Visibly thrifted: A top for spring

For some time now, I’ve been fighting the scourge of Thrift Envy. This disease is a side effect of reading too many fashion blogs. So many of my favorite bloggers are champion thrifters. They go into real thrift stores — the Goodwills, the Salvation Armies — and emerge with amazing items that can be effortlessly incorporated into their wardrobes.

True confession: I haven’t visited a “real” thrift store in over 20 years. I just don’t think they’re a good place for me. I’m easily overwhelmed by too much stuff. Even in a fairly well-organized department store, my strategic shopping plan flies out the window almost immediately upon entry. It’s like I’m blinded by the sea of racks, the weird lighting, the lack of oxygen. Everything becomes a blur, and I just sort of pinball around the place. I can’t stay long.

Everybody says that, to be an effective thrifter, you must be focused and purposeful. Disciplined. Vigilant. Methodical and strategic as you tackle rack upon rack of not-exactly-organized items of varying quality. I shudder to think what would happen to me in a place like this.

However, I do love a good consignment store. Sure, the prices are a little higher, but you still get a unique selection at prices much lower than retail. Your conscience is soothed because you are reducing waste rather than just consuming more. The clothes are usually quite well-organized, the collection small enough so as not to overwhelm.

I also worry less about quality, simply because consignment stores have the reputation for being more particular about what they accept. In theory, somebody has already done the quality control for us.  (In practice, though, I must admit that I’ve found damaged items in more than one consignment store. I’ve learned to conduct a thorough investigation before leaving the premises).

If any consignment stores existed along my route to and from work, I would visit them weekly. Unfortunately, the closest one is 25 minutes in the wrong direction. And my very favorite consignment stores are over an hour away, located in various college and tourist towns that I might visit on day trips. Now, I’m not generally one who enjoys shopping when there is sightseeing, recreation, or fine dining to enjoy. But for a bit of consignment shopping, I will make an exception.

Awhile back, in a lovely coastal town, I came across this top:

I like it because it’s springy and feminine, and because it has a bit of that free-spirited, floaty, hippie-chick thing going on.

It has no tags, so the origin of this top is completely unknown. (I wonder if any of my readers might recognize it?) The fabric is synthetic, but very soft and light and somewhat breathable.

It doesn’t seem to me like a super-expensive or high-end item, but it has a uniqueness that is pleasantly surprising to me. I don’t know if you can see how the pattern seems to almost “bleed” through from the reverse side (if that makes sense):

I’ve worn the top a few times now, and it plays nicely with both jeans and dressier slacks. It also looks good with my favorite brown, knee-length, ruffled skirt and boots.

For some reason, though, I really enjoyed what happened when I paired it with my classic, work-appropriate trousers and a jacket:

It struck me that this top is one that I might have chosen way back when, in my college days, when I actually did shop in “real” thrift stores. I was always drawn to peasant tops in floaty fabrics.

Now, my style has changed a lot since then. I love tailored shapes now; I would never walk around in  body-engulfing tents of fabric like I did then. But isn’t it great how you can have both? Hippie chic can mix with tailored classics. And that’ s just one of the many things I love about fashion.

Happy Visible Monday, everybody. I encourage you to visit Not Dead Yet Style to see what all the other Visible Monday participants are wearing. There is no greater inspiration for women who, at middle age or later, are still just hitting their stride when it comes to personal style. I’m on my way there now!

A sports bra of one’s own

Public domain image from wpclipart.com

Women of all ages, sizes and fitness levels strap themselves into some kind of exercise gear on a regular basis. If you’re like me, you probably don’t think about the sociopolitical history of either the exercise that you’re doing or the clothes that you’re wearing.

A friend got me thinking about this when she forwarded this article about Sue Macy’s book, Wheels of Change: How Women Rode the Bicycle to Freedom. Please do read the whole thing — you’ll be inspired even if you’re one of those women like me who complains about exercising.

The gist is that, toward the end of the Victorian Age in the late 1800′s, the widespread popularity of bicycling gave women a newfound freedom. It allowed them to leave their homes for independent, unchaperoned activity. It helped them become physically stronger. It even allowed women to begin wearing — can you guess? Pants! Well, bloomer-style pant prototypes, anyway.

This was no small achievement, and early women’s activists knew it. Elizabeth Cady Stanton said that “the bicycle will inspire women with more courage, self-respect, [and] self-reliance.” Susan B. Anthony agreed, calling a woman on a bicycle “the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood.”

