For the longest time (pre-baby belly) I wore my pants low on my hips, when everything was high-waisted. For me it was a total comfort issue - I don't like anything digging into my waist. I was told many times that I dressed like a boy skateboarder. Then low rise became all the rage, and suddenly I was in style. Ironically, now I wear higher waisted styles because they girdle my not-so-skinny self better...

So buy and wear what you love and look your best in, be it trendy or not - that's what style is to me. And you have it in spades, GP!

This is a really, really good thread. Many excellent viewpoints.

My two cents: I wouldn't get hung up on being able to wear clothes for a long time, but if you have to put a number on it....maybe five years? Perhaps longer for expensive shoes. Ten years is a long damn time. Think about how much life happens in ten years. You might go from college to grownup job, from no kids to kids, from one career to a totally different one. You might move to a place with a different climate. You might move from a big city to a small town. You will age. Clothes that look perfectly cute on a 30-year-old woman might look silly on a 40-year-old. Your body will likely change, especially if you go through one or more pregnancies -- but it'll probably change even if you don't! And there will always be new clothes that you'll want to buy, as fashion moves forward. There are just so many things that can change that it seems unrealistic to me to try to hang on to clothing for more than about five years. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the goal I have for myself these days is to wear the crap out of my clothes, knowing that they will likely be worn out/out of style in five years or less.

Great question, and great answers! This has been a very insightful discussion. I wanted also to add this thought: Separate from "what's current" it does help to have an understanding of fashion from previous decades, such as dominant silhouettes, fabrics, etc. Not so that we can repeat, but so we can see threads of continuity across time. These "classic" items still change, even if just in small ways, over time and they most often do need to be updated to keep looking current; I think this can be especially true when we want to use those items to anchor current trendy items.

This is very classic

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/.....ctionsize=

However it would have looked different in the different decades. Lapel width change, shoulder pad grow and shrink. Even the stance shifts.

Or this from the 80's

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-80.....4cf4e91923
See this from the 70's

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-70.....4cf5121ba9

I agree 100% with Aida's statement "These "classic" items still change, even if just in small ways, over time and they most often do need to be updated to keep looking current".

And even trendy items - I see it often said now that you can thrift trends (like the current platform and wideleg trend for instance, by finding them secondhand from an earlier cycle of the trend). I disagree SOOO strongly. Even though trends come around again, there are differences in details or even just fabrications. You will not truly look on-trend wearing these. Keeping things for when they "come back into fashion" fails for this reason.

OTOH that doesn't mean I wouldn't wear a 70s shoe, or a pant circa 2000. I would; just not with the goal (or illusion) of being "fashionable". Like, if you're wearing the classic item that happens to be from 1985, know that it is from 1985 and don't pretend to yourself that it's anything else. Go into what you're wearing with consciousness. As long as your goals are clear and you understand the parameters and effects, and it still pleases you, you can wear anything.

I'm not 100% sure I agree with that analysis. Certainly the new versions of, say, oversized cobalt tops, that we see on the runway are different from what we see on the used-clothing market. But I would argue that "fashionable" no longer means "dressed head to toe in fresh-off-the-runway items." Look at all the bloggers who wear a combination of new items and vintage finds. B. Jones, anyone?

Or maybe it's just the "fashionable" vs. "stylish" dichotomy. Maybe "fashionable" does mean "brand spanking new" from head to toe, but if that's what it means, I'm not very interested in that. I'd rather be stylish in my vintage 70s orange blouse and my 60s polka-dot dress. And if you can't tell they're vintage garments, odds are I'm gonna tell you within the first 10 minutes of running into you! LOL

MaryK I think we actually agree even if it sounds like we don't

Wearing or mixing in vintage finds successfully, to me is not about trying to "get away with it" as a substitute for something "on-trend". It's about celebrating it for what it is.

My point was that I sometimes hear people saying they keep something for when it "comes back" into fashion, or thrifting stuff to sub for something that's too expensive new.

I personally am turned off by the feeling that I'm following trends (even though I sometimes do it). I too would wear the orange 70s blouse - but not because the magazines are saying orange blouses are "in" and my seventies blouse seems to suffice; rather, because of the intrinsic value the blouse has to me independent of the In/Out lists. (In fact my contrariness means that if orange blouses are in it'll put a dampener on my enjoyment of the one I've got! ^_^)