Fierson's

The finer points of European Children’s Style – Part 1

The Demise of Elegance: Are Quality and Taste A Thing of the Past?

I am out of step.  Out of step and hopelessly lost.  There appears to be an array of people dancing to a tune I neither particularly like, nor understand.  The tune is shrill and grating; akin to a seriously “pitchy”  American Idol contestant singing “The Greatest Love of All”.

As the owner of Fierson’s, an upscale children’s boutique known for selling tasteful, high-quality goods, I look around and wonder: is anyone buying them anymore??  And…when they do buy them…where exactly are they wearing these gorgeous clothes?  Since I see little evidence of anyone really looking good these days?

At Designersbestforkids.com, there are beautiful, simply stunning party dresses from MonnaLisa, an Italian luxury brand and from Spanish brands like Luli and Me and Torres.  All elegant, all of superior quality.  Dresses with embroidered flowers and smocked dresses, any of which would be perfect for the rash of communion, christening and graduation parties now in full swing. 

And yet, when I go to an assortment of these functions and look around, these quality goods are nowhere in sight.  Instead, I simply see a host of  cheap imitations, cheesy party dresses that you just know were the season’s $29.99 specials at Kohls and Macys. 

The difference in looks is striking.  It is obvious.  Can no one see it?

The little girls running around at these parties, sitting in rapt attention in front of the requisite magician all look vaguely familiar: like real-life versions of their “Made in China” dolls in their miniature party dresses.  The ubiquitous polyester party dresses are made of inferior fabrics, generic in style with usually a plain bodice, satin or sateen sash and full polyester skirt, usually with a floral pattern or adorned with those cheap-looking flowers you would see on the overly-decorated frames at the Dollar Store.

Since when did this become good enough?  How is it that inferior–looking goods are now acceptable at even the fanciest of functions.  While price IS a factor, I for one, would rather wait until a superior item goes on sale and buy just one really good item as opposed to three mediocre ones.

But really, it’s not only about price. These parents are the same ones spending  significant sums of money at over-the-top restaurants where gargantuan portions are the norm.  They are the same people spending even bigger sums of money on ever-larger televisions and home theater equipment.

So, it’s really not about money.  It’s more, in my opinion, about a cheap, cheesy look that has not only become acceptable, but worse: popular.

For parents and older siblings, this trend towards cheap takes a different tact…it seems to me that the majority of young teenagers and their moms get gussied up in outfits that are both, too tight and too revealing.

Are they TRYING to look like Snooki?  Do they think the too tight, and much too short, ruched polyester skirts riding far too high up on thick thighs, with belly and butt protruding noticeably, is in any way appealing?  And to whom would that look appeal??

The polyester and spandex combination fabrics pervasive today seem to be lend themselves to this “trashy is better” look immortalized by reality TV starts from New Jersey.

Are we really trying to emulate them?

A disclaimer here: my distaste for this has NOTHING to do with any notion of “good girls” vs. bad..or any moral judgments on my part.  I actually abhor the self-righteous moral majority types and tend to be VERY liberal in terms of family and sexual lifestyles. So, really, my distaste has nothing to do with sexual mores. 

It is simply a question of aesthetics.

Why are we choosing cheap and tacky over classy and elegant? 

For children, why are we looking to the toddlers on Tantrums and Tiaras or Suri Cruise in heels at three versus the grandchildren of Vice President Joe Biden (whatever your politics, those kids are dressed well!) or European notables?  For parents, why are we lauding laughable characters from New Jersey (Mob wives, Housewives of New Jersey), as opposed to style icons like Audrey Hepburn, Cate Blanchette and Angelina Jolie who, has transformed from Goth girl to an impeccably tailored, classy style icon.

For our sakes as well as our children’s…let’s collectively raise the bar.

Are Matt Lauer, Ann Curry, Al Roker and their competing Network Counterparts Destroying Small Business in the U.S?

Four stores in my town closed last week.

Not one, not two, not three, but four.  In one day.

The town is not found in one of Pennsylvania’s old steel-mining areas.  Nor is it found in the automobile-reliant suburbs of Detroit.  In fact, it is not any of the towns that might first come to mind when watching news reports of decimated Main Streets across the county.  It is, instead, found in an extremely affluent area of Westchester.  The town is, in fact, Bronxville;  a well-known Westchester bedroom community 20 minutes north of Manhattan.  A town replete with stately homes along gorgeous, tree-lined drives.  Bronxville is a village that is chock full of investment bankers and white-collar professionals who have made their mark (and their millions) in some of the most glamorous professions in the world; finance, publishing, media and entertainment.

