Do handbag trends really exist anymore?
- Thread starter LKofoid
- Start date
It's more a feeling AND a studied thing. I thoght a few weeks ago 'I fancy classics' just like those beautiful black structured bags I gave away to freinds a few years ago because I just couldn't seem to 'grow into them'. 
Now I'm feeling classics and, blow me down, a couple of weeks later reading about the return of the classics.
and now I'm seeing classics, classics, classics.
No logo (or small logo) signiture styles and more neutral colours.
Perhaps its just me?
Now I'm feeling classics and, blow me down, a couple of weeks later reading about the return of the classics.
and now I'm seeing classics, classics, classics.
No logo (or small logo) signiture styles and more neutral colours.
Perhaps its just me?
I think we "see" what we look for. If you buy one model of car, for example, you suddenly see every other one on the street you didn't notice before. If you are told that classic/understated is in, that's what your eye looks for. The term for it is frequency illusion.
That said, I think there are seasonal trends that come and go but women are getting more used to carrying what they like and will use as opposed to what they are told is a must have. All the fashion flashes in the world that teeny bags are in would not make me buy or carry one because it wouldn't work for me. My personal style is all about bag color. No table full of black bags will change that for me.
I think the failure of trends is probably more prevalent in handbags because we keep them longer. It's hard to find wide leg pants when skinny is in, but you probably still have the bags you bought a few years ago rather than the clothes.
That said, I think there are seasonal trends that come and go but women are getting more used to carrying what they like and will use as opposed to what they are told is a must have. All the fashion flashes in the world that teeny bags are in would not make me buy or carry one because it wouldn't work for me. My personal style is all about bag color. No table full of black bags will change that for me.
I think the failure of trends is probably more prevalent in handbags because we keep them longer. It's hard to find wide leg pants when skinny is in, but you probably still have the bags you bought a few years ago rather than the clothes.
^ Yes, I agree. 
I think the trends are still there, subtly, but women (and men!) are doing their own thing more than ever.
Undoubtedly, people want things that will last more than one season and that may mean something that is viewed as 'classic'; or it may mean only buying things you really love (as opposed to things you are told you ought to like).
If you really love something, you'll keep using it, simple as that.
I think the trends are still there, subtly, but women (and men!) are doing their own thing more than ever.
Undoubtedly, people want things that will last more than one season and that may mean something that is viewed as 'classic'; or it may mean only buying things you really love (as opposed to things you are told you ought to like).
If you really love something, you'll keep using it, simple as that.
I also think we are not always fully aware of our inclination towards trends. Research shows that our tastes are much more influenced by our environment than we like to think...we all say we "like what we like," but that is often because of subtle influencing. It's the reason that everyone's haircuts (or wedding dresses, or handbags, or glasses) are normal now, but often ridiculous looking back.
The nature of large-scale trends is that most people don't fully know in the moment that they are trendy. With the flashiest and most celeb-toted extremes, we may recognize it. But generally it's hindsight, or real awareness of the industry, that reveals the trend. There may be a wide variety of bags that all carry certain popular marks of our decade. There is no single bag that all trends, and some trends may be impossible to combine (like two popular shapes).
I am honestly often surprised on this board by how many things people label as "classic" looking bags. I think people assume that anything that is not brightly colored and dramatic is classic, when often we look backwards and recognize other subtle design features that match the item to the taste of the decade.
The nature of large-scale trends is that most people don't fully know in the moment that they are trendy. With the flashiest and most celeb-toted extremes, we may recognize it. But generally it's hindsight, or real awareness of the industry, that reveals the trend. There may be a wide variety of bags that all carry certain popular marks of our decade. There is no single bag that all trends, and some trends may be impossible to combine (like two popular shapes).
I am honestly often surprised on this board by how many things people label as "classic" looking bags. I think people assume that anything that is not brightly colored and dramatic is classic, when often we look backwards and recognize other subtle design features that match the item to the taste of the decade.
Yes.
