The Space Between My Peers

Christie’s question concerning smart casual winter tops, which came in response to my post on the six levels of casual:

I also need better ideas for smart casual winter tops. I have a semi-wrap merino wool sweater which I like, but it seems to have shrunk in length. I like to be warm, so I look for non-bulky wool sweaters. But my first layer under sweaters usually is just a tee, so that’s kind of boring.

My off-the-cuff answer:

I was just thinking that I could get a couple of slim turtlenecks and just use them for the boring t-shirt part, topped by a snappy jacket in velvet or suede or wool. I have also been using drapy silk blouses under my v-neck sweaters and liking that.

You see, typically I think of assembling an outfit, or a uniform template, in terms of

The Base (pant, skirt or dress) + The Top + The Layer

The paradigm shift:

Brenda Kinsel suggests considering each zone as a room in a house. The larger the room, the more furniture (line breaks, detailing, embellishments, bells and whistles) you can put in there.

Based on the fact that shorter hip-length fitted jackets, the more pockets and detailing the better, are the hands-down best length/shape for me, I’m toying with this variation on the “formula”:

The Base + The Top Layer + The Connector

The top layer being the jacket, sweater, sweatshirt, etc and the connector being the top underneath which makes it all work together. Which really makes perfect sense, as the character of an outfit is created by the jacket … which I am now in the market for more than ever, for two reasons: one, I have laundry snafu’d all my favorites right out the door and two, Fall/Winter clearance.

So I don’t know if I helped you, Christie, but you certainly helped me!

What say the rest of you lovely people?  Other than that I over-analyze things.  Isn’t that the point? 

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

I’m trying to get back to a more regular posting schedule, including Fashion Labs on Fridays. Any what to wear questions on your mind? You, too, can be a model for a future fashion lab and benefit from the input of others. Drop me a line.

Ever since Vildy told me about Brenda Kinsel’s body proportion principles, I’ve been a cow. That is, I’ve been ruminating on the idea of the four zones. Grab your measuring tape, here’s how it works:

Zone 1: Top of face (I think this must need to be top of head/hair) to top of chest, approximately armpit. (Mine = 14)

Zone 2: Armpit to … legpit. That is, the break in the leg, aka the hip socket. (Mine = 18)

Zone 3: Hip socket to mid-knee. (Mine = 15)

Zone 4: Mid-knee to floor. (Mine = 18)

(Somewhere in the imprecision of self measuring, I lost 3/4 of an inch!)

In reality, this ends up being very close to taking two of the head lengths I have talked about before at a time, but the application is slightly different. Brenda Kinsel suggests considering each zone as a room in a house. The larger the room, the more furniture (line breaks, detailing, embellishments, bells and whistles) you can put in there. Which explains why I don’t want jeans that hug the thigh, tapering in at the knee; they just emphasize how short I am in that zone.

This has also got me thinking alot about tops, and just in time too! More on this to come, but for now:

1. Is anybody long in zone 1? If so, do you by chance have a more glamorous style, using more jewelry and accessories than most? I’m feeling justified in liking to keep things simple in that “room” in my house.
2. What is your “biggest room” and how have you already been filling it? For example, with my long torso I can easily wear short jackets (inches above the hip socket) which are fitted at the waist (the change of line direction has the opposite effect of a straight vertical line), even belted with pockets.
3. Can you think of ways to “borrow” space from one zone for the other? I just realized why it doesn’t really matter if my jeans are skinny, straight, or wide, just as long as the line is unbroken from hip to floor: that is effectively “borrowing” from my length in zone 4 to add to zone 3.

This is going to have a huge impact on my wardrobe! How about you?

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Dcrmom asks:

I like the high waisted look in this picture.

However.

I am VERY short-waisted and large-busted. So I have embraced the lower rise styles with abandon. I haven’t tucked a shirt in in about 10 years. And when I see pictures of myself back when I did tuck in (and I was as skinny as I’ve ever been at that time) I shudder. It was an awful look on me.