So what exactly IS the problem?  If it is so difficult for small business owners to succeed in the rarified, tony town of Bronxville, how hard must it be for others in less-privileged environs?  What are the prospects for small businesses across other, less affluent areas of the country?.

While I am certainly Unqualified to answer the question in terms of any economic theories or data, as the owner of Fierson’s, a children’s boutique that has been an integral part of the Bronxville community for over 65 years, I feel moderately qualified to speak to the issue from my personal observations and gut instincts.  My store is a destination store and having been around for such a long time, I have a very large and loyal following, so am somewhat protected, but I AM concerned for other small business owners in not only Bronxville, but in towns and villages across the country.

My gut instincts tell me that, YES, the internet is a significant factor.   With Internet sales consistently up year over year, while sales at brick and mortar stores have declined,  retail stores MUST get onto the e-commerce bandwagon if they are to thrive, or even, survive.  I have had two successful websites for some time, (designersbestforkids.com and fiersons.com) and can attest to the fact that they demand an inordinate amount of time and effort.  Many Mom & Pop stores just don’t have either the knowledge or  time to put up and manage their own websites and are, consequently, getting a smaller share of the market.

I get it.  But my personal observation is that the struggles small businesses are encountering  can’t all be attributed to the Internet.  Small Business in this country is not merely wounded, it is hemorrhaging. 

As an explicit sign of the times,  American Express, never known to be particularly friendly  to small businesses, (their merchant fees are significantly higher than other cards) has recently established “Small Business Saturday”.  They have seen  the extent of the suffering, we small businesses  feel it and live it.  We NEED consumers to return to small business, and not just on one Saturday a year.

And yet, every time I turn on morning TV, I see Matt Lauer interviewing some money guru or self-proclaimed budget expert  who proceed to tell viewers how to get the best “deal” possible, business owners be damned.  Whether they are going on about how to go to the big box stores and decipher the codes at Costco, or  how to  wait it out to make sure you get the highest possible reduction on your Christmas purchases, it is always ALWAYS about how to squeeze every penny out of the merchants.  These merchants are more often than not store owners  who are barely surviving.

With profit margins already low, and most small business owners struggling, I have to wonder if these gurus and experts are thinking about the long term implications of their advice.  With stores in towns across the country closing, main streets become ghost towns, sales tax revenues go down, property taxes go up.  With no viable downtown area, home values are negatively impacted and REAL loss is experienced by those viewers ostensibly trying to save a buck.

It doesn’t stop there: One  money guru even had the brilliant idea to ask stores for a discount for cash.  Who exactly are they targeting here?  Certainly not the big department stores since no one would be likely to ask a 16-year-old sales associate for a cash discount.  The inference is  to ask the small business owner for a cash discount.   What is that saying exactly?  Does a cash discount refer to only the  2% charge card fees…or something more, to perhaps take into account the sales tax? WHAT exactly are they espousing?   

Follow up this with Ann Curry doing es a segment on head to toe outfits under $59.00 or $99.00 or whatever.  Now, if the consumer can buy a blouse for 14.99, pants for 29.99,  that means that the store owner is paying a little less than half of that.  So, if this is the scenario, then how much is the young girl  slaving over a sewing machine in a hot, humid factory making a day? 5 dollars??

Does that bother you?  It should.

And then there is Al Roker telling viewers that it’s going to be rainy day, and advising them that if they don’t have to go out..then stay home.  What???  IT is RAIN.  Are we in the land of the yellow-brick road?  Will we melt??

Too often, the media is always looking for the “dramatic”, the big story.  Thus, every ½ inch  snowstorm becomes a “Storm Watch” event  and rain becomes an excuse to stay home and stay “SAFE”.

Dramatic? Yes. 

In a time when melodrama reigns, again, I get it. 

But, it is also extremely short-sighted.  Are these on air network notables thinking about what those statements actually DO  to businesses across the country?

I suggest they forgo the drama for a little bit and look at the long term impact of their segments. 

We’re asking our two year olds WHAT??

I see it all the time.

As a store owner of Fierson’s an upscale children’s boutique in Bronxville, NY,  I bear  witness to the disturbing trend I see among parents who eagerly ask their children (who are at an age when they can barely string together three or four words, much less offer a cogent opinion) if they “like” a certain outfit being considered for purchase.

I don’t say much, but I want to scream.  I mean, I’m not even so sure it’s a good idea to ask our husband’s THEIR opinions on clothing much less our toddlers?!!

