Sartorial concerns
Feb. 15th, 2007 12:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shermaramaOf two sorts, one being a sort of explanatory grump, the other being a question.
The grump. Today I finished making a pair of trousers. They were intended to be smartish, the sort of thing I could wear with some things to make them presentable while still being comfy trousers I could wear with any old t-shirt. The fabric, which turns out to be have been rather nastier than I'd been hoping for the price from Fabric land in Brighton, is dark brown and slightly stretchy. I'd had this possible smart-ish outfit in mind for when such things are needed, which would be these trousers, this orange v-neck jumper I got from H&M ages ago when I wasn't sure what I was doing after the degree yet and thought I might be needing stocks of more office-compatible wear and saw this nice orange (y'know, rust and autumn leaves, not plastic or marker pen) v-neck actual wool jumper, and my lovely swirly-polished-brown-like-a-slightly-paler-conker short boots. Regrettably, the jumper is never really going to fit and the trousers look shit.
They're not complete corkers, I mean I've made worse. They are comfortable to wear and are a pretty good shape and the zip and pockets and other fittings have all come out all right, I can make a functional pair of trousers with no real trouble these days. But the fabric looks shit and cheap and I thought it might be an idea to do some paler brown top-stitching down the leg seams, but the tan-coloured top-stitch thread just looks stupidly orange against the dark brown, making them look tackier, and slightly like some sort of uniform. I bought a wide belt this afternoon which may possibly be usable with other trousers but really doesn't work here; despite its own cheapness it just makes the fabric look even duller and given that, does too much of a wide-belt thing and practically makes my arse vanish. See, I'm very tall, while being a weird inherited mix of a wide-load mother and a skinny father. So I've got a reasonable waist, in that it's ten inches smaller than my hips, but it sits a long way above my actual hip bones and yet, since a lot of the height is just leg, not that far below my large chest; accenting my waist doesn't work because it makes me look really top-heavy, which actually I am but that's no reason to go round looking like a sort of inflatable battering ram, especially given that I'd be doing that at eye-level on most people. The hips themselves are quite broad, and *they* can be accented because that balances out the width of the shoulders and chest and helps keep the battering-ram effect down. That's best done with a medium-wide belt or trouser band or skirt yoke or whatever to connect up my hips to my arse, which is quite small and flat and again has quite a lot of vertical separation from my hips. If there's something noticeable or defined across the back of my hips, see, the arse appears to be filling all of the allocated space underneath that area, thereby looking more in balance with the rest of me, whereas if it's the only noticeable thing in the entire substantial area between the top of my legs and my waist it looks rather lost. But given that the belt I bought today is more interesting than the trouser fabric, the belt becomes basically the *only* thing you notice - as opposed to, say, my orange camo-print trousers, where my arse competes perfectly well with any belt because it's being orange. (If you wanted proof of how not-large my arse is, see, I can cover it in an orange-based abstract pattern and it still doesn't look that big.) Anyway, in dark brown and with a wide and interesting belt above it, the arse just becomes a minor disruption between the belt and the top of my legs which it's perfectly easy to miss, which in combination with the uniform-confusable contrasting stripe that the topstitching regrettably resembles, stands in danger of turning me into some sort of barely-pubescent bell-boy. Though of course only from the waist down; the mismatch puts the battering-ram effect back into the equation... and in this the overall outfit is not helped by the jumper that's never really going to fit. It's v-neck, which is good for me, surely this should work? I think it's the ribbing round the bottom that's the problem. The ribbing sits almost exactly on the belt of trousers, going round my hips, but because it pulls in slightly, the fabric above it bags out, completely concealing that I have a waist. So now I appear to have a less broad pelvis, because you can't see the waist for comparison and everything below there is just a fairly straight-up-and-down pair of legs, which takes me back to battering-ram city despite the v-neck because there's nothing left to balance the chest against. I could probably get away with the jumper if it didn't have the ribbing round the bottom, but I think it'd be too short if I just cut it off and anyway I have no idea how I'd usably hem a fine-knit wool jumper. It all just doesn't work, in short, the jumper pretty certainly never and the trousers not without extensive modification (unlikely when I've got other fabric waiting) or finding some unexpected way to wear them well regardless, which probably won't be a smart-dress-compatible one as I was hoping. Bah.