Macy’s book traces the invention of women’s sportswear to the 1890′s, with the invention of practical “cycling costumes.” As always, I started thinking about how women’s roles are reflected in the clothes we wear. Remembering my own experiences over the years, I am struck by how much things have changed in my own lifetime.

Consider the following:

The Sports Bra

For a truly fascinating read, check out this piece about the history of the sports bra. How is it possible that women exercised, attended mandatory gym classes in schools, and even played sports without these? My mind absolutely boggles.

Believe it: sports bras were not invented until the 1970s, by real women who needed them. (And yes, a re-fashioned jock strap really was part of the initial design process!) This decade saw great progress in women’s rights, of course, including the Title IX legislation that went a long way toward leveling the playing field (at least as far as college sports were concerned). More importantly, perhaps, the 1970s ushered in a widespread jogging craze. Enter the “jog bra.”

Astonishingly enough, though, large-breasted women were mostly excluded from the sports bra market until the 1990s. The 1990s, people! Two decades after Title IX! During a time when playing sports had become a normal and expected activity for girls in schools.

Apparently there was a belief that large-breasted women didn’t play sports. It took a well-endowed hairdresser, Renelle Braaten, to tackle this inequity by a) designing a better sports bra, and b) convincing people that there was a market for it.  Breasts worldwide rejoiced.

Today, the sports bra is such a staple that I can’t believe I didn’t have one until I was a college graduate. Not being much of an athlete, I was rather late to the party. Even though I’ve now been running and working out for years, I only recently switched to “real” sizes (beyond SML) with adjustable straps. And I’ve been kicking myself for waiting so long, believe me!

My only remaining wish? A greater variety of reasonably priced styles with just a touch of padding, for modesty. Microfiber exercise tops show quite a bit, especially when temperature changes occur. When working out in public, I don’t necessarily want my girls yelling, “Well, hel-lo!” to everyone we see.

Aerobic Wear

The first time I took an exercise class, I’m pretty sure I was wearing a stiff cotton T-shirt and ridiculously tiny, 1970s-era gym shorts. If you can’t picture the shorts I’m describing, just look at some NBA footage from the 1970s. (Go ahead! I dare you. You’ll be horrified yet unable to look away).

These shorts were meant for running or playing team sports. They were clearly not meant for doing floor exercises that required one’s legs to be elevated and/or, forgive me, spread wide. Can you imagine my dread of the “seated inner thigh stretch?” Everyone must have had this problem, yet I always thought I was the only one showing my underwear to the whole world.

Eventually, I switched to dance tights under a leotard for aerobic classes. This particular outfit probably dates back to 1970s dancers and yoga practitioners. Picture Olivia Newton-John and Jane Fonda, circa 1982. I was wearing this outfit as late as 1990, I’m sorry to admit (minus the leg-warmers, though).

But at some point, I’m not sure when, the fitted  lycra short migrated from the cycling world into mainstream exercise. Once again, cycling led the way! This was a momentous development, indeed. From there, it was only a short skip to the comprehensive array of fitted shorts and leggings that we have now, in all different lengths. Full disclosure, though: I still sometimes wear regular, loose shorts over these, for modesty. Lycra clings, mercilessly, and I don’t want to worry that my most intimate bits are on full display. So perhaps there are still a few advances to be made!

The Yoga Pant

I still remember my first sweat pants. They were made of a stiff, heavy cotton fabric that, although breathable, would never, ever dry if it encountered any actual sweat. The elastic, drawstring waist looked like a cinched grocery sack. The legs were oddly tubular in shape. And you know the flattering bootcut that we see today? Forget about it. These sweats tapered into elastic closures at your ankle. The overall effect made your legs look like hot dogs, only much, much wider.

I know there has been widespread hand-wringing in fashion circles because women insist upon wearing their yoga pants everywhere. I think this is a small price to pay. We can argue all day about whether yoga pants are flattering or not. The bottom line is: women feel good enough in them to wear them everywhere.  This is priceless.

I don’t know about you, but I find it very gratifying to realize that these advances have taken place in my lifetime. I know everything isn’t perfect. I haven’t even touched on the verbal harassment and other threats that many women still face when exercising in public. When Susan B. Anthony made her comments about “untrammeled womanhood,” part of her point was that women on bicycles would not be accosted or harmed, presumably because they could escape! Sad but true.