While I was certifiably mad for my late husband, he could not, under any circumstances, be viewed as a style maven or arbiter of good taste.  In this blogger’s humble opinion, MOST men ( read: “straight” men) are NOT style icons, nor do they want to be.  Why then, would I ask him his opinion about clothes?  (Whether they be mine or others.)

So why the recent compulsion to ask our children ??

Do they have a highly developed sense of style at two? Or are we merely placing on them a responsibility that they may not even be interested in assuming?

A recent article in The Washington Post pointed to a Connecticut-based survey that found that parents  often  “asked kids’ opinions, regardless of age, about products they planned to buy for the kids or whole family. More, it found that about half sought kids opinions about products the parents wanted for themselves.”

Say WHAT?

Why are we doing this?  To teach them independence?   To let them express their individual sense of style?  Style is learned over time.  Yes.  Let’s let our toddlers develop it.   Uhmmm…on their American Girl dolls.   Not on an outfit they’re going to wear to Sally’s birthday party or Uncle Nick’s first Thanksgiving.

I’m all for asking toddlers key questions:

• Ask them if they want to go potty.
• Ask them if those were the puka shells in the bowl on the coffee table or the sweetie candies next to it that they just swallowed.
• Ask them if they’d like to start reciting the alphabet or the names of all fifty states.

But DON’T ask them if they “like” or (even worse)  will “wear” a certain outfit.

Who’s in charge here?  Who is the parent??

Did Jackie Kennedy ask John John if he would wear that short double breasted coat and those knee hi’s he wore when saluting his father’s casket at the funeral??  I’d hazard a guess that she did not.

Did he grow up to be an indecisive,  insecure man who was unsure of his sense of style and sense of self? I think not.

What would have happened had John F. Kennedy Jr. had his say on that fateful day?  Would millions of teary-eyed Americans be watching a young boy in a collarless T-shirt emblazoned with the reigning cartoon characters of that time (I think George Jetson and his dog Elmo may have been right up there in popularity in 1963).

Would the solemnity of the occasion have been appropriately conveyed via the caricatures or would something  be askew?

Children will learn to make their own decisions in time…why rush it?  American children don’t get to vote until they are 18 and with good reason.  Not to put words into the mouths of our founding fathers, but  I’d have to say that these esteemed gentlemen simply realized, that with  time, experience and maturity, our children will be in a better position to make reasoned choices.

So then, is it really necessary to give our children voting and veto power on clothing at two?

If it were up to our two year olds they’d be wearing their Pink-alicious PJ’s to great aunt Polly’s wake.

Just as a child will go for the Fruit loops over the steel cut oats, the gummy bears over the apple slices, so too, will they opt for the cheap and flashy over the simple and refined.  A Disney character will always beat out a cotton pique sundress or Brooks Brothers blue and white oxford shirt.  That understood, do we really want or need to give our young children this much control?  Who says they have to get a say in every aspect of their life?

Do our children have a say about brushing their teeth?  About combing their hair? About saying “please” and “thank you” at appropriate times?

No.  Why is that?  Because they need to learn,  to be taught about decorum;  both in terms of behavior and appearance.  Similarly, they need to be taught about appropriate clothing choices.  Let them evolve into their own individual style…in time, and through a parent’s guidance.

For parents who insist on giving their young children some power, my advice is:  If you MUST, then PLEASE  make sure it is LIMITED in scope.  If fascism on a personal level doesn’t appeal to you quite as much as it does to me and you feel that you MUST give them some input,  then give them a choice, a choice between two options.  Two items that YOU, as the parent in charge,  have  already selected.

It’s about baby steps.  Give them input as they mature. Give them an option of A or B if you must, but not carte blanche.  You be the parent.  Let them be the child.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

I recently spent a weekend in Florida visiting family.  During this brief stay, I found myself frequently bringing up “unintended consequences” with my sister, who writes a blog for the Huffington Post and with whom I share a similar point of view on things significant and insignificant.

After we had initially discussed  this idea of  “unintended consequences”, we kept looking differently at all manner of things that weekend;  suddenly seeing each as being yet another manifestation of  this concept of unintended consequences.

For example, what of the preponderance of those motorized scooters cropping up in malls and theme parks around the country?

Now, while there are certainly riders who are truly infirmed and immobile – we, cynical cosmopolitan women that we are, couldn’t help but feel that most of those zipping around in these carts are simply overweight.   Let’s not sugar coat it (pun intended), they are clinically, and morbidly, obese.  Bad hips, bad knees, shortness of breath, all symptoms of morbid obesity.   We had to ponder the unintended consequence here.  Conceivably, these aging baby boomers are getting these scooters because it is difficult for them to get around via more conventional means and these motorized scooters theoretically increase their mobility.

