In an ideal world, a person who has enjoyed two months' (hard earned) break would turn their mind to serious things, including the front pages of the daily newspapers, budgets and section 137bb. (Yes, it has two bs. No, I'm not knowing.)
I spend today wondering about the non-classics items of clothing. I know all about the classics all the books say we must have in our wardrobe. I want to know what the non-classics are. What things are destined to be donated to charity or selling on eBay for a few dollars by the end of this year? Bird prints? Jumpsuits? Ballet flats? (No! Not ballet flats!)
Meanwhile I was wearing my classics, which I guess subscribe to every list of classics every compiled:
The train was empty. It always is when it gets to my stop.
At lunch time I took my interesting train of thoughts to a local charity shop and flicked through the racks to see what wasn't classic, what may had been discarded because they were dated or out of sync with current fashion. It's a subjective conclusion. I found lots of dresses cut on the bias, lots of loud blousy floral prints, lots of button-down frocks from the mid nineties and a ridiculous shallow baking pan for cooking heart-shaped muffins, all of which I believed to be superseded and irrelevant in fashion terms.
I also found countless classics - well, items the style books would brand classic - but that apparently weren't for their owners, not any more. Oh, and a lace tablecloth, which obviously I bought straight away.
It's got me thinking. Are classics a myth?