As I was combing through the broadsheet hum drum, I came across an interesting/amusing piece in the Times questioning ‘Vintage – RIP?’. Vintage fashion had in Ruby Warrington’s words ‘become a victim of its own success’ with indenti-kit rails of checked shirts, cowboy boots and floral dresses. ‚ÄúIt‚Äôs become so pass√© to say that something‚Äôs vintage. Everybody has been banging on about vintage this and vintage that for so long, it just got really boring.‚Äù says a fashion PR who wanted to remain annonymous. Warrington concludes by saying it’s time to ‘archive the vintage.’
These kinds of declarations of vintage being ‘over’ is only the case because fashion circles put the word vintage on some sort of a pedestal in the first place. If people turned to vintage in the first place for something ‘unique’ or ‘one-off’, then you get the problems. The truth is that no, that romper playsuit that you bought in a vintage store probably isn’t a one-off. That unless you shell out a bit more money on the higher end of vintage, it probably isn’t going to be that special. The thing is there is no need to care though seeing as the romper playsuit will probably be cuter than anything you’d find in stores brand new. If we just look at buying vintage clothes as buying ‘things we like’ as opposed to ‘search for the unique’, there is no need to think of ‘vintage’ as a dirty word.
However, the problem is that it started off with people just wanting to genuinely buy old things and not wanting to buy contemporary clothes. Which somehow then got turned into the search for the holy grail in fashion: ‘Looking unique and standing out.’ Actresses wearing vintage gowns at award ceremonies or the like. So then ‘vintage’ became a term to smugly name-drop. I remember when people and, some still do say ‘It’s vintage’ dripping with so much sticky smugness, it cowered you into never asking where someone got their outfit from. Then there is the issue of price. What one used to buy for pittance is now over-priced and tagged up in Topshop and Urban Outfitters. These are the bad eggs of vintage shopping and is in no way indicative of vintage shopping as a whole.
If the word ‘vintage’ has built up a bit of a bad rep, there are ways and means of avoiding those ‘bad eggs’ of vintage shopping. To shunt it completely and ‘archive’ it I think would be foolish indeed. I guess I never thought buying vintage was ever going to make my outfits more unique, but rather it’s just another way of adding a different dimension. I also happen to have a genuine interest in history and it is a way for me to incorporate that into my style. I feel that shopping for vintage clothes should never have become this ‘superior status’ badge but rather be seen as another way of shopping for clothes. That way, there isn’t the need to question its downfall.
I remember when ‘vintage’ was called ‘second hand’…
I read that article as well. I don’t think it’s the end of vintage. But I do agree that there are people who buy vintage because of the apparently ‘superior status’ – as you so well put it – and for the sake of going: “it’s vintage.”
x
I don’t think vintage is ever going to go away, as long as fashion is borrowing from past decades vintage clothing will never stop (hopefully) I call so much of my clothing vintage though generally that means I’vee nicked from my mums wardrobe or found it in oxfam or its over 4 years old!
Amen!
Hello!
Your blog was related in the MUJER’s
magazine (from Chile).
I love your blog!
You are very nice and cute 🙂
I don’t speak good enough english but i’m trying 🙂
bye!
kisses from Chile!
. Nase
read the article too. couldn’t help but agree with some of the points. it is just confirmed what I suspected, people buying vintage just for the sake of it.(hopefully not the smell of it!)
Well, I guess the people who started buying vintage for the “status” of it will stop buying it, and leave more good stuff for the rest of us. I have no problem with that!
I find that the vintage pieces in my wardrobe are the things that I actually keep over a long period of time. I recently had a clothing swap with some girlfriends, and there was an alarming amount of Urban Outfitters tops in the pile, many of which I totolly remember coveting a year or two before. Now they just looked a little “done”. Meanwhile, I have some beautifully made vintage skirts in my closet that use about 2 UO skirts worth of fabric that I’ve owned for 6 years. That, my dears, is the joy of vintage. It is the opposite of fast fashion. Let’s just enjoy the things we love, no matter where they come from. Right on, Susie!
Well, I guess the people who started buying vintage for the “status” of it will stop buying it, and leave more good stuff for the rest of us. I have no problem with that!
Exactly. While there’s always a certain irritating smugness to the tone of people when they write off something we’ve always loved as a fad that has seen its day, at least it means they and the faddists are backing off and leaving us to it.
I just love the hunt. People have always trawled the second hand shops and they always will. What’s changing words anyway? It still exists
hmm, I see some PR spinning going on in that article. I find it interesting that this coincides with mass retailers having some of their worst years ever in sales. This article screams “buy new buy new!” What is comes down to is to wear what you want, and don’t let some magazine or article dictate what you wear. Most of the stuff you read is spin, and they are being driven by advertisers.
Actually, I really hope this times article is right. As a “trend” I hope vintage shopping does die, so I can go back to getting great deals on second hand clothes that just really work for me.
Vintage shops must have made so much money over the past few years.
I once came across a vintage stall in a market selling a cardigan for ¬£30 (sorry, but for a market where you can buy balls of wool for less than a pound, that is excessive). The man claimed that it was “vintage 1960s” – it just seemed a kind of meaningless statement.
