Vintage Desecration - Things Altered/Repurposed, and a Vintage Treasure Lost Forever.

[get_atomized]

I think it's a fun thing to deconstruct a vintage item that is otherwise unwearable because of stains that just won't come out, rips that are too far gone to repair, etc, especially if I got the item cheap because of those faults. What could be wrong with that! I had a great 1950s lace dress that fit wonderfully in the bodice and hips but had awful black stains all along the bottom and the sleeves, so I hacked off the offending bits and now I have a sleeveless lace minidress

[huh] It's a punk thing, so sue me! I don't think it's such a crime to do something purely for aesthetic purposes with no practical use whatsoever

I do think it's an atrocity to defile a perfectly wearable and wonderful vintage item to make high-end fashion, however. I think it's ridiculous to deconstruct any item of clothing and then SELL it! Almost as ridiculous as somebody paying MORE for ruined suit than one in swell condition

 

[Atterbury Dodd]

Most World War I or II reenactors will appreciate the dastardly deed done to this WWII M1916 holster:http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300366630004&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123

I hate to say it, but one thing I have always said is that reenactors have probably ruined more vintage items than anybody else. I do use vintage items occasionally, but I never modify them, and use them with extreme caution--once history is gone, it's gone for good.

 

[reetpleat]

I hope i am wrong, but I suspect that most of what is called reengineering of "vintage" is recycling old crap from the seventies and eighties or even newer. i have seen some of it.

My thinking is this. Few remodellers would use good vintage as the cost would be much higher, and secondly, why would they when no one who buys them would know or care, or pay more for vintage stuff.

As for the wedding dresses, most i see look older but are not really vintage, and are almost always stained or they would be snapped up for profit. If this women is actually getting her hands on good vintage dresses in usable condition, then shame on her.

 

[reetpleat]

As for the website posted by pedx, some of her stuff looks kind of cool, but i think the whole "deconstructed" angle is kind of a dumb gimmick. Seems like she makes some dresses out of other dresses. Big deal? Let the dresses stand on their own, don't give me some silly "deconstruct, diy, punk rock, reimagi ne life itself" crap. just say you make dresses.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Don't get me started about people who gut out vintage television sets for aquariums or who turn perfectly functional wringer washers into lawn planters. If irony isn't dead yet, I'd gladly hire someone to kill it.

 

[Guttersnipe]

Alas, this is not always the case.

The more exclusive (expensive) upcycled/deconstructed "designers" use finer quality "raw materials" to justify higher price points...there is one in Portland that uses vintage rayon Hawaiians.:rage: I've heard of it being to 40's suits as well.

Similarly, last time I was in LA, I checked out a number of the ultra high end vintage/antique furniture shops. One of them specialized in "exclusive" shabby chic stuff. What made this an "exclusive" shabby chic antique shop was, that instead of doing the "chic-ing"process to 30's and 40's pieces, they were doing it to 19th, 18th, and even 17th century pieces!

The logic goes like this: A piece with significant finish issues might a value of $1-10K; the same piece "perfectly" chic-ified, they can sell for a lot more. I saw a table with a $12K price tag there - it was a massive 17th century table!!!

I hope i am wrong, but I suspect that most of what is called reengineering of "vintage" is recycling old crap from the seventies and eighties or even newer. i have seen some of it.

My thinking is this. Few remodellers would use good vintage as the cost would be much higher, and secondly, why would they when no one who buys them would know or care, or pay more for vintage stuff.

As for the wedding dresses, most i see look older but are not really vintage, and are almost always stained or they would be snapped up for profit. If this women is actually getting her hands on good vintage dresses in usable condition, then shame on her.

and:

As for the website posted by pedx, some of her stuff looks kind of cool, but i think the whole "deconstructed" angle is kind of a dumb gimmick. Seems like she makes some dresses out of other dresses. Big deal? Let the dresses stand on their own, don't give me some silly "deconstruct, diy, punk rock, reimagi ne life itself" crap. just say you make dresses.

 

[pdxvintagette]

Reetpleat, you wouldn't believe the things that woman takes apart. I've been in her booth and seen PERFECT white 50's prom dresses - that she just layered upon layer things onto. In fact, one had only one thing added to it, and I think it could have been removed... but the dress was $350.

Many of these deconstructists aren't using damaged vintage, or if they are, they are things that I would fix in an afternoon - a bath in Biz to brighten up white tulle, rather than dying strange shadings, or handfinishing a hem, rather than hacking it off.

The ones to look out for aren't the ones who keep the vintage as close to original as possible, and improve when things are too damaged to fix... the ones to watch are those who REALLY THINK their art is BETTER than the original. Because they'll take anything apart.

Another terrible trend is the mini-dress shortening of everything. It started on ebay with some trendy sellers chopping 70's and 80's crapola. But they became SO popular, that they started doing it with 60's, 50's and now even 40's dresses. It is really painful.

I hope i am wrong, but I suspect that most of what is called reengineering of "vintage" is recycling old crap from the seventies and eighties or even newer. i have seen some of it.

My thinking is this. Few remodellers would use good vintage as the cost would be much higher, and secondly, why would they when no one who buys them would know or care, or pay more for vintage stuff.

As for the wedding dresses, most i see look older but are not really vintage, and are almost always stained or they would be snapped up for profit. If this women is actually getting her hands on good vintage dresses in usable condition, then shame on her.

 

[SGT Rocket]

Yikes!!!

T
I can't really afford to trash on Etsy sellers, since I make my business there, but this local gal gets ALL my ire and hatred for those who destroy beautiful things:

http://www.frockyjackmorgan.com

She specializes in wedding and special occasions - her travesties are very popular, and she's been showcased in many national magazines. And she has a booth in one of my favorite antique malls that just turns my stomach everytime I'm there.