Many of us still grapple with the question of whether we should dress to be seen or not to be seen while exercising. Appearance and body image issues persist. Back in the day, it often felt like my aerobic classes were divided into two groups: a) the front row women standing proudly in front of the mirror in cute, perfectly-coordinated outfits, and b) the women in baggy shorts standing as far from the mirror as they could get.

I know this is an oversimplification, and a depressing one at that. I hope we’re moving beyond it. I do know that, in exercise classes of more recent years, I’ve often lined up in the front row facing the mirror. The goal was not to admire myself, but rather, to monitor my form and thus prevent injury! Looking around, I once noticed that the entire front row was filled with women over 40, while the younger women hid in the back. Dare I say that, as we learn to cautiously work within our limitations, we also acquire a measure of self-acceptance?

Sure, we’ll continue juggling our often-competing needs in activewear, for comfort, style, practicality and/or modesty. Why, just today, a favorite blogger wrote hilariously about the phenomenon of sexy yoga wear. But I am glad that we have the freedom to approach exercise, and dressing for exercise, in a  variety of ways.

It didn’t even bother me when, awhile back, I read that many women wear makeup to the gym. True, we can view this as a sign that we are still struggling with appearance-based insecurities even as we exercise for our health. But I also know that, some days, I’m more motivated if I can wear my colorful purple paisley workout shirt and coordinating shoes with funky purple laces. (Yes, they’re making them like that now). And on other days, I’d rather throw on an ancient pair of faded running shorts and baggy black top.

On my colorful purple days, I smile and chat with everybody in the gym. On my dark and faded days, I stare down at my treadmill, focusing, pushing myself to the limit while glowering in what I imagine to be a badass manner.

Yes — those are dudes I’m beating to the finish line. Ha!

See? I can do both. Hear me roar, dammit.

What are your experiences and challenges with activewear? Are there any new advances that you’d like to see?

Those were the days

Beauty pageant from another era (public domain photo)

A friend of The Frump Factor, the inimitable Maggie T, recently drew my attention to some interesting online content created a few years back for Harper’s Bazaar’s 140th Anniversary.

Now, I’m sure the rest of the Fashion Industrial Complex was all over this story when it originally occurred, back in 2007. But this blog wasn’t around then; in fact, I didn’t even know fashion blogs existed. (Did they?) And while I did occasionally read Harper’s, it wasn’t one of the subscriptions that I hoarded, in secret shame, from friends and loved ones who – I was convinced — only read literary works of great intellectual significance.

So the “140 Years of Harper’s” content was brand new to me. I hope it’s new to many of my readers, as well, because it’s a delightful way to spend a little time.  Starting in 1867, the  magazine spans era after oh-so-stylish era. By perusing the magazine’s covers, you can see the evolution of so many different things: fashion, art, photography, modeling, and of course, women’s roles.  It’s a treasure trove for historians and social scientists of many types, I would imagine. From my seat as an amateur cultural observer, I noticed the following:

1) Apparently, there was an Era Before Euphemisms. In 1902, Harper’s thought nothing of promoting “Fashion for Old Ladies.” No seasoned women of a certain age here! I imagine this was also the era when ladies introduced themselves as Mrs. Insert-Last-Name-Here, not even cringing at the sound of “Ma’am.”

2) Before Sports Illustrated, the “swimsuit cover” was a very different animal. An 1876 cover shows a ladies’ swim costume: a dress-type garment with short sleeves, belted, and layered over bloomers. The outfit also features strappy shoes, laced all the way up to the knees, and is topped off with an adorable little hat. Now we are talking! I don’t want to hear any more crap about swimsuit diets. (Tankini, my ass!)

3) Overdoing trends is apparently nothing new, nor is poking fun at fashion excess. A cartoon about the raging 1870′s “fan trend” shows two women in formal gowns, seated in an elegant parlor, holding giant fans that hide their entire upper bodies and heads. (The caption reads, “What next?”) Now, I don’ t know about you, but there are mornings when I wouldn’t mind one of those face-obscuring fans.

4) Then as now, the line between artistic and creepy was a fine one. A 1951 photo “collage” showing pairs of elegant gloves, in cheery pastel colors, alongside Diana Vreeland’s own impeccably manicured hands? Fabulous! An assortment of sleeve designs, depicted in line drawings that look like free-floating, dismembered arms? Not so much.

5) As in today’s magazines, vintage issues of Harper’s include items I wish I could wear (sky-high heels), items I’d wear if only I had an occasion  (a 1920′s flapper-style gown with beads); and items I would never, ever wear (anything involving a corset. There was a lot of that, apparently, back in the day).

