A few months ago I mentioned that my daughter and her friends were totally sold on vintage and retro clothing. The term, "vintage," means old, aged, classic, or outmoded. When you apply the term to clothing, it usually means any style of clothing from the 1920's through the 1980's; however, clothing from the 1960's through the 1980s often is referred to as "retro" rather than vintage. Clothing over 100 years old is classified as antique, and any clothing made within the last fifteen years is still considered contemporary.

As I'll soon illustrate, this trend toward vintage or retro clothing might signal a slump in the market for 'contemporary' retail clothing sales. If you think my daughter and her friends represent a mere smidgen of the teenage market, then you don't remember what it's like to be a teen. A teen dares not be different, even though he or she mouths 'independent' and 'thinker' in the same sentence. In other words, if the trend is retro, then you'll see retro throughout 99% of the high school.

If you still don't believe that this trend toward second-hand clothing is huge, then I'll take you to some authorities that will validate my claims. In this case, the authorities consist of fashion magazines and celebrities?

• Kate Moss's style is hot and it depends upon her vintage picks. She created a trend with a vintage cheongsam in 1996, and she was recently in the news when her vintage wedding gown was destroyed at a gala evening at London's Victoria & Albert Museum. Many reporters are claiming that this dress was a vintage Dior, but a few experts counterclaim that the dress was created in the 1930's, so it couldn't be a Dior (gossip, gossip!).
  
  
• Winona Ryder often is seen on the Red Carpet (and elsewhere) in vintage frocks.
  
  
• Julia Roberts purchased a retro Jean Jourban halter dress for the 2003 Academy Awards.

I think those examples provide enough support, unless you want to read about how Chanel managed to turn Reese Witherspoon into a fashion victim at the Golden Globes by lying to her about a 'vintage' dress that was only three years old. The point is that celebrities - male and female - have made vintage a racket, and early designer labels are feeling the supply-and-demand effect. After all, there are only so many Dior suits out there, and if the demand is high the price on those Dior suits will escalate as well.

If you read the article attached to that last link, you'll understand that some people are collecting these vintage named outfits for investments. But, that isn't what the celebrities are doing - they're wearing and tearing them. This means that some remaining designer outfits will go over the moon in cost. While this is an investment possibility, the real news is the 'other' vintage, or the no-name brand outfits.

If you type 'retro' or 'vintage' or even 'hippie' along with the word, 'fashion,' into a search engine, you might be amazed at what you discover. In my search, the results came to about 11,900,000 sites for retro fashion, 13,400,000 sites for vintage fashion, and 1,760,000 sites for hippie fashion. Some of those sites are blogs, but the majority of those blogs often are written by shoppers or by storeowners. In other words, individuals who love to shop for secondhand clothes also love to show off their finds, and shop owners want to share their wares.

These blogs provide a huge hook for secondhand clothes - the personalized touch brought to consumers by individuals who are passionate about their fashion finds. Do you see this passion in chain store sites? No. Nor do you see blogs from these larger retail stores. This is a marketing problem, and one that I personally cannot solve. But, this personal touch is a major factor in consumer choice.

The other issue with new clothes on the rack is that you'll eventually encounter someone else who purchased the same outfit. In a secondhand store, nothing is the same - the items are all one of a kind. This one fact alone would appeal to any woman of any age who craves individuality along with a great price. Unless the retailer is 'haute couture,' it would be difficult to find a contemporary clothing store that can offer that type of selection.

Finally, I can shop online for vintage or retro clothing as well as I can hunt for contemporary clothes. Here's a little comparison:

• Within three minutes, I discovered a little black Chanel number from the 1980s for only $425. I discovered a contemporary little black dress that looked similar for $1,400.
  
  
• Within another few minutes I found a Donna Karan silk caftan from the 1980s for $160.00. A current Karan floor-length gown (that was, incidentally, the same color as the caftan) prices out at $2,695.00.
  
  
• Lastly, I went nuts over a Valentino dress pattern from the 1970s. Price on that little number was $15. Can you purchase this item anywhere at a contemporary store? Not.

While I was successful with apparel, some accessories - like Gucci bags - are better purchased new than old. The price on retro Gucci is about ten to twenty percent higher than new Gucci bags. The other two items that I refuse to purchase secondhand are undergarments and shoes. But, I'm not alone in my preferences. It appears Angelina Jolie made news when she admitted to paying only $26 for this vintage dress that she wore to her premiere of The Mighty Heart this summer. Her Louboutin heels, however, cost $800.

So if you're thinking about investing in retail clothing, you might go fishing for vintage designer clothes. Or, you might just stick to contemporary undergarments and shoes. Either way, think about this vintage/retro trend if quarterly reports show that retail garment stores have suffered. The underlying problem might not be the economy?

Until Next Week,
Linda Goin