It begs the question however: Isn’t the unintended consequence here ultimately INCREASED weight and thus, DECREASED mobility??

Another observation wryly noted while we were in our respective dressing rooms trying on one knit or stretchy pant after another:  women today rarely wear pants with a true waist band. (If the truth be told, I must admit that I too, am one of these women.  My mother would be horrified..but, in terms of opting for a stretchy knit over an unyielding, lined, fitted pant, I sadly stand:  GUILTY AS CHARGED)   In what is surely a sign of the times, MOST women I know do prefer leggings and unrestrictive tunic tops or knit pants to fashionable  cotton twill or wool gabardine ones.   Who wouldn’t?  But what exactly are we sacrificing?  What is the unintended consequence of this preference?

Don’t these stretchy pants and flowing tops effectively make it easier for us to go hog   wild?  To eat without the inconvenient (but effective) looming threat of not being able to button our pants once we get up from the table?  Doesn’t this “get out of jail free card” then help to pave the way for an increasingly expanding waistline? (At which point, unrestrictive clothing becomes a virtual necessity.  The cycle then not only continues, it uhmmmm…. expands.   (pun, again, intended).

Have you been to the Midwest?  While I try not to make a habit of it, on my rare forays into that part of the country,  I  can’t help but notice that the population is increasingly obese.  Is it mere coincidence that there’s not a proper waistband to be found?!  It’s all pastel stretchy pants and velour track suits?!  Is rabid obesity just yet another unintended consequence of this far too comfortable clothing we insist on wearing?  You be the judge…or better yet, just spend a day at the Missouri State Fair.

So, what then is the unintended consequence of consistently clothing our children almost exclusively in stretchy knit, uber-comfortable clothing?

As a retailer (I own Fierson’s in Bronxville and two websites, fiersons.com and DesignersBestForKids.com), I often hear shoppers ask whether or not I have any other super- comfy clothes for their children to play in. Along with this initial request, there are numerous additional conditions that are expected to be met:  it must be easy on, easy off, no zippers, no turtlenecks, no buttons on pants if possible and certainly nothing that requires ironing.

Variations on the same, boring theme…

Are the retailers and manufacturers then left with very many options?  Is this a way of explaining the endless assortment of flowy tops and leggings?  Perhaps that helps explain why the colors are becoming so garish and costumey….the manufacturers are trying to differentiate something that is hard to differentiate given the ever increasing limitations put on childrenswear by kids and Moms alike.  There is no “design” aesthetic with these comfy outfits, they are just the same pattern repeated ad nauseum.

Is it imperative that we be quite so accommodating? Do we really need to make things this  easy for our kids?

What is the unintended consequence here?

Are we in fact limiting our children?  Shrinking their options and, thus their world?  We may think we are doing them a favor, but could we, in fact be doing them a disservice?

What will they do when they need to put on a suit for an interview?  Or a shirt with an actual collar? Will your child refuse to put on a smocked pique dress at Easter?  Or a red velvet dress at Christmas, opting instead for a candy pink Juicy Couture track suit  for Christmas Dinner at Aunt Marjorie’s?  Are we setting it up so everything will be too much of an effort for our children?

Why are kids today so sensitive to collars?  Anything that “itches” or is slightly restrictive is suddenly a problem?  When I was a child, (not sooo long ago) we played in starched pinafores.  We rode bikes in dresses with Peter Pan collars and full slips.  We didn’t have “sensory” issues.  Is this newfound “skin sensitivity”  a sign of the continuing  evolution of our species, or merely just coddling?

To parents and children alike, I, as a retailer who longs to see American kids in more of the traditional clothing commonplace in Europe, want to scream:  Buck up!

Let your children adjust.  If they can’t adjust to wearing regular clothing, how can we ever expect them to excel in school when it gets a little challenging, or land that really hard job, or tackle Mt. Everest.  The world is not always soft, not always fuzzy, not always comfortable.   Their wardrobe shouldn’t be either.

Be careful.  There are, after all, unintended consequences ahead.

TO VEIL or NOT TO VEIL?

To veil or not to veil?   That is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler……

Okay..okay…you get it.  Perhaps not as pressing as the precise question posed by Hamlet,  it is, nevertheless an oft-heard inquiry that speaks to the quandary many mothers and daughters find themselves in at this time of year.

For those of you new to these blogs, I am the owner of Fierson’s in Bronxville, an upscale children’s boutique known  for selling, (among other types of children’s clothing) simple, understated First Communion dresses.  In the capacity of retail “expert” and  with communion season rapidly approaching,  I’m often asked this very question by otherwise ultra-sophisticated, well-educated  Manhattan and Westchester mothers alike. 

