Hi Ellie:
I have been haunting vintage clothing resale outlets since 1977 and have been a dealer, off and on since that time.
I personally define vintage to being anything of the obvious past style, ie: out of fashion or not with trends. Of course that has been more difficult to define the past 10-15 years because fashion has been hugely influenced by revivals of recent styles. It used to be that there was only one or two styles of heels and one or two styles of toes in shoes. Sleeves would be either tight or full, and hemlines were all at the same length. This has gradually broken down since the 1950s and excelerated during the 1980s and 1990s so that now there really are no rules about hem length or sleeve styles, and you can buy every type of shoe heel or toe shape at the same time. This has opened wide the possibility of wearing vintage more fashionably than used to be the case. I remember in the early 70s if the hems on your pants were not exactly correct, you were embarrassed to leave the house. If you wore something that was too obviously last year's style, you no longer put it on your back. So the definition of vintage has come to mean anything second hand now, but I still tend to feel it is something that has completed its original fashionable cycle and is now being seen as old, or from the last time the style was around. So I don't define vintage by any specific year, just as an example of the last time it was haute mode.
I don't know if I do believe that vintage fashion is increasing in popularity. I think it is more available now than ever before, but only because of online websites and auction sites. There are probably fewer vintage clothing stores in Toronto than there were in the 1980s and I bet there are fewer vintage stores in London than there were in the 1960s. What is making vintage seemingly more popular now is the celebrity and designer status it now has. Just 10 years ago you could buy a Dior for $60.00 or a Claire McCardell for $10.00 -- no problem. However, with the designer label status of the 1990s and 2000s and with museums mounting designer-oriented exhibitions, the awareness of the designer label has caused those items to skyrocket in value. I bought about 20 Ceil Chapman dresses from a picker back in about 1990 for $10.00 a piece and sold them for $25.00 a piece to a dealer -- A Ceil Chapman dress was just a nice silk cocktail dress in those days. I remember selling a Chanel double C logo purse at a vintage clothing sale in 1997 for $50.00 and it sold only on the second day of the sale and the buyer tried talking me down in price!
Now, with Julia Roberts, or Nicole Kidman, or Rene Zellweger being photographed in 'vintage' (sometimes only 5 years old) clothes on the red carpet, the status for wearing vintage has increased. The word 'vintage' probably only appeared in fashion magazines like Vogue no more than 5 years ago. Suddenly it seems to be the chicest thing you can wear. Yet, I haven't seen a marked increase in sale for vintage across the board, only trendy items, or designer items have really expanded in price in the last decade. A Victorian dress is pretty much the same price now as it was 10 - 15 years ago. With the exception of truly rare and important garments, which collectors and museums vie for.
SO I think there has been a trend for vintage recently but this has also happened before. In the late 1970s white cotton lace insert Edwardian dresses were regularly priced at $150 - $300 dollars, more than they sell for now. In the early 1980s (courtesy of Cyndi Lauper) 1950s crinolines were selling for $50 - $75 a piece, about the same price as now. SO trends in vintage come and go and not everything keeps going up in price. A dealer I know was just lamenting that she wished she had sold all her Pucci over the last three years when it was getting better prices than it is now. Vintage has become a commodity that changes with the times and its value and desire goes up and down.
As for motivation, I do think that celebrity plays a big role in why a lot of people buy vintage these days. Also, elitism. If you own something that is essentially unique and you get compliments on it, you know that nobody else will be able to go out and buy the same thing. That makes the wearer powerful and seem clever and creative. Also, price is relevant. If you can buy something for cheap that costs much more new, your money goes further. There is a fashionable snear towards those who only rely on Top Shop or the Gap to buy their fashion clothes. Its too easy and unimaginative to go into one shop and buy an entire wardrobe. In fact I think if a woman buys something exactly as it is shown on a mannequin in the store window, or a model on the runway, it shows a deperate lack of creativity and unoriginality. However, by buying something new and mixing it with something unique and vintage, you create a look that is your own and can not be copied. However, I do think that lack of wearability does deter a lot of women from buying vintage. I know many women who bought something off of eBay, got it, and were disappointed and prefer to spend their money on brand new, clean, perfect garments rather than a crap shoot on a dress that might fall apart or already is falling apart. So I do think there are reasons people don't buy vintage as much as there are reasons to wear vintage.
