Authenticity in the Vintage World?

[Fletch]

Another thought, after watching a modern-day retro movie: Sometimes authenticity doesn't work. Not for Lizzie's reason - buttery-taste tastes more like butter than butter - but because it doesn't do a job.

Look at extras vs. featured players in movies set in the past. If the budget's decent, you'll see extra who fit the period better than the main players. You see, the leads have to appeal to people today - as men, as women, as lovers or heroes or heroines. And those roles change, along with the looks and the meanings of the looks.

You can't always be subtle in a drama or comedy. For one thing, you have to satisfy producers and executives who don't know and don't care, but will be righteously teed off if the leading man has a greaseball brilliantine 'do or the femme fatale looks like an over-corseted old maid.

 

[Widebrim]

In L.A., our golden "earlier days" and place were 1996-'98 at the now-defunct Derby nightclub.


.

You're right, Marc, and I do remember... And thank you for the fabulous color frames from the NYWF. It was interesting to actually see a couple of men wearing short-sleeve shirts, as well as many hatless guys.

 

[Dr Doran]

My dad was born in 1921 and spent the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s (as well as the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s) in L.A. and says he NEVER wore a fedora! And he had only one suit for a good portion of the early 1940s, a baby blue number. I often suspect NEVER was an exaggeration but it still says something.

 

[reetpleat]

Exactly what I was saying -- you certainly wouldn't see someone going around in top-to-toe 1936 style in 1946, but it's not at all unlikely you'd have found someone going around in renovated or "classically styled" items that might go back that far. There's very little difference in style or construction between a typical housewife's lace-up oxford from the mid-thirties compared to one from a decade later, and most people wouldn't even notice. It's this type of everyday-wear item that I'm talking about seeing on the street, not high-style fashion.

Discussions of authenticity always put me to mind of what happened at work when we tried to switch our popcorn topping to real butter: too many people complained that it didn't taste buttery enough. Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in the quest for authenticity that reality itself isn't authentic enough.

I imagine that there were people who either got stuck on a style, or didn't care enough to change, and were noticed and maybe even laughed at for being out of style. Think of Fred Murtz on I love Lucy. Ricky was so sharp, and Fred was often ridiculed for his outdated style, high waisted pants over his gut etc.

 

[Dr Doran]

I imagine that there were people who either got stuck on a style, or didn't care enough to change, and were noticed and maybe even laughed at for being out of style. Think of Fred Murtz on I love Lucy. Ricky was so sharp, and Fred was often ridiculed for his outdated style, high waisted pants over his gut etc.

Isn't there a scene in the Coen Brothers film The Man Who Wasn't There in which Billy Bob Thornton is ridiculed by the owner of Nerdlinger's Department Store for his peak lapel DB suit? The Nerdlinger's guy has narrow lapels. If I remember right -- it's been years. It's not from the Era, but it is about the Era.

 

[benstephens]

This has turned into quite an interesting thread, and it is a pleasure to read peoples views on the subject.

I think Lauren made a very good point about never saying never. Fashion is fluid, and I have fallen into the trap ever so many times of saying they would never.... etc, and realised actually someone/people did.

It is interesting to see people different perspectives from how they entered the world of vintage fashion, whether that be a collector, a re-enactor or just looking for a different style.

In the end, I am really not sure how authentically I dress as I tend to copy my tailoring catologues etc, howver, I very rarely see pictures of people dressed like that (I suppose it would be equivalent to dressing exactly like a shop window now, very few people actually go for the complete outfit, just using it to loosely influence what they will wear).

I think in the end, the vintage world has grown now, and I certainly do not get upset or annoyed by anything. People often ask for pointers and I will try and help them with my limited knowledge, however, in the end we are not there to spoil their enjoyment and they certainly are not their trying to spoil mine. If there were not so many people involved, we could go back to the few vintage events, with the same crowd and same faces. Encourage all, and have fun. If they have the right attitude, they are fine by me!

Kindest Regards

Ben

 

[Dr Doran]

I think in the end, the vintage world has grown now, and I certainly do not get upset or annoyed by anything. People often ask for pointers and I will try and help them with my limited knowledge, however, in the end we are not there to spoil their enjoyment and they certainly are not their trying to spoil mine. If there were not so many people involved, we could go back to the few vintage events, with the same crowd and same faces. Encourage all, and have fun. If they have the right attitude, they are fine by me!

Plus, if one behaves superciliously to the newer people, they are more likely to develop an unpleasant attitude.

 

[Lauren]

Well said, Ben!

 

[Fletch]

Plus, if one behaves superciliously to the newer people, they are more likely to develop an unpleasant attitude.

Of course, this used to be considered a GOOD thing. Kept out the riff raff and all that.

My dad was born in 1921 ... And he had only one suit for a good portion of the early 1940s, a baby blue number.

The most limited vintage clothing collections may actually be the most authentic.

 

[Dr Doran]

Of course, this used to be considered a GOOD thing. Kept out the riff raff and all that.

There can be useful elements to snobbery, I agree.

 

[Fletch]

Sure can. The reverse kind is still thriving.

 

[Dr Doran]

Sure can. The reverse kind is still thriving.

You know my horror of "slob-snobbery"!

 

[Foofoogal]

My father was born in 1914 and went thru the depression. Until he died he prided himself that he had a few good pairs of shoes and they had lasted him forever. Waste was not in his vocabulary.