I don’t know really. In some ways I do hope people stop buying it for the sake of it and in others I’m not sure if it will in fact disappear.
that theory is rubbish. there are way too many clothes in existence to not continue to wear them. maybe ‘vintage’ business will shift, but it’s a waste to not enjoy the brillance of past fashions, to be inspired by them, and to reappropiate them to be meaningful today.
A W E S O M E !
http://www.buenosairesindahouse.blogspot.com
I love searching for vintage clothes and mixing them up in a modern way. And no fashion PR is ever gonna tell me what I like or not.
Susie, I completely understand your point of view and agree that it is sort of silly to claim vintage (as a whole) to be “out”/sooo last season.
I also think that this Times writer was just sick of a certain stereotype about vintage. So many shoppers probably perused vintage stores with a certain mentality, searching for items that would stand out in originality but at the same time would give them “street cred” because of their trendiness. That way, “vintage” because about being fashionable and stylish rather than using imagination to incorporate older clothes into creative outfits.
I buy vintage solely because I am poor. I have limited money to spent on clothes, but I believe money does not equal to taste and style, thus I buy vintage to makeup my look. I think the beauty of vintage is that, they are more timeless; and EFFORTLESS as if you have been wearing them forever, not following a trend, it is YOUR style and wit.
In a way I hope that the fad of vintage does ‘die’, because it can let the rest of us get back to appreciating vintage simply because it is beautiful and appeals to us.
The girls that I see going ‘Yeah, it’s vintage Lover’ (meaning from the Lover 2003 collection) or even worse, taking all of the great actual vintage and then wearing it once and then complaining it smells and then… throwing it out! As in the bin! These girls don’t love vintage, it’s simply another trend to them, a status thing.
maybe it’s the end of “identi-kit” vintage loving. that would be fine. but i love vintage and always will. it lets me do that opposite of identi-kit dressing. non-vintage dressing is what more often ends up as identi-kit anyway. i love vintage. i love vintage.
Do people really buy things just because theyre vintage? That’s just silly. If something does not appeal to me, I will never buy it. I think the problem started when clothes was being made new prefabricated to look vintage. It defeated the whole purpose and was just plain stupid. I like to mix contemporary pieces with “vintage” all the time. Just because you thrift doesnt mean you dress vintage. I find contemporary clothing at thrift stores all the time. Marc jacobs, diesel, just the other day a Moschino top. All under $5 american dollars. Much of my vintage clothes doesnt look vintage at all!
I do agree that the catch-phrase “vintage” is passe. However, I do not think that heading over to the local thrift store in order to find inspiration will ever be passe. I love the idea of finding something I love that has not been commodified and marketed to me as the latest trends have been. Discovering a great find at the thrift store is so much more organic, you know?
So what if vintage is out? Let’s just call a spade a spade, say ‘old clothes’, and keep shopping! Bay Garnett was right, though- there’s no point buying into a trend if you don’t genuinely like it. And if the backlash against vintage (I knew it was coming from the time you posted about that sunglasses-dress-bag indentikit thing at- I think- Fashion Week last year) means the hipsters and trend-whores leave our clothes alone, so much the better, I say.
It’s sad that these people say vintage is out, not because I wouldn’t rather all those great clothes for myself, but because there is tons of clothing out there that has been thrown away. Not only is “vintage” (a.k.a. used clothing) a great way to find deals but it reduces the amount of old clothes finding their way to the dump. There’s nothing wrong with altering an old shirt instead of buying a new one! The only problem is because of the popularity of vintage clothes, prices for old clothes can be surprisingly high.
why cant we all just say second hand and be over with it? is it cause people dont like the sound of something being deemed god forbit ‘old’and ‘used’. Vintage is used nearly always to give an item status….i prefer jus to be honest an say its second hand.
why cant we all just say second hand and be over with it? is it cause people dont like the sound of something being deemed god forbid ‘old’and ‘used’. Vintage is used nearly always to give an item status….i prefer jus to be honest an say its second hand.
I too remember when ‘second-hand’ was how it was described. As a student, I spent many hours rummaging around charity shops, jumble sales and car boot sales – I found some great things and some not so great things – but they were always cheap and there wasn’t the risk of seeing 10 other people in the same thing.
I agree with your post, I think people just use that term because one, the listener probably won’t ask more question about where it’s from, two, it’s price and three make the spoken person sounds more stylish.
As the trends come and goes I think vintage will always be there. Even if it’s in the background.
yes the vintage will always be there irrespective of what time it is.
“In a way I hope that the fad of vintage does ‘die’, because it can let the rest of us get back to appreciating vintage simply because it is beautiful and appeals to us.”
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I for one can’t wait for the vintage to be left for the real collectors again, which will also stop the shady trend of new pieces being passed off as vintage on Ebay, too. I don’t see an immediate end to it, simply because of the economy being the way it is, but I do think it has been a huge, long lasting TREND, and we all know what happens with trends. Here today, gone tomorrow.
The only thing I DO see as a positive to vintage being so popular is that it is better for the environment because more people are buying used clothing than ever before instead of, or in addition to going to newly produced materials.