Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CONSPICUOUS AND UGLY

PRESENT-FASHION GLOVES Gloves are at present very conspicuous and very ugly. Worn in the j evenings, there seems to be an effort j to draw attention to them, as though I they Cbuld not otherwise be forced i upon an unwilling public. Long black gloves, for instance, are j being worn with light dresses, after j the manner of the Yvette Guilbert | days. They throw out a good deal days. They throw out of proportion dresses which already need a good deal of readjustment to be a success. ■ One of the most curious fashions is the wearing of deep, warm-toned brown gloves with black frocks. This occurs both in the afternoon and evening. The day gloves have immense gauntlets only, but the brown gloves which are worn with evening frocks of black or silk, reach well up the upper arm and have a curious cock’s comblike addition all along the under arm. This tendency to serrated edges is seen almost everywhere, but only now have gloves taken it on. Otherwise, there are gloves in all the colours which are least becoming. Black and white pass. So do all the beiges. These seem natural to the leather convention. But navy-blue gloves do not look particularly well, even with blue dresses, and they are often worn with the lighter colourings often worn with the lighter colourings. There are red gloves, and, above all, green gloves, and tfiere are so long and are becoming so much decorated that they give a suggestion that the wearer has an excess of arm. The idea is partly to balance up the long skirts, but it is rarely successful. Tassels are being worn on the tops of gloves at the back of the arm, and the ends also have little bracelets of flowers. Some of these are very attractive. Long mittens of the material are only seen here and there, but they look well in lace, having the effect of long lace sleeves with a little gap at the shoulder. The heavy leather gloves for evenings, however need a good deal of modification before they will become attractive as well as fashionable. OLD WORLD JEWELLERY. We hear and see so much about the revival of old dresses, old customs, and habits, that they seem to be almost exhausted by now; it seems as if everything of a bygone age has been brought forth into the sunshine again (states a London writer). Has it, however, occurred to everybody to bring out the jewellery worn by their mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers? If there is to be a revival of Empire and Victorian dresses, everything must follow suit, or the harmony which we so love will be entirely lost. A favourite type of old world pewellery is the cameo. No matter how large this may be, it always brings a breath of the Empire period of fashion with it. Earrings and brooch matching are the only adornment necessary with a dark Empire gown worn with long black mittens. The modern Victorian dresses require jewellery of a later period to be absolutely in keeping. The brooches, earrings, and bracelets must be large —of gold, and encrusted with jewels. Stones set in bright, stamped gold or paste, and true-lover’s knots of flowers were the fashionable adornments of the time, and must appear again. Rings : and bracelets of plaited hair and heavy gold lockets will shortly follow if the revival of old jewellery increases. ONE RING ONLY. 1 It is not considered good style to wear several rings at a time—just one ! big stone on the third finger. 1 The same rule applies to bracelets; ! only one, and that rather broad. The ■ days of bracelets in pairs have quite > passed. Brooches are very fashionable again.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19310411.2.110.4

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18849, 11 April 1931, Page 16

Word Count
625

CONSPICUOUS AND UGLY Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18849, 11 April 1931, Page 16

CONSPICUOUS AND UGLY Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18849, 11 April 1931, Page 16