skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Many women I know who are over 50 yo often express the fact that it is difficult to remain stylish when menopause kicks in and body shape changes, usually getting rounder around the waist. The few brands targeting elder women often are old fashion and others such as Prada - yes, Prada dressing women the age of Miuccia Prada - are somewhat more expensive than what most people would like to pay for their everyday's life wardrobe. Even Jaeger is now targeting a younger crowd.
Although little place is made in most markets for people over 49, I gladly noticed that a noticeable place was made on TV for elder women, and especially women who look great for their age without forcing on cosmetic surgeries. One of my favorite is 59 y.o. Candice Bergen who totally does look the part in Boston Legal and whose appearances in Sex And the City really made my day. Her stylists do a fantastic job and I am here trying to recompose a few of the guidelines principles that seem to rule their work:
1) Chunky necklaces: when one grows older, the neck has a tendency to crease and chunky necklaces hide the wrinkles and the few dapples that may come out with age. The chunky necklaces add structure to the area while distracting the eye from small details that might complex women.
2) Crisp Shirt and collars up: it is great to lighten the collar with white crisp shirts and give structure while drifting the looks upward.
3) Simple Cuts: it is sad to say that while we grow older, the features have a tendency to collapse under the weight of years... Lean and slick lines always are better because it balances the overall.
4) Contrasting colors: for both white and black complexions, contrast is a great ally, especially when used in very simple cuts. Women over 50 should dare wearing wide colors accessories such as Orange Scarves, Turquoise Blue necklaces, Ruby skirts as featured above...
5) Simple designs: Straight skirts are nice, even if one has bloated legs since style often is a question of proportion and thus, "short" length dresses are good looking when one has nice knees even when the legs are not skinny.
Some people claim to be interested in fashion and style. Among them Mary-Kate Olsen is a fraud. Writing a piece about her favorite bag for the New York Times she blabbers about one of the most eminent creations of Modern Fashion Design History... Her inability to explain why the 2.55 is her favorite is striking. for someone claiming to study fashion at University, she doesn't seem to be aware that this bag represents more than being a beautiful item.Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/style/tmagazine/25ttimeless.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The 2.55 quilted bag designed by Gabrielle Chanel on February 1955 - hence the name - deserves better than a little "piece" by an overly mediatised Mary Kate Olsen who certainly can afford fashion but - like many rich brats - doesn't quite get why the bag is beyond simply being a bag. Gabrielle Chanel made several breakthrough in women's fashion history, a modern woman who really understood her times. Women had taken a lot of responsibilities during WW1 and WW2 when men were away and had become more emancipated. Values shifted and the more practical view on dressing suited them.
When Coco Chanel instaured black as a color, and not a colour to wear only in mourning, women plebscited it. Bags were usually with short handles for the upper class. Only messenger bags , which were bags for workers, had shoulder straps. Chanel was inspired by its practicality and she feminized it with double chain/ leather shoulder straps so women's hand would be free. It became a huge success, corresponding to a real demand of practicality and aethetics alltogether. Aside from being the first shoulder strap bag, the quilted material was inpsired by her Suede Sofa's pillows and, being truly original, required real craftmanship.
Although now declined in different sizes and with a different clasp, the original 2.55 - described by MK Olsen as her favorite - was perfect in size since it was discreet enough to be worn under the arm but big enough to put the necessary items of a busy modern woman. When Mk Olsen mentions the many sizes of the featured bag she owns, I suppose she refers to the 2005 edition of the quilted bag, revisited by Karl Lagerfeld and with a new turning clasp instead of the CC logo. I don't think she even noticed the difference with her "Designer's Eyes" and her ugly shades.
So, what to expect next from NY Times? A piece about Birkin by Hermes from Victoria Beckham? I hope not, I do not care to know that she can put her oversize shades in it!
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HAUTE COUTURE ARMANI PRIVE DRESS? On Katie Holmes, it hardly looks like the original and the amendments made to it actually disadvantage Katie Holmes. I wonder what happened with Georgio...
I read/ heard that Posh Beckham would style Katie Holmes for the Oscars. I hope this is just a false rumor for whomever styled Katie has absolutely no sense of style - let alone sense of fashion and has absolutely no sense of body management in dressing...
