Tabletop dressing
From Ellen Warren in the Chicago Tribune: "What if you could look more fashionable than ever and cut your spending in half? It's so much easier than you think. Here's how: Stop worrying about what you're wearing from the waist down. Call it Tabletop Dressing. If you're outfitting yourself for dining out, quit wasting cash, time and trouble choosing the cutest designer shoes, the latest $300 jeans or the perfect high-end trousers or skirt. Nobody sees any of that when you're sitting at the table.
Grab some trusty shoes and an old (black?) standby for your lower parts. Now start concentrating your fashion firepower on what goes on from the waist up. That's the territory where you'll make a statement."
I learned the hard way years ago, when I reached in my closet and to put on an extravagant pair of Gaultier pants only to realize when I got to the restaurant that I was wearing my Gap pair– one-eighth the price and they looked just as good. (The Gap has slipped since then, but once made terrific techno pants.)
I wouldn
't say (defensively) that my "bottom halves" are old, but they're usually where I spend less money. $300 jeans do not look six times better than $50 jeans. But I don't agree about the shoes, and think this principle won't work if you require formal business wear.
Do you apply the Tabletop principle or follow different guidelines? (Shown: silk top by Veronique Miljkovitch.)
Comments
I think it's much easier to get a richer look if you keep most of the ensemble simple and accessorize with good jewelry, bags, scarves, shoes. With a less than perfect figure, I look for ways to draw attention up to my face.
I do somewhat agree in that I don't go to many dress occasions, so a good basic black pant or skirt with a more interesting top is my fall back option.
That being said, I invest in quality - nothing inexpensive. I'm going to be wearing them often over a number of years. Fine fabric and a good cut will always look better to those with an 'eye' and last better too.
Jeans may be the exception to this, but again I'm looking for a good fit rather than the lowest price. I'm going to be keeping them a long time and I want to look good when I wear them.
Which leads to another point - part of dressing well is feeling good about myself; knowing I made the effort. For me it includes nice underwear which no one else knows about. More expensive yes, but worth it to have that confidence that I made the effort to be well dressed for the occasion.
Northmoon: I'm going to guess she would advocate good quality, seems she is advising against super-pricey. Great point about the lingerie!
I agree with Northmoon...lingerie of the fancy and racy, usually lacy does make me feel secretly fabulous!
But I very much like simplifying, as for travel. Yes, more tops than bottoms, except opaque tights (and, I confess, at least a pair of leggings to wear when it is cold).
And do NOT forget the scarves!
I also wear lots of black dresses,usually minimalistic sheath style by Calvin Klein, and that solves both the upper and lower body dressing dilemas.
While I agree with tabletop dressing in principal, if you can find that one pair of jeans that make your derriere look great, they might be worth buying even if they are $300. People may notice your shoes as Pseu writes, but men notice your figure and the correct fit in a jean or trouser is essential.
I also tend to a classic pencil skirt (usually black), and dress the top with greater flair.
You're a delightful new discovery, grâce à Tish.
More about the exhibit here: http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Nan_kempner/more.asp
That said, I agree that, with the exception of the shoes, one could concentrate the budget on the top half, keeping the bottom half clothed in conservative, reasonably-priced staples.
Can't agree on the jeans though -- while a $300 pair might not be worth 6 times as much as a $50 pair, I think my $200 pairs (and I have several) worth at least 3 times the $70-80 ones (or math along similar lines . . .). The washes are more pleasing, the stretch is just enough so they'll hold their shape for several wearings, the cuts are more flattering, and the fabric itself is generally a discernibly better quality. Depending what role they play in a wardrobe, the higher prices can be justified, imho.
thoughtful, fun post, as usual!
hostess: So, will you do some lingerie posts :)
Belle: Black dresses are "the" other passe-partout category for me.
BigLittleWolf: Welcome, Trish's blog is great!
LaurieAnn: Perhaps you think so (about your top half) but men tend to think differently.
ma: I own but one pair of jeans, they are mid-priced- so am hardly an expert on high vs low end. Do see a lot of mid-priced jeans with stretch, and many of my friends like the new Gap line as well as Not Your Daughter's Jeans.
I too don't work with a table or desk to block my lower half, but have slid into this approach anyway.
However, as a VERY bottom heavy pear shape, I will pay for a good cut, good fabric, good fit pair of trousers. They tend to be simple lines in dark fabrics. I dont get rid of them- but price per wear means they work for every cent I paid for them. They are the chorus and my tops do the solo work.
Shoes? well I just love them- dont care what they cost- and they dont judge my current weight!
If it's formal it could be one ball gown skirt.
What the idea here is bottom line: A good "spike" around which to build a fashion story.
I'm with you on the shoes, 100 percent.
Note too, if any of your TV anchorwomen stand-up before the camera is off of them -- not true on CNN where they walk around -- they're usually wearing jeans and they never wear the same top. (It's impossible to see their shoes. . .)
P.S.: Your French joke is lol funny. Loved it.
Tippchic: I think she means "don't worry about it" as don't search obsessively, just keep doing what works. Well cut pants make a difference.
diverschic: You would know from cleavage ;)
Fritinancy: And Nan K. could have whatever she pleased! Remember seeing a collage of her jewelry; suprised me to see how much costume she wore. Her remarks about how she hated fat people did tarnish her 'lady' image.
Tish: Yes, come to think of it, that's the travel-with-a-carryon scenario, isn't it?
And re jeans, I wear them a lot, being what you might call 'boyish' in shape, but I still find that I get a better fit from more expensive ones. I'd happily wear cheap ones if they flattered, but generally they don't.
BTW, the Veronique M clothes I bought (following the link from your blog) get comments every single time I wear them.
What is near your face is what we notice most.
And Tiffany: I'm green with envy over your Veronique M items.
Anyway, I think her comment about shoes might have been aimed more at volume than at quality. Yes, get a good pair of quality, versatile shoes -- or two, or five -- but don't think that fabulous shoes are going to carry you very far in and of themselves.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article7047138.ece
And I DO know several Frenchwomen who have divorced due to their husbands' affairs.
Of course where decent-quality French readymade dressing simply doesn't exist is in garments over a size 12 or so.
Duchesse, I'm back from a short work trip to Amsterdam; I was hoping to get to Paris but had obligations here. Next time. You might not like everything there - and it is certainly not Paris in terms of style, but there is a lot of quality, classic European women's wear - but the clothing would definitely fit you. Not me; I'm far too short.
5'10" is the AVERAGE height for Dutch women, and I've seen many women over 50 in those heights as well - there was a bit of a dip during the Hunger Years of the Second World War, if not, the Dutch have had a lot of dairy for decades now.
I never take photos (I do watercolours) but I may give in and get a camera as I saw a tall, elegant woman in her 60s who looked a bit like Duchesse, heading to work I presume, on her stately high black bicycle.