The question: I appear to be going to the theatre on Friday, specifically, the Novello Theatre to see the RSC do Antony and Cleopatra. How does one dress for that sort of level of theatre these days, or does it really not matter at all? Could the opprobrium I'd suffer for casualness be any worse than the tutting of some of the other theatre-goers, or conversely, would I get laughed out for dressing too formally? Does the fact that I'm asking this question, before I've even gone to see Shakespeare in some poncy theater that's not even anything to do with school, and setting aside that I've just written a long rant about how a jumper has dissatisfied me for making me appear unstylish without ever mentioning whether it is comfortable or warm, forever more brand me as status-consciously middle class, even when I've always enjoyed the idea of class being pretty difficult to pin down these days, mine included?
The grump. Today I finished making a pair of trousers. They were intended to be smartish, the sort of thing I could wear with some things to make them presentable while still being comfy trousers I could wear with any old t-shirt. The fabric, which turns out to be have been rather nastier than I'd been hoping for the price from Fabric land in Brighton, is dark brown and slightly stretchy. I'd had this possible smart-ish outfit in mind for when such things are needed, which would be these trousers, this orange v-neck jumper I got from H&M ages ago when I wasn't sure what I was doing after the degree yet and thought I might be needing stocks of more office-compatible wear and saw this nice orange (y'know, rust and autumn leaves, not plastic or marker pen) v-neck actual wool jumper, and my lovely swirly-polished-brown-like-a-slightly-paler-conker short boots. Regrettably, the jumper is never really going to fit and the trousers look shit.
They're not complete corkers, I mean I've made worse. They are comfortable to wear and are a pretty good shape and the zip and pockets and other fittings have all come out all right, I can make a functional pair of trousers with no real trouble these days. But the fabric looks shit and cheap and I thought it might be an idea to do some paler brown top-stitching down the leg seams, but the tan-coloured top-stitch thread just looks stupidly orange against the dark brown, making them look tackier, and slightly like some sort of uniform. I bought a wide belt this afternoon which may possibly be usable with other trousers but really doesn't work here; despite its own cheapness it just makes the fabric look even duller and given that, does too much of a wide-belt thing and practically makes my arse vanish. See, I'm very tall, while being a weird inherited mix of a wide-load mother and a skinny father. So I've got a reasonable waist, in that it's ten inches smaller than my hips, but it sits a long way above my actual hip bones and yet, since a lot of the height is just leg, not that far below my large chest; accenting my waist doesn't work because it makes me look really top-heavy, which actually I am but that's no reason to go round looking like a sort of inflatable battering ram, especially given that I'd be doing that at eye-level on most people. The hips themselves are quite broad, and *they* can be accented because that balances out the width of the shoulders and chest and helps keep the battering-ram effect down. That's best done with a medium-wide belt or trouser band or skirt yoke or whatever to connect up my hips to my arse, which is quite small and flat and again has quite a lot of vertical separation from my hips. If there's something noticeable or defined across the back of my hips, see, the arse appears to be filling all of the allocated space underneath that area, thereby looking more in balance with the rest of me, whereas if it's the only noticeable thing in the entire substantial area between the top of my legs and my waist it looks rather lost. But given that the belt I bought today is more interesting than the trouser fabric, the belt becomes basically the *only* thing you notice - as opposed to, say, my orange camo-print trousers, where my arse competes perfectly well with any belt because it's being orange. (If you wanted proof of how not-large my arse is, see, I can cover it in an orange-based abstract pattern and it still doesn't look that big.) Anyway, in dark brown and with a wide and interesting belt above it, the arse just becomes a minor disruption between the belt and the top of my legs which it's perfectly easy to miss, which in combination with the uniform-confusable contrasting stripe that the topstitching regrettably resembles, stands in danger of turning me into some sort of barely-pubescent bell-boy. Though of course only from the waist down; the mismatch puts the battering-ram effect back into the equation... and in this the overall outfit is not helped by the jumper that's never really going to fit. It's v-neck, which is good for me, surely this should work? I think it's the ribbing round the bottom that's the problem. The ribbing sits almost exactly on the belt of trousers, going round my hips, but because it pulls in slightly, the fabric above it bags out, completely concealing that I have a waist. So now I appear to have a less broad pelvis, because you can't see the waist for comparison and everything below there is just a fairly straight-up-and-down pair of legs, which takes me back to battering-ram city despite the v-neck because there's nothing left to balance the chest against. I could probably get away with the jumper if it didn't have the ribbing round the bottom, but I think it'd be too short if I just cut it off and anyway I have no idea how I'd usably hem a fine-knit wool jumper. It all just doesn't work, in short, the jumper pretty certainly never and the trousers not without extensive modification (unlikely when I've got other fabric waiting) or finding some unexpected way to wear them well regardless, which probably won't be a smart-dress-compatible one as I was hoping. Bah.
