Random Thoughts

I field tested my new red veil on Saturday. The "straight edge over the crown" look seems to suit me better than the "oval gathered onto the forehead" look.

I think most of the weight was being held by the fillet for most of the day, and it wasn't uncomfortable. I had an auxiliary strap which was supposed to pass from the nape of my neck over the temples and then up the crown, to secure the veil in the center and help support the weight. That didn't work so well. As has been my experience with modern elastic circular headbands meant to be worn the same way, the thing slipped off the back of my head repeatedly. Didn't matter if I fastened it over or under my hair. I wasn't careful about pinning it to the fillet at the temples; maybe that's the trick.

The obvious options are 1) try again with better pinning, 2) do away with it or 3) use a chin-strap/wimple instead. I'm not sure when the wimple starts showing up, but I believe Walton Rogers shows it in her book (which covers the era up to 700 CE) as a possibility. I believe I will try options 1 and 2 first, as I am not a big fan of things on my neck, particularly in the heat.

Upon an amblere esily she sat,
Ywympled wel, and on hir heed an hat
As brood as is a bokeler or a targe.
- Chaucer describes the Wife of Bath on her horse, wearing a wimple and a hat as big as a small shield

I dropped off some shoes at the local leather shop (English riding to motorcycle to re-enactment... "if you can draw it, we can make it") for re-heeling and re-soling and went to pick them up yesterday. Hanging on a rack, waiting to be repaired, was a leather coat.

I coveted it immediately. Double-breasted, with frock coat-like ornaments at the collar and cuffs - also done in leather, to match the coat. Warm, brown leather. I promised the coat that if it had a cousin in something slightly larger than a size 6, I would hug it and love it and call it George.

The tag said "LAMB" (but showed a pirate ship?) and "Fall 2005." That sounded all fashiony and stuff, but the other tag said, "Made in China." So... designer knockoff?

To the Google Engine!

L.A.M.B. is singer Gwen Stefani's line of clothing (and the logo for 2005 was indeed a pirate ship). The only images from her 2005 collection I can find are of some over-priced tank tops on eBay. I am somewhat solaced by knowing that, even if I could find a cousin to that jacket on eBay or similar, it would not be my size - L.A.M.B. tops out at a 14.

Sigh. When I find the magic machine that gives me infinite time, I need to learn to really sew.

I finally look like a professional woman in a suit instead of a college student trying to borrow authority with my clothes.

So I go to Lane Bryant's website, now that I know my RightFit size, to see about ordering some more pants for work. Oh, score! 30% off sale this weekend! That's a better deal than the $25 off $75 coupon I've got, since I was planning on getting 3 pairs of pants ($90 at sale prices) - not enough to qualify for the $50 off of $150 coupon. Quick, quick, order pants!

Their website - the one I assume is hooked up to Lane Bryant Inc's warehouse facilities all over the country - is sold out of the Houston pant in my size, in at least three colors.

The Houston pant is, by the way, Lane Bryant's workhorse dress pant. It's a staple in their stores; it does not go out of season and is not rotated in and out of stock.

And apparently every woman size 14+ in America has bought one this weekend.

From late high school on, I have intermittently had short hair. Usually, this sort of mushroom-looking cut that always seems flattering in the mirror but looks awful in pictures.

I have always thought about going really short. Maybe even really short and a little spiky (although I have my doubts if hair gel would work on my notoriously unstylable hair).

Of course, my face looks nothing like Hepburn's or Ryder's. And my current stylist gasps in horror whenever I mention going super-short. Now, I overall trust her judgment, because the long, layered cuts she's given me have been fantastic. My hair has body and movement now. It looks good.

Short cuts are more expensive to keep up, but easier to care for. Money is snug, although I could probably pay for it out of my allowance.

I tend towards thinking, "Try it! It'll grow back if you hate it!" As they say, you'll regret what you didn't do. And if it's awful, the Spud is too young to be embarrassed by his mom's ugly hair.

Do I try to convince my current stylist to cut it or (gasp) go elsewhere?

Is the three-piece suit universally flattering to men? If so, how is this possible?

Is it their uniformity? By making their wearer appear more or less "suit-shaped" rather than "Joe-Bob shaped," do they efface any irregularities in Joe-Bob's form?

Certainly, it is not easy for every man to find a well-fitted suit. Tall men, short men, barrel-chested men, long-armed men: they must search the specialty shops or else hire a tailor, or else they risk a suit with a too-short or too-long hem, or a too-tight jacket, or too-short sleeves.

And there are subtleties of suit design that escape me, as a non-suit-wearer, but I do know that not every man ought to wear a double-breasted suit, unless he is in the cast of Guys and Dolls. But it is hard to find a man looking actively bad in a suit that fits him moderately well. Perhaps only those with unfortunate necks - either too long or far too short - end up looking weird in a collared shirt and tie.

Is this because the suit covers all but the hands, neck and head? Again with the suit-shapedness of it.

But... certainly for women, there are those of us who look awful in anything that comes right up to the neck, like a collared shirt and tie, or a turtleneck. Is it the breasts that do it? Why can men achieve this look, nearly universally, whether they be skinny or plump, boxy or narrow? Men have different body types, too, yet I have never looked at a man and thought, "There's someone who shouldn't be wearing a suit."

Am I culturally conditioned to accept anyone in a suit as looking good? That seems like an odd proposition - shouldn't I also, then, accept anyone in a designer gown as looking good? The Fug Girls show, on a daily basis, that this is not true.

I keep leaning toward the uniformity of the suit as an answer. As long as it visually presents itself as "a suit," its mission is accomplished. The wearer is responsible only for making sure the shirt and tie match the jacket and pants, that his face is clean, and that his hair is well-done. (Because I have seen men in suits and wondered, "Who let him play with the hair gel?") The benefit is a certain surety of fashion - wear a suit and you will not go wrong. This is appealing, when compared with trying to balance the variables of women's wear (e.g., skirt or slacks, skirt length, blouse neckline, fabric choices, closeness of fit). On the downside, there is little room for personal expression, and you have to wear a tie, which I am reliably informed is a hell which bedevils men nearly as much as high heels bedevil women.