Skip to main content

I am not a clothes horse

'Do you want to go clothes shopping?' she said. No. Let's be clear about this, I never want to go clothes shopping. I don't mean this in some idle threat fashion - my ideal would be never to go clothes shopping again. Ever.

I'm reminded of an ex-colleague at BA who years ago pointed out that the way a shampoo was being sold - it's so gentle you can use it every day - only appealed to one part of the market. He wanted a shampoo that was so good at its job that you only had to use it once a month. Frequency of use was, to him, not a benefit but a curse. Washing your hair, he argued, was a complete waste of valuable time.

Similarly, the clothes shopping market is split. There are those who enjoy it and those who don't. (It may be one of those male/female brain things, who knows? Note this isn't the same as male/female - a percentage of women have 'male' brains and vice versa.) As far as I am concerned my ideal wardrobe would be one with as limited a choice as possible to match my requirements, and one that would last for ever, meaning never having to go clothes shopping again. Bliss.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox6 November 2009 at 09:55

    Yes you are a fashion icon. Think - how do fashions get established? Only because people with a voice say that the next big thing is knee-length lederhosen or whatever they have cluttering up the warehouse and can't shift. Keep telling Mrs Clegg that you are a trendsetter, and that Crumpled Is The New Ironed. It's worked for me with Mrs Crox.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg6 November 2009 at 12:45

    Good thought. But I also need clothes that don't wear out, particularly trouser pockets and shirt collars.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more