Thank you! What a really nice point to make, Una.

ManidipaM

Veteran

Umfrumped, I am trying the same strategy. A Claire-sized closet is my aim.

Una, right on the money I think. But adding a caveat: the fewer changeable aspects said accessory contains, the less quickly it dates. Thus, leather boots vs silk scarf. You can only change shape in 3 variations with the scarf (square, rectangle, cylinder) plus infinite possibilities of colour, pattern (flat colour won't date as fast), texture (again, flat lasts longer) and embellishments (zero goes longest). But with boots, besides colour, pattern, texture and embellishments, you have at least 5 toe shapes, different options in hardware colour and finish, a whole bunch of heels, shaft heights, sole options, closures... No wonder people lay their dollars in more artsy or avant-garde jackets and shoes as both tend to have a high natural life, demanding commensurate fashionable durability.

rachylou

Veteran

That's downright brilliant.

Marley

Veteran

OK - I kinda, sorta, got what Una said - and was able to follow the first few comments - but then, just like the marine layer is rolling over our condo right now, the comments began to fog up, confuse, and muddle my brain - and I realized that I don't really need to understand this or think about it - so, I'm going to go get some lunch and think about what color I'm going to paint my fingernails!

MsMary

Veteran

Ba-BAM!

Nailed it.

Beth Ann

Veteran

Yep. I had the same realization, Una. I think that a particularly well crafted item --- as Shannon's recent navy blazer was, might still show it's era, but we appreciate more because it is done so well. Seeing her blazer also made me ready for shoulder pads again (sorry, not for you, I know).

Some of these great classic items, while not timeless, could be worn by people with strong personal style in a way that is fresh and not costumey. I've not achieved that yet, but I could probably work a pair of shoes or a skirt from the 40's and utilize it as a "retro classic" piece. The example someone used recently of Elaine's "granny" dress is a good example. I'd look like "Homeschool Mom on the Prairie," but someone else could make it boho chic.

catgirl

Veteran

Marley, I love you.

Marley

Veteran

Right back at ya' Una!

Suz

(website)

Veteran

Yup. This is it. I was just explaining it to Mr. Suz this afternoon. He had ordered a new trench coat and wondered about a few of the design details that differed from his old (1980s) one. (Don't worry; he wasn't wearing that trench any more; he just hadn't bought one since and had made do with gear coats. Which, come to think of it, is just as worrying in its own way.)

Anyway....gotta update those classics to make 'em modern, I told him. Just like Angie says!

Mo

(website)

Veteran

Basically, I think there are few things one can expect to keep and use for a full decade. And that's usually fine, as we are either ready for a change by then, or the item is showing wear. I think maybe just 2 pairs of boots I have I expect to be still wearing in another decade - my oxblood Dr. Martens that are already 15 years old, and my Frye Julia lace ups. Everything else I expect to have to replace. I'd like to still be wearing my crop blush leather jacket in 10 years but am realistic that it might look ridiculous at that point in time. Hopefully not, but I can't bank on it so I'm wearing it as I please NOW.

Peri

Veteran

I understand all this intellectually, but I guess I will always struggle with it in reality!

For example...I have a blue suede jacket that I have had for about 10 years. Beautiful color, great quality...a bit of a shopping mistake because it hasn't seen enough wear for its cost. I would never ever ever have thought of it as dated, but the post about the black leather jacket, which some said was dated because it had a collar and today's jackets often don't...well, now I have to wonder if my jacket is dated!

I think I will never figure it out!

Isabel

Veteran

YES ! It took me quite a while to get this too. And then I sorta got it. Like in the cloud, but my brain couldn't quite download it and make sense until Angie put it into words.

I have struggled with this for years, decades really. Yes, these are some of the things that keep me up at night. They blend seamlessly with my curiosity on black holes and infinite space. I digress.

I felt for a long time, that stylists and magazines were giving "us" the shaft. Nina Garcia's 100 things to own just confused me. Why, you may ask ? Even if you don't care, Una, here is my answer. LOL ! It would say that one should own a forever, camel trench. Ok. I bought one. The color never looked good on me and the "forever, lifetime" trench looked sooooo dated after about 10 years. Same with my "forever" black pumps. UGH. It was sooooo frustrating. I thought that I sucked at picking "forever" anything. Though I am doing ok with my hubby, for the record, so far.

