The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1881-04-14
Simplicity In Dress.

seem to have the sense OF beauty of SIM
plicity in dress. No young girl looks as
young or as lovely in heavy velvets and
loaded trimmings as in simple muslin
and soft clinging materials. They de-
tract from their own fresh charms by
calling attention to the adornment.
should be inclined to say that no jewels,
unless single row of pearls around the
throat, no lace but simple Valenciennes,
should be worn by any girl younger
than 81. A dress perfectly fresh, bright
in color where the complexion permits) :,
beautifully cut and almost entirely un-
trimmed, cannot be improved upoh for
a young girl. 1t is the soft rounded
forms, the dewy bloom of the cheeks,
the clear young eyes, the soft tender
lips, that we want to see. Where silks
are worn they should not be of heavy
quality, but soft. Our young girls wear
dresses like dowagers. 1t is a futile
waste of money; no beauty is attained.
We would like to call attention to the
fact that the style of dressing influences
the manners, the carriage of the woman.
The masculine style Of dress has this
objection. 1t Is little difficult to say
what we would substitute for the ulster
that we have all adopted. 1t is surely
very convenient garment for our streets,
and for rain and mud, and snow; but
there is difference in the cut of ulsters.
and they should be as little like very
bad overcoat as possible. Where a
young girl has side pockets, she is apt
so put her hands in them, and, where
the adds a Derby hat. how often the
swagger follows.
The Derby hat appears to me to have
no excuse. It is unbecoming even to
man, and absolutely hideous upon
woman. It is surprising to see them
adopted by well-bred ladies. They have
had great countenance, to be sure, but
we think that if we should hand over all
the younger generation to an exclusive
costume of the Derby hat, the ulster, the
Jersey, and the short skirt, it would not
take more than one generation to make
us lose all grace Of manner.
The short skirt deserves to be COM
mended for the street, but in the-house
it has neither beauty nor elegance. Even
to shorten long skirt in front, for the
better display of pretty foot, is great
It is neither becoming to the
foot nor the figure. 1t gives an unin-
territorial look of display which is unre-
fined, and surely the dress that leaves
in the imagination is more CO.
quetish and dignitied.
The scarf for a married women is q
fashion that should never die. To wear
it we'll is proof of grace, and it imrarts
an elegance, especially to a tall woman
that is very disirable In the old por-
traits of Sir Joshua Reynolds and Gains
borough, by Stewart and Copley, and
scarf has been elegantly used-the long,
straight scarf, drawn tightly across the
small of the back, passed over the ell
bows and dropping down in front as low
rs the knees or lower. Nowadays one
sees them occasionally worn by ladies
who have relatives in the East, who
sends them scarfs of Grape or camels
hair. Occasionally the French approach
the scarf in style of their light wraps for
spring or autumn. think that it would
only require half dozen ladies, whose
reputation for good dress is high, to per-
adopt the scarf, for others to
its grace and elegance.
The wearing of jewels is not often we'll
One does not see many
handsome jewels worn in America, with
the exception of diamonds. 1t is said
that the value of the diamond fiuctuates
less than that of any other precious stone,
and that they therefore recommend
to the practical masculine
mind as an investment, and this is the
real reason that our women wear dia-
monds SO exclusively. This is to be regret
ted as the diamond, from its excessive
and hardness of light is not be-
coming to many women. To the blue
eyed, the sapphire, or even the inexpen-
sive turquoise, is often far more harmo-
NOUS and decorative. A little, pale
woman in flashing diamonds is absurd
the silent pearl, the dull, soft turquoise,
the evasive, mysterious opal, even the
little moonstone, green chalcedony,
the topaz, an amethyst with
q velvet surface for finish (what
the French call defacee) even amber or
pale tea.colored coral-all these orna-
ments are becoming to ninety-nine
women where the diomond is becoming
to the ne.hundredth. Let us emanci-
pate ourselves from imagining q thing
beautiful as an ornament because it is
beautiful in Itself, or ornamental in the
dress Of one person because it is SO in
the dress of another.
We once knew q charming little lady
who, being in very moderate circum.
dressed in such simple materials
as she could easily procure-in winter
often in soft gray woolens, in summer in