Not really. Overall, this blouse is of a similar “smart casual” genre to the one I vetted yesterday so it will be valid to compare them. Let’s analyze the Pros and Cons. Any investigator worth her/his salt will be sure to do this before publishing a conclusion or collecting the evidence.
Again, what is the characteristic that makes the first impression? Same as before – an attractive print with beautiful, vibrant colors: The good quality silk fabric is a definite winner compared to the rather dodgy 1970’s polyester we saw yesterday. +1.
Brand labels: Cloth again, with embroidered information. All attached at the neckline – no potentially awkward tags in the side seams. The downside is that these tags are attached only at the top, making them potentially uncomfortable and in danger of showing above the collar. It’s still a virtually unrecognizable maker’s name, but that’s par for the course with most mid-priced clothing. No points here.
Design and styling: Boring and dependable early 1990’s details: Boxy cut, double breast pockets, holdover shoulder pads and epaulets from the 1980’s and 1970’s, sizing that expanded all out of proportion – this size 6 fits like a 1970’s size 12. The buttons are standard translucent white plastic (that was a missed opportunity). BUT, the shirt is reasonably well-made. You can see the even top-stitching on pockets and collar, the front closure, the sleeve cuffs and hem. Inside seams have standard stitching and overlock, but I don’t find any dangling threads. No blue ribbons, for sure, but I’ll give it a +1 over yesterday’s blouse.
So, the verdict is: A moderate improvement in overall quality, but still a mish-mash. If I were involved in a sleuthing endeavor, it would not be worth my time. So far, we’re 1 out of 3 worth the bother. Tomorrow we’ll go back to the 1970’s with two casual velour tops I discovered here – very, very similar, but comparison-worthy. Stay tuned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MORGANA MARTIN, THE MAGICVINTAGESPY