 

[pdxvintagette]

My father was born in 1914 and went thru the depression. Until he died he prided himself that he had a few good pairs of shoes and they had lasted him forever. Waste was not in his vocabulary.

Funny, my grandmother was only a few years younger and came of age during the Depression. And HATED it. She postively abhorred having to scrimp and make due. She and my grandfather were upper middle class in terms of income - so when the war was over, she never, ever kept anything ever again. Which is sad, because the photos that we have show her in up-to-the-minute attire (and eyewear!) throughout the post-war years and my mother's childhood. My grandfather was a clothing buyer for many years until he had to retire due to cancer while my mother was still a teen. (So when I say up to the minute, I mean it.)

Her lack of saving things that went out of style was regretable, and the disinterest in keeping things extended to items which my mother would have liked to have owned as an an adult, but grandma didn't have the emotional attachement to things. When you were done - you got rid of them and bought new ones.

So, I think it is fair to say that there were both sorts of dressers in the time, and I think this particular effect of the Depression years is one that people don't often consider.

(For the record, my OTHER grandmother WAS the exact opposite.)

 

[Guttersnipe]

Not all golden era folks were thrifty

What pdxvintagette says about her grandparents was true for both sets of mine, as well. I think the idea that folks who lived through the depression and WW2 were inherently more thrifty is not always true.

My grandparents were reasonably middle class folks - one household was headed by a doctor, the other by an Army Air Corps regular officer. For them the depression, I think from what they told me, added some level of additional indignity. These were folks who may have handed down and mended clothes because it was prudent - but they'd never had to do so before. They spent rest of their lives avoiding ever having to go without again.

 

[Lauren]

I'm not sure if you can see this unless you have a myspace account, but here's a montage of some of our old family videos from the 40s and early 50s. My grandpa rarely ever wore a suit in them, but I think that's just because that's the way our family was. Just like now, there's different preferences and such. Some people didn't need to be thrifty, but I know my family did. I feel really blessed to be able to collect things now- the amount of clothes I have would not have been possible for my grandmother back then.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=12902360

 

[LizzieMaine]

What pdxvintagette says about her grandparents was true for both sets of mine, as well. I think the idea that folks who lived through the depression and WW2 were inherently more thrifty is not always true.

My grandparents were reasonably middle class folks - one household was headed by a doctor, the other by an Army Air Corps regular officer. For them the depression, I think from what they told me, added some level of additional indignity. These were folks who may have handed down and mended clothes because it was prudent - but they'd never had to do so before. They spent rest of their lives avoiding ever having to go without again.

There were definitely folks who were insulated from the impact of the economic conditions of the day -- a study by the Census Bureau in 1947 showed that approximately 20 percent of the population, or 7 million families, had incomes that would qualify them as middle/upper middle class -- $5000 or more per year. But more than twice that number had incomes below $3900 a year, which would suggest that folks who didn't have to scrimp and save were definitely the exception rather than the rule, even at that late date. The big tilt toward the US becoming a solidly middle-class country didn't happen statistically until the mid-fifties. Which among other things might help explain why Mad Men-era high-end attire seems to be much easier to find than that of the wartime/Depression era.

Lauren -- great videos! I have several reels of 16mm color films shot in my home town in 1951-52, specifically intended to show ordinary townspeople going about their daily business. Not a lot of suits, except on older people or Pillars of the Community, and in general most of the clothing looked about five years or more behind what we think of as the fashions of the time.

 

[pdxvintagette]

Lauren, these are WONDERFUL! Love seeing your grandpa and his ... brother? in their workwear. And the gals all walkin' together in their casual wear, slacks (or are those skirts with a center pleat?) and sweaters, SO cute.

I'm not sure if you can see this unless you have a myspace account, but here's a montage of some of our old family videos from the 40s and early 50s. My grandpa rarely ever wore a suit in them, but I think that's just because that's the way our family was. Just like now, there's different preferences and such. Some people didn't need to be thrifty, but I know my family did. I feel really blessed to be able to collect things now- the amount of clothes I have would not have been possible for my grandmother back then.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=12902360

 

[Chas]

Then that begs the question: "How does one know if they are authentic?"

Start collecting vintage catalogs of your favorite era, check your local library and pump some change into the photocopy machine.

Ask a knowledgable friend, or spend lots of time on the FL and post your questions here.

You're doing it already, by openly declaring your lack of knowledge and being open to discussing it.

 

[Chas]

There were definitely folks who were insulated from the impact of the economic conditions of the day -- a study by the Census Bureau in 1947 showed that approximately 20 percent of the population, or 7 million families, had incomes that would qualify them as middle/upper middle class -- $5000 or more per year. But more than twice that number had incomes below $3900 a year, which would suggest that folks who didn't have to scrimp and save were definitely the exception rather than the rule, even at that late date. The big tilt toward the US becoming a solidly middle-class country didn't happen statistically until the mid-fifties. Which among other things might help explain why Mad Men-era high-end attire seems to be much easier to find than that of the wartime/Depression era.

That's because consumerism had not yet taken hold, and wouldn't until the mid 1950's or so when Madison Avenue eventually overcame the frugality that was a core belief in the mindset of North Americans who had survived the Great Depression.