Nice people thread

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

Or this one?

http://www.debenhams.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prod_10001_10001_007010135660_-1

Of the three, that would be my preferred one.

lemonjelly

All this clothes business is the opposite to me.

I simply don't wear things out (either that, or perhaps more likely I refuse to accept stuff is actually worn out). My brother has always worn stuff out real quick, whereas my stuff lasts.

On my birthday in 2008, I was given 8 tshirts. In October. No-one is gonna see them then - too cold!

However, it made me think that I am too difficult to buy for, & it was an easy option for peeps.

In addition, it made me look at the sheer number of clothes I have. Many of which never get worn.

I vowed then to buy no new clothes for a year.

Approaching my birthday last year, I realised that I'd worn out 1 pair of trousers - nothing else. I extended my 1 year to 5 years. Exceptions will happen for essential work clothes, but other than that, I'm on a self imposed ban. & everyone I know is well aware that they can't buy me clothes for christmas or birthdays until I let them know.

I'm now a year & a half into it. Not got rid of much. Couple of tops, couple of pairs of trousers. I'm currently wearing 2 pairs of trainers & a couple of select jumpers to death as they are next to go.

To be honest, I'll be glad of the space when I get rid of some of the stuff!

& I'm definitely no fashonista

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

All this clothes business is the opposite to me.

I simply don't wear things out (either that, or perhaps more likely I refuse to accept stuff is actually worn out). My brother has always worn stuff out real quick, whereas my stuff lasts.

On my birthday in 2008, I was given 8 tshirts. In October. No-one is gonna see them then - too cold!

However, it made me think that I am too difficult to buy for, & it was an easy option for peeps.

In addition, it made me look at the sheer number of clothes I have. Many of which never get worn.

I vowed then to buy no new clothes for a year.

Approaching my birthday last year, I realised that I'd worn out 1 pair of trousers - nothing else. I extended my 1 year to 5 years. Exceptions will happen for essential work clothes, but other than that, I'm on a self imposed ban. & everyone I know is well aware that they can't buy me clothes for christmas or birthdays until I let them know.

I'm now a year & a half into it. Not got rid of much. Couple of tops, couple of pairs of trousers. I'm currently wearing 2 pairs of trainers & a couple of select jumpers to death as they are next to go.

To be honest, I'll be glad of the space when I get rid of some of the stuff!

& I'm definitely no fashonista

Very green decision, as well as practical and MSE.

I wear clothes out. (but never the ones I want to). I also have to dress for lots of different sorts of occasions. e.g. this weekend, going away I took casual clothes for shopping/travelling, smart clothes for me on Friday (then came home) and took the smae casual clothes (change of vest/tshirt) but also a dress for supper and change for sunday. Because for the st and sun I was seeing the same people over who DH works with, needed to be appropriate for each occasion. I noticed his female colleagues changed as much...the men just seems to have taken a change of shirt.

I did skimp on taking shoes, (only three pairs for 24 hours!) but that turned out to be a mistake when my feet swelled. I should have taken trainers

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

Very green decision, as well as practical and MSE.

I wear clothes out. (but never the ones I want to). I also have to dress for lots of different sorts of occasions. e.g. this weekend, going away I took casual clothes for shopping/travelling, smart clothes for me on Friday (then came home) and took the smae casual clothes (change of vest/tshirt) but also a dress for supper and change for sunday. Because for the st and sun I was seeing the same people over who DH works with, needed to be appropriate for each occasion. I noticed his female colleagues changed as much...the men just seems to have taken a change of shirt.

I did skimp on taking shoes, (only three pairs for 24 hours!) but that turned out to be a mistake when my feet swelled. I should have taken trainers

I just dress like a scruff all the time!;) Makes things easier. People know what to expect:)

Seriously, it has only been in the past few years I've distinguished between work clothes & non-work clothes. & tbh I don't dress up much, though I am apparently paying a lot more attention to how I match stuff up!:)

Perhaps I need to get out more to wear some of this stuff?

PasturesNew

lemonjelly wrote: »

Is that per day?;)

Obviously! A FULL day though, so 10-3

wageslave

I am the last person to be giving fashion advice as I never seem to get it quite right.......

Carolt, I like the first and the third dresses, the middle one not so much. The third one is probably the one I would buy. It needs shortening a bit though. I always think just below the knee is a mumsy length. I dont mean you should be showing your knickers but IMO a couple of inches above the knee is much more flattering.

I have been spending a fortune in the sales and only about half my purchases are total disasters. I feel I am improving.....

lostinrates

wageslave wrote: »

I am the last person to be giving fashion advice as I never seem to get it quite right.......

Carolt, I like the first and the third dresses, the middle one not so much. The third one is probably the one I would buy. It needs shortening a bit though. I always think just below the knee is a mumsy length. I dont mean you should be showing your knickers but IMO a couple of inches above the knee is much more flattering.

I have been spending a fortune in the sales and only about half my purchases are total disasters. I feel I am improving.....

Just below the knee, worn well, is meant to be the most flattering to the legs...I think acouple of inches either side might actually look a bit more mumsy...depending on the legs....;) and the knees!

wageslave

lostinrates wrote: »

Just below the knee, worn well, is meant to be the most flattering to the legs...I think acouple of inches either side might actually look a bit more mumsy...depending on the legs....;) and the knees!

Wageslave <---tugs self-consciously at hemline

I told you, I never get it quite right.

I actually got up and looked in the full length mirror on the stairs and you may well be right:o

Umm, apropos of nothing at all. How do you feel about over the knee boots?

lostinrates

wageslave wrote: »

Wageslave <---tugs self-consciously at hemline

I told you, I never get it quite right.

I actually got up and looked in the full length mirror on the stairs and you may well be right:o

Umm, apropos of nothing at all. How do you feel about over the knee boots?

Great on julia roberts in pretty woman. And puss in boots.

In real life most women don't have the thighs or length of leg. The ones that do might look like prossies. The few that could with class and want to are rare I think. when it works it looks stunning, but....when it doesn't there are two options: tart or river bank fishing.

BTW...you are slim and its highly likely you have great legs...I've never seen them...so it might be above knee length is right for you....these rules are based, like House price reportage ...on averages.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Don't forget to wear the leather corset to match........

lol