Do "Classics" Date More Quickly? - 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

Do "Classics" Date More Quickly?

Dashrashi

Veteran

I just ran across this quote and thought it was really interesting:

"People think that if they buy classics -- a trench coat, or a V-neck sweater or a great pair of flat boots -- they're safe because they've invested in things that are gonna last 20 years. But within six months, it's the wrong V-neck or the wrong flat boot, because suddenly the line is wrong. Fashion people are stimulated by proportion shifting -- getting taller, getting thinner. Hemlines go up, hemlines go down. Shoes get wacky, shoes get clunky, shoes get skinny. The fastest things to date are those classics, cause it's just proportions laid bare. There's nothing else going on. If you had invested in a feathered chubby or an incredible crinoline, it's never going to go out of style. I think the most eccentric things are the things that last the longest."

http://www.papermag.com/arts_a.....r-guru.php

Does something relatively free of whickety-whack and seemingly "classic" telegraph its era more quickly and clearly than something completely over the top because the proportions are "laid bare"?

I remember shopping for boots in the late 90s/early 00s and having a square-toed, blocky-heeled pair strike me as utterly "classic." Now those are the classic signifiers for "dated." My perfect tee shirt of the past few years is a lot longer and looser than my perfect tee shirt of ten years ago. Wondering if anyone else thinks there's anything to this.

General

28 replies

Latest reply was from MNsara

MsMary

Veteran

Yes! I've been thinking about this a fair amount lately, and I've about decided there's no such thing as a "classic," if by "classic" you mean "timeless and always 'just right.'" I agree with the above quotation that the simplest styles are the ones that show the whims of the moment most clearly.

rae

(website)

Veteran

I tend to find things "classic" that hearken back to an era or theme that fashion loves and recycles every couple of years. The 50s/60s sheath dress. Equestrian boots. 70s-ish bootcuts. Pearls. Military/Navy wool coats.

Now, if you bought a "classic" wool coat in the height of the 80s, it might look like something out of Dick Tracy today. Still, I don't think that's enough to argue that you should never buy investment pieces because they will *always* date you. I also don't think super-trendy things have more longevity, unless your style is consistently kind of out there and retro. Those platform Spice Girl sneakers everyone like when I was in high school don't exactly look "fresh" today...

Barbara

Veteran

Classic to me means timeless. Examples: dark wash/straight leg denim, fine gauge cardigans, knee-length pencil skirts, tweed jackets, trench coats, riding boots, penny loafers, ballet flats. I don't think any of these gems will ever be 'dated'.

According to dictionary.com, CLASSIC is: "of enduring interest, quality, or style: a classic design; classic clothes."

MsMary

Veteran

I agree about the pencil skirt and the jeans. But any kind of coat or jacket is going to show its age, I think. Lapels and shoulders definitely get wider and narrower over time. As Rae pointed out, the "classic" coats and jackets from the 80s are anything but!

On the other hand, almost everything comes back around so if you have the space it makes sense to hang on to your nice things until they do come back into fashion.

Barbara

Veteran

MaryK, that's so true about lapels and shoulders. I do think we have seen the last of the BIG shoulder look from the 80s. At least I hope so!

bj1111

Veteran

only because they get asked out more frequently.

Lisa

Veteran

This is very interesting. I do think classic pieces also date, as already pointed out, lapels, collars, seaming, essentially the construction of the piece change over time.

Barbara

Veteran

That's true about labels, collars, seaming, shoulders. But aren't there SOME iconic styles that NEVER change? Classic ballet flats are the first thing I think of.

cloud9

Veteran

I believe EVERYTHING changes over time, some maybe subtle. As for the ballet flats, the recent years, they are lower vamp and rounder. How many years ago when they toes were pointy, a bit square-ish?

The more details you have on any item, the quicker it is to date. I think the decade of 2000's would be know as the Ruffles era. I don't think a typical "classic" item dates quicker than a trendy one though. Take a simple white button down shirt, if the collar is not too point, too wide, too narrow, shoulder has no details like gathering/pleats, and they fit just right at your shoulders (not too wide), and if the shirt is fitted perfectly for your body, than it is going last longer (especially paired with trendier items).

Another point of not buying anything for the sake of keeping it for 20 years, is that for vast majority people, their body changes, could be weight, could be medication, or could be just due to pure aging.

Anonymous

Barbara, I've been around long enough to find that even the reds and greens of Christmas colors don't stay the same! If you have the ballet flats you wore at age 22, they will probably hurt your feet at 42, even if the style is close.

mamaKate

Veteran

I have several "ancient" items in my closet (10 to 20 years old), which I have continued to wear and love throughout the years, and I think that there are two common theme among these items: First, yes, the each has an element of "classic" in that they are versatile and well-proportioned. But second, and more importantly, each has its own subtle stylistic details which were not necessarily trendy at the time, but which continue to make the piece stand out and hold its staying power.

