Suz: Thank you. It is very important for me to understand the "Why" behind my style choices. I would say that is where I am in my style journey. And the "Why" I like unidentifiable clothes...and many other "Why's" Again, big help. Thank you again. I want to make some changes but need to understand where I am and "Why" I am right now.

Ok, all my previous replies were typed on my phone. FYI, I tend to be VERY blunt.
I looked at your profile, finally. Vince, Alexander Wang are NOT timeless. They're very popular right now, especially Alexander Wang, I mean think about it, his whole esthetic is sport chic, can't get more trendier than that. I have some of his earlier pieces, and yes they were truly more different. And Vince has retreaded their designs for at least the last five years, if not longer. So that could possibly last a decade currently. Comme de Garcons, his Play line is trending hugely right now, especially the striped shirt with the heart logo. But oh wait you don't want branding.
You say you work at home now, you'll find plenty of similar company here. I however do not fall into that category.

annagybe: Blunt is good. And what you are seeing in my profile is that I am a true novice. I have very limited knowledge of these designers so perhaps my lens is just from very few references.

I see Vince as having a simplicity but yes, modern. And perhaps the subtly I am looking for is indeed some mix of modern with the timeless. That gives unidentifiable something with a bit more flair. But I would argue still minimal? This is your expertise, definitely not mine.

Alexander Wang - again, perhaps some modernity is what is helping to define my edge. I didn't realize his whole esthetic is sport chic, can't get more trendier than that. Yikes, sporty chic is not at all what appeals to me. I liked a moto that seemed incredibly classic in its styling and that is why I listed Wang. Again, love getting schooled on all of this. Maybe I should leave these areas blank on my profile until I get an education.

"Vince has retreaded their designs for at least the last five years, if not longer." Please explain? Repeated designs? More schooling please.

Comme de Garcons: I added this because this is the far edge (at least in my book). I wouldn't feel comfortable in what I saw when I looked at a history of this designer but it did give me insight into an artistic quality that I might want to push in my own minimal way.

I hope this is more clear. Oh, it is fun to be a novice, seriously. I really love to learn and it is fun to realize just how crazy off base I can be. Makes me laugh at myself. I just love it!

What an interesting question (and how happy I am that I can get on YLF on my computer now and use my keyboard, because I'm going to *E*xpound; I love to *E*xpound :D).

I think it's interesting because, to me, clothes are always always telling. But I was a shop girl, and maybe shop girls don't count - or shouldn't.

With regard to myself, every few year I get an attack of ghetto fab and just revel in logos. The giant Polo logo that Ralph Lauren introduced was just hilarious to me. It did have a certain wit IMO and thus that je ne sais quoi.

I am also a traditionalist, so I wear my Native Costume quite a lot, which is pretty identifiable. (I suppose I should mention here that I'm from Hippy Dippy Land and am as WASPy as you can be without being W, A, S, or P, but what's a person to do?)

Then again, I do like a certain plainness even while at the same time I'm ok with being notable. I want to make the world turn, and flash doesn't lend itself to that, so I don't like to be too sharp and stop traffic.

Do you think maybe it's this kind of plainness that you really mean by unidentifiable? Did you know it's against the bankers' dress code to wear Rolex?

I am very much in line with everything Suz said. Perhaps it's the ash blond hair and light eyes/low contrast thing that really makes me relate to all of this. I would say my style is a mix of Modern Classic and Euro Chic. I am slightly more prone towards color and I make good use of statement pieces, especially in the form of earrings, necklaces or scarves. Oh, and shoes/boots/bags! Like you I am a fan of Vince, but I also have this tendency to purchase the majority of my clothing from one place. My look then becomes highly reflective of that brand, even without logo's. The main reason for this problem has been fit, which limits the number of brands and shops with which I have success.

I find I am not only limited by my coloring, but by my size and shape. I am relatively tall, but often fall between sizes so that the regular sizes are too short and the tall sizes too large (too wide and long).

This discussion made me think of Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy's innate style. If you look at Pinterest boards devoted to her, you can really see this: neutral, timeless, minimalist, lack of obvious branding, often androgynous. Many of the street style photos look like she could be walking the streets today. Even her high school photos.

She worked in the fashion industry, but nothing about her personal style screamed or even whispered "fashionista."

i know i'm late to this conversation but i wanted to add my 2 cents.
re: timeless. so, i still own my favorite levi's from high school...now assuming that they still fit, would i wear them today? No. now jeans are timeless right? of course they are, but that doesn't mean that you can wear the same jeans forever, the cut, color etc changes over time. timeless requires updates and refreshes otherwise it look like a time capsule.
re: unidentifiable clothing. imo, the best outfits are those were you wear the clothes, instead of them wearing you (if that makes sense), so they have to be something that you are comfortable in. so for some, its important to fit in, so the more identifiable the better, for others just the opposite.

Also late, because I've been thinking about this since you asked. I have a friend who won't buy anything that has been in a window display, or that looks strongly like a particular store...like WHBM prints are often identifiable as coming from WHBM. Even if she likes said window item, she won't buy it "because everyone will know where it came from".

I had never thought about it before but since hearing her thoughts I've been wondering too...do I want to wear something that has been in ads and windows? I get it, but at the same time it hits me as silly. Clothes come from stores. Unless you make your own, or shop only boutique, Etsy or international, they come from stores people might recognize. Worrying about that is sort of like Middle Schoolers who don't want to be seen with their parents..."yes I'm only 14, but I drove myself to this party. I'm much too cool to even have parents." Please, we know where you came from!

I'm on the fence about it. I don't want to be a walking ad, I don't want anyone to be able to say "yeah, she has a mostly Ann Taylor wardrobe", but I don't think I care if someone recognizes something I bought and knows where I bought it.

rachylou: Your comment: "like a certain plainness even while at the same time I'm ok with being notable" -- that balance is what I am investigating. And my initial question, WHY do I enjoy minimal dressing?... because it is somewhat unidentifiable (and a bunch of other reasons)? Nice to hear how you come down on this question. And no, I did not know it's against the bankers' dress code to wear Rolex. Interesting. Thanks.

Staysfit: Your comment: "I make good use of statement pieces, especially in the form of earrings, necklaces or scarves. Oh, and shoes/boots/bags!" -- this is definitely resonating with me. This also feels very comfortable for me when trying to add interest.

Claudia: Your comment: "Many of the street style photos look like she could be walking the streets today" -- I'm glad to have a historical reference. I drop the word "timeless" without perhaps doing my homework. Still learning. I don't think my objective is to have timeless but more that this is a by-product (and a nice by-product) of dressing in minimal styling.