The videos I come across usually feature a fellow Millennial, aghast in the aisles of their local vintage store and waving an offending garment in front of the camera.
“Vintage Forever 21,” they said say incredulously, panning from the familiar label to a store hang tag proclaiming vintage. “We have officially lost the plot, you guys!”
The comments are full of eye roll emojis and a chorus of ire.
I saw “vintage Wet Seal” the other day like bffr.
I literally had that in high school how dare they!!!
These resellers have lost their minds.
Forever 21 was founded by South Korean immigrants Do Won and Jin Sook Chang in 1984, first opening as “Fashion 21” before switching to the now legendary name in the late 80’s. They were successful enough in the LA mall scene to acquire Gadzooks (throwback!) for $33 million by 2005, immediately doubling the number of Forever 21 stores to 400. This was around the time I (on the east coast) was first hearing about this amazingly cheap store that my friend went to in California, and a few years before the chain was officially a country-wide sensation.
Sorry if it makes you feel old, but 2005 was (Forever) 21 years ago.
Vintage, as a classification, is not actually about a certain type or quality of product. It is, simply put, stuff that’s old. Not all vintage is high quality or desirable: an ill-fitting 70’s poly blouse isn’t any less vintage because it’s ugly and looks bad. The industry standard is 20 years or older for apparel, while items over 100 years old enter the really old designation of “antique.” Some dealers prefer to opt for 25 or 30 year benchmarks, but even under those extended qualifications, Forever 21 can still be vintage!
Vintage is currently everything from the year 2006 or earlier, meaning a lot of your cheapy teenage favorites more than fit the bill: Wet Seal (1990), Charlotte Russe (1975), Express (1980), Zara (1975, first entering the US in 1989), H&M (1968), and many more. Obviously, this does not mean any and all items from these brands should be considered vintage, and I do expect myself (and any reputable fellow dealers) to be able to properly discern the difference. Both the branding and product of most of these chains looked quite different in their early years, typically marked by visible changes in different stages of growth and industry. Their initial success earned them enough attention to be bought out by investment firms or merged with other brands, leading to a push for rapid expansion and the adaption of the fast fashion model.
Remember Contempo Casuals? They were acquired by Wet Seal in 1995, who continued operations under their original name for just a few years. By 1998, the last remaining Contempo stores were converted into Wet Seal or Arden B. Which means that technically all Contempo Casual is now considered vintage, but not all Wet Seal. And to think that 25% of my sophomore class bought the same exact Wet Seal zebra print mini dress for our 2007 homecoming without a care in the world that we were actually shopping on the hallowed grounds of what had once been a Contempo Casuals. RIP.
I don’t actually resell clothing from most of these stores myself. Not because I find it beneath me, but because the stores, events, and showrooms I stock in generally require a higher price point than I would feel comfortable asking for with a fast fashion label. The funny thing is, if people didn’t care about labels, I would actually feel very confident reselling (some) early fast fashion items as quality vintage clothing. Once upon a time, Forever 21 was selling 100% silk dresses, Old Navy was stocked with 100% cotton eyelet skirts, and you could buy a real leather jacket at H&M. I’m not exaggerating when I say that many of the clothes in these stores were once the same (or better!) quality as the pieces currently being sold for upwards of $150 on Revolve. I don’t avoid vintage fast fashion items because it’s all unworthy trash - I avoid it because I know the consumer is hard-wired to think of it as such.
Twenty years ago, there was really only one place that sold anything remotely close to the unwearable quality we now see from the SHEINs and Amazons on the world: Spirit Halloween. When I come across today’s ultra fast fashion at the thrift stores, the only comparison I have is to the staticky, sold-in-a-bag polyester my friends and I used to frantically purchase for a single (very drunken) wear. The disposable nature of Halloween costumes meant all expectations of quality could be called off, and consumers would accept fake buttons, printed on “textures,” or the illusion of layers and accessories provided by a single stretchy garment. But actually wearing anything from Spirit outside of the second half of October would have been unthinkable - the quality was just too low, it didn’t make any sense as “real” clothes.