Katie Holmes has a nice figure for being a mom of a 10 months old. However, she hasn't quite gone back to a "Hollywood body" ... This is however totally manageable... That is why I do claim her stylist did a lousy job.
The basic role of a stylist should be to first consider her weaker points and would work on how to emphasize her to her advantages...Here is a perfect example of how to nhance weak points of a body, and that Armani Privé dress precisely makes the falling shoulders, small breasts and not so gracious calves stand out. How odd
Katie Holmes is a brunette with delicate white complexion. It is thus very important she dresses in contrasting colors. The color is not entirely wrong but since she hasn't gone back to her figure, she should emphasize her beautiful face and hair.
Also, she is very tall and gracious. She could wear very minimalistic and structured dresses and should by ALL MEANS AVOID the ruffles. The dress by itseld lacks of structure and looks unfinished.
With such calves, she should try less delicate shoes and more original such as platform sandals and again, in another color...
The hair is also very old fashion and not very stylish. It actually comes quite flat and the details in the bun are quite tacky.
Again, if I were Katie Holmes stylist, I would have chosen another dress from the same collection. For instance the gown with transparent top suiting perfectly small boobs areas and conveniently hiding calves although showing a bit of leg! The little hat would add structure to the head and even drive the look towards her beautiful face and would even balance the large ears.
Styling someone is not very complicated when one can access to such splendours as Haute Couture Gown. I do believe it is a shame to make a Armani Privé look like it comes from Wal MArt... Frankly, what is it? Made to appeal to desperate housewives?
I was talking earlier about Gucci and, since today marked the last day of Fashion week in Milan, I realised I should say a few word about my opinion of Gucci style.
When Frida Giannini was appointed Creative director, I was anxious to see what she would come up with. I was very disappointed and although it doesn't really matter that I personally didn't like the new Gucci style, I believe it objectively was too funky/ slutty and I didn't really appreciated the sternness of these cuts (I still shiver when I think of THAT "Abba-ish" gold suit! ).
However, I do believe that even if attractive to a young crowd, it was pretty obvious that Gucci had lost its lush, its glamour and edgy chicness. My personal feeling is that Gucci somehow do no longer belong to the exclusive club of the " Grands de la Mode " such as Chanel, Balenciaga, Dior, Hermes, Yves St Laurent, Valentino, Dolce & Gabbana etc which aim is to drive Fashion to its highest level.
After an almost psychedelic period, Gucci comes back to black and Grey but there is nothing great about it, instead, it is sad and boring. The dresses are messy and the minimalistic items are not interesting enough to stand out. There is a kind of "Hawai Pearl Harbour Bar songstress wearing dresses with Japanese inspired fabric crosses German lady in Vienna with black opaque wool and low quality tights" inspiration which is not very identifiable and which is not outstanding enough to be remarkable. It is another Gucci collection I don't look up to...
Gucci used to lead the fashion scene in the 2000s but it seems it is now far behind in terms of trends. If one looks at the Fall 2007 collections, one realises how little exalting the Gucci clothes are and howinspired by others, it actually is. No one could deny the last year's Yves St Laurent Rive Gauche influence in its main lines and cuts and accessory belts ( as featured on the left, with a model by YSL Fall 2006 and right Gucci Fall 2007), the Balenciaga inspiration in some of the cuts and especially wedge footwear. The Bermuda shorts and cropped trousers were all the rage last year even in retail... There is no doubt about it Gucci is two seasons later than everybody else.
This probably won't harm them the slightest and only the sales are relevant: the Olsen twins featured the Balenciaga boots so much that it only has come to the conscience of the public that these shoes are covetable... They will now buy the Gucci's. After all, when other move on to next level, it is sometimes wise to walk into their steps and pick up the left overs.
Having been a huge fan of wedges for years , I will probably get the Gucci's. But Gucci indeniably lost it identifiable identity with Tom Ford. Hence the very wide variations of Frida's collections. Some people may see great talent - and rightfully so- but a Fashion houses either need a conducting thread which remains in houses such as Lanvin, YSL, Balenciaga, Hermes or a very strong designer such as John Galliano to perpetuate the lines. I am no specialist, as I said, I sometimes don't understand Fashion but it my own conviction that Frida needs to find a style identity...
So if Gucci is in a Stylish Slump, we sooner or later will find out in their future financial reports and you will either hear from me, or not because I was wrong....