The question: I appear to be going to the theatre on Friday, specifically, the Novello Theatre to see the RSC do Antony and Cleopatra. How does one dress for that sort of level of theatre these days, or does it really not matter at all? Could the opprobrium I'd suffer for casualness be any worse than the tutting of some of the other theatre-goers, or conversely, would I get laughed out for dressing too formally? Does the fact that I'm asking this question, before I've even gone to see Shakespeare in some poncy theater that's not even anything to do with school, and setting aside that I've just written a long rant about how a jumper has dissatisfied me for making me appear unstylish without ever mentioning whether it is comfortable or warm, forever more brand me as status-consciously middle class, even when I've always enjoyed the idea of class being pretty difficult to pin down these days, mine included?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 07:24 am (UTC)The only important point is to wear something which is comfortable when at rest, because you're going to be sitting pretty still in it for a long time...
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 08:52 am (UTC)I am a great fan of skirts for when I need to look slightly smart, but I think the lesson here is clear: don't buy cheap nasty fabric. I'm also a bit biased about the skirt thing because I don't have enough sewing experience/confidence yet to tackle trousers.
I'm not British so the class thing is all slightly mysterious to me.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:06 am (UTC)I like the idea of skirts but I can never find anything to wear on my feet - at a size 11 I can only buy men's shoes and they're not really designed for wearing with skirts. I've got one pair of sandals that look fairly gender-neutral but I ain't wearing sandals in February! When I do wear skirts it tends to be with giant boots or the like which takes them out of the smart range.
You're right about the fabric, though; I should *know* this by now, but when all the shops ever have is shit fabric I keep eventually giving in. This stuff from Fabric Land wasn't even that cheap, which is why I was hoping that I'd come to maybe like it more. I've recently found some better sources online, though, which is at least something.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:20 am (UTC)That said, long skirts + DMs might be pull-off-able if the rest of the outfit is sufficiently smart.
Not a cheap option, but have you looked into having a pair of smart shoes made for you? Green Shoes (http://www.greenshoes.co.uk/index.php?f=shop&p=product&id=33&c=women&t=1&start=0) in Totnes do custom shoes, they say their sizes are only available up to UK8 for ladies but they do go up to men's 12, and if you were to give them a ring they might be able to sort something out as they make each shoe from scratch anyway. Conker Shoes (http://www.conkershoes.com) is another Totnes company that makes shoes to order.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 11:55 am (UTC)Long skirt & boots just makes me look like a hippy in a long skirt and boots, really, I've tried this before out of having no other option and it's not at all convincing.
