1. ‘Vintage‘ for anything pre-21st century. I’m sorry, I don’t care what etsy says, 1993 is NOT ‘vintage’.  I sewed clothes that I can still wear in 1993.  I’m pretty sure I’m not old enough to be vintage.  Even if it’s 1960s it’s NOT vintage, it’s retro.  Equally, nothing post 1920 is ‘antique‘, it’s just vintage.  And you know what, there is a really good reason to have these classifications.  They make life easier.  It really sucks to be searching for vintage 1930s patterns and having to slog through pages and pages of 1980s blouses and 1960s mod dresses.  There is nothing wrong with retro items – retro is a wonderful classification.  Some of my favourite things are retro.  But they aren’t vintage!  So do the world a favour and don’t call anything made after 1920 ‘antique, anything made after 1959 ‘vintage’ (personally, I think it should be ’55), and don’t call anything made after 1990 ‘retro’. 2. Back in the day.’  Back in what day? Back in the day… 3.  In olden times‘  Which …

I’ve been thinking about body shapes and clothes and colours, and what is flattering recently. It started with an offhand comment someone made about circle skirts, and how they are flattering on everybody.  Totally not true.  Circle skirts are one of my worst looks.  They emphasize my thick waist and short torso, make me look very pear-shaped rather than a tiny bit pear shaped, hide my awesome bottom (which I quite frankly love), and, in short, don’t look nearly as good as most other shapes do on me. I’m not saying I look really bad in them: just that they bring the focus to all my least favourite bits and hide all my most favourite bits (ahem.  bottom.), so they aren’t flattering. So, anyway, here are five things that are frequently held up to be universally flattering, but which I think look good one some people, and not on others, because hey, we all have different shapes and faces and skins and figures.  But that’s just my opinion. Black Black does not look good on …