Regardless of the dress selected, they invariably want to know whether or not their daughters should wear a veil as part of their First Communion ensemble.

At Fierson’s,  I would say the ratio of veil wearers to “headband only” wearers is about 40/60, with forty percent opting for veils, while about sixty percent choose either a simple wreath of fresh flowers or an elegant  headband.

A disclaimer here:  that ratio may not accurately reflect what is going on in other communities. 

Fierson’s, by virtue of its location and proximity to Manhattan, holds a very unique position.   In operation for over 65 years, the boutique is a virtual institution in the tony and rather rarified town of Bronxville, (a picturesque enclave of investment banker types that lies about 25 minutes north of Manhattan).   My store caters to a clientele that likes the elegant simplicity of clean lines and classic styles.  While I’d hazard a guess that the town is predominantly Catholic, the aesthetic is preternaturally “WASPY”. 

It is an aesthetic that suits my personal tastes well.   Another disclaimer:  I  was born and bred in Connecticut and am forever stuck with, (for better or worse) an “understated” sensibility.  As such, I prefer a fresh-flower wreath or headband to veil.

I can however, see the merits of both and tend to offer my advice based on a combination of factors;

· the congregation in which the girl will be receiving First Communion

·  the style of the dress selected and….

·   the unspoken clues I’m picking up from both mother and daughter during the all-important selection process. 

As a general rule, I tend to opt for headbands over veils, but will suggest a veil if the dress is very simple and may need the veil to take it up a notch to fully achieve a  “First Communion”  look.  For example, when looking at two of our bestselling  communion dresses (fiersons.com and designersbestforkids .com), the simple “Sabrina” style dress on the left works well with a veil, while I prefer the slightly more embellished dress on the right with just a pearl studded headband.

For me, the veil CAN work PROVIDED it is:

·         - kept short, (just below the shoulders max),

·         - of substantial heft and good quality

·         - free of any sparkles, sequins or other forms of dubious ornamentation.

So, basically, keep it simple.  Let the quality stand out and don’t do a veil that detracts from the child OR the dress.  And…this SHOULD go without saying, but….. tiaras should be NOWHERE in sight.

Leave the tiara’s for dress up, or… for Teresa Giudice’s daughters on the Housewives of New Jersey.  Tiaras do NOT belong on a young girl unless that young girl is Elizabeth Regina at the occasion of her Coronation.

(And…don’t get me started on heels….ballet flats or modified Mary Janes are best to keep the look refined and age-appropriate).

But, back to the question of veils.  In my experience…certain nationalities and/or faiths tend to go one way or the other.   Italian mothers (if we’re talking nationalities) who come into the store are more likely to opt for the veil,  whereas Lutheran’s, (if we’re talking religious affiliation),   for whom the occasion is more low key, tend to prefer headbands.  Clearly, there is no hard and fast rule, which makes the whole process a more trying one.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I will say it again, if you ARE going to do a veil: Keep it simple. One of my favorite looks is a simple “Jackie” bow  from Andrea’s Beau, a supplier I look to (almost exclusively) for the communion headbands and veils we sell at Fiersons.  As with all of their headbands and veils, the quality is exceptional and the weight and feel of the tulle is superior to many others on the market.

Mom’s don’t want their daughters to be the only one without a veil.  Nor do they want them to be the only one wearing a veil.  At an age when young girls are struggling with insecurities and have yet to develop their own sense of self- worth, conformity is king.  So, of course, no one wants their child to stand out.  (stand out in a bad way that is…as in…”like a sore thumb”).

So, my advice:

If you don’t feel compelled to have your daughter wear a veil for religious reasons, and if the church does not mandate a veil,  then skip the veil altogether. 

 If most of the other girls ARE wearing veils, and you don’t want your daughter to be one of the few “veil-less wonders”,  then choose a  simple one with a simple hairstyle. (No need for a hairstyle done up in tightly-wound ringlets — it’s not a prom, it’s a first communion).

If you are unsure of what the other girls are wearing, select one of those veils that can be positioned under a headband.  Once you get to the church, survey the crowd.  If very few of the girls are wearing veils, you can easily whip off the veil and no one will be the wiser.

So now, with that settled, in the words of many a priest: “Peace be with you….

WHY DOES THIS AMERICAN GO OVERSEAS TO BUY?

I am definitely pro-American.  I like to support those closest to home, to support our American economy.  I not only want to do it, I feel that, to a large extent, it is my duty to do so.