6) The first photographed model appeared on a Harper’s Bazaar cover in 1888. Could the first airbrush artist be far behind? If only that poor young woman knew the reality-TV carnage that her profession would spawn!

7) Lingerie sets from 1906 were more modest than much of my summer wardrobe.

8) So many of these magazine covers are just so, so gorgeous. Do we ever truly appreciate the artistry of our time? Did readers notice the elegant illustrations, the exciting layouts,  and the vibrant splashes of astonishing color? Or did they just see magazine covers?

True, many of the featured covers were produced by people now recognized as great artists. You can see drawings by Andy Warhol, including an array of colorful strappy shoes and an “explosion” of beauty products floating upward from a decorative box. There is a 1912 cover by French illustrator Georges Barbier that almost takes my breath away. Others echo the artistic trends of the time, including early 20th century Dadaism and 1950s modernism.

I have to wonder — will today’s magazine covers ever seem so beautiful, when removed from their original marketing context and viewed as pure aesthetics? Do we just tune them out because they are all around us? Or do they really not make them like they used to?

9) In case you hadn’t learned this from reading The Feminine Mystique, magazines have been giving advice to women for a long, long time. The nature of that advice reveals something about the era, maybe, or about the values of those writing the advice, or — and I think this is more to the point — what the writers imagine to be meaningful or significant to their perceived demographic, even if it is completely, woefully unrealistic for most women.

In its 140 years, Harper’s Bazaar has offered advice from the lofty (how to manage a summer home; what gowns to wear in Newport) to the mundane (throw a Japanese hair stick in your hair! Wear diamond stars like the Duchess of Kent!) Conspicuously absent from this advice is “don’t rely on advice from others” or “spend less money on clothing and accessories.”

Which brings us to my last observation:

10) I suspect the only path to sanity is, and always has been, not to emulate the women in magazines, at least not too much. My great-grandmothers were amazing women, I’m told, but they were probably nothing like the woman on the cover of Harper’s Thanksgiving edition in 1894. Not only is she flawlessly dressed — flowers in her hair, and not a hair out of place — but she’s also serving up a perfectly cooked turkey.

Are today’s magazines really any more realistic in their expectations of us? True, they now acknowledge women’s professional lives, as well they should. But doesn’t that just mean there’s a longer list of things we’re supposed to do perfectly?  Why, that woman just spearheaded a billion-dollar corporate merger! And then she prepared that free-range, locally sourced turkey with gluten-free stuffing!

So let’s remember that magazines are fantasy. We can choose what to imitate, adapt, or ignore. We can say, for example, “Today, I will be gorgeously coiffed OR perfectly dressed. I will look good OR I will cook.” Or, “I’ll wear whatever the hell I want, and we’ll get takeout, because this is my first day off in weeks.”

We’ve come a long way, baby. Thank you, Maggie T, for the reminder.

We have a winner!

With a little help from some invisible robots over at Random.org, I have chosen my MarketPlace giveaway winner. Let’s have a big round of applause for Tamera at Menopausal Supermodel!

Tamera is a blogger and thrift-store shopper with an eye for cheerful colors and fabulous vintage handbags. I’m sure the offerings from MarketPlace will play nicely with her other finds.

Thanks to everybody who entered — I wish you all could have won! If you didn’t win, I hope you might consider shopping MarketPlace’s online catalog. I know I will. How can we feel guilty about shopping when the money is going to a non-profit, fair-trade organization that works toward the goal of empowering women?

In that spirit, feel free to spread good will toward the women in your own lives today. Tell somebody how special she is — how smart, caring, beautiful, or even better, powerful! Who knows, maybe we’ll start a trend.

Thanks again, and I’ll be back with a regular post soon.

The mascara games: Fear and loathing at the drugstore

Not too long ago, as I was half-squatting, half-sprawling on the floor of my local drugstore, unsuccessfully searching the lowest possible shelf for a replacement mascara, a question popped into my head. Do all beauty products get discontinued within a year’s time, or just the ones I like?

Apparently, the beauty industry must always be changing, reformulating, moving forward, like a shark that dies if it stops swimming. And OK, that metaphor may not quite work, and that bit about sharks might not even be true. But you know what I’m saying, right?

Writers and cultural commentators — people far more clever than myself — have long discussed the essential features of consumer culture. We all know the rules: Bigger! Better! Newer! More!  The beauty business is a tough, big-money business. Apparently, if it doesn’t sell — immediately — it is gone.