So my question is, is the high-waist thing something only certain body types can wear? Or is there a way to wear this look on a person of my proportions?

I’ve been thinking over this and, while I’m not sure I have a definitive answer, I want to post a few thoughts and get reader’s input:

1. I suspect that when the style was everything high-waisted you didn’t look as bad as you do to yourself now when you look back at the pictures. Does that make sense?
2. Here’s a picture of a high waisted trouser look that works. The top blends with the model’s head and the pants contrast (note also she’s wearing flat shoes).
3. And here’s what I said before:  I’ll have to think on that some more, but I’m thinking there must be a way to do it, but it probably wouldn’t ever become a staple for you. Skirts or dresses would be better than pants; monochromatic or darker color on top would be better than white blouse with black skirt. And it’s always okay to just pass on a style that isn’t for you.

Lately I’ve also been thinking about those elegant little jackets, especially the ones with the vertical or diagonal trim or seaming. It seems to me, based on observing someone with a similar figure to yours, that those can be exceedingly flattering, and could potentially be combined with a high waisted skirt look to make a very elegant ensemble.

Neither of these jackets is exactly what I was thinking of, but they’re both cute and might work with a high waisted skirt. I also think some of the seaming and so-forth breaks up the expanse of the chest, creating a more proportionate appearance.

Readers, do you think high waisted styles are only for the long waisted?

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Since I got no comments on the post about high waisted skirts, I’m wondering whether the whole length balancing thing is boring you. Shall I give some more examples?

• This previous post describes length balancing in trouser outfits.
• Here I explained basic length balancing and how it works with a knee-length dress (or anything that is one color or pattern from neck to knee).
• The post concerning high waisted skirts illustrated how to split up the neck to knee expanse (2 to 3). Inverting the proportions also works.
• With cropped pants or mid-calf skirts use 2 1/2 to 4. Go back and look at the picture of me in capris. If you split up the pants into 4 vertical segments, you could fit approximately 2 1/2 of those into the length of the top. Is that why ladies who wear their t-shirts tucked into the (high) waist of their pants tend to like their capris shorter?

Is this helpful at all? Maybe I’d feel better if you asked some questions.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Since I was just talking about length-balancing, a topic which never gets many comments, I suspect because it’s so confusing, I’m going to try a few illustrations here.  Remember, the basic proportion we’re looking for is 3 to 5.

This first one is a little complicated (there are often multiple ways to look at a problem). I suggest that the dress + shoes = 5 (the reason I think mid-thigh dresses are hard to wear is because by themselves they are 4 head-lengths). In this case, I am not figuring the head into the equation. The legs = 3. It works.

The  next one is super simple: knee-length is the easiest length to wear. The dress = 5, everything else = 3.

Here are pictures of looks I DON’T think work:

Nevertheless, feel free click on the images to buy!

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Without getting into the pros and cons of the popular thigh-length tops, allow me to simply point out that the proportions are basically the same as a blazer or jacket of the same length:  approximately three head-lengths.

In this case, it works to look to traditional menswear.  How do the guys wear their jackets, in terms of same color trousers or different?

• Suit or monochromatic look.
• Separates, such as blazer and slacks.  To easily assemble an aesthetically pleasing combination, without adding heels or using complicated color-blocking, slacks in the color of the person’s head are worn with a contrasting color blazer.  Which clearly accounts for the popularity of black, khaki (blonde), and gray trousers. 

Ladies have the added advantage of being able to wear skirts.

• Knee-length skirts give the greatest flexibility.  Just make sure that if one piece is similar in color to the personal coloring, the other one is as well.
• Longer skirts work for the monochromatic look.  Either continue the color all the way to the floor, with matching stockings and shoes , OR have skin-tone legs and hair-color feet.

Love ‘em or hate ‘em, are you having issues working the longer tops into your wardrobe?

