Seeing double

Finding inspiration from (ie, ripping off mercilessly) Balmain's spring/summer '10 catwalk, good old M&S (or Saint Michel as a friend of mine refers to them) has taken this season's military vibe and delivered for us this little beauty, £89:

Balmain paired theirs with a pair of leather micro shorts:

But it works just as well with a stripey T and a pair of skinnies. M&S, I salute you.

Images: M&S coat, prshots.com; Balmain s/s 2010, vogue.com

Today's style winners:

Making me smile today in London's West End were:

• The older lady on Bond St with the ginormous black faux-fur Russian hat
• The girl with the fuchsia coat, purple shoes and metallic green bag (where did you get that?)
• The lady with the bright blue faux-fur floor-length coat on South Molton St
• The girl with the black leggings and striped long top with the fabulous red paisley woven scarf
• The elderly gent wearing grass-green trousers and a 3/4 length tweed coat on the Jubilee Line
• The girl with candy-floss pink hair and a turquoise bag with multiple charms on the escalator at Waterloo
• The lady with a plain and simple camel coat, with no detail but a cute demi-belt chain at the back of the waist to add definition. It's all in the details.

Congrats to all. Your prizes are in the post. Maybe.

The Goddess That Is Yasmin Le Bon...

... said in this month's Easy Living:

"I think that's what clothes are about: to make you feel good, to empower you, not just to keep you warm and cover your bits and bobs."

Amen to that.

And here endeth the lesson.

Out-of-towner

So I was taking a break oop North with the rellies, and couldn’t help people-watching as we went about our day, looking for style statements (it’s an affliction of mine). Three distinct camps of women stood out. There were the Lads' Mag Clones – women under 30, all with long, swishy hair, big on the eye make-up and not so big on the clothing (very short skirts, skyscraper heels and no jacket to speak of), trying their hardest to look as identical as possible to the friend they were out with, while at the same time attempting to attract unwarranted male attention. 

On the flip side of this group was a group of similar age range, but completely differing sartorially (and actually made up of both male and female protagonists, but I was concentrating on the women). I shall call this group the Uber Stylistas, as they had eschewed the chance to fit in with peer-group-acceptable means of dress and were instead Making A Statement. There were print clashes, odd colours, oversized dresses, geeky glasses, precision haircuts, customised accessories - basically they were doing their darndest to be snapped by Scott Schuman. Whether they were students, fashwan-industry types or just Achingly Cool, who knows, but it made me want to know more about them.

Then, there was the Groomed & Glamorous - a group comprised of the over-30s. These ladies had obviously put time into getting dressed that morning. There were pressed trousers, designer jeans, crisp blazers and blow-dries a go-go. Heels were favoured over flats and the make-up was impeccable. If the blazer was absent, the expensive coat was there in its place. Particular stand-outs include the gorgeous black woman in polished brown boots and a three-quarter-length faux fur leopard print coat, and the lady taking her hubby round Zara, sporting a navy jacket, expensive highlights and a scarf draped oh-so carefully.

As I scan the social landscape, I never fail to be impressed by anyone who has put some thought into their outfit rather than just throwing on whatever comes to mind. Even if they look completely insane (in my humble opinion, of course), it fascinates me that they have invested time in putting together a certain look; they have chosen to wear something for a reason, and it makes me wonder about their life. Whatever their motives - to attract the opposite sex, to fit in with their crowd (or, indeed, to NOT fit in), to be fashionable, to look smart, to put something on that excites them... there is an element of effort, and they are all making their own statement.

It just got me thinking. Because even by not putting thought in to your outfit, you are still making a statement, whether consciously or unconsciously. Your clothes will always say something about you - you have a lot of money/you want to attract sexual attention/you work somewhere high-powered/you're a free spirit/you're confident with yourself/you're a person of authority/you're hiding the body shape you're not comfortable with/you have no regard for the 'fashion' rules/you are unhappy/you're more concerned with practicality than style/you don't think you're worth making an effort for. Even if you're just really busy and in a rush and have just thrown on something quick to nip to the shops, people all around you will be making assumptions about who you are and what you do and what you think of yourself and what type of person you probably are. Ah, the sociology of fashion.

Of course, people will catch your eye for different reasons, and everyone's opinion of what looks good and what doesn't will differ. More importantly, there is no right or wrong when it comes to fashion, and even style is pretty subjective really. But the thing about style is that it tells a story - about who you are or what you want to be and how you want others to think of you. When you work a look, whatever it is, you're sending out an unspoken sartorial message to those around you. And it changes as we grow older, change circumstance, make money, lose money, alter our outlook, because it's an inherent part of who we are as a person and our position in the world. The Lads' Mags Clones, the Uber Stylistas and the Groomed & Glamorous caught my eye because even the tiniest details of someone's outfit can fascinate me and pull me in. Because everything about them, from top to toenail varnish, had been considered and, aside from whatever they were or were not trying to communicate, anyone who makes my view more interesting of an afternoon most certainly gets my vote, and that's the simple joy of people-watching. And so the gauntlet is laid down. People of Britain, go forth and make a style statement! And keep me wondering.

To belt or not to belt

That is the question. Whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous styling, or to take arms against a sea of fashion rules, and by opposing end them...