Consequently, smart shoppers have learned to adapt. Their advice? If you find something you like, you’d better buy three of it. Because it won’t be there the next time you look.

Like many women, I buy makeup from different sources. A couple of my essentials come from department stores, a few from specialty cosmetics stores, and some from the drugstore. (In my neighborhood, that means CVS or Target).

If I’m going to buy a drugstore product, I almost always vet it through Paula Begoun’s product review website, Beautypedia, first.  Otherwise, without trying a product before buying, you’re flying blind. Sure, the prices are lower. But over time, it adds up. You can waste a lot of money on invisible lipglosses, skin-tone clashing blushes, and cheap eyeshadows that look like dust (if dust were slightly less colorful).

Since using Beautypedia, I’ve done pretty well. That’s where I found my favorite mascara. But when it came time to replace it, I began to sense that something was amiss. During my routine drugstore trips, I noticed that only a couple of these mascaras were left, not in my shade. So I waited for the stores to re-stock. And they didn’t.

This is never a good sign. I should have been tipped off by the product’s location: bottom shelf, directly at floor level, impossible to reach. My favorites always seem to wind up here.

As for the higher shelves, they were full of the bright, shiny, colorfully packaged, “new, new, new!” items. The not-yet-vetted-by-Paula items. Which put me in a bit of a bind.

Eventually, I checked Beautypedia and found that yes, sadly, my brand had been discontinued. So I searched for other mascara possibilities. And the next time I went to the store, guess what happened. Even these, newer product lines were nowhere to be found. Well, OK, one of them still existed, not in my shade, in the bottom shelf graveyard, naturally.

Meanwhile, those showy, impertinent, top-shelf mascaras were screaming: Longer, thicker lashes! Improved formula! Come on, try us! Who cares what Paula thinks? Don’t you have a mind of your own?

So I bought one. I liked it for a few days, until I found the newly posted Beautypedia review. Paula was unequivocal in her scorn. Horrible! Flakes! Smudges! Even worse than the old formula, which was bad enough!

Hmmm, I thought. Could Paula be wrong? And then, by God, that mascara smudged and flaked the very next day. I am not kidding.

I’ve been back to the drugstore twice since then. On the first trip, I could not find a single top shelf brand that I remembered seeing on Beautypedia. Now, perhaps my approach is not as scientific as it could be. I don’t have an iPhone to check reviews in-store, and I certainly don’t have the patience to write down the names of all the brands. “I’ll remember the names,” I tell myself.

Ha! Have you seen the names of beauty products these days? I’ve read doctoral dissertations that felt shorter and less complicated. It can’t just be Maybelline Volume Express Mascara. (Oops, I mean, Volum’ Express). No, there is Volum’ Express 3X, and Volum’ Express Turbo Boost, and The Colossal Volum’ Express, and One by One Volum’ Express, and on and on and on. And no, Maybelline is not the only company that does this.

So I stood there, staring at dozens upon dozens of the wrong mascaras. And I thought: Do we need this many mascaras? I mean, really? How is it possible that, with enough mascaras to repopulate the Earth, not one of them is the right one? I went home empty-handed.

But from the darkness of despair, hope emerges. I made one last trip to Target and was shocked to find my old mascara brand, wasting away on the bottom shelf. How had I missed it before? There were exactly two tubes left. I was going to buy both, until I discovered that one of the packages had been opened. (This also seems to happen, often, to soon-to-be-discontinued products. Ask me about the time I bought my favorite conditioner — even though it had been opened and, quite possibly, used — because I thought it was the last one I would ever see).

So now I have my mascara. This buys me more time to find a new brand. I also still have my Beautypedia-approved drugstore blush, which will surely be gone when it’s time to replace it. And I have a very nice drugstore lipgloss, which I found while looking for Paula’s favorite ever, life-changing drugstore lipgloss, which had of course been discontinued.

What amazes me is that, in this environment of constant change, a few classics stick around forever. Look at Maybelline’s Great Lash mascara, for example. (I am not a fan, by the way, and neither is Paula). It’s existed for years, and it lands on the “best products lists” of many major magazines, year after year.

Even the packaging doesn’t change. And this is no small feat. (It is bad enough when your favorite product is discontinued. It’s even worse when the packaging changes for no logical reason at all, so that after years of being conditioned to buy the yellow jar, you buy the yellow jar and it’s the wrong jar, because the former contents of the yellow jar are now in the pink jar, and vice versa. Just to mess with you! Just because they can! Just because change is good! And because, if you’re too old to remember the 10-word name for your brand, you shouldn’t be buying beauty products at all!)

