Taylor, your looks are FANTASTIC!! It´s unbelievable how much they are to my taste! I´d wear every single outfit in a heartbeat. I love how you integrate heels and accessories! You totally ROCK!!

I consider my style to be more eclectic. However, I love elements of classic style: LBD; pearls; Chanel classic flap bag, jackets, and scarves; Hermes Birkin bag and scarves; and LV monogram Speedy bag come to mind. Women like Audrey, Jackie, and Coco personify classic style for me.

The problem with "classic" is that fashion is a moving target, and many folks don't realize this. We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that we can buy a closet full of classic clothing, and we're set for life. And I think that a lot of people buy into this concept/lie. They think, "Oh, I'll keep this forever...it will never go out of style." Hemlines, fabrications, and cuts change. Even Audrey's classic outfit in BAT would require tailoring and updated accessories (including her hairdo *winking at Taylor*) in order to make it current/relevant. Miss Hepburn would select a completely different LBD if she were to scour a stylist's rack today. The specific dress she wore doesn't even exist in the fashion world today. Maybe the Smithsonian? So, while the LBD, in general, may be a classic fashion element, we still have to heed the incarnations/variations of it that can make or break our look based on the times we live in.

I think that we have to distinguish classic style ELEMENTS (individual pieces) from classic STYLE (overall look). Also, we have to humbly embrace fashion and be willing to part with our hard-earned money, in order to look our absolute best. *sigh*

I've been thinking about this some more and I think the reason you see those types of comments on here (referring to Angie's original post) is that the classic style can really only be pulled-off by those to whom it comes naturally, it can't really be learned. It's just as much about the personality and they *way* they wear the clothes as it is about the clothes themselves. However, anyone can add some edge fairly easily (although, there's certainly something to be said for the attitude there, too, but it can be "played with" a little more. Just about anybody can slap on a moto jacket and look a little edgy, but not everyone can put on an LBD and pearls and look classic, ya know?

Dangggg, Taylor -- if those great looks you are sporting are "classic" then I have to move myself firmly into "dowdy!"

Though I do see that a lot of your shapes are streamlined and a lot of your colors are traditional neutrals. Personally I think you may have gone beyond classic-with-a-twist to "classic: shaken not stirred."

Anyway: as long as there's enough separation from Traditional US [aka "preppy"] style, I will put myself in the classic camp. Especially as two of the US' most frequently named "classic style icons" were primarily dressed by Europeans...gives me leeway to escape the Lilly Pulitzer pants and brass buttons!

While my parents and I both had some outsider-looking-in experience with Trad/Classic dressers, my background and bank account have never led me to think I'd end up skewing heavily classic. And god knows my personality didn't!

But yet here I am, using my budget to be well-camouflaged in (a perhaps smaller amount of) lamb's clothing that tends to either be very simple in shape or have a whiff of past silhouettes.

At 41, I tend to cherry pick trends or end up accidentally stumbling into them when they overlap with long-term likes. [Draping!] That's for clothes, though... I like "fun," usually cheap accessories that many a Trad/Classic dresser would NEVER EVER wear/carry, snort.

@Angie - I absolutely wish I had gone up to this woman and let her know what an impression she had made on me - but this had to have been...10-15 years ago - I simply didn't have the nerve!

@Taylor - *Jaw dropping* style. Just amazing. Thank you so much for sharing those photos...such inspiration!!!

Another classic here! I've been following this thread with interest, and this is the first opportunity that I've had to sit down and comment. Such great responses! I've always loved classic style, but find that one of my biggest concerns is how to stay modern and current. Thank goodness for YLF! I've found that this has been the best way for me to stay up- to -date with fashion, and feel certain that I would be forever lost in frumpiness if it were not for Angie and the wonderful ladies on the forum.

Angie, this has turned into a really interesting thread!! And the ladies have all brought up some interesting points. lwc states that even Audrey H. would have to update her classic look, SOOO true !!

