I have this cute Charlotte Ronson sheer coral button-down with cream lace. When Lauren interviewed me for Fashionista, she asked if it was vintage. A few minutes later, I asked her if her sunglasses were vintage, and they turned out to be Karen Walker. Ha: I, too, have a pair of Karen Walker sunglasses that someone once thought were vintage.
I suddenly realized I have two relatively expensive designer items in my wardrobe that, apparently, every person I meet thinks is “vintage,” which, for some reason, my brain has equated with “cheap.” I felt a little annoyed. I wondered, is this a risk I’m taking every time I buy something vintage-inspired? And more importantly, is it really worth paying designer prices for something people presume to be vintage?
I wasn’t actually that disappointed that my Charlotte Ronson blouse was mistaken for vintage (because I got it for $40 at a sample sale). However, my Karen Walkers were the first pair of sunglasses I spent more than $30 on and I couldn’t help but feel disappointed (perhaps in myself for paying so much) when someone assumed that something I paid a lot of money for was some great (cheap) vintage find.
When comparing vintage-inspired to real vintage, there are definitely pros and cons to both. With real vintage, you take pride in the fact that you’ve found a cute little piece of history. Your ‘80s floral romper is actually from the early ‘80s, while everyone else’s is from Opening Ceremony or Urban Outfitters. You also paid less than them and your piece is virtually one-of-a-kind, as opposed to instantly recognizable as ___ designer or ___ mass retailer.
However, sometimes that designer or mass retailer just happens to make the perfect vintage-inspired blouse that you’ve never been able to find at your local thrift store or vintage shop. You would have had to spend hours combing through smelly, disorganized racks, when the exact item you want is hanging neatly in a nice store, brand new, in your exact size. It’s so easy, but you have to admit, it’s not the real thing.
Ironically, if you were to compare it to the age-old luxury vs. knock off debate, it’s almost like vintage is the luxury, while vintage-inspired designer is the knock off, even when the latter is often more expensive.
When it comes to buying vintage-inspired vs. real vintage, do you have a preference? Do you think it’s worth it to pay designer prices for something that looks vintage?
Tags: Charlotte Ronson, Karen Walker
Most Popular Stories
Comments [19]
Popular Stories
The 10 Best YouTube Hair Tutorials
The 10 Best YouTube Makeup Tutorials 
Fashion's Most Stylish Guys Give Mark Zuckerberg an (Almost!) Hoodie-Free Makeover for Facebook's IPO
Style and Substance: 10 Ladies Who Have Proven You Can Have Both
10 Beauty Boards You Should Be Following on Pinterest
I feel like you're over-thinking it. All of your vintage-versus- vintage-inspired reasoning is sound and smart. Purchase what inspires you and you'll look and feel great, and who cares if people think it's cheap (vintage) or designer.
I don't differentiate between my thrift-store finds, vintage finds and couture vintage finds. If I find something fabulous for .50 cents I love it as much as vintage I've pay hundreds for—sometimes I like it even more for that very reason! :)
And I agree with your thought “it's almost like vintage is the luxury, while vintage-inspired designer is the knock off, even when the latter is often more expensive”. Vintage is much more luxury than vintage-inspired, because it's rare!
Vintage does not necessarily equate to cheap. Sometimes quite the opposite!
If you love it – wear it because it makes you happy wherever it comes from and however old or new it is.
Cheap = poorly made and inexpensive. AKA a lot of F21/H&M/etc. (not that there's anything wrong with fast food fashion, it is what it is). Vintage and modern can be cheap, or luxe, or bridge, or whatever. I think you need to rethink your thoughts on vintage (I mean this as a suggestion, not a criticism!) I also don't try to guess what an item is worth if it's on another person…I just appreciate (or don't appreciate) their style.
