Fashion

[janeec]

I remember that look well in the 70's.  Fine for young women, but as my grandfather said, "Women with bell bottoms (meaning physical shape from waist to thigh) should not wear bell-bottoms."  

[TY]

The whole idea that a wide bootcut pair of jeans that brush the floor paired with a high heel shoe in order to appear taller doesn't work. It doesn't make the person look taller, they just look like a short person trying to look taller. There's a host on TSC in Canada who does the same thing -- she wears bootcut jeans in order to look as tall as the models and it doesn't work either.

Also what are you going to do if you are outside and it's raining or if there's snow on the ground -- how do you keep the bottom of your pants clean?

[sunshine45]

---

@TY wrote:

The whole idea that a wide bootcut pair of jeans that brush the floor paired with a high heel shoe in order to appear taller doesn't work. It doesn't make the person look taller, they just look like a short person trying to look taller. There's a host on TSC in Canada who does the same thing -- she wears bootcut jeans in order to look as tall as the models and it doesn't work either.

Also what are you going to do if you are outside and it's raining or if there's snow on the ground -- how do you keep the bottom of your pants clean?

---

you just dont wear that particular bottom on that day?

i dont think anyones entire wardrobe consists of wide legged pants.

while it snows here, i dont tend to walk in the snow, especially if i am dressed up.

[SharkE]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Girlboss wrote:

I've seen Susan Graver wearing jeans with really large bell bottoms that cover her shoes. She's worn this look several times on air but I haven't seen the trend take off yet. I can't decide if I like the look or not? I understand that the style elongates your leg which can be flattering but that style also makes you look like you don't have feet. Just wondering what the Q community thinks? 

---

I liked those jeans/pants style.  I liked them when they debuted way back in the 70's and I still like them now.  The thing is I could never wear them because of my height.

Yesterday

Today!

---

[Katcat1]

It's definitely a retro look (70's).  I like different types of pants -- that is, ankle which shows your shoes, pants that cover most of the shoe but you can still see the shoe.  I believe her look was not showing the shoe at all.  I am not sure I care for that look.  I would to try the jeans or pants on first to see how it looks good on me. 

[QueenDanceALot]

Depends on the type of pant of course.

I don't really like a huge bell that covers the entire foot, particularly if someone has short legs.  Just makes them look shorter.  A very tall slim model can wear them and get away with it.

I just don't wear huge bells anyway.  If I wear a boot cut I like it to just meet my instep in front and midheel in back.

[SilleeMee]

In AMS this morning Susan said she bought her bells in London and that she is working on getting her version of them to the Q. So they are coming.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@SilleeMee wrote:

In AMS this morning Susan said she bought her bells in London and that she is working on getting her version of them to the Q. So they are coming.

---

Rut roh.

[ECBG]

For dress they should be long enough to rest on the toe of your shoe.

Nothing looks worse than a woman walking and the hem of her slacks is knocking around her ankle. ( I am not speaking of ankle pants.).

[Tinkrbl44]

A friend of mine pretty much gets everything tailored and has several pairs of good quality black slacks in various lengths, depending on if she's wearing a flat heel, a low heel or a high heel.    

Seems to me that this "look" was originally the rage around the time when Sonny and Cher were wearing their bell bottoms back in the late 60's / early 70's.   Many later pieces of their wardrobes were designed by Bob Mackie.

Even Elvis got in on the look.