Speaking of the thrift-store look (which I was in my last thread): is intentionally aging and fading your new duds as soon as you get them legit? This is sort of a dumb question on the surface (and may be dumb underneath, too) because the look is ubiquitous now, and has been for some time, and we all do it (I think - or at least most of us). However, I was recently digging through Glenn O'Brien's (GQ's Style Guy) archives and found a Q&A in which he railed against artificially-faded stuff (I think the word "decadent" was used); he was actually talking about jeans, and I sort of felt where he was coming from - I think his answer was from a few years back, when the comically overdone ripped and faded trend was at its apex. I got the impression, though, that he would agree with the SF consensus that slight fading is completely acceptable, and that doing the six-month wearing-in of raw denim is totally the way to go. Anyway, I guess my point is this: denim is one thing, but $200 for a ripped hoodie? WTFF? I mean, I've done it, but when I take a step back I wonder if I'm being a complete tool. Can someone offer a sort of aesthetic, conceptual defense of this whole trend so I can go back to abusing my credit cards? Also, once that's taken care of, and I can do so in good conscience, can someone maybe tell us how to make new cotton look old? I'm talking about turning AA or even Army surplus tees and hoodies into something like Ever or the like. I've heard that a prolonged soak in a beach and saltwater solution, plus a little sandpaper, plus a line-dry and then a hard wash will get you most of the way there; I've also heard this is completely bogus. Your theories? AA is cheap, so I'm not afraid to experiment.
post #1 of 5
9/29/06 at 4:45pm