Like many Americans, I am all too familiar with the statistics and the devastating impact the loss of manufacturing jobs has had in this country.  Yes, I know that manufacturing supports over 18 million jobs in the U.S.  Yes, I know that, while the numbers have dwindled,   9 percent of the American workforce is still directly employed in manufacturing.

I too was stunned into silence by that ABC News “Made In America” program that showed an American family struggling to find products for their home and daily lives that were made in the U.S.   We need more products that are made right here in the good ole  U S of A!

And yet, twice a year, I make overseas buying trips to Italy, Spain and France.

There, I buy the most exquisite and special children’s clothing I can find.  I buy these clothes for the clients who frequent my  Bronxville store, Fiersons and  my two websites, Fiersons.com and Designersbestforkids.com, (the latter for my higher-end lines).

So, why, despite my pro-American stance,  am I compelled to make these semi-annual pilgrimages overseas?

It may SOUND glamorous and fun, but, trust me when I tell you: it’s not.

It is work.  Exhausting on both a physical and emotional level.  It is long days of endless trolling through booths and showrooms.  Long hours spent examining goods that are generally, “average” while seeking out the few pieces that are truly exceptional.

It is hours of trying to estimate profit margins based on a changing Euro and indeterminable duty and shipping costs.  It is a constant reviewing and editing  of the selections you’ve already made, once you’ve found that second holiday dress that is even  MORE spectacular than the first one you thought was “the one”…until you saw the second.

Jet lag is your constant companion as there is no time for R&R upon arrival; you are whisked right to the shows after landing.  Usually a 6-day trip, each day is crammed to the gills with endless hours perusing overcrowded stalls and inspecting thousands of garments; trying to find the items that will set you above and apart.

While there may be time for a late night meal of exquisitely rendered pasta (how  DO the Italians make even the simplest pasta dish so incredibly good?),  there is time for little else.  There will be no soaking up of the culture and country.  Michelangelo’s David, the treasures of the Louvre,  a Spanish bullfight will all have to wait for another trip –on THIS trip it’s off to the countryside to review a few designs at the factory.

So why bother?  Why, precisely, do I go overseas to buy?

In short, I go for the quality.  Quality that is, for the moment at least, hard to find on American soil.

In Europe, I can find a quality and style of garments that are distinctive in design and construction and will set me apart from the competition.

In general, the styles are more genteel, less brash, less “in your face”.  The European sensibility is one that inherently knows that less, really IS more.  The children in Europe are not dressed in a dizzying array of tutus and twirl/swirly multi-colored garments.  The dresses are not too long, the boys pants are not too baggy.  Girls are not in spaghetti strap dresses and boys WILL actually wear shirts with collars. The clothing is more sedate, classier.

There seems to be less embellishment.  More substance.

Even when there IS embellishment, bows, beads and the like, it is somehow done in a way that enhances the garment rather than cheapens it.  The Italian’s are the only ones I’ve found that can add a series of disparate elements to a skirt set and pull it off.  It doesn’t look like it’s too much; it merely looks hip and fresh.

With the French, the squirrel buttons or bows and pearls adorning a baby’s outfit, appear whimsical, not cheesy.

Whether trendy or classic, many of the European styles I come across are spot on.  Both fashion forward and classic styles are impeccable in terms of design AND execution.

Speaking of execution….I also go buying overseas because I find the fabrics and construction superior to what I see in the States.   The Italian wools are softer, the cottons crisper, the tailoring more expert.  The simplicity of the Spanish lines would not work nearly as well were it not for their beautiful piques and hand-embroideries.

I also buy overseas because I don’t necessarily want to have what every other store in the country has.  I want to seek out the different, the unique.  With 65 years in business, Fiersons is a destination store.  I want to keep it that way.  My clients come to my store and shop my websites because they know that I make the extra effort and take the extra time to seek out and buy things that are exceptional and not found everywhere.

While they can go to the big box store for their cereals and paper towels, and they can shop the department stores for their “made in china” Ralph Lauren play clothes, they come to me for that unique baby gift or exceptional clothes for their own children that they just can’t find everywhere.

FIRST COMMUNION or FIRST WEDDING?

Ahhh… the shared dream of mothers and daughters everywhere: to see their little girls make that much-anticipated walk down the aisle. A vision in white, walking slowly down the long aisle with all eyes in the church trained on them.

But wait??? WHOA…Back up that tape. There is some confusion here!! The girl walking down that aisle is NOT our little girl, all grown up. She is NOT our daughter in her late twenties, early thirties. She is 7.

It is her first communion.

She is NOT the blushing bride.

It is NOT her wedding.