Thanks ladies for the nice comments re: my style. Even though I have classic elements in my style, and sometimes , when the situation calls for ALL classic, I think Angie touched on something that was eyeopening for me re: me being more trendy than I think I am...She has made me think......perhaps too trendy for my age. I may have to re-evaluate some of my choices.

Debora and April are always beatifully classic in their style, where as I am not. I work in a salon and in fashion, so I am rather immersed in trends daily....I think I must proceed with caution:)

More excellent thoughts!

No worries, MPJ. You'll compliment the next person who wows you. It's never too late to start doing that

Leslie, I like your thinking. I do think that the distinction between classic elements and classic style are clear - that's why most people opt for a modern classic look "with a twist". They like the elements but are fearful of looking boring and dowdy. The so called "twist" prevents the so called frump factor.

Dusty, I really like your thinking too. Classic style needs to suit a person in order to not look dowdy - meaning that it's not that easy to pop on a sheath with pearls and look fab. However, I also don't think it's easier to look edgy and arty either. That I have learnt through dressing women for years and years. Having an edgy style has to suit who you are inside just as much.

My dear, Taylor. You can safely assume that you do not need to change anything about your KILLER style. That has been confirmed several times over and over again! Enjoy your creative and trendy space. You were *meant* to dress the way you do. It's effortless, edgy and equally sophisticated. The perfect combination for YOU. Trust me :0)

Taylor, I don't think you need to do any evaluation at all. Sandy and Jean also have trendy elements to their style and they look fabulous. I don't think trends are age specific. If you were out of line, Angie would have told you by now.

I think it's a bit ridiculous to expect anyone to be all classic, all the time...like if they don't stick to it 100%, they're breaking the rules or shying away from it. I can't imagine every item in my wardrobe or every hairstyle I try being trendy just to match my trendy persona. Who is 100% bohemian, 100% trendy, 100% romantic...? We are not one dimensional people, so why would we expect our style to be one dimensional, and why is this discussion only related to classic dressing? Of course most people want to be classic with a twist. They don't want to be some cookie cutter posterchild for classic dressing. They want to integrate their own personality and aesthetic. I fail to see how this is any different from any other kind of style. It gives the impression that "pure" classic dressing does not allow for personal preferences or creativity, which isn't true.

Maya, no one is expecting anyone to stick to one style persona. You are being all literal again :0). Believe it or not, but some people don't want to break out of their pukka classic style at all. I have a few clients like that. Also, remember that style personas lay on a continuum. They are mixtures and degrees of every persona.

If anyone want to be 100% classic all the time by their own free will, that's fine. It's a valid choice. I'm just saying that wanting to be classic with a twist is a valid choice too, and not just the result of looking down on or being afraid of classic. I'm just saying I can see why most people would not want to be 100% classic the same way I can see why they would not want to be 100% anything. It has nothing to do with looking down on it.

Late to the thread -- really interesting reading! I apologize in advance if I repeat what others have stated here.

I don't look down on classic style; I just don't think it fits my style. I admire the ladies here who look classy, polished, and stylish.

The way we dress has a lot to do with our environment and situation in life. I think the classic style (and other styles) doesn't work when there's some sort of cognitive dissonance going on--the person is not comfortable in that style, it doesn't fit the situation, etc.

Sure it's a valid choice, Maya. All stylish dressing preferences are valid choices. No one is questioning the validity. We are investigating a possible reason as to *why* this particular choice is being made. That's one of the reasons we are exploring the perceptions of classic style on this thread.

Thanks, Angie (and Maya) A brief bit of gramma hysteria!!!
Such a fine line between trendy and ridiculous at this age, don't want to cross that line....ever!!!

Very interesting discussion, especially since the connotations of the word classic seem to vary so much from person to person.

When I think of classic style, I think of silhouettes and shapes that are timeless. It's the bias cut dresses of the 30s, the elegant gowns of the 40s, the cheeky sundresses of the 50s-- all those clothes that still look good half a century later. To me, the trendy styles are the ones that sometimes make me cringe when I look at pictures of my style choices in my earlier years. Did I really think that 60s red and white gingham checked pant suit was stylish? Did we really wear those 80s Dynasty suits with the huge shoulder pads and think we looked good?

