Part of the 1960s cultural rebellion, then, involved calculated grubbiness. Teenagers allowed tangles in their hair and old, frayed clothing on their bodies. They picked up old chairs on the street and bought worn-in jeans. This lifestyle was environmentally friendly, it was cheap, and it scandalized adults win, win, win. The trend peaked in New York in the late 1960s, and the flagship store was a place called Limbo.
Through the years, St. Marks Place has continued to hold on to its gritty and bohemian roots yet as Manhattan continues is march towards becoming the Mall of America, the ability for vintage clothing stores to survive sky high rents becomes a challenge. However, what is far more interesting is how with the passing of time, the mantra “they don’t make ’em like they used to” is becoming a stark reality in the vintage trade.
As Laver’s Law says, the clothes from about 30 years prior amuse us the most. What’s not the same is that in the 1960s, 1930s clothes were unique and made from high-quality materials; in the 2010s, 1990s clothes are, like, Express baby doll dresses. The higher-quality old stuff is in shorter supply, and so it’s become more precious and much more expensive. To a dance once in junior high school, I wore a perfect-condition 1950s pink tulle party dress, purchased on or near St. Marks for, as I recall, $5. I just looked on eBay for something similar; the price point was around $125.
So keep a hold of those old, vintage threads from the 1950s and 60s. They are becoming rare and highly sought after!
Photo Credit – Fred W. McDarrah/Getty Images via The Cut
For the benefit of science, the editors over at Racked asked Joshua David Stein to wear men’s jeggings for a day. Granted I didn’t know such things existed for men, and for my money, sweatpants are just fine by me. Clearly there appear to be some drawbacks from these hitting mainstream:
I would say the biggest challenge I faced wearing majeggings is how to maintain the integrity of my thigh silhouette as well as my butt silhouette and still manage to carry that holy trinity of quotidian pocket contents: iPhone, wallet and keys. And that’s when it occurred to me. The perfect accompaniment and necessary corollary to the majegging is the murse. I look forward to the day when I can walk into Uniqlo and proudly demand, “Take me to your murses!”
You may haveheard about The Gap’s recent inept attempt to redesign their logo. To demonstrate just how poor the decision making was there, the fine folks at ISO50 held a Gap Logo Redesign Contest, reaching out to the broader interweb design community to submit their own redesigns for the iconic logo. The results are, in my humble opinion, spectacular…with a couple of snarky designs thrown in for good measure! Just some amazing designs that reinforce just how bad the one that The Gap chose really is.
It appears that the geniuses at The Gap are now backpedaling on their decision making processes.
And for those few that really do like the new logo, you can generate a logo of your own right here.
The Puma Shoe company has reinvented the good old shoebox. While they moved away from the standard cardboard shoebox, they did keep the idea of re-usability in place as the new design has a re-usable bag covering the new shoes and a recycled cardboard “structure” that houses the shoes.
By providing structure to a cardboard sheet, the bag uses 65% less cardboard than the standard shoe box, has no laminated printing, no tissue paper, takes up less space and weighs less in shipping, and replaces the plastic retail bag. Puma claims that this new design will save about 8,500 tons of paper, 20 million Mega joules of electricity, 1 million litres of fuel oil, 1 million litres of water and 500,000 litres of diesel.
Wow, rethinking something perceived as so irrelevant as a shoebox can really have a big impact!