i spent wednesday afternoon at the tiger of sweden showroom with stylists, bloggers and tiger representatives. we enjoyed an intimate showing of their spring line accompanied by sparkling and brunch nibblies. afterwards we were offered a hands-on experience with the final products in addition to materials and processes accompanied by a solo cellist from apocalyptica playing in the corner – something quite eerie, but also and ultimately exciting. the fact that there was an opportunity to discuss the company history and present in addition to fashion in general, material development and, moreover, my favorite topic of finland as a fashion market created an atmosphere of genuine interest going back and forth. time flies when you're having fun and the brunch lasted until midnight...
tiger does tailoring with the expertise and subtlety of old school craftmanship. i have lamented before that their cuts do not suit my body shape – an unfortunate fact for someone in finland where affordable quality is rarely offered. their sartorial history shows in the elegance of the garments and i have often admired their work on others. now that i got to fondle the sleeve fittings and collars with the kind of intensity i rarely let myself slip into at retail stores, the construction and detailing became more apparent than ever. the combination of classic cuts with contemporary edgy fabrics and vice versa are what makes their line so interesting.
one of the topics we discussed revolved around staple pieces of one's wardrobe – something many bloggers have talked about lately. especially we dissected the belief that investment pieces should be classics, that is, the idea that splurging can be rationalized if the garment in question is a classic, i.e. a goes-with-anything, item. i find the logic disturbing: classic more often than not means boring and if your own style is not the refined preppy, investing in basics might imply misplaced money. the reasoning behind investing in "timeless" design is that you never get bored with them because they say "nothing" and, supposedly therefore, have a lengthier lifespan in your wardrobe. they are easier to wear because they require no thought...
see where i'm going?
what is the point of investing in something that arouses no feelings of joy, love or pleasure? aren't the pieces really worth investing in the ones you love because they are special? sure the feeling of a quality sweater compared to a cheapo piece of krapolah speaks for some investing, but i still think buying the sequined dress that makes you drool every single time you see it rather than a cashmere v-neck sweater in camel is way better an investment. when everything in your wardrobe makes your heart ache with joy, style becomes a heavenly habit.
thus, although tiger might be unable to provide a three-piece suit for me, i am putting my hope in two items this spring: a frilly dress from their jeans line.
the 80's california surf punk attitude might feel somewhat dated already, but this baby had me on goosebumps the minute the model walked in. summer, i am ready in acid wash yet again! the soundtrack: sigue sigue sputnik's "21st century boy"
the other item is a tan leather blazer from the main line that's cut just above the waist and fits snugly around the torso. here the body shape issue becomes apparent, but i decided that i can always wear it undone because the cut of the back allows it. the softest leather and the muted tone works any season, me thinks. surely an investment piece if there ever was one. (i had a fairly difficult time trying to capture my dorky face...)
thanks and huge props to tiger team. more (and better) photos from the event here, here and here, and a videoblog here.