The New Math of One-Stop Dressing
I’ve decided that this season, it’s going to be all about the dresses. Not necessarily because everyone’s all about the dresses this season (though hey, sometimes it’s quite all right to jump on the bandwagon) but because I’ve got what must be a fantasy in my mind that if I could just buy enough dresses, I wouldn’t take such a painfully long time to get dressed every morning.
I mean, doesn’t that make sense? Your whole outfit is determined in one fell swoop. There are no endless permutations of pants and tops (and since I was a math geek, I’ll designate that number as the product of P x T) or skirts + tops (S x T). When P, T and S are all greater than 25 but less than 100, the figure heretofore designated O for total possible Outfits ((P x T) + (S x T)) is high enough to — using the formal mathematics terms from my day — make your head explode. And that’s before we even factor in the shoe possibilities!
Of course, there are other factors at play, namely cardigans (for offices that are inevitably air-conditioned to polar conditions in the summer) and shoes. But even that is relatively simple in comparison… though I can tell you now that the number of cardigans in my wardrobe, C, is most definitely greater than (P + T + S)… even though the number of cardigans in regular rotation, Cr , is more likely a prime number less than or equal to 17.
But let’s get to the dresses at hand! I draw the line at those regretably back-in-fashion babydolls (because really, who looks good in that shape/shapelessness?), but I’m pretty game for all sorts of styles, from this Catherine Malandrino sundress to this strapless Chloe (that’s where the cardi comes in handy). Above all, I am still searching for the perfect crisp, white cotton shirtdress, to be worn with a wide tan leather belt. I’ve got the belt — a great Prada belt with an engraved buckle — but no dress yet. I don’t know why it’s been so elusive, but I do understand that I’m holding out because I know it’ll be a staple. I might just have to get one made to measure…
Technorati Tags: dresses, shopping, spring clothes
Related Posts:
April 19th, 2006 09:41
I note that you haven’t even factored jackets into any of the equations, whether they are PxT or SxT, or just D. J is a consideration, not just C. I am, believe me, all about DxJ, since I look embarrasingly awful in most cardigans. Until the advent of the cropped sweater/shrug, I was cardiganless, because most cardigans merely obliterated my waistline, turning me from an X into a bloated H shape. If you don’t already (and you appear not to), go visit Erin at http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html! She waxes both philosophical and poetic about dresses. She also waxes darned useful, too. And there are some wonderful patterns available, both vintage and current, that would be well worth your stashing against the Hard Times Ahead. A good bias dress is a wonderful thing to have, and there will be years when no pattern’s available. This is important if you like bias dresses and don’t give a damn if designers currently are showing them. It’s also empowering when you visit the dressmaker, and I bet you’re going back, Alex, you’ve been hooked. The cost of going to the dressmaker is, IMO, reasonable when set off against getting sucked into doing it yourself. This is a friendly warning; I know from what you’ve written that you are a Yarn Collector and a Bead Collector, because you are a maker-of-things. You do not want to become a Fabric Collector; not in New York, you don’t. Where are you going to put 30 Rubbermaid trashcans full of fabric? Better to go to the dressmaker with one treasure in hand. (I suggest that you store your patterns numerically, having extracted them from their paper envelopes and put them in Ziploc bags. You then put the pattern envelopes into sheets in ringbinders, divided into appropriate sections: Dresses, Suits, Skirts, Trousers, etc.; then when you find the design you want to use, you just pluck it from its neat numerical spot in your pattern stash.)
April 20th, 2006 00:44
omg, what a great site! Thanks for the link. And yes, I think you have me pegged: Obsessive collector. Pack rat. Scary person. That’s me!