This is a great conversation. I'm still figuring out what styles suit me best, but I definitely feel great when I'm in something classic and beautifully made, as long as there is some new detail to keep the look from slipping into dowdy.

Fi -- I also have a lot of curly hair, and I think that actually helps keep a classic look from becoming uninteresting. Take a look at a Brooks Brothers catalog if you have a chance -- the models all have their hair in smooth bobs or smooth chignons or smooth ponytails, and that to me makes their extremely classic look appear more costume-y.

I always match my shoes and handbag, but I usually dress in neutrals, another classic implementation I think. I don't feel pressure to add a bright turquoise bag and yellow shoes to the mix...well maybe a little,:) but I will never do that because that isn't my stye.

While I love to add a twist to my classic style, I think that there are many gradations to any style. There are appropriate times when I am ~completely classic ~in my outfit,(funeral, meeting and such) except my hair gives me away:)
I think hair as well as clothes can be VERY boring if one doesn't pay attention, no matter what your style.

April, Brooks Brothers is a very good example of classic style.

Can we see Angie's advice on doing classic style on a budget? I love classic, but it seems to me that classic style is based in quality tailoring and great fit. I'd love to read Angie's tips.
Wasn't there a recent thread admiring Carolyn Bessette Kennedy's style? She certainly wasn't old.

I love this thread- such insightful comments!
There is nothing boring about classic- I adore an authentic classic style. I also adore variations on classic. I think it depends on who wears what. I think that a Ralph Lauren or Brooks Brothers look head to toe works beautifully on many women and the consistency of their style makes them immensely chic. I have never looked great in very classic looks, my features just do not mix well with the cuts and colors. I think as much as I would like to, I could not pull it off. It has to do with many things such as lifestyle and maintenance. Classic requires a crisp and polished look that does take time. Also, what is classic for Americans is not for other nationalities.

It would take me all day to adequately express my thoughts here, but one thing that comes to mind is the fact that edgy, spunky, fab and hip are things we associate with youth.... and of course our society has trained us to view youth as the ideal of beauty. Therefore when I am complimented with the words fab, hip and sassy, I hear "young" Other words of compliments might translate to me as "mature looking" It's definitely my issue and as I head further into my mid 40's I certainly come to terms with the fact that I'm not a teenager (which I certainly have and am ever so thankful for!)

I think classic is defined by well made clothes, proper fit and attention to small details in a look. This can be hard to pull off. Classic when done well is as beautiful as any other style. However, sometimes the little details are not there, missing a belt or scarf, missing earrings or a watch, those omissions can result in a bland look and not a pulled together look despite other elements that were the same.

Classic takes as much time and effort as any other look, but the details are not always as bold and eye grabbing. It's actually my favorite look and one I am trying to incorporate over time. Unfortunately I think classic pieces are also hard to find. It is very easy to find the trends in a store because that is what the buyers are looking for, the next new thing, while a classic piece is sometimes overlooked in the stores buying process because it's something you can find elsewhere. Although often you end up looking everywhere because a store will carry so few of the basic pieces. How many times have I had to hunt down a basic t or denim skirt versus say a trendy top? Well that was my 2 cents anyway.

And the insightful thoughts keep on coming!

Jean, I agree wholeheartedly with your perception.

Kim, that's an interesting analogy. Our youth obsessed world features in tomorrow's blog post.

Lisa, so true. Good basics are often the hardest to find.

Boo. Am I the only one who can't see Taylor's pictures? I'm dying to see your hairstyle, Taylor!

BTW, there is nothing I dislike about classic style. I still think back on this one occasion where I was dining in a restaurant with...friends? Can't remember! The only thing burned in my memory is the vision of this stunning woman...probably...50s, 60s, the epitome of classic style...I still wish I had been brave enough to go up to her and let her know what an impression she made on me, but I just didn't have the words. I do remember beautifully applied makeup, closely cropped silver hair, a clutch of pearls at her throat...I tried to take in every detail, because I wanted to dress exactly like that!

Hm. I can't help but wonder what the line is between classic and traditional. When I think classic, I tend to think of my in-laws, where bow-ties on men aren't ironic, and their seersucker and madras blazers are the same ones they've been wearing for the last 20 years. It's not costumey, it's the way they live and the way they were brought up. In some ways, it's actually less expensive, as the timeless investment pieces don't have to be bought often.