So I have a theory about Maybelline’s Great Lash mascara. The name is short and simple. The distinctive packaging — pink tube, green top — hasn’t changed much. I think this product stays around because it’s the only damn mascara that people can remember. Instant number one seller, right?

So why don’t all the other product lines follow suit? They can start with my favorite mascara. It’s made by Almay, and it’s the one with the white tube and a silvery blue top.

Are you listening, beauty industry?

To my readers: You’ve been there, right? I’d love to hear your rants stories!

Don’t forget: You still have a few days to enter my giveaway. You can win a $100 gift card from MarketPlace, a fair-trade clothing company with a strong social conscience. The last day to enter is Tuesday, April 10. Click here for details.

Visible Monday: Green fashion, a good cause, and a giveaway!

After about a year and a half of writing this blog, I am happy to announce my first-ever giveaway. I’m even more pleased to be giving something that I would definitely love to win myself — a $100 gift card to spend on clothes!

I was recently approached by a representative for MarketPlace: Handwork of India — a nonprofit, fair trade organization that uses an innovative model to empower low-income women in India. MarketPlace employs over 450 artisans, mostly women, providing training and assistance so that they can form and manage their own independent cooperatives. The artisans are involved at all levels of decision-making, so they are truly developing both business and leadership skills.

Some other style blogs in the neighborhood are doing this too, so you may have more than one chance to win! Of course, fashion bloggers are given opportunities to collaborate with retailers and designers all the time. However, when you write a part-time hobby blog with the word “frump” in the title — even if your intent is humorous — you don’t really expect it to happen to you. I am so pleased that, when it did, the organization was one like this.

According to the online research that I’ve done, the folks at MarketPlace are doing a lot of good work to improve the lives of women and families by promoting sustainable economic development in very poor areas. I love this quote from the mission statement on the company website:

Being in charge of their own businesses, the women learn valuable skills and are able to earn a living and support their families. In addition, programs offer educational and enrichment opportunities designed to help the artisans overcome personal, cultural and financial obstacles.

And if you look at the website, you’ll see that they produce some lovely clothes, too! There’s a nice range of items in a variety of silhouettes (from loose and flowy to more fitted) and colors (both brights and neutrals). I found a great many items that I loved, including some sweet sleeveless dresses, colorful tote bags and scarves, and some really cute printed leggings. There is even a home decor section with colorful pillows and textiles for the home. The fabrics are gorgeous, with vivid colors and delicate hand embroidery.

So how great is it that MarketPlace is donating a $100 gift card to one lucky reader?

Just to give you a taste, they sent me an item to model for you. I had a couple of different tops to choose from, and I chose a short-sleeved, green blouse. I almost chose a different top, a black and white tunic, because the green blouse has cap sleeves — not always the best choice for my substantial upper arms and shoulders!

But I just could not resist these bright, cheery colors:

I love green and don’t wear enough of it. And, since these fabrics are created with traditional Indian hand dyeing techniques, this top is green in more ways than one!

Here it is:

"Smita" blouse by MarketPlace: Handwork of India; woven leather belt from Kohl's; skirt by Sunny Leigh; shoes from Clark's Indigo line.

Regular readers will chuckle at the ubiquitous belt — I recently had a “to belt or not to belt” crisis — but I just had a feeling this might be a good pairing. And I have to say: this outfit makes me happy. Looking at this photo in comparison to some others I’ve posted, I’m beginning to think that I need more color in my life!

Just for fun, I also tried an unbelted look, with a more casual skirt and shoes:

Same blouse (obviously), denim skirt by Gap, flat metallic sandals from Clark's Artisan line.

I like this, too, as a more relaxed option for a hot summer day.

And now, for the giveaway! (And we’re sorry, but due to the burdensome costs of International shipping, we are forced to limit this to U.S. readers only). Here’s how to enter:

1. Follow this blog, if you haven’t already done so (see menu on right-hand side of page for following options);
2. Visit the Marketplace: Handwork of India website and find a favorite item, and
3. Comment on this post and tell me:

• which item you liked best, and
• how/where you are following The Frump Factor.

Be sure to enter your correct email address when you fill out the comment form. That is how I will contact you if you win! The last day to enter will be Tuesday, April 10, and the winner will be chosen by random drawing shortly thereafter.

And — if you’d like more than one chance to win — check out Serene’s post at The Elegant Bohemian or Reva’s at Reva’s Rags 2 Roses. They are both wonderful bloggers and I’m honored to be in their company!

