Among ourselves as well as with you, Susan & I have talked about which fashion eras seem to be more flattering to one time of life than another. We’ve agreed that the fashions of the Regency era were more flattering to slender, youthful figures than to more…er…mature, curvaceous ones. Bosoms were in fashion, though, and generously displayed in the evening.
In the 1920s, too, a youthful look ruled. But it was a boyish look. I didn’t fully realize how boyish, however, until the latest posts arrived from one of my new favorite blogs, the FIDM Museums & Galleries. The dress on display, Rachel points out, has no darts! That’s when it really sank in.
Today, while the “ideal” is tall & skinny, women are also supposed to have cleavage. You know: the Barbie look. It’s so important that some of us who don’t own that sort of real estate go out and buy it.
But not back in Clara Bow’s day. Interesting that the It Girl (at left above) offers us a very sexy display of back instead. I’ve put Greta Garbo up as well (at right below) because hers was that ideal figure.
But few of us possess the ideal figure, for then or now. I will never be as tall as Frances Stuart or the Countess of Castlemaine, let alone a runway model, and it’s a good bet that my skinny days are behind me. While I can appreciate beautiful clothes on the right body, I do fantasize about a greater variety of “right body” in designers’ repertoires. And so I couldn’t help cheering when I followed Rachel’s suggestion and took a look at Prada’s fashions for fall.
There’s a big difference in how we use history. But we’re equally nuts about it. To us, the everyday details of life in the past are things to talk about, ponder, make fun of -- much in the way normal people talk about their favorite reality show.
We talk about who’s wearing what and who’s sleeping with whom. We try to sort out rumor or myth from fact. We thought there must be at least three other people out there who think history’s fascinating and fun, too. This blog is for them.