I don't really see anyone on this site as being a classic dresser by the traditional definition. I'm not sure you'd need this site if you were. The clothes are the easy part to put together. It's the polish and details that require the effort.

MPJ: here are some of my ~not so classic~ classic looks") the hair changes alot:)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4.....269449570/

hmmm very interesting thread!

You know, for me personally, I think it comes down to execution - done well, I admire ANY style on others - done not so well, that's when I start to judge and apply labels like "boring" "dowdy" "just plain wrong" etc...

Something I noticed at the races (horse) on Saturday was that there was a lot of women attempting what I would define as a classic look. Some were able to pull it off impeccably and looked stunning, whereas others it just didn't work on - whether because they weren't comfortable, or there was something not quite right (to my eye).

For myself though, I adore classic elements, but I must admit that I feel older than I am when I'm dressed classically without any edginess. But that's for me myself - and I'm able to separate that from my appraisal of others in a classic style thankfully.

Very interesting the association of frumpy/boring with classic. In my mind (to return to my math roots) frumpy is a sufficient but not necessary association with classic. That is when I think classic, I do not at all think frumpy or stuffy. But when I think frumpy/stuffy I do think the look was trying to be classic. I also don't think of particular people when I think of classic, I think of brands like Talbots or Coach which I admire a lot.

That's brilliant, Patience. That's a very clear perception of stylish classic dressing. I too admire it wholeheartedly.

MPJ, you should have gone up to the lady whose style you admired. It would have made her day :0)

Beth, your perception reminds me more of what I see as traditional - I think you do too. Traditional can look dowdy and frumpy fast, whereas a classic dresser is always in style.

Marlene2, you can go to BR and shop the sales for a perfectly budget friendly and classic look.

Wow, what insightful comments! And exactly in keeping with what I've been mulling over lately myself...

To answer the question, although I'm trying to update my style now, I'm sure that I'll always lean towards classic and shy away from trendy. (Yup, there's some animosity...can't wait for the "trendy" thread!) Maya is spot-on in identifying why I, for one, attempted classic: I thought to myself, "even if I don't look that good, at least I won't stand out!"
I'm not so sure about the economic point, though: surely "classic" means, by definition, that it can be worn every year without going out of style, whereas new "trendy" items would have to be bought every season, right? If a given classic dress lasts 10 years, it would have to be more than 10x the cost of its in-for-one-season counterpart in order for classic style to be more expensive, right?

Sorry, very nerdy digression there! Anyway, I really like April's thoughts too. I have trouble deciding whether the classic style I like so much would clash with my non-Western looks or add interest. I know my (American) mom always looks edgy when she wears my (Indian) aunt's saris, but I wonder if it works vice versa?

Fascinating comments from everyone. (And thank you Taylor for posting that link--I have been so curious to see your style. VERY sharp! I REALLY enjoyed those photos.)

To answer Angie's original question, no. But I do acknowledge there is a certain bias against classic dressing, as if it doesn't show one is up with the times, the way Frances described it.

Personally, I love fashion and shopping but have limited funds to spend, so I really don't like to buy anything that I am not sure I can wear for years. Having said that I don't like generic clothes, so I always look for details, like a special color, print, fabric, seaming, hardware, etc.

I think how stylish I find classic dressing depends on how much the person owns the look. If they are dressing exactly right for them, then it is equally as stylish as a trendy look. By the same token trendy can look like a fashion-victim when the clothes are wearing the person. I think it comes down to knowing yourself. One of the styles I admire most in other people is those who have figured out a uniform that works for their lifestyle. So keeping, let's say, a constant silhouette for work, like a certain shoe, cut of pants, blouse, belt, overcoat, that is perfectly adapted for that person's life. Another example is having only a few different outfits but every outfit is PERFECT. I met a woman like this once, where she seemed to have 3 work outfits, and then socially, once I saw her wearing something else, but every outfit was perfect for her and for the occasion. I like change too much to dress that way myself, but my point is, I think classic style can mean knowing yourself. Knowing exactly what works for you and sticking with it over the years with tweaks to acknowledge the times.

Such an interesting thread, I like to relate to things outside of fashion and style to fully understand the word classic. In terms of the arts 'the classics' are heralded as the greats, they are to be studied and lessons are to be learned. I also view classic style as refined and learned, in order for the style to work all of the variable have to right in terms of age, body shape and occasion. The right black trousers and white shirt looks so unbelievably perfect whereas if one of the nuances is off the look may be blah. I view classic style as reining back whereas other personas I find to be more expressive. Classic style is subtle. I admire classic style.