One example is a black, lined, single-breasted wool jacket with many buttons which, depending on the season, can either be a blazer or an overcoat. Its hem is below the hips with a slight flare, it has a fitted waist and princess seams over its length. I have had and worn this since 1993.

Another example is a red-toned striped "button-down" blouse (but with snaps instead of buttons) which, again, is fitted through the shoulders and waist. I have had this since 2000.

A third example are a pair of white fabric closed-toe pumps with a bit of shimmer, slightly pointed toes, and a flared heel, purchased perhaps in 1996.

Finally, I am thinking of an A-line dark-indigo denim skirt with a swerving "horizontal" seam that doubles as the top edges of pockets, bought probably in 2001.

(Apologies for the lack of photos, I am a new member.)

So my opinion, based on what has lasted within my own wardrobe, is that "classic with flair" probably has the longest shelf-life, as opposed to either "classic" garments that try to be everything to everyone, but whose details lose their relevance, or items which are spot-on for the trend-of-the-moment but instantly date the piece.

One last comment on little details which make "classic" into "timeless": I personally hate the current trend of exposed contrasting zippers (e.g. on sheath dresses). I think that in 1 or 2 years, those dresses will feel totally dated. However I did find myself buying a dress that has a small detail of an exposed zipper on the shoulder seam, as opposed to at the main closure. In all other ways the dress is classic, flattering, and well-constructed. I am hoping that in the next couple of years, this subtle detailing difference will elevate the dress from being "dated" to "retro-clever," and thus extend its wearable life.

Michelle

(website)

Veteran

I think there's a distinction to be made between classic from a specific decade and truly timeless. People talk about how a coat from the 80's is instantly recognizable, and not necessarily in the good way. That piece should be treated as a classic representation of the era in which it was made, but likely wouldn't be considered a "classic," timeless piece. When I hunt for classics, which I do often, I deliberately steer clear of era-defining features like the ones discussed above. My red winter coat, for instance, has standard shoulders, a v-neck medium lapels and a shirt collar. I can't see this dating at any point. The same goes for my black pencil skirt, which has a slight taper at the hem but not enough to set it squarely in a certain time period. One could argue that round or almond-toed boots can always find a home in a style-savvy wardrobe regardless of the year. In short, my own opinion is that the bar needs to be raised higher when hunting for timeless pieces, but the effort is worthwhile since the goal is attainable.

Dashrashi

Veteran

I think that's the thing of it--when I am shopping, I will see something that I completely perceive as "classic," e.g. the square-toed boots of yesteryear, WITHOUT perceiving the things about it that will date it once contemporary styles move on slightly. My eye perceived the square-toed boots as timeless classics because everything else I was seeing around that time was square-toed too; my eye lit upon the unembellished leather and the mid-height heel, etc., read them as "classic," translated that to the BOOT being "classic" and overlooked the possibility of the square toe dating the boot.

Sometimes I feel like the only things that are really reliably timeless are vintage (or things that could really pass as authentic vintage). My eye is just unable to discern whether something "classic"-but-contemporary, surrounded by contemporary neighbors, will date a little, some, or a lot. If you still want to wear the vintage stuff, though, then that means they've been successfully disencumbered from a specific time.

Kate

Veteran

I agree that nothing is truly timeless, and thus I'm a proponent of a smaller wardrobe and investing in items that I am going to wear a lot in the next several years rather than items that are going to last me 10 or 20 years. Some of my 5 year old jeans or jackets look almost exactly like their current counterparts at the Gap, but I'm sure that in another 5 or 10 years their age will show. But that's ok. I wear my stuff often enough that I don't expect for it to last that long!

catgirl

Veteran

I feel a true classic is iconic in some way. Like the Jackie O. cardigan, the Audrey Hepburn sheath, Levis, or the quintessential cowboy hat. The item is timeless and will be reinvented endlessly while retaining its icon status.

Thus, a simple cardigan and pearls will always say Jackie O. to me, even if it isn't exactly like what she wore, and is therefore classic. Ballet flats, peacoats, riding boots. They vary in detail ftom decade to decade, but the essence of the item itself will endure in some form.

In juxtaposition we have most of the typical 80s styles, which are self-referential. No one is saying that an 80s-style look today - no matter how modern and updated - is referring to anything but the 80s. A sweatshirt with the neckline cut out IS Flashdance.

Does that make sense?

chewyspaghetti

Veteran

I just wanted to say that I loved your use of the term "whickety-whack"
Carry on!

Maya

Veteran

I can understand buying a handful of items with the intention of them being timeless. I think of things that are not likely to be worn often, but are indispensable. An interview suit (if necessary), a funeral dress, a ball gown. To a lesser degree I can also understand items that are more utilitarian and costly, like coats and boots.

But trying to build an entire wardrobe that way? Fat chance. It's difficult for even the most seasoned fashionista to know what will or will not be dated in a few years' time. If you told me this ruffle fetish would go on for as many years as it has, I don't think I would have believed you. But here we are, well into what seems like our sixth season of ruffles. Same with skinny jeans and leggings.

