How much do you spend on clothes for yourself and your family per year?

moneyistooshorttomention

Nargleblast wrote: »

Shame you didn't keep the blazer and just remove the shoulder pads, it would have done you a few more years, being quality stuff.

You're probably right.

I think that many of us didn't realise how the quality of clothing (and pretty much everything else too:cool:) was going to be slashed in subsequent years.

I know that I certainly assumed that clothes would always be readily available in reasonable quality.

medsdemon

I buy either all or nothing 😬. I think it helps that I like to try on before I buy and never buy clothes online.

When I lost weight I went a bit mad because I could basically wear anything and the clothes actually looked good on.

Now my wardrobe is pretty stable, I only really buy something new when I’m putting something out, and I’m at the age I know what suits me and don’t make impulse mistake purchases.

This year I have bought mostly essentials- tights, T-shirt’s from primark , jeans, exercise/walking leggings, a fleece and a down jacket. All have been worn a lot already and will be over the winter. And all were in the sAles. I’m a small size so I find I can get quite a lot of nice things that way.

I was lucky with handbags as I only like leather so always an expensive purchase, I inherited 3 brand new Radley bags from my mum.

I know I need to get a new rucksack for mainly walking and holidays as I had to throw my faithful old one out, it was beyond repair. Have been looking and I think that will be a £60 ish purchase but will last me ages and get used every week. Also a hat and gloves for Winter that match my new down jacket ( have a habit of losing gloves 😬).

VfM4meplse

Nargleblast wrote: »

I agree you have to spend whatever is necessary for footwear that fits well and is comfortable, and a well-made pair of shoes should last for years.

What I find really bizarre are the ridiculous heels worn by some women in the name of "fashion". How do they walk in them? Meghan Markle's shoes are a painful-looking case in point, but what I find even weirder is that she is a sensible, mature woman who knows her own mind - so why put her feet through this kind of avoidable trauma?

My feet are highly unforgiving, and Meghan may realise there are smarter options as her pregnancy progresses.

GreyQueen

It;s not just the damage they are doing to your feet, although that is seriious enough. They also damage you knees, hips and spine. I'm under instructon from an NHS biomechanist not to wear anything higher than a 1" heel. Not that I would anyway. I detest the clipping and clumping of a high heeled gait and the terrible posture they cause.

VfM4meplse

GreyQueen wrote: »

It;s not just the damage they are doing to your feet, although that is seriious enough. They also damage you knees, hips and spine. I'm under instructon from an NHS biomechanist not to wear anything higher than a 1" heel. Not that I would anyway. I detest the clipping and clumping of a high heeled gait and the terrible posture they cause.

Overall conclusion: high heels are a tax on stupidity.

Celebrities that thrive on their image should think about what they are doing to the feet of impressionable youngsters. I bet they don't have a clue!

GreyQueen

I know people in their seventies and eighties who are still enjoying (sarc) the benefits of the high-heeled shoes they wore as young adults in the 1950s. Men, too, sometimes, from winkle-picker type shoes.

Not pretty and definately painful when you see the big toe angled inwards at about 35 degrees and all the toes angles alongside it, and a stonking great bunion on the big toe joint.


Fashion is ephemeral and subjective. Health is the only real judge of quality footwear.

VfM4meplse

GreyQueen wrote: »

Fashion is ephemeral and subjective. Health is the only real judge of quality footwear.

I love this phrase! Must get it drummed into my little niece whilst she's still young enough to be under the influence of her auntie

Kim_kim

I’m so impressed that people have kept count of their spending on clothes so far, I don’t have a clue.
Maybe next year I’ll keep count.
I rarely ever wear high heels, but as rarely do I wear flats.
I wear medium heels most of the time, I want to be taller!

GreyQueen

VfM4meplse wrote: »

I love this phrase! Must get it drummed into my little niece whilst she's still young enough to be under the influence of her auntie

You could appeal to her vanity (if she has any at her age) by pointing out that high heels are associated with postural defects including ones which cause misaligned necks, leading to sagging and wattling, and also headaches, leading to scrunched-up foreheads which promote wrinkling.


Happy shoes = happy feet = happy person.

moneyistooshorttomention

Well - I was reading a fashion article yesterday, complete with photos of elegant-looking attractive mid-life woman. Those articles were saying "Trainers are the thing now - with ALL outfits" and showing some very glammed-up looking trainers. All glittery, coloured or both...Think it might have been in "The Guardian"???

Admits I was looking at those photos thinking "Nice outfit - shame about the footwear" and mentally replacing it. In my case - I'd have just done a pair of low-heeled shoes with reasonable width toe-box (or whatever they're called) type court shoes. No pointed toes/no high heels. It's the avoiding of pointed toes and high heels that puts you in a position where you can/I did get a compliment of "That's nice-looking feet" - even if in your 60's.

So I guess we're now in for a reprise of the trend there was a few years back of "No matter what the outfit - wear trainers with it" and I pretty much did that at the time (though admitted I was still dressing a bit like a student at that time and I'm now "going elegant" at my age).

So there is scope for wearing trainers with anything now.

I've always thought one can wear something like normal shoes/sandals - provided it's at intervals (ie not on an everyday basis), got that reasonable width toebox and just a short type heel (say 1.5 inches)..

In fact there is an element of having to occasionally wear a pair of more "feminine" footwear - as a few years of pretty much constant trainer wearing can cause the foot to "spread" very slightly and a bit of discomfort on the bottom of the little toes on putting on a pair of more "feminine" footwear for that occasional wear. That is voice of experience time - as I spent the first few years after moving here pretty much living in jeans and trainers and found that the skin underneath bottom edge of little toes needed a bit of toughening-up again to put a pair of more "feminine" footwear on again (cue for sticking plasters for some days until that skin has toughened up a bit). Had to be done - as one can't live in trainers all day/every day for the rest of life.