Now it is perfectly clear.

But, to me, it begs the question : What is a good, long term buy ( I hate the word "investment" when it comes to clothing . ) I would love a cranberry or raspberry Burberry ( apparently, I like anything with "berry" in it ...LOL ) . But will it just not be forever ? This is like kissing the frog and getting a Prince. We were sold a bill of goods. Maybe I am just cranky today !

Speak the Truth, Angie, speak the truth !!!!! Lead me from those mythic sartorial black holes !

DonnaF

Veteran

I've been going through some of my elderly mom's things, and DANG scarves have changed! It's not just the patterns/prints and colors, but it's the SIZE! Square, oblong, and circular alike are sub-size and seem quite skimpy. Perhaps the change has been somewhat gradual like fast food portions, as these scarves are probably 25 - 50+ years old.

Ingunn

(website)

Veteran

I have really few pieces that are older than five years in my wardrobe, but I love the idea of longevity and timelessness. In real life, it doesn't work that way. Clothes get worn, they fade, shrink etc, and I like new. "investing" would be stupid for me. A Burberry trench, however, would probably last a decade in my closet and then some. Other than that? I don't know.

This thread is a great read!

deb

Veteran

Mo, I cannot see me wearing anything I have now in ten years because by that time I will be almost 70. This is where the age issue comes in.

unfrumped

Veteran

Yes, deb, the age issue is kinda subtle and kinda not I think most things would have a lifespan of < 3 yrs , and some 5-10 tops, due to the age issue, minimum, plus style changes.

It's funny how very seldom this is talked about in magazine articles, emahich was my main fashion source for a long time. It's not a bad thing, the fading of items or styles; it's just that if you understand it better, you can make more rationale wardrobe choices and plans. We need to speak truth to fashion.

MsMaven

Veteran

In my experience, ten years is "forever" in an item of clothing--a good long run. Not only do styles change, at times gradually as with Donna's scarves, but bodies change too. Even if a person can maintain their weight, in ten years the weight tends to shift, and what looked fine at 35 may not fit quite right at 45. Oh, and feet change size and shape too.

This is an interesting discussion because so many clothes nowadays seem to be made to be worn a few times and then disposed of. Fabrics get skimpier, thinner, and pill or shift shape after just a few washes, then into the landfill they go. They wouldn't even serve to be woven into one of great-grandma's braided rag rugs.

Some wise person pointed out regarding all the talk of "investment" pieces a few years back: Clothing doesn't pay interest, won't issue a dividend, and rarely can an item be sold for more than we paid for it.

In My Joi

(website)

Veteran

Wow, another fascinating read! I am always inspired by the way fashion definitions are broken down, challenged, analyzed and thoroughly discussed! In my head, I picture classic pieces being pearls, polka dot prints, a-line dresses/skirts, and so on. I agree that the key lies in the details, quality, and cut if a clothing item. I have vintage coats (dating back to the 60s) with mink collars, and quarter length sleeves. To me, because of cut, texture, fabric, and detailing they are and will remain classics, making them= timeless.

jlyns

I think part of what is frustrating is that it is hard to predict what will be "timeless." I have a skirt that I've worn consistently for 20 years now. I remember wearing it when I was pregnant with my son who is now in college.

It is a long, graceful skirt that was very on trend when I bought it. I suppose it has been in and out of fashion over the last two decades. (And those of you who are more fashion conscious than I likely would have gotten rid of it long ago--) I wore it more and less during those years, but it was a skirt I always felt good in because of its graceful movement and I know I wore it several times every year. And now that longer skirts are making a comeback, it is waiting there in my closet for me for the coming winter!

I could not have predicted when I bought it that it would be "timeless."

(As I was writing this it made me wonder what else was in my closet like this. I found two jackets that I'm sure are at least 15 years old. Plus a "little black dress" of the same vintage. The jackets are definitely still in rotation. The LBD would be, but I don't have any place to wear it!!)

12