I don’t think vintage has quite caught up to the dredges of modern fast fashion yet, but the years loom ever closer. And this, I think, is actually a much more interesting conversation than an echo chamber of dramatized outrage over “vintage Charlotte Russe.” Instead of front-facing camera rants about clothing you (or anyone) aren’t being forced to buy or even look at, what if we instead considered a near future when the 20 year window for vintage suddenly includes SHEIN (2015), Fashion Nova (e-comm in 2013), and PrettyLittleThing (2012)? How will that shift impact the desirability of others vintage categories? How can we adapt our language to more accurately describe the increasingly disparate tiers of old clothing?
Many dealers and collectors already use the term “true vintage.” While the exact definition of “true vintage” is less widely agreed upon, it generally refers to items from before the 1980’s. And it’s not a coincidence that this lines up with the first wave of fast fashion.
American retailers began outsourcing labor in the 1970’s, mostly to Asian countries, leading to rapid expansion of the cheap-and-quick overseas model throughout the 80’s and 90’s. The sudden speed of production meant brands could bypass the traditional fashion seasons, with the term “fast fashion” officially being coined in the late 80’s. By the time NAFTA was passed in 1994 the floodgates to overseas production were officially wide open, and the American garment industry was dealt its final blow. These changes resulted in rapidly declining quality, with cost-cutting measures becoming increasingly apparent in the fabric choices, sewing quality, and overall garment construction of mass-market clothing.
It’s genuinely hard to find really poorly made clothing from before the 1970’s. I’ve come across the sloppy handiwork of the occasional mediocre home sewist at an estate sale, but even the cheapest garments from Sears and J.C. Penney were made to fit and last. Of course, clothing as a whole getting worse doesn’t mean all clothing was being badly constructed. Plenty of companies were, and still are, making very good quality items that will absolutely stand the test of time. But as the fashion system gets more and more fucked up, the percentage of those good quality garments continues to shrink.
So what happens when the 20 year threshold crosses 2015, or 2020, and the term “vintage” suddenly encompasses everything from chemical-scented CUPSHE bikinis to Matthieu Blazy’s Chanel? Obviously there will always be a demand for secondhand Prada and Fendi, but will people want to buy vintage Reformation? Ganni? What about vintage Aritzia? What will determine how a garment retains long term value in the secondhand market - initial retail price? Garment construction? Just vibes? The average shopper is already so disconnected from truly understanding quality, I can’t imagine 20 more years of immersion in fast fashion slop will greatly improve our overall knowledge of well-sewn seams and what a nice lining looks like.
One thing I think is guaranteed is a continued increase in the desirability, and therefore prices, of the pieces we do deem worthy of becoming “true vintage.” We’re now 50+ years removed from the golden era of garment manufacturing and skilled home sewing being truly commonplace, and each passing decade will only increase the rarity of finding items from those decades in wearable condition. As the finite pool of well-made vintage garments continues to inevitably shrink, little by little, there should be a collective understanding that stewardship and care are more important than ever.
The dealers and collectors who are properly identifying and restoring vintage garments are essential to keeping those irreplaceable pieces in circulation, and those skills will only grow more valuable as the waters of fast fashion creep closer and closer to our necks. Vintage Forever 21 is just treading water. Wait until the SHEIN gets in your nose.
So well said, Alex! I see 80s and 90s and 00s fast fashion all the time, and it’s so much better made than most things today (reinforced seams, bra strap holders, pockets, linings), and I kinda shake my head that these will be the treasures found in the next few years. Crazy.
Awesome article!
Great piece! I always roll my eyes at the Millennial "that can't be vintage, *I* wore it as a teen!" mentality. IMO "vintage" is anything that's been through the trend cycle. I'm already seeing trends from my 2010s Gen Z youth appearing on alarmingly cool teens, and guess what? It's kinda exciting to see the looks I loved return.
I'm interested to see what the influx of ultra-fast fashion will do to the vintage market, too. I buy a lot of mid-tier mall brands from the early aughts (think Bebe, Cache, Arden B). I like them because they're trendy, but also because the quality is worlds away from anything you'd find in a standard shopping mall today. Personally, I worry that vintage will lose some of its appeal once the trend cycle turns to ROMWE. Time will tell.