The pictures that Angie posted of her mother are, to my mind, examples of this kind of classic style. The outfits look as stylish today as they were when the pictures were taken.

Gaylene, you just brought the word "retro" into the thought process. Are retro styles classic? That's another interesting debate. Retro styles are classic in the 00's - today. They are like a subset of both classic and funky style. But were retro pieces of the 50's and 60's classic in the 70's and 80's? Perhaps they were dated? Food for thought.

Taylor, don't you worry that pretty little gramma head about anything :0)

I think classic style done well is so beautiful to look at. I like to see a splash of individuality in any style, something that speaks about the unique person wearing it and invites me to wonder who she is and how she sees things; a slight insight to her personality.

When I think "I need to funk up this outfit" it doesn't mean I need to make it funky and trendy. I think it means I need to accessorize it somehow to make it speak the way I want it to speak, to pull it together.

I think Dusty has hit the nail on the head - if you're not feeling it on the inside, then you'll look uncomfortable on the outside. If you want to dress classic, you've got to love it; if you want to go boho or tough or embrace the latest silly trend, etc, etc, you've got to be enthusiastic about it.

I don't look down on the strict classic style at all. I adore it. When I see it done (done well of course, if it's not done well it's not classic IMHO) I always admire and enjoy it. I love all kinds of different styles. Just because I wouldn't wear it doesn't mean it's not fab on someone else. Moving to a strict classic style for me would make feel like an impostor in my own life. And that wouldn't definitely not be fab at all.

I guess the wording of the subject put me in defensive mode, being a non-classic dresser myself. People who don't embrace pure classic style don't "look down on it." That makes us sound snobby and elitist! It just isn't right for us, for many various reasons that have all been discussed. You could have this discussion about any fashion persona. Do you look down on bohemian style? Do you look down on vintage style? And again, I would expect the results to be mostly "not for me, but fine for others."

Personally I see a lot more adversity towards bohemian and trendy fashion personas in my day to day life. "I don't want to be too trendy" or some variation thereof is something I hear far more than "I don't want to be too classic." When Angie blogged about bohemian style, the results were largely negative (clearly those people haven't seen Jean and Cathy). If anything, I would consider classic to be the most respected and admired of all styles, so I guess I am surprised to see that it was chosen for this topic.

The word "retro" when applied to style makes me pause. If it applies to a style that tries to emulate the look of previous decades, then, no, that's not classic to me. IMO, classic refer more to the cut and shape of a garment that makes it wearable and timely regardless of the decade in which it was designed or made popular. For example, Audrey Hepburn's white shirt, capri pants, and ballet flats can look completely modern when seen on the street today. Angie, I think, you demonstrated this point very well when you showed us how to wear a full skirt as a modern, special occasion outfit.

I think certain cuts and shapes can transcend decades; these are the elements of classic style. Other cuts, shapes, and looks are very much "of the moment". These "of the moment" items are elements of a trendy style. That horrible checked pantsuit with its flared legs garnered lots of compliments when I wore it in the late 60s, but makes me double over laughing when I see a picture of it today. Alternatively, when I see a picture of a simple, sleeveless trapeze shift that I also wore in that same time period, I can see it being worn today looking completely fresh and modern.

Maybe the test of a classic look is when a picture of what you wore today won't make you cringe or double up laughing 10 years from now?

...and now I'm having an identity crisis! I've thought I was all classic with a tiny bit of edge? Like, one bag?
I realize everyone doesn't stay 100% true to their style persona, but isn't it important to have a style as a guide?

Gaylene, that's an interesting perspective. Lots of discussion there!