Custom-made shoes is a thing. I'd really like a pair of knee length smart boots - now that would solve all skirt-wearing problems - but despite years of keeping a background eye out I've had no luck. I've tried a couple of large-size specialists and got rubbish quality boots that were too short in the leg, I've tried transvestite shops and got rubbish quality boots that were too wide in the leg and the foot... I'll shell out to get some custom made at some point but even then it's not simple. I still have narrow, ladylike feet despite the length and the custom places I've asked before have said they can't use the wider lasts for a men's size 11 to make a ladies' style, and fair enough because I'd be paying custom prices for something that still didn't fit me properly. There probably is somewhere that does a full bespoke service somewhere in London, but I think it really would cost. I'd expect to get a pair of boots with a life span of decades out of them, which will make it some sort of worth it, but there's no way it's not going to be steep.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 09:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 09:14 am (UTC)tie." so I might dress up a certain amount, and squeeze the boy into his evening suit. Or possibly just his normal suit, but he very rarely gets the chance to wear evening dress.
I'll probably try to go somewhere inbetween casual and black tie; but I'm not quite sure where that falls, especially if I'm trying not to freeze on the way back..
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 09:54 am (UTC)'Somewhere between casual and black tie' surely encompasses just about everything? *grins*
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:05 am (UTC)Nah, that's a vote for not-black tie really, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 10:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 12:23 pm (UTC)Feathered read-indian headdresses, Beehive hairstyles and gross cranial deformities that obstruct the view for people in the seat behind you are the only real taboo.
It would be expected that a man wears a blazer (if not a suit and tie) in the Very Posh seats, and ladies dress to match: like runs with like... But that's all. Elsewhere, anything goes - DM's, combats, ripped jeans; I have yet to see speedos and flip-flops but with air-conditioned auditoria losing the battle against global warming, it can only be a matter of time.
There's no real concept of 'over-dressing' as most of the audience turn up straight from their day jobs in an office - although full evening dress is only ever seen these days among theatre parties who have hired a box.
Cool and comfortable is the way to go.
the orange jumper
Date: 2007-02-15 12:51 pm (UTC)Cheers
Claire
Re: the orange jumper
Date: 2007-02-15 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-15 01:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-16 09:52 am (UTC)but anyway, don't worry about it, wear what you like. no-one cares. i know it's not the theatre but i used to go to the Proms quite a lot in one of the fancy boxes (2 along from the royal box) and to start off with wore reasonably smart stuff but after a while didn't bother. wear something you feel comfortable in (not just physically).
the other things is i noticed last summer quite a lot of the high street shops (new look, H&M) doing ultra-long vest tops, designed so you can wear them as a mini-dress. i cut several inches off one and can still tuck it in (though i have a short torso). don't really frequent those shops but imagine they're still in fashion. i think american apparel does them too.
this place does seriously made-to-measure shoes http://www.taylormadeshoes.co.uk/ i think there are a couple of similar places in London. cost about £1600 though.
oh and - i really don't understand what it has to do with class. like, why is worrying about wearing appropriate dress a middle-class thing? is it only the middle-class that are status-conscious?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-23 06:43 pm (UTC)Long vest tops - yes, okay, apologies to the earlier poster who suggested this; I noticed the trend for long vest tops last year and tried to see about going and getting some but didn't really have much luck. What with the chest and shoulders and things, I often still don't fit in the largest top size available in your average fashion shop. I can fit in a size 16 at H&M, much of the time, but depending on the cut sometimes that's not big enough, and they don't do any bigger. Topshop don't believe I exist. And if a top doesn't pull across the chest, the next perils to negotatiate are armholes that are too small or high, necklines that are irritatingly high and fitted waists that are plainly in the wrong place or just hanging baggily. On official number measurements I could make use of plus size ranges, but they really are the wrong shape.
On class, I dunno, it's traditionally supposed to be the middle classes who worry about keeping up with the Joneses. The real toffs don't give a toss, and the working classes are possibly supposed to either not care or just not have the means to.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-25 10:35 pm (UTC)worrying about what to wear means you're middle class just like not giving a monkeys about what to wear means you're suddenly bleeding aristocracy. yeah right.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-21 12:50 pm (UTC)completely unrelated...
Date: 2007-02-22 10:50 am (UTC)