Flipping through my old magazines, I came across this February 2006 edition of Vogue UK, featuring this cashmere polo shirt by Gucci as the IT-Product selected by the Vogue UK editors.
Frida Giannini, whose main task apparently is to lead the brand further away from the Porno-Chic era instaured by Tom Ford - which largely contributed to revive the dying brand - invests on "casual sport" and Gucci classics of the 60s revival. She thus successfully brings her mission to fruition: her collections couldn't be further from Mr Ford's style.
If Fashion brands need to change their image, Gucci's style is turning into a mockery of itself in an attempt of revisiting its "classics". It becomes an issue when it looks like they copy Fred Perry ( Picture right, Cotton Polo Shirt, 20$) and become a new competitor of brands such as Hilfiger, Polo by Ralph Lauren or the inventor of the Polo Shirt, Lacote.
Gucci initially was known for its refined and beautifully crafted leather goods for a very sophisticated clientele. In the 60s, its "status symbols" products lead to a world-wide recognition of the brand. The mocassins with the snaffle bit , the GG logo and the bamboo handled bags are now part of our cultural history.
When the brand was in serious difficulties, Tom Ford's cutting edge style and Domenico De Sole strategies lead the brand to the top of the fashion name heap - but could it be that Tom's style didn' t permit the company to maintain its rentability? Is this why the company opted for a "melancholy positioning" to consolidate its profits? Apparently, the strategy is working since the Group confirmed great profits, an increase in turn over, Gucci ahead, and a rise in its gross revenues.
But isn't the role of luxury fashion houses to bring clothing to a higher level than, let's say a Polo Shirt, would it be in cashmere? Or even a poor copy of the Wrap dress by Diane von Furstenberg as featured in the 2005 ad campaign?
In the 2000s, I thought Gucci was brought back to a luxury status. The very same that made the name of the brand among an elitist society. In 2000, even though I could not afford their clothes I dreamed of the day when I could buy items from similarly beautiful future collections. The sleekness of the coats, the wonderful leathers, the exquisite materials, the excruciatingly beautiful lines made me drool over the magazines. I wanted to earn money to be able to afford the clothes and accessories. I went to the Gucci stores only to smell luxury and would pay an insane sum to drink an espresso at the Milan store where the chocolate was emblazoned with a G for Gucci! I didn't mind that it was sooo expensive because it was extremely beautiful and I did believe it justified the price.
Looking at today's Balenciaga, Lanvin and Prada collections, I realise what a precursor Tom Ford was. The minimalism of the lines, the importance of the cut, the contrasting subtle play on colors were so right on back then that the collections made by Tom Ford in 2000 are still very actual. Look at the long gloves that were the height of 2006 collections!
In comparison, the stripe Polo shirt, even being in Cashmere, evoques sporty week-ends at the rugby field rather than an evening at the Plaza Athenee Bar in Paris. And this is where I do not get Gucci. £365 ( 715 $) for a polo shirt? Really? I don't think so! and what about the rest of the designs, of the past years. This is when hommage is a cheating curve!
Below, the 2006 ad. The loafers, the jackets, the pantalon cigarette - everything screams 60s Gucci classics. Where is the creativity? Where is the cutting edge product? Could they use anymore flora Floral Pattern... What a shame. By going casual, Gucci dismissed the essence of luxury and high fashion.
Fashion houses should remember that Luxury prices have to be justified. Believing that the name makes it all is a insult of the now, well informed customer as I am. I know that the production costs of such a cashmere 1 ply since light, should be at most around $40piece when producing less than 100 pieces which is unlikely since the house has store worldwide. In other words, selling it at 700USD implies that most Gucci customers blatantly pay for the marketing. When brands such as gucci make me pay for a stupid ad such as beside: two idiotic women who look like men ( the large shoulders, beurk!) with a heavyset silhouette,I just don't want to spend a penny at their store...
Am I the only one?
I love fur! I do not know anything more luxurious than fur and to the risk of getting PETA activists shouting at me under my window, I do encourage stylish women to wearing it. It gives great structure to an outfit and, moreover, it is actually extremely beautiful, when used advisedly and with great taste...
Again, I DO love fur but when I see people with the kind of coat Ashley Olsen is wearing on these pictures, I suddenly feel for the poor chinchillas or whatever the animals that were sacrificed to create THAT coat!