The point is, unless you have volumes of insider knowledge, you can't know what will and won't be dated. You might not even understand something to be a time-specific design detail at the time of purchase, but 10 years from now, you'll notice. So you're buying into a potentially very costly illusion. "Classic" items don't date more quickly than trendy items--but they will date just as fast, sometimes more so and sometimes less. ALL items date, otherwise crinolines would still be acceptable to wear! It's just a matter of when.

Eccentric items--that are neither trendy nor classic, just quirky and unique--tend to be the MOST timeless. Same with pieces that have vintage appeal.

For me, fashion is about the here and the now. If I love it, I don't question it. In 20 years I could be in a different climate, I could be a different size, a different country...heck, I might even be dead. Who knows? And who cares? If I buy a beautiful pair of boots for $300 and get just one year's worth of wear out of them, that still works out to about $0.80 a day. Not too shabby.

LeahJanes

I have to say that I agree with the article.

Things that are distinctive and creative and spectacularly made will always be so. Everything that I have bought that's been expensively made but interesting in some way has stood the test of time better than something very simple of the same era. Things seem distinctive when you buy them because they are apart from the fashion of the time, which will likely set them apart from fashions of any time to come as well. That's why they are timeless. I think that's why iconic stuff is also seen as classic, it is apart from fashion.

I also think that people confuse "basics" with "classics". I feel like a basic can be simple but need not be timeless. I wear the crap out of my basics and so I feel like I can purchase them in fashionable cuts, colours and fabrics, as they will wear out before the trends change.

Barbara

Veteran

This is one of the most interesting posts ever!

I have always been drawn to the classic style but now I have a better understanding of the entire EVOLUTION of fashion.

Knowledge is power.

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

Interesting discussion! I have lots to say on the subject but have to run. I will leave you with two thoughts though:

o It’s not just about the item on its own, but HOW it’s worn. What’s the support act? How you’re using the word “dated” is very general, Dash.

o It’s the vintage and retro items which have the longest lifespan – and then again, it’s HOW they are worn.

Think to yourself – what makes you call that item dated? There is the crux. It’s much more complex than you might think.

Late Bloomer

(website)

I have found that things like button front shirts do change but it seems to be gradual. Lately I've noticed that collars are getting narrower. I do think they last 4 or 5 years but after that they start looking a little off. But they do get a lot of wear so I don't mind replacing them.

But I live where there is very little winter so for me I need my "winter" items to be on the timeless side because they don't get much wear. I'm not even going to worry about my 10 year old pea coat as it only gets worn on the NW beach or in the mountains. Here is my trench coat and boots that I bought last year. I really hope they will last a while. What do you think?

This post has 2 photos. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

Dashrashi

Veteran

I guess I'm using "dated" to mean something that stands out, in a bad way, as being reminiscent of the earlier time period. I can't really think of an outfit with square-toed, blocky-heeled, leather boots where I wouldn't think to myself, "Dang, I wish those boots were a little more up to date." They're kind of 60s, I guess, but with a mod-ish minidress I still feel like it would either skew costume-y, or not costume-y enough (i.e., still overbearingly 90s).

Or, "Hi, I bought this t-shirt before t-shirt makers started adding a lot of length, but it's a classic white t-shirt, yessir!" even though it shows midriff when you bend over and looks funny to contemporary eyes on top of jeans. For instance, I feel like skirt-length tops worn with pants is kind of a 90s look, because shirts were way shorter 15 years ago than they are now.

catgirl

Veteran

Okay, I thought of something else that seemed utterly classic back in the day, but now looks terrible to my eye - those super-pleated longer plaid/patterned skirts that flare out at the bottom.

Queen Mum

Veteran

perhaps this has already been said... but even the most simple black dress dates when the hemlines change.. granted, it's an easy fix to shorten it, but what are we all going to do with our knee length LBD's in 10 years when the hemline of the moment is mid calf? (I shudder at the thought)

Barbara

Veteran

QM, I think those knee length skirts and frocks are here to stay. For at least another decade or so. LOL.

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

"I feel like skirt-length tops worn with pants is kind of a 90s look, because shirts were way shorter 15 years ago than they are now" - precisely Dash. But pop that same top over a contemporary flared skirt with killer shoes and its not dated anymore. That's greenglove's thrifting recipe

I guess I agree with the fact that even so called classics change even slightly every 10 to 15 years. But somehow the retro stuff does not date - if the support act is contemporary. For example - my ball dress.

Barbara

Veteran

Great point about retro, Angie.

Styling an outfit correctly to properly showcase and present a particular vibe is key.
But it should be fun, as you so beautifully proved by those amazing ball dress post photos!

I guess I'm stubborn about the definition of classic. I agree that change is slow and slight!

MNsara

Veteran

Not much to add -- everyone is so insightful

I concur about classics getting 'dated' and how mixing them into current trends might keep them stylish.

I can also see the vintage appeal then - there's no attempt to be on-trend. I think the same of eclectic clothing, where clothing doesn't fit any particular style - current or past.