If you think it's worth the money and you like it, who cares if it's vintage, designer, or from the clearance rack at Kmart. The superficial “worth” is nothing compared to how something you love makes you feel. Taste has to do with something you're trying to achieve, a old sentiment… like your favorite sundress as a child, or the timeless elegance of your mother's easy beauty. Fashion is like searching for love, a feeling asymptotic to the perfect bond between parent and child–you're constantly striving towards expressing everything you were born as and everything that has become a part of you. If you can come close, then the brand or whatever really is an obsolete detail. That is the emotional allure of vintage clothing, and really all clothing… and art, books, music, movies, etc…
might be a compliment. also clothes are clothes, makes no difference
Though I share your feelings of disapointment, your questioning leads me to another subject: is current fashion too self referential? Why are we wearing the same over and over? Who is making something really new and inspired? ……….
What you were wearing obviously looked beautiful and out of the ordinary – a fashion expert could not quite place it in any collection she had seen. That, to me, is a great compliment on your individual style and certainly does not equate with someone thinking your clothes are “cheap”. To find an old item that suits you and to wear it in a context where it works with current trends is an art, and more about good taste which is not really to be bought no matter how much money you have,
Someone's head is askew here.
Vintage to me means French couture from a bygone era, and equates to light years beyond anything as mundane as Charlotte Ronson.
Well.. if the clothing you're buying is as you say “vintage-inspired”, it's not surprising for people to mistake it for real vintage, right? You shouldn't think that by people presuming you're clothing is vintage, they're imagination goes to a “cheap” find, but if it bothers you that much you can always stack in a pearl necklace and earrings ;)
Personally I prefer real vintage, meh, it gives me an excuse to do some silly research but I don't have a problem paying a designer piece for a vintage resemblance. If I like it, I buy it.
I don't want to sound overly critical here, but it seems like you need to reconsider the way that you determine worth. It shouldn't be determined by how much you spent on something (and even if it were, the vintage store that I work at has plenty of beautiful tops for $40). If you loved something enough to spend money on it, whatever the amount, you shouldn't care whether anyone knows what label it has inside. Sorry to sound all corny and preachy…
http://loublog.tumblr.com/
I think vintage means a lot of things (thrift, label, no-label); antique clothes, however, are generally anything 100 years old.
The point of style is to have style, not to signal how much money you spent. Worrying that people think your clothes are “cheap” is a slippery slope to the tacky head-to-toe designer label look.
Did you look great? If so, the money you spent was worth it.
I think classical pieces of good quality, good fabrics and modeling who dress well and can easily be used with other items, are indispensable articles in a wardrobe. Need not be vintage but need to have class.
Leila Silva
http://www.leilasilva.wordpress.com
Back before vintage was much of a topic in fashion circles, it would be considered a real compliment to me or my friends if someone asked if we were wearing it. Often it would be a moment of recognition from a like-minded person, and it was always fun to have those encounters. I'm using past-tense because wearing vintage or designer faux-vintage seems trendier, and meeting people who appreciate it is not such a novelty. Now as then, I look for vintage that is well made from quality fabric. If I spend a few dollars I can gloat, but I'm willing to spend a lot more to collect something I like. Either way, I'd never consider my find cheap.
In Los Angeles where I live vintage is just as expensive if not more than vintage inspired pieces. Its ridiculous.
just an aside, but vintage “inspired” 9 times out of 10 is actually literally a vintage knock off. not taking inspiration from, but copied line for line, seam for seam, details and all. paying a lot for a “designer” piece the designer did little to no creative work on while proclaiming vintage to be cheap is a bit of a skewed view…..
Thank you for all these comments – writer has to get head on straight or Fashionista should get writers with even 1/2 a clue about Fashion & Style, (and real vintage vs Knockoff vintage) not some silly wanna-bees who thinks that more $$$ = more style. So wrongheaded and ridiculous.
as far as bitchbitchbitch's comment goes…..I would counter that vintage *should* cost more than knock offs. the repros or “inspired by's” are mass produced. a geniune vintage piece is (usually) one of a kind, hardly worth “less” (unless of course you go by the writer's standard, which is apparently 80s rompers from Goodwill). vintage from a boutique is carefully curated & restored…..far from the donated 80s stuff at a thrift.
i think going into a vintage store is so cool, finding that one of a kind piece heart throbbing!! and especially getting it at a good price,even better. and to the writer i think if you go to this vintage store called angel's vintage boutique you will never want to wear a vintage inspired again i promise you:)