I’m grateful to you all for reading The Frump Factor, and I wish everybody could win! I’ll look forward to seeing who does. Thanks again to the folks at MarketPlace, for sponsoring this giveaway and, especially, for doing the wonderful work that they do.

Don’t forget to visit Not Dead Yet Style, to see what the other over-40 style bloggers are wearing to be visible today!

An apple and a banana walk into a bar…

This month’s style-related obsession? Demystifying body types. I thought I had figured this out long ago, but learning is cyclical and recursive, right?

Why should I care? Well, there is a very sensible idea out there that, if you know the fundamentals of your body type, it’s easier to choose clothes that flatter you. It is almost certainly possible to take this too far, insisting that certain types of clothes are absolutely off-limits without ever even trying them.

I’m interested in finding a reasonable compromise. I’d like to bring you along for the journey because a) it might resonate with your own interests in proportional dressing, and b) I might be able to hit you up for some free assistance.  (Guess I’d better come clean about that one right up front).

Here’s what I thought I knew about my own proportions:

• I am a “reverse triangle,” with broader shoulders than hips,
• my waist is large relative to my hips, and
• my torso is long and my legs are short.

It turns out that I was wrong about two out of the three. Only the second item on that list is actually true.  Huh. Who knew?

My interest in this topic was rekindled recently when a new dress came into my possession. You may have read my post about said dress, in which I tried several different styling options. I received many very kind comments, and I will probably get a lot of wear out of this very lovely, very practical dress. But as I’ve been playing around with it, I’ve had to come to terms with the fact that the proportions are the opposite of what I usually wear. And there might be a good reason for that.

When I first tried the dress on, something seemed “off,” and I couldn’t quite place it. Was this just me being closed-minded, reaching for the same silhouettes over and over out of habit? Or was there a logical reason for my unease?

So I decided to do some body type research. I wanted to test what I thought I knew about my own proportions, to see if there is a good reason why I always choose certain shapes over others. I returned to many of my old style books, which have various systems for measuring, many of which I’m too damn impatient to do. (Buy life-sized butcher’s paper, tape it to the wall, and have somebody trace my nude figure? Really? I’m sure it works, but this is me we’re talking about. It’s not going to happen).

Instead, I grabbed a tape measure, took some quick measurements, and went online to try several “what is your body type?” quizzes. I was declared to be a banana, a strawberry and a spoon, all in the same day. I wasn’t sure where that left me, aside from wondering if I should whip up some daiquiris.

So I dug a little deeper. There are two different body types that you can look at: your vertical proportions (length of torso relative to legs, for example) and your horizontal type or shape (pear, apple, etc.) The vertical proportions were something I’d never measured, so I wondered if this might be a missing link.

I tried several different systems,  measuring both the vertical and the horizontal proportions.  I had the most success with what I found at Inside Out Style by Imogen Lamport.  If you want to try this at home, I would strongly recommend her short video showing how to measure the vertical proportions, as well her posts describing each of the body shapes, which she identifies with letters such as A, V, and X .

You can keep your day job, promise! It doesn’t take that long.

The verdict? I am probably an “H,” which is also sometimes called a rectangle (or a banana, if you prefer). This means I’m pretty straight up and down — shoulders the same width as hips, waist on the large side and not well-defined. I sort of knew this, but I wasn’t quite sure.

I also learned that I am short-waisted and relatively long of leg, which surprised me greatly. I have no idea why I’ve assumed the opposite for so long. But every different measuring system I tried came up with the same answer.

It could be that my body type is changing as I get older; waists shrink as the bustline migrates southward, I’m told. But Imogene also says that the places where you first put on weight tend to be the places where you are proportionally short. That, for me, has always been the waistline.

There are all kinds of tips provided for women with my body type, to help us choose more flattering clothes. So I thought it would be fun to evaluate my new dress, as well as the silhouettes that I usually choose, against the guidelines. For this discussion, I will focus on the following tips for H types:

• Avoid drawing attention to your waist with a belt or other waist detailing;
• At the same time, choose somewhat fitted tops to show the shape of the waist, such as it is, without over-emphasizing it or creating a strong horizontal line there;
• Choose empire waists or fitted details right under the bust, which are more flattering than those at the natural waist, and
• Avoid skirts with pleats or gathers below the waist, as these will tend to make you look larger. (I guess this is because people expect the hips to go out a certain amount from the waist. If your waist is wide to start with, the hips will appear to be much larger.)