Maya, I'm not sure if classic style is the most admired style. I wouldn't put my head on a block for that one. Maybe? I think that boho style is popular all over the world. It just so happened that those YLF readers were not enamoured so it gave that impression. As far as trendy goes - well, I'll be sticking up for that one. I have a hard time with people looking down on others who sport a trend and are having fun with fashion in stylish and age appropriate ways. After all, that's what fashion is there for.

Sarah, no more crisis! You can take one persona as a guide, OR, you can be a mixture of personas. It's all equally fab.

Style is so subjective, I have very strong preferences to vintage, romantic pieces and whilst I can appreciate other style personas they will never make my heart race. I may make a statement about an item being too classic or tipping my look into boho territory (in fact I did put the latter on the cork shoe blog) but I'm not being derogatory, that style is just not my aesthetic. I guess when people mention adding edge to there classic style they are really looking to add some individuality, nobody is 100% one style persona in fact you may look slightly like a caricature if you were.

With regards to the forum, this blog is about fashion for style lovers, we all want to look current even if we have an aversion (which I don't) to the words trendy or classic. We are all constantly evolving our style, I maybe one day will be a classic dresser or even very bohemian. I don't even pretend to know.

When watching style videos and advice, the most heavily represented style I see is the flop proof, sophisticated modern classic style. The most common style persona I see on YLF profiles is "modern classic" and we have quite an international and diverse group of women here, right? There is sooo much advice out there warning against the evils of being trendy and advising women to go for "timeless," universally flattering silhouettes. Honestly, this is false comfort. Nothing is ever timeless and nothing is ever universally flattering. But the point is that I KNOW this is true because as I said, I fell victim to all of this silly advice! As someone who had to search for advice, this is what I came across the most both in the media and within my own immediate circle. But if you'll notice, out of all the resources I found, the one I stuck to is YLF. For four years!

Advice for those who are into trendier styles exist too, but mostly for people who are actively passionate about fashion as creative expression and industry. Kate Moss types. The images are sometimes OTT and the clothing itself is obscenely expensive and the way in which it is presented is kind of alienating.

The majority of advice I see discourages women from experimenting with trends because they are allegedly only for thin people and models and the rest of us are destined to look like fat poseurs, trying too hard, etc.

The reason I stuck with YLF is because it offered some happy medium in between. Looks that are flattering, trendy, AND practical. Most fashion advice only covers one or two of the above max.

What people read in these advice columns, reality shows, and books has a lot of weight and influence. More than we think. It comes to us secondhand from our friends and mothers and sisters as well.

I'm so late to this thread and it has been so interesting to read. Taylor, wow, incredible photos. I want the shoes in this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/4.....269449570/

I think Leslie made a really good point about classic pieces having to evolve in style with the times. The classic white shirt or LBD has certainly changed in style throughout the decades, yet it is always a "classic" staple.

I truly admire classic style, partially because I feel it is hard for me to pull off. I get dirty, clothes get wrinkled, etc. For me it is just harder to keep the crispness that I think is required to pull it off. Maybe that idea of classic, though, is antiquated.

Anyway, how though-provoking!

Great discussion. A few comments have made the distinction between "traditional" and "classic" which is helpful - the two aren't synonymous.

To me, "classic" means things that don't throw you into fits of embarrassment when you see pictures of yourself a decade or two later.

Am I the only one who doesn't care about being embarrassed by my clothes in 20 years? I'm sure I'll be embarrassed no matter what I wear. I bet a lot of those people who look back on the first suit they got at age 25 in 1982 probably cringe at the huge shoulders, boxy silhouette, and frumpy skirt. But at the time I bet they thought it was a classic.

Anyway, I actually look forward to looking back and having a few laughs. Life is too short to fret over what I'll think of my past self in the future...

to Maya's comment... even "classic" styles need to be updated with the decade don't they? (maybe that has already been stated here) Yes, the boxy suit might have been a classic thing to wear, but the cut is now dated.....

Yes, I have said that many times in this discussion. That's why I think it's pointless to assume you won't be embarrassed just because you think you're wearing something classic and timeless. Sure you will!