I am a vintage snob and I always will be.
My mother was horrified when, aged 11, I started trawling the local second hand shops for brooches, dresses and waistcoats. She would take drop me off at Hospice in Knysna and stand at the door, with a look on her face that said “This joint makes me itchy”.
Having spent my formative years in a jumble of second hand polyester and clip on earrings, I have run the gauntlet when it comes to that much-vaunted misnomer, “vintage”. I have DONE my time in the polyester. I wrote the book on ill-fitting shirtwaisters, second hand Levi’s and grubby knitwear.
These things are not vintage. To me, vintage implies a level of quality that is entirely at odds with the kinds of second hand dresses that seduce with their old world charm, but later prove to be made of fabric that could prove flammable if you move too fast. Yep. Yep. It is indeed sad. But also true.
I was paging through a local magazine earlier this year and saw that, next to a fashion shoot they had written:
“Dress – vintage YDE”.
Vintage YDE?! Can you call YDE vintage?
YDE was born after I was.
A chunk of time needs to pass between decades before we are able to see discernible fashion trends, i.e: the 60’s are synonymous with bell-bottoms and paisley; the 90’s, with Doc Martens and dungarees.
YDE has been in existence predominantly post 2000, so surely we can’t be calling it “vintage” already?
Can you think of any distinct fashion trends in the last decade that don’t in one way or another reference trends that are already synonymous with other, more clear cut eras?