She is our young daughter participating in a religious rite of passage that represents a 7 or 8 year-old’s reception of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

I’m not too well versed in the specifics of Catholicism, but key for me here is the phrase: “7 or 8 year-old”. That young girl walking down the aisle is, in fact, a young CHILD, she is NOT a young woman.

That said, with the picture now clearer, I have to ask: When did we start dressing our little girls like miniature brides?

I have watched with a sense of rising horror, the trend of outfitting petite little girls in voluminous dresses with layers of tulle, pickups, bows and spangles. Little girls in dresses that are too big for their small frames and tender years. Little girls with hair that is too “done” and piled too high in too-tight ringlets. Little girls whose sweet faces are obscured by sparkly earrings, tiaras and veils.

It is all too much. And, NOT in a “too much of a good thing” kind of way. Rather, “too much” in a Housewives of New Jersey type of way. Too tacky. Too over-the-top. Too many layers, too much sparkle, too “Tantrums and Tiaras”.

We don’t need to “bedazzle” our children. They are dazzling enough on their own.

In much the same way “The Venetian” in Las Vegas looks like a classless and tawdry imitation with none of the exquisite beauty and charm of Venice, a pre-pubescent girl dressed to mimic a bride has none of the beauty and charm of an actual bride; she merely looks like a classless and out-of-place imitation.

When a Mom comes to Bronxville looking for a Communion dress, she knows she will not find a plethora of polyester and sequin-studded dresses. She will not need to worry that her daughter’s young, untrained eye will automatically go to the most garish, bejeweled frock on display; for there are none to be found. 

At Fiersons, we don’t do garish.  We don’t do tacky.  We don’t do bridal.  You shouldn’t either.

We do First Communion dresses.  The dresses at the store and on my websites are in line with the implied purity and innocence of the occasion.   We want to make sure that it is the girl who stands out; who shines – not the dress.

While a slightly bigger girl will look better in a simple jewel necked bodice and box pleated skirt, we have had enough experience to know that the truly petite girls look simply angelic in Peter Pan collars and full skirts. Whatever the look, and wherever their origin (usually Italy, Spain or South America), I look for three things: sumptuous fabrics, superior construction and simple lines.

The advice we dole out both here and on our website (Fiersons.com) is:

When choosing a First Communion dress, choose silk over polyester, simple over flash, little girl over miniature bride.

She can look like a bride when she IS a bride.  But for now, she should look like a little girl.

And for goodness sake….LOSE the tiara!

THE ETERNAL APPEAL OF MAD MEN and DON DRAPER: WHY “OLD-FASHIONED” LOOKS WILL NEVER GO OUT OF STYLE.

My girlfriends and I have been emailing about it, texting about it, tweeting about it, and awaiting it: the long-anticipated premiere of Mad Men.

Yes…it’s coming. Finally. After what seems like an interminably long wait (protracted contract negotiations and network machinations), March 25^th will mark the eagerly anticipated return of the show and its ever dapper, debonair rogue, Don Draper.

We will all be watching, my girlfriends and I. There will be no “Season 5 Premiere” party, no “viewing” soirees, instead we will each be watching the show in solitary splendor. Each, from the comfort of our bedrooms, or in our very own, more upscale version of the ubiquitous “barca-lounger”. Alone in bed, in sweats and fuzzy socks, propped against pillows with our pints of hagan daaz in hand, or reclining in that favorite overstuffed chair, microwaved popcorn at the ready, we will tune in to see glimpses of a life and era we are all just a bit too young to remember precisely.

While we may have vague recollections of that time, our memories are primarily spurred by certain visual images; the three piece “modern” silver coffee set used for the bridge game party looks warmly familiar, the lever-operated phone directory that pops up when you move the side arrow to the desired letter is the exact one we had in our kitchen, but for the most part, it is a time and era that for us, remains a mystery.

Despite the familiarity of the visual clues, it is a time that is foreign to most of us: a time when three martini luncheons were the norm, a time when women in the office were routinely called “honey” and “sweetheart”, a time when the threat of a sexual harassment lawsuit was non-existent. It was a time when men wore hats, women wore gloves and everyone actually looked incredibly well-dressed on an airplane.

While we don’t exactly remember it, we relish it. So, if not nostalgia, what then is the appeal? Jon Hamm’s dashing good looks? His aloof, “manly” ways?

Certainly that is part of it. But it doesn’t nearly explain ALL of the appeal of either Don Draper (Hamm) or the show.

In terms of Jon Hamm? Yes, he is a good looking guy to be sure, but he has neither the perfect features and mesmerizing good looks of say, Rob Lowe, nor the charismatic charm and Cary Grant cool of “King George” (aka George Clooney).

