It never bodes well for a blogger to compared herself to Audrey Hepburn. You know that. I know that. So let’s agree that no comparison whatsoever is intended here, post title notwithstanding. It’s just that this outfit reminded me of something AH wore in the movie Roman Holiday; it’s not exactly the same, but the vague flavour is there.
I don’t wear this skirt as much as I should because the full silhouette falls a bit outside my style wheelhouse at the moment. It’s quite romantic (with a hint of twee — those buttons on the pockets!) and most of the romance is gone from my closet. Wait, that sounds wrong. Vibe aside, the skirt is a whole lot of look, so I paired it with simple pieces to balance things out. I finally got around to re-soling my ancient Ferragamo Vara flats, so they are back in rotation after a long absence. They’re still among the most comfortable shoes I own; I’m only now starting to realize how much I’d missed them. Last but not least, my Coach Willis bag because it goes with everything and I can’t stop wearing it.
Dress, Numph (secondhand); shoes, J. Crew Factory; bag, Marc Jacobs (via eBay)
This is one of my “easy breezy” dresses for summer 2017, and it’s a good one. The style is similar to the Dex dress I thrifted for my Mexican vacation, and it’s one of my favourites. The chiffon overlay doesn’t just add some visual interest to the plain black jersey; it provides some good camouflage for a less-than-washboard set of abs. (Guilty as charged.) I prefer this dress over the Dex version because I think the pattern here is a bit less juvenile … but, truth be told, I am keeping both dresses for the time being. The Dex will be more of a vacation cover-up, but I’m saving this one for my hometown-bound erranding. It’s super easy (and comfortable) to throw on, and can still be dressed up if necessary. Also, I’m pretty sure it’s machine washable, which is a nice bonus for a casual dress. The brand is Numph, if anyone is interested in tracking it down.
Dress, Paul Smith (via consignment); sweater, Theory; belt, H&M; shoes, Ferragamo (thrifted)I mentioned previously that I struggle with updating my dress outfit formulas to reflect my current style vibe (architectural, edgy classic), and this outfit is a good illustration of what comes out of that struggle. I was originally going to wear this dress with a blazer because, hello, that’s what I always do. It’s easy and it works, and sometimes it’s what my day calls for — say, if I have a client meeting or something. But it feels a bit boring, and on days when I have more sartorial leeway, I prefer to try something other than “boring”.
close-up on shoooooooes! off with the head!The other strike against the blazer option in this case happened because of the shoes. I had just thrifted them (for $12!) and was dying to wear them; I hadn’t planned on wearing them with this dress at first — I thought they would work best with pants, to avoid looking too old-fashioned — but I quickly realized that they could be a nice match. The midi length has a bit of a vintage vibe, which pairs well with the shoes, but the dress is otherwise fairly modern, which keeps everything from sliding into costume territory. But what about a topper? Blazers were out, because none of mine worked with the rest of the look. It needed to be something that would not clash with the vintage vibe, but would also bring the outfit as a whole closer to my preferred aesthetic.
sweater to the rescueA sweater seemed too casual. A black cardigan looked great, but it only reinforced the vintage element. Eventually, I pulled out this cream waterfall cardigan, which looked more promising. What I really wanted to do was to add volume to the top part of the outfit, to balance and contrast with the slinkiness of the dress silhouette, and add some of those architectural lines I can’t seem to stop talking about; luckily, the long cardigan did the trick. I added back some definition with the belt, and voila: an outfit was born. It might not be particularly edgy, but it is (hopefully) an interesting twist on the dress+topper formula.
