^ Right. So then, shouldn't someone who is looking for investment pieces (defined as clothing that has longevity beyond one season) be thinking about why the clothes have only lasted that long - because they fell apart or they are unfashionable now - rather than prescribing that everyone dress the same which is what these 'investment/10 classic pieces' theories promote?
Sorry, I think uni and writing essays is getting to me!
But I hate reading endlessly about how diamond solitaires, a white shirt, a Kelly/Birkin, black pants and trenchcoat are all one needs in one's wardrobe. Personally I'd feel like a waiter who'd just pinched someone's bag and jewelry and run.
i think you make a wonderful point. "investment" can definitely mean different things to different people. the original poster of this thread asked:
What items (clothing, accessories, shoes, etc) are considered investment pieces? looking at that sentence, i would infer from the passive voice that she is asking for the answers she was getting. she didn't ask what each person considers to be an investment item, or how one decides what is an investment item. she wanted to know what items would be viewed, by others, as timeless, trendless, valuable. that's what i would conclude anyway, from reading the post. i never shop along the lines set forth in the responses, and yet i do always shop with the expectation that all of my choices are timeless (in that i won't get bored with them), trendless (in that they can't be precisely dated), and valuable (in that they physically endure, in most cases, and for some items, it's that they truly have value independent of my appreciation for them, 'cause they're $$ - but those items are rare).
now i think it's fair to say that there is an over-lapping though. a trench coat can be (depending on the details of the cut) timeless, trendless and good quality so that it lasts. i think it is easier to name things from the expensive sector as examples of timeless, trendless and good quality items, but of course it is about the design and quality and not actually the price or label that defines those qualities.
so a person could say things of great quality and simplified design? there is still room for individuality, like with color, etc. but the reality is that things that are exceptionally independent-minded will not be "viewed" by others as investment pieces. that does not mean however that a unique person cannot redefine classic for themselves, it just means that they won't fit a larger definition. lynn yaeger is a walking example. she always looks like
her, always fits her style, which is so well-defined, and therefore, she always looks classically lynn.