I prefer to refer to her business has "Frocky Horror"

Yikes, I just went to the website. Some of the women have pretty faces, but the clothes scare the hell out of me!

 

[Story]

Came to this thread expecting a menagerie worthy of Doctor Moreau.
Left, disappointed.

 

[Lady Day]

Honestly though, those dresses? Can they be laundered/dry cleaned? I saw a horrid pair of wobbly stitched panties on her site and realized this is wannabe couture.

To take an item that is rare and cut it short so you can wear elastic rainbow tights with it is beyond the pale.

LD

 

[R.A. Stewart]

Of all the wanton-destruction-of-vintage-things out there, this is the one that really hits me hardest. As much as key-choppers claim they're "putting useless old junk to good use," the truth is that it's actually very rare for an old manual typewriter to be unsalvageable unless it's been sitting in water and has rusted solid. Cutting the keys off a typewriter *destroys* it -- it cannot be restored or repaired once this is done, and the closest thing I can think of to compare it to is killing an elephant just to cut his tusks off. It's wasteful, arrogant, and obnoxious. I really wish the key-choppers would find something else to be ironic about and leave typewriters to those of us who actually use and appreciate them.

And don't get me started about people who gut out vintage television sets for aquariums or who turn perfectly functional wringer washers into lawn planters. If irony isn't dead yet, I'd gladly hire someone to kill it.

Couldn't agree more. It reminds me of John Hiatt's "Perfectly Good Guitar." Where's their respect for the care and workmanship that went into those good things, things that have already outlasted a dozen times 99% of the cheap junk that's made today? Gaahhhhh ... :rage:

On a lighter note, Methusaleh, isn't that H.P. Lovecraft in your avatar? :eusa_clap Here's to the Great Magus Aitch Pi-El!

~Rich

 

[Amy Jeanne]

I *LOATHE* the destruction of anything vintage, unless it is hopelessly lost and useless in it's orginal form.

I *ABHOR* stuff like this:
http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.ph...se&ga_search_type=handmade&ga_page=2&includes[]=tags&includes[]=title

:rage: :rage: :rage:

And I also once stumbled upon a craft website where a woman made UGLY flowers out of vintage pattern pieces. UGLY! She also CUT the little heads off the drawings on the envelopes and made pins out of them. I was disgusted.

 

[texasgirl]

I have to say this one made me cringe:

 

[reetpleat]

Well, if they use good stuff, I can agree with you all. But anyone got more pics that are identifiable stuff. as a guy, it is hard for me to get too worked up about the womens, but if you show me a nice 40s suit that has been damaged, I might get a torch and pitchfork out and go looking for the culprit.

As for the tvs and typewriters, many years ago i took apart some tvs. I kind of like the aquariums etc. I mean, i might not do it to a really lold 50s tv, but honestly, who is going to buy and use most old tvs? At least they are savign the cabinet from the junk heap. And typewriters? how much demand is their for them. Mless than the supply I willwager.

I think Lizzie's objection is not as much about destroying artifacts as destroying a "perfectly good" iten that can be fixed and reused. Being a working class person from maine, I would be dissapointed with anything less.

 

[R.A. Stewart]

I think Lizzie's objection is not as much about destroying artifacts as destroying a "perfectly good" iten that can be fixed and reused. Being a working class person from maine, I would be dissapointed with anything less.

I think that comes close to explaining my visceral reaction as well.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think Lizzie's objection is not as much about destroying artifacts as destroying a "perfectly good" iten that can be fixed and reused. Being a working class person from maine, I would be dissapointed with anything less.

There's certainly a degree of revulsion at the thought of destroying something that's survived for decades for no good reason -- Amy Jeanne's example above is a perfect specimen of that sort of thing. There's no reason a crafty person couldn't make scans of the patterns being used there, and turn those scans into kitschy doodads, but clearly such people just don't *care.* Once again, it's taking an item that's survived intact for sixty or seventy years, and ensuring that it can never ever be used for its intended purpose. You might as well just set fire to it as "preserve" it in such a way.

But yes, the sheer insufferable wastefulness of it all gets me too. Show me a culture that revels in its own wastefulness, and I'll show you a culture that's on the fast track to its own doom.

 

[reetpleat]

There's certainly a degree of revulsion at the thought of destroying something that's survived for decades for no good reason -- Amy Jeanne's example above is a perfect specimen of that sort of thing. There's no reason a crafty person couldn't make scans of the patterns being used there, and turn those scans into kitschy doodads, but clearly such people just don't *care.* Once again, it's taking an item that's survived intact for sixty or seventy years, and ensuring that it can never ever be used for its intended purpose. You might as well just set fire to it as "preserve" it in such a way.

But yes, the sheer insufferable wastefulness of it all gets me too. Show me a culture that revels in its own wastefulness, and I'll show you a culture that's on the fast track to its own doom.

I rather like the boxes shown. But i agree that it would be nice if she just photocopied them. They would look the same, but she couldn't call it "Made from authentic package or whatever, and charge upwards of $300 bucks for it.

 

[miss_elise]

old tv's are difficult to save due to the shut off of the analog network...

we are turning our old 70s one into a cocktail cabinet... please don't shoot me for it

 

[ron521]

Reading this thread has made me realize that there is no accounting for other peoples taste....or lack of taste.
As much as I hate it, some people genuinely believe that articles of clothing, handbags, hats, and shoes are improved by application of the "Bedazzler".

 

[Paisley]

I'd think it would be hard for a seller to get rid of an old TV--they'd have to junk it, repurpose it or store it for a long while. I don't think you can hook one up to a DVD player or even cable, can you? Aside from sports and news, you'd be watching Survivor or Grey's Anatomy on your vintage TV set, assuming you can set it up to get a digital signal.