First of all, the fur is not brought to its best in this collage/ assemblage. It almost looks like faux-fur. Second, the 3/4 sleeve length gives a ridiculous aspect to it, especially since she doesn't wear long calf leather gloves ( But as my colleague Rick Rockwill ) puts it, we should not expect celebrities to understand style or fashion) and the collar is just inexistant which renders the whole look absolutely dull!
I know she meant to create a "casual yet luxurious" look but fails totally... One should really be more responsible when one wears fur: it should at least be awesomely stunning.
Strangely, even with the Fendi Tote and the Balenciage Boots, she decidedly looks like an old bag lady whose fur coat was found in a Charity shop bin.
One of the great advantages of style agains fashion is that fashion fades. Style prevails.
Through the ages, various body shapes were apprized: in medieval times, rounded stomach and small breasts were appreciated while large rears were considered the height of rules of beauty - with the connotation of rich and lazy ( as opposed to working class).
Beauty rules have evolved and today, many types of women are fancied. In Hollywood, , huge breasts are the must haves, whereas in fashion world, androgyn - verily childlike - types are the flavor of the moment.
In such versatile times, it is safer to remain faithful to one's style and personality, hence keeping the chances of attracting the male/ female companion that will truly love who you are. Don't cheat. If your nature is to be curvy, don't try to get flat, put your features forward.
There are famous girls who, without being skinny do manage to get - sometimes and often with the help of their stylist - stylishly dressed. Beyonce, as shown on the picture beside, is one of them. I also often like Queen Latifah in movies, even if the costume designer is the one who should get most of the credit. Nevertheless, Queen Latifah always pull off the looks so nicely and comfidently that she becomes more beautiful than most skinnies.
I wish people were more working on the style according to their body features rather than working their body to get in the Fashion clothing,,, This is so much edgier...
About the recent debate on skinny models, Karl Lagerfeld has been reported saying on WWD: "The idea of ‘regulation' is revolting [...]. Models are about looks, not about weight. For me, it's not even an issue; it's part of this new politically correct fascism."
As much as I agree with Karl Lagerfeld, I cannot help but commenting on the irony of the situation.
Mr Lagerfeld has (in)famously claimed to uniquely design for slender figures. In other words, plump fashionistas s'abstenir! God forbid that curvacious girls access to the heights of their clothing designs: fashion is something to be deserved! And starvation is one way to go, Mr Lagerfeld showing us the way by loosing 42kg. His only - and admitted - goal was to be able to wear Hedi Slimane sylphlike designs.
While Mr Lagerfeld is the sole designer I know to be honest about his intentions, the demand for size zero models follows a general fashion diktat. So much so in fact that the fashion crowd just looks the same. It is so boring that on The Sartorialist Blog, one raptures over a blue matching scarf here, a red pair of shoe there...
Mr Lagerfeld should not be too quick on slamming fascism when fashion diktats precisely make his bread-and-butter bycontributing to building the myth of fashion design. It is without any surprise that after a first democratisation of fashion through Ready-to-wear and the possibility for the crowd to afford - with blood and sweat sometimes- luxuries such as it- bags, they had to come up with something to make it even more unaccessible. In our over sustained society, weight loss is an issue and is what makes fashion unreachable by the commons... Again, Fashion has to be deserved, a reaction to the attitude of entitlement that characterize our society.
The furore about skinny models is a false debate and I do not believe in regulation. Why even bother when the world already is looking away to shift towards new fashion icons such as Beyonce and the Marilyn Monroe revival? These are only trends and as such, are only destined to disappear to reapper.
Fashion often offers an illusion of elitism for weak and conformist minds. It isalso the apanage of people who like to follow and expect other people to dictate them what to wear and decide about who they are, with disregard as to their personal features, would they be skinny with or without bust, hips etc.
Personal style says about you, Fashion says about who you follow.
Many women I know who are over 50 yo often express the fact that it is difficult to remain stylish when menopause kicks in and body shape changes, usually getting rounder around the waist. The few brands targeting elder women often are old fashion and others such as Prada - yes, Prada dressing women the age of Miuccia Prada - are somewhat more expensive than what most people would like to pay for their everyday's life wardrobe. Even Jaeger is now targeting a younger crowd.
