Vintage Miscellany – February 28, 2016

When I look at vintage photos I’m often more intrigued by the accessories than by the garments.  In this case I’m loving the whatsit with the anchor motif.  It is probably a bag of some sort.  And that’s an interesting choice of shoe.


Filed under Vintage Miscellany

8 responses to “Vintage Miscellany – February 28, 2016

  1. I have to disagree with you on the vintage furs story. It’s serious business even if they are old and any responsible vintage clothing seller should know there are laws and restrictions on selling certain types of furs. This isn’t an obscure thing.


  2. I agree that sellers should be aware of what they’re selling, and what’s legal and illegal. Nonetheless, I am very surprised by that California story, which seems like, as you said, not the best use of resources. But they probably have to follow up on any such tips and are taking them quite seriously. I’ve heard some tales of (And somehow I doubt there’s a vintage store in California that doesn’t have a single leopard coat or *something* that would violate that list.)

    Every other vintage call we get, by the way, is someone trying to sell either mom’s old wedding dress or grandma’s vintage fur coat. I wonder where they all end up (not with us!).


  3. there is more going on here…as you already suspect-


    • Absolutely. I have a hard time believing that experienced vintage sellers would not know that selling certain fur is illegal. I’m also trying to understand why anyone would have reported them for being in violation.


  4. I will be in Amsterdam thank you for letting us know. Will make it a part of our trip.


  5. The raid at the shop in San Francisco was heartbreaking. I admit that I think the shop owner knew better, because if you’re in the vintage business, you should be familiar with the laws. However, there are a lot of other issues with the story and what happened. First off, the story claims “several pieces of evidence” were taken. What does “several” mean? One person on Facebook who has a shop down the street claims she say them take away about 12 trash bags full. And the second story you linked to says that there is a six page itemized list! That is rather long! It’s also sad that, if true, the items that were from her family, and claimed were her own, and not for sale, were taken. Additionally, it is still unclear to me what happens to the items once taken. If taken to the dump or burned, they cause waste. Additionally, they take away possible profit from a small business, which is hard on the economy. If the items were made pre-ban era, they need to be left alone.

    On the brighter side of things, I really want to go to that menswear exhibit! That looks awesome!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.