I don’t know if I agree with this whole belting thing, but we’ll come back to that. It’s the shape of the skirt that interests me. When I tried my new dress, I knew that the flared, full, A-line skirt was a departure for me; I’ve been going slim and straight for as long as I can recall. I also knew that fuller skirts flatter women with larger hips, which I don’t have. But couldn’t such a skirt also be flattering on me because it creates the illusion of curves? That’s what always confuses me about body type advice;  it seems possible to reach contradictory conclusions.

Let’s just put it to the photo test, shall we?

In the first photo, you see a slim, straight, pencil-type skirt. These are known for creating curves. You also see a vest that nips in ever so slightly at the waist and then flares out, creating shape at the waistline without clinging tightly to it or creating a horizontal line across it.

In the second photo, you see a high, fitted waistline and a flared skirt. This cut may also create shape or curves, but perhaps for different reasons than the pencil skirt?

To me, the first picture is more flattering.

What do you think? Does the second photo highlight what I will euphemistically call the “pooch” area? (That’s the extra abundance that many of us carry right below the belly button). According to the body type guidelines, the full gathers of the skirt could be creating this issue.  But maybe there is some other, unrelated reason why I prefer the proportions in the first outfit. My perceptions and preferences also shift when I see the outfits from different angles, or if I catch a glimpse in the mirror of the view from the waist up, only.

The first photo was taken 5 months before the second, so it’s also possible that things have “shifted” slightly since then. (I also think something may be going on with the fit of the dress around the bust/bodice area. It doesn’t look like I could possibly be wearing the same bra in these two photos, but I am!) But I doubt there has been a major change in my weight or proportions; I’m still wearing all the same clothes and nothing is noticeably tighter.  Let’s just assume that it’s the clothes making the difference.

Focusing at the waistband of the dress, even though it feels like it falls at a strange place on me, I don’t dislike how it looks. Using the logic of the body type experts, is this very fitted waistline more on the flattering side, because it’s so high? Or is it still less than ideal because it’s highlighting a disproportionately large waist, trying to create an hourglass where none exists?

After awhile, I start to wonder if it’s ridiculous to even think about this at all. Am I just falling into the predictable and oh-so-dreary trap of thinking that women must always dress to look thinner? Why should we? Surely being curvier can also be desirable, can’t it, especially when you are a curve-challenged H to start with? Or how about not trying to manipulate our natural body shape at all? Now there’s a radical concept!

Maybe I’m just not enough of  a rectangle for it to matter. Maybe I’m more of an in-between shape — just like on all those personality tests where I’m right on the line between types, getting inconclusive or contradictory results every time I test.

But before I leave all of this behind in frustration,  I do want to address the belt issue.  Just when I discover the joys of belting, is my body type asking me to cease and desist? I love belting; it adds so many polished options to my repertoire! The “avoid belting” advice for H shapes did include the caveats that low-slung belts around the hips might look good, and that empire waists (and thus very high belts?) might also flatter.

Here’s an assortment of many belted looks:

The only one in which I think the belt looks like it’s going around a really poorly defined waist is the one with the plum, corduroy jacket (top right). The bulk of the fabric could be part of the issue here, as can the angle of the shot. But I have to say — is it just me, or is the lower right photo the most flattering? The belt is slung a little lower there, isn’t it? Could lower be good, because it makes my waist look longer? I also wonder if the ruffle skirt in the top left corner might work better with belts than the straight denim one below it, simply because the wider shape of the ruffle at the bottom make the waist look smaller (or more in proportion). But to be honest, I can’t see much of a difference there.

So now I’m confused again. It all gets a bit technical for me! (Have I mentioned, lately, how poorly I score on measures of spatial perception?)

If you are still reading this and your eyes haven’t rolled back up into your head, then I can only assume you are fascinated by the body-type topic as well. I’m interested in your reactions. If you have strong opinions about which photos are more (or less) flattering, and perhaps more importantly, if you have a theory about why, feel free to chime in.

All constructive comments are appreciated. Fear not that you will cause me to discard perfectly good items of clothing! Proportions can be altered in a variety of clever ways. I’m interested in your theories and observations, your advice, your own experiences, and most definitely your opinions about body-type dressing.

How can we use insights about body type as a tool of empowerment to help us dress our best, rather than a restrictive system that inhibits us? Are these “dress for your body type” rules useful, or are they just too complicated? When we follow “rules,” are we dressing to embrace our shape or to hide it? How do you approach these issues?