• What I love:  feeling covered.  And the neatness of doing it without having a layering piece hanging out beneath.
• What I hate:  the horizontal line going across where I’d prefer not to spotlight.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

Of the six figure types, only two - type A and type V - differ significantly in width from top to bottom.  To figure the length proportions for those two figure types, use the Golden Mean proportions like always and then add a little bit of length to the slimmer portion.

Does that make sense?

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

See Alyson, I do love you! Thanks, Jenn, for the idea of how to do this. It’s not perfect, but lots better than nothing.

Why I say it’s not perfect is because of the angle of the picture. Towards the feet the perspective breaks down a little. But the upper body is good.

Two clarifications:

1. When I wrote the post on alternatives to length-balancing, I mistakenly said that point two (in this picture at the bottom of the second oval) equals one of the balance points for balancing your face. It doesn’t. It’s just another good spot to have some interest.
2. Although it’s not as clear in the picture, expected proportion would have the upper legs be two head lengths as well as the lower legs being two. 2 + 2 = 4, which means the legs should be approximately half of your total body length.

So sorry to be confusing. As I always say: Life with people is messy. And that goes for me too.

Does this help?

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

In reference to length-balancing, which sometimes seems very complicated, I occasionally use the term “head-lengths”.

head-length = approximately 1/8 of total height

There is another, rather simpler, way of using these head-lengths.

Starting at the top, 7 points on your vertical self to be aware of:

1. From visual top of head to chin: that is your actual head-length. If it’s more or less than 1/8 of your total height, there are ways to use hair-styling to adapt.
2. From chin to a single head-length below is a good spot for construction details and other focal points or design elements.  (Edited:  this is not necessarily the same as either of the “focus on the face” balance points.)
3. Drop down one more head-length (you are now a total of three head-lengths from the top) to find a great spot for a belt or waist detail.
4. Here’s where I get into trouble: the next head-length down should be the top of the legs. On me, it’s two to three inches above the tops of my legs. I have a long rise! For most, this is a natural spot to have a jacket or top end.
5. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the next head-length point down the body would be where mid-thigh shorts should end.
6. Next down: knee length! Classic length for dresses and skirt.
7. Seven head-lengths from the top or, easier to work with, a head-length up from the floor is the length I would choose for capris and mid-calf skirts. That makes sense with Dana’s fashion lab, combining different shoes with capris, doesn’t it?

Many all-time classic looks combine this use of head-lengths with Golden Mean length-balancing (either 3 to 5 or 2 to 3); a blouse tucked into a high-waisted knee-length skirt, for example. Playing with these proportions and varying them produces looks that surprise and maybe even provoke.

One more thing: I’m (almost) 5′6″ and a head-length for me is 8 1/4″. Is that helpful?

Edited: anybody catch that I forgot the 1/4″ on my own head-length?

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader

I don’t know why I never thought of this before.

The day after our conversation about length-balancing with skirt outfits, it was a 60-something and sunny day here in the Great Northwest. It was shorts, sandals, and sunscreen! Pulling out a pair of tangerine bermudas, I wondered, “now which is longer - the shorts or the t-shirt?”, which question was immediately followed by, “and what shoes do I wear?”

So I laid the shorts on the bed with the t-shirt on top of them. Voila! A quick and easy way to tell which piece is bigger! In this case, the top was slightly longer than the shorts. That works, because when I leave the shirt untucked it subtracts a little more from the shorts. Then I added flip-flops the color of the shirt.

This has little or nothing to do with the 60/30/10 rule. How do you add an accent color to a pair of shorts? (It would have to be a print or color-blocking or something.) In this outfit, the accent was built into the big piece in the form of a retro design on the front of the t-shirt, promoting a relative’s record store.

I’ve said before:

If you do wear a message tee do it purposefully, and for a fun reason.

Otherwise, I never advise wearing message tees.

Share This

 Subscribe in a reader