VINTAGE vs. RETRO

One of my biggest pet peeves is when retailers market their products as being “vintage” when what they really mean is vintage-inspired, or retro. There’s nothing more annoying than someone saying they bought a vintage dress, when in reality, they bought it last week at Forever 21.

Indeed, Fossil. Indeed.

In essence, “vintage” means old. Merriam-Webster defines it as “dating from the past or “of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality.” Vintage clothes, then, are clothes that were made decades ago. When people talk of vintage clothes, they are usually referring to clothes that are thirty years old and older. These are clothes that have been preserved, maybe passed down from generations, and most importantly, are no longer available in stores. So when someone says their brand-new outfit they just bought from the mall is vintage, it really puts a thorn in my side.

On the other hand, “retro” refers to an article of clothing that resembles an old or outdated fashion style. Think of the word retrospective, meaning to look back into the past. That’s chiefly what retro or vintage-inspired clothing is—a peek into the past. When old trends like shoulder pads or high-waisted skirts are brought back, they are often dubbed as retro. Many, if not most, of today’s popular trends are recreations of previous styles. As with all history, fashion history always repeats itself. When retailers like Forever 21 or Modcloth release dresses that look like 50s swing dresses or pants and shirts that reference the 70s hippie movement, these products are retro, not vintage. Your cute, 20s-inspired slip dress from Macy’s sure looks vintage, but unless it was actually made in the 1920s, it’s only vintage-inspired. It will be vintage, though—just thirty years from now.

To clarify, let’s take a look at a couple dresses. This first dress is Romwe’s “Retro Lapel Neck Black” dress, available here. It has some very evident 50s-esque details, such as the A-line skirt and the collar. However, because it was manufactured in 2013, it is retro, not vintage (its name is kind of a big hint).

Doesn't this look like what Wednesday Addams would've worn in the 50s?

This next dress is a Jay Herbert lace day dress from Posh Girl Vintage, available here. It dates back to the 1950s and is by a brand that is no longer around today, thus making it vintage. In addition, it's also adorable. Anyone have $255 they want to lend me?

No but seriously, someone buy me this.

Don’t get me wrong, I love vintage and vintage-inspired fashion. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being retro; in fact, I’m excited to see what old trend will be brought back next. It just bothers me immensely when I hear clothes being sold as “vintage” to try to attract gullible consumers. As a rule of thumb, if you buy something from a common, modern retail store that is labelled vintage, the odds are that it probably isn’t.

What do you think? Are you easily fooled by the vintage name-drop scheme, or does it peck at you when is falsely labelled vintage? I’m sure some of you share this pet peeve of mine. Let me know in the comments below!

Have a wonderful day,

Patricia