Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 12, 1993 TAG: 9309100094
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Kathleen Wilson
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Katharine Hepburn didn't care. Neither did Lauren Bacall. Each redefined fashion in the '40s by showing Hollywood who wore the pants.
Any lady could wear a dress. But only a real dame could pull on a pair of trousers and look like a million.
But you can't wear pants to work, right? Wrong. Forget those polyester pantsuits Mary Tyler Moore made hip in the '70s.
Think elegant. Think simple. Think lean and shapely.
Think Katie Couric. Think Murphy Brown.
The look is long and lean and body conscious.
Wider pants. Longer jackets that hug your torso and nip at the waist.
Some jackets are vaguely equestrian. Others, made of brocade velvets and damasks, are decidedly Edwardian . . . yet void of ornamentation, except for an occasional row of unpretentious buttons.
Peacoats. Waistcoats. And for once, when you flip through the pages of Vogue, you find yourself marveling that these non-traditional classics are actually things that you would wear.
The wools and tweeds once reserved for the hunt and polo set turn up in streetwise interpretations that are anything but stuffy. Refined blendings match up unlikely fabrics and textures that clash.
Yet out of couplings that might sound like chaos, sleek lines emerge. Impossibly elegant and all together feminine.
Without all the bells and whistles and gimmickry, because who needs it?
After all, proponents of the less-is-more fashion doctrine know that minimalist style equals maximum chic.
Or, in Givenchy-speak, "the shortest line from elegance to perfection is simplicity."
by CNB