In fact, it is interesting to note that when not basking in the sartorial crispness of Don Draper, with his meticulously coiffed and Bryl-creamed hair, crisply ironed, bright white shirt and accompanying pocket square, we barely notice him?!

There was little or no buzz about Jon Hamm prior to his landing this role. No one really oohed and ahhed about him when he was playing Tina Fey’s wacky boyfriend in 30 Rock or the FBI agent in Town. While we all acknowledge his versatility as an actor, the swooning that accompanies him in his role as Don Draper is nowhere in sight in his more pedestrian roles. Clearly, it is not Jon Hamm who makes my girlfriends and I, all accomplished, independent women well past their teens, act like, well, teenagers. It is the character he inhabits so seamlessly. It is clearly Don Draper, not Jon Hamm who elicits our girlish reactions.

We love to love Don Draper precisely because he is somehow untouchable — emotionally AND visually. He looks untouched, pristine. He never looks rumpled. He never looks huggable or even approachable, he simply looks…well…perfect and sexy. He is our Ken doll fantasies personified.

Much of this appeal comes from the way he dresses. Reclining against the limestone post at the NY Athletic club, sunglasses on, jacket off and puffing on a cigarette, he still looks crisp, clean and impossibly cool. Arriving poolside at the Beverly Hills Hotel, he doesn’t look oddly out of place in his sports coat, trim pants and hat, he just looks…uhmmmm…great.

He reminds us of a time when men looked “natty”, what we are clamoring for is NOT the mores and priggishness of the era, but rather, it is the undeniable style.

The glamour. The refinement.

Don Draper looks impeccable. Not dated, not out-dated, just dreamy. He typifies the glamour of the era, a bygone era, but one for which we clearly long. An era when pretty much everyone looked well-dressed, put together and perfectly appropriate. You wouldn’t catch anyone in the Mad Men world meeting the President in flip flops or sitting at the theater in cargo shorts and a NY Yankees tee shirt.

While he is at the apex of this sartorial pyramid, he is not alone. EVERYONE, even Peggy (post-baby and subsequent fashion overhaul), looks good. Together, they make us feel wistful about a time gone by.

If Don is our Ken. Betty Draper, equally cool, equally elegant, is Barbie come to life. The supporting players are super stylish as well. We watch Roger and Mona and Jane and Trudy Campbell and we are enchanted.

Whether in her smocked dresses and ankle socks or Lilly Pulitzer-like print shifts, we watch Sally Draper and see ourselves in those looks. After all, didn’t our mothers dress us in those same outfits? We like the familiarity, but it’s more than that…..we LIKE the fact that she looks like a girl, not a woman, not a child trying to be a teen. In short, she looks her age.

There is no confusion, no blurring of the lines between childhood and adulthood. We don’t think Sally is 8 going on 18. She may be mixing a Tom Collin’s for her father’s friend, but she is “appropriately” attired while doing so. Don and Betty know, intuitively, that our children need not mimic our looks. They will, in time, but, there is inherent value in giving them the time and opportunity to dress their age, to dress like the children they are; to take their time growing up.

I own and run two websites (Fiersons.com and Designersbestforkids.com) as well as a brick and mortar retail store in Westchester, also Fierson’s).  All of these are known for carrying an assortment of classic, age-appropriate styles.  Styles that Betty Draper would be proud to put on Sally.  When looks are traditional and timeless, they never go out of style. Like Don Draper and the other Mad Men characters, they ALWAYS look good.

In short, Mad Men has great writing, great characters, great storylines…but more than that, it has great style.  The influence of Mad Men is actually helping retailers across the country. Clothes ARE getting better.  The pendulum is swinging back to classic tailoring. 

That “MAD MEN” style is an inestimable part of the show’s appeal. It makes us want to

dress better, be more stylish. We WANT to dress up again. We WANT to look glamorous…maybe even if it means sacrificing a little in terms of comfort? Perhaps we are realizing that not everything has to be stretchy, jersey knits and wild colors. Perhaps comfort is NOT key…style is!! Sophisticated, age-appropriate style. While comfort may be a great bonus, Don Draper and company already knew ages ago that it should never be attained at the expense of STYLE.

Banana Republic with its Mad Men collection totally “gets” us, my girlfriends and I. They “get” the fact that we WANT to dress up, we WANT to don high heels and high hair and go to the El Morrocco. We WANT our children to look sweet and classy.

We LOVE the eternal appeal of the “old fashioned” classic style. We WANT to get out of our sweats, pull off our fuzzy socks…get out and get dressed.