Where is your personal line from cute to tacky?

[papertiger]

It's a very good question and IMO, 90% is it's in the way you wear it and what it's worn with that makes the difference.

There are bags that I bought years ago that I wouldn't buy again. There again I used to carry a pink and white poodle night-dress case as a bag so you can see what the 10% is made up from. These are gone.

I still have my 'Medusa' denim bag from the '00s, a huge white angle wing form the '90s, a fully beaded 'Coca Cola' bag (these bags are having a revival) and some others, not sure I would buy them again now but they do come in to play when I'm in a special mood and I'm not in my advanced years yet. I have the wardrobe for when I do though.

 

[swallowtails]

Style is incredibly personal. What's too boring for some might be too flashy for others. My personal line from cute to tacky is wearing too much of patterned/bright/cutesy/embellished/logoed pieces at one time. There are those with eyes for design who can do this; I am not one of them.

I'm in my mid-thirties and it sounds like our styles are similar. I tend to wear solids and neutrals while my bags tend to make statements and/or are accompanied by a bag charm. Throughout the years, I've learned what clothing looks best on me. Rather than just buying clothes I like, it needs to be flattering on me too. My bag style hasn't changed that much other than to adjust to what's functional for my needs in a given situation.

I agree; too many logos and patterns turn me off. I prefer outfits that integrate an eye-catching item such that the item adds something special to the outfit, completes the ensemble somehow, rather than advertises itself, or advertises the company instead of what the item essentially is, or the way it is made. (I always make an exception for Dries Van Noten. I like the way he mixes patterns.)

I avoid anything that is too brightly coloured, too glittery or too attention-seeking (that is 'tacky' to me). I prefer subtle textures and shapes that let an item draw the eye. Just like the way I see a bag I like on the arm of a stranger in the mall that makes me wonder where it is from. Even 'cute' (an unlikely style) for me is discreet - a Moynat BB Rejane, a Miu Miu hairclip with pearls and a thin white ribbon - more feminine and sweet, really.

I think a personal style, if you wear it well and wear it distinctively, at some point doesn't fall into these categories anymore. Even if it looks loud or cutesy or obvious, it's someone's personal style, it will just fit. I can't pull off a striking bag for sure, but I know ladies who can because it just seems so...them.

 

[880]

40 Is not older lol. I think it depends on personal style, height and context. My personal style is more whimsical RTW, and I’m short, so I tend ro be relatively neutral re accessories. My style has evolved, but at its core, it hasn’t really changed. There are occasions that could use more whimsy, but that’s a judgment call. @swallowtails, I like Dries too.

 

[vesna]

I am safe from tacky LOL, I wear neutral wardrobe but hate neutral accessories. they make me pale and boring. So on grey or black canvas of my monochrome outfit, I can have scarves and bags in wild colours. I also hate logos. That would be tacky for me in my opinion . Some can wera them well, for me no-logo bags for sure - YSL did a great job , Miu Miu has a small decent logo, Balenciaga does not have, although details reveal it is a Bal....I keep that style from my 20s now in my late 50s and feel very good in it.