I don't like to look down on any style! I'm open to just about anything that's well done. Style is so much about self expression. I view style more along a continuum than as compartments of specific "types."

What exactly IS classic style? Angie, can you provide us with some examples (particularly done on a smaller budget). At what point does classic style converge into some other style or become "edgy" or "funky"?

Angie, that's exactly it!

I definitely do see a bias against classic, but it's not one that I hold. I do think it's difficult to get right, and I really do think it requires more money. Quality is required as well as perfect fit, which, quite often, requires a tailor (and honestly, even BR sale is beyond my budget).

I don't even know how to define my own style, though, so I'm probably not the best judge.

When people say "I want to dress in a classic style, but with a twist" what I really hear is "I love wearing classic styles, but am scared that I will be mistaken for that dowdy lady who has worn the same pastel skirt suit since the 80s". It's not that they really want a twist, they just want to make sure people know this is a style they've chosen because they love it, not something they accepted through lack of imagination.

I don't have a problem with classic style, but I come from a city where casual is the norm, frumpy people wear floppy knits and sweats, and stylish people are either arty or heading off to the beach. So the only people I've seen that I'd describe as having a classic style also look pretty damn sharp and stylish to my eyes. It stands out in a sea of denim.

I've seen plenty of boring office suits, but I don't think we're including that as a true classic style, are we? It seems more like a compulsory work uniform than a real choice of style.

Maybe I live in a very conservative environment, but i never perceived any bias againstg classic, on the contrary! "Trendy" is much more likely to be looked down upon. Classic means "good taste", trendy is waaaay too difficult for most people. With classic you are on the safe side.
My own opinion is that not everybody can wear classic style! Take Jil Sander designs, for example. Looks fantastic on very pretty, outstanding personalities, but really not on the people next door.

Such an interesting topic. I'm still not sure what classic style is and would love a tutorial as to how it looks when well done.
To answer your question, I don't look down on any particular style if it's done with enough modesty and grooming and is true to a person's personality. Stringy's assessment is right on to what I see.

I guess I'm not clear on what "classic" style means because I would not have called Taylor's style classic. I would call it funky. I do see some element of classic but she does seem to add that bit of funk or arty to it. Same with Kyle.

Here on the forum I would call Sarah's style classic. I know there are other's but she is the first to come to mind. Oh, and Marianna.. she is what I would call classic as well.

Personally I love the classic style and would like to lean more that way but find myself worried about looking dumpy and old. I think this way of thinking is enforce in every magazine you pick up. The covers scream update your look. The articles are geared to looking younger. The new 50 is supposedly 40. In all the hype I think the true meaning of classic timeless looks has gotten lost.

I used to look down on classic (and I was definitely 100% classic back then) because it always felt less fashionable than the other style categories.
But I'm growing to love it more and more, and while I love to experiment with edgy now and again, I definitely consider my clothing style to be mainly classic still.

Classic can also look young, when worn by a more mature woman. I saw a woman in her 60s, wearing jeans tucked into a classic flat boot. I don't recall what her top was, but she was wearing a scarf with it. That was it. But she had stunning silver hair cut in a sweet, sassy cut. I thought she looked classic, age-appropriate and young all at the same time!

Wow! Amazing thoughts! I don't have time to chime in properly right now but will so later.

Taylor, thanks for the stream of KILLER outfits on fab you! I think we can all agree that you are fashionable, trendy and even edgy :0)

Fabulous classic dressers on this forum make me think of April, Michelle and Debora. Forum members who have strong classic elements to their style are Marianna, Debbiek and Sarah. Even Taylor, Shiny and Kyle at times. And myself at times too. (Look at what I wore to the day part of the Vancouver wedding for example).

I really like the look of the classic style but I think to do classic justice the fabrication and tailoring need to be impeccable. Having an edgy look can be done with lower priced pieces and still look good.

Oh, what an interesting discussion. I always loved classic style, but as others mentioned, it requires a lot more polish than I can sustain. Perhaps it will change as I get older. Sometimes I do put in more effort and deliberately go for a classic look, for formal occasions, interviews, or any event with my dad