In short, am I a bad stylist if I don't insist on belting each of my clients at all times? And by belting, I am of course referring to the cinching of one's waist, rather than slapping a black eye on every unsuspecting shopper to grace my path. You see, in your early days' training in Personal Styling Lore, the Belt is King. No outfit can be considered complete until it is pulled together in the middle, deterred from any slouchy appearance, given more shape and/or 'finished off' with a glossy width of waist-restricting leather.

Now, do not assume this pondering to be an anti-belt backlash, far from it. In fact, the benefits of these shape-creating beauties is manifold. For a start, by referring to them as 'shape-creating beauties', I am of course indicating how a belt can indeed create a waist, cinch you in, add curves, define your shape. Certain outfits look plain wrong without one, and others can literally be transformed by the addition of that single item, as it sculpts the wearer and makes the fabric move in all sorts of fabulous ways.

Belts can have a mathematical quality, dividing an outfit into interesting parts, making the created sections do different things, making them work with each other to flatter each other. They give the wearer proportion and balance out their body shape. They add interest, personality, difference. They draw the eye to a particular point. Oh yes, do not conclude that I am oblivious to the finer points of beltage.

However, it is not the case that every outfit, nor every body shape, necessarily benefits from a good belting. Some garments have their own contouring, which gives shape enough without being divided firmly in two. Some looks - for instance, elements of summer's slouchy sports luxe affair - can be ruined with a belt. Put a statement belt alongside a statement necklace and it can be accessory overload (and often a hardworking necklace can have more elongating, body-slimming properties that any belt could ever hope for). Moreover, put the wrong belt in the wrong place on an apple-shaped body and you're on your way to the Santa Claus effect which, although perfectly befitting to the jolly vermilion-wearing, fluffy-beard sporting Christmas present delivery guy, should never be attempted by a woman hoping to draw attention away from her middle.

So, OK, maybe I'm committing the Original Sin of Styling, but when it comes to finishing off an outfit, I feel I have to let it be known that I will not instinctively be seeking to cinch it in. For in that choice of accessories, what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal belt must give us pause. Ay, there's the rub...

When is a size 10 not a size 10?

When it's in Karen Millen. Or Reiss. Or M&S. Or, in fact, most high-street stores. And don't even get me started on the 'size 1', 'size 2' or Gap's US sizing, or the S, M, L... On one of my 'brand research' days (read: trying lots of things on in different shops) last week, I started to wonder what on earth my size even was. Was I completely wrong in thinking I was a size 10? How could I be made to feel fat in one store, but petite in another? Not only is it completely bewildering and hampering to one's shopping choices, but it can be a real psychological drama, too. And it's not just from one shop to another, as one galling trip to Zara proved. I was taken from a small, to medium, to extra small all in one hour, in the same changing room. Eventually, you end up either trying to work out the formula:

"OK, I was a small in the stretch, and a medium in the cotton, so if I go for the floaty number, does that mean I'll be a small again??"

or just picking up a handful of items that vaguely resemble your body shape and hoping for the best.

Of course, the obvious trick for dealing with this is to spend a day carrying out your own 'brand research', working your way around the high street and seeing if your size 10 frame, say, is an 8 in M&S, a 6 in Reiss and a 2 (most of the time) in Ted Baker, then making a mental note of it and just accepting that you'll have to go by each of the stores' own personal body-size algebra:

If x=me, then x+2/leg length + hip shape = my size in Coast

Or, and here's something that's a little out there, I know, but what if all stores were made to follow the same sizing, templating, cutting blocks and the like, so that a size 10 really is a size 10, wherever you are? OK, everyone's body shape is different, so we won't always fit into one specific size, depending on the cut and fabric, but at least if there was some constancy with clothing sizes, it would give us something more steadfast to work with. It's ridiculous to call something a size 10 if there are no guidelines as to what that means.

Stores need to think about employing some regularity. I'm not saying it isn't a boost to sometimes go to Reiss and fit into a pair of size 6 jeans and pretend to myself that maybe I really have lost two stone between here and Ted Baker, but I end up spending longer trying things on and having to take three sizes of everything into the changing room, which hardly engenders an enjoyable shopping experience, and often renders me dangerously close to throwing everything on the floor in exasperation and stalking out (after getting dressed again, natch).

I'm sure there'll be some sort of fashion politics behind this somewhere, and there will be someone with a smart explanation as to why each shop follows its own rules, but from a consumer perspective, it really isn't conducive to happy shopping, and nor is it helping anyone get a realistic perspective about their body shape. Because if a size 10 woman can be made to feel overweight in any item of clothing, then something really is going wrong.

So here's a plea to the high street: BRING ON THE SIZE CONSISTENCY! And give us all a more productive and enjoyable shopping experience.

**UPDATE: Interesting that Grazia's fashion editor at large covered this very point in last week's issue. Turns out women's sizing is more or less meaningless and arbitrary from store to store, as clothing sizes in this country have never been standardised. Here's what Grazia had to say:

• Sizings as we know them were first introduced in 1952, but as women's shapes have changed, so have the sizings
• The sizing chart that exists in Britain today comes from a 2004 survey by SizeUK
• Stores size their clothes according to the 2004 survey, but tweak the fit according to their average customer - so a 10 in Topshop will have less pronounced hips, to cater for the younger buyer, whereas a 10 in M&S will be cut with a fuller hip to cater for the more mature customer with a different body shape
• An 18-year-old who is a size 10 will be a different shape to a 40-year-old who is also a size 10
• Verdict? Shop at the store that sees you as its customer