I have long thought the term 'classic' is a marketing ploy to make one buy something plain, with the idea that it will never date; but, of course, nothing is so plain that it doesn't have subtle give-aways of the period it was made in.
Bags may be less inclined to give away their age than clothes, but they still do, to a degree.
Yes.
I have long thought the term 'classic' is a marketing ploy to make one buy something plain, with the idea that it will never date; but, of course, nothing is so plain that it doesn't have subtle give-aways of the period it was made in.
Bags may be less inclined to give away their age than clothes, but they still do, to a degree.
While I agree with up to a point (even the classics went 'out' in the '90s) the signiture styles of different designers are called 'classics' for the reason that they remain season after season while the more 'fashionable' styles can be considered as dated or limmited editions depending on one's PoV.
Perhaps it's an oxymoron to describe as 'classics' to be fashionable (again)
IMO the term 'classic' even in the loosest sense means a recognizable shape or set of specs that goes back decades ie the Kelly (or kelly style) or the Speedy (or speedy type). 'Classic' is IMO meaning not nebulous except where it is inappropriateley used.
(Please excuse my spelling)
^^^
I do think there are some styles that are objectively classic. Obviously there are brand "classics" that are associated with a certain designer and have longevity in a line. However, when I said classics in the sense of this thread (more like classics in contrast to trends), I was using it more to mean an item that doesn't look dramatically out of place in any decade or setting. The Kelly is a good example...it's basic enough that not only can I picture Grace Kelly carrying it, I can picture it fitting in well with an outfit from the 70s, with a business woman in the 90s, and with contemporary fashion. It's easy to imagine a 21 year old rocking the bag, as well as her great grandmother. No matter how much you like the Balenciaga look, it's hard to imagine Grace Kelly sporting one in her typical attire, simply because it's too distinctive and defined of a "look" to be a true chameleon. In my opinion, the bags that are understated enough to truly blend into almost any era or outfit are the bags I would label "classics." Birkin or Speedy type bags are simple, so instead of the bags projecting a look, they adopt the look of the outfit it is paired with.
That is what I consider the line between bag trends and classics. If you have to match your outfit to your bag, it's probably trendy. If your bag adapts to your outfit, it's probably classic.
I do think there are some styles that are objectively classic. Obviously there are brand "classics" that are associated with a certain designer and have longevity in a line. However, when I said classics in the sense of this thread (more like classics in contrast to trends), I was using it more to mean an item that doesn't look dramatically out of place in any decade or setting. The Kelly is a good example...it's basic enough that not only can I picture Grace Kelly carrying it, I can picture it fitting in well with an outfit from the 70s, with a business woman in the 90s, and with contemporary fashion. It's easy to imagine a 21 year old rocking the bag, as well as her great grandmother. No matter how much you like the Balenciaga look, it's hard to imagine Grace Kelly sporting one in her typical attire, simply because it's too distinctive and defined of a "look" to be a true chameleon. In my opinion, the bags that are understated enough to truly blend into almost any era or outfit are the bags I would label "classics." Birkin or Speedy type bags are simple, so instead of the bags projecting a look, they adopt the look of the outfit it is paired with.
That is what I consider the line between bag trends and classics. If you have to match your outfit to your bag, it's probably trendy. If your bag adapts to your outfit, it's probably classic.
Yes.
I have long thought the term 'classic' is a marketing ploy to make one buy something plain, with the idea that it will never date; but, of course, nothing is so plain that it doesn't have subtle give-aways of the period it was made in.
Bags may be less inclined to give away their age than clothes, but they still do, to a degree.
interesting point. the quintessentially classic chanel flap is a good example. the ones my mother had from the eighties look distinctive from the current flaps i've purchased within the past four years. the newer flaps have rounder edges and are not quite so boxy.
imo trends in handbags and everything else in fashion will never die. they merely recycle over and over and over again with the pretense that they've been updated, therefore, fresh and (sorta) new! if trends became inconsequential, fashion media would dip into chaos. anna wintour wouldn't know what to do with herself. she and her ilk would have no "viewpoint" or "direction" to peddle to us uninformed, unfashionable masses.
