I know several of you who read here share my interest in keeping possessions few and experimenting with reducing the number of clothes you own to a workable minimum.
At present, I have:
4 pairs of trousers
1 skirt
2 linen shirts
6 long-sleeved tops
1 sweater
4 cardigans
1 warm knitted waistcoat (US 'vest')
3 jackets
1 fleece gilet
1 raincoat
1 winter coatigan
2 pr tights, 2 pr socks, underwear, 4 sets PJs, dressing gown
Various accessories (2 bags, 2 hats, 2 scarves, 2 pr gloves, snood)
4 pr earrings
I make that 25 garments without adding in the socks, tights, underwear, PJs and accessories. Oh, and I also have 6 pairs of shoes.
I find that fairly minimal. Scanning the list, one might wonder "Why does she need 3 jackets?" Well, because they are different weights and different degrees of smartness. One is so light and thin (t-shirt material) it's hardly a jacket at all, but does provide a useful modesty layer or just add warmth to a top on one of those days that's not cold exactly, but not very warm either — 'wind chill factor'. One is my everyday jacket, and the third one is for formal occasions (eg public speaking or going to a wedding etc)
I don't need a raincoat at all when it isn't raining, but if I don't have one then when it rains I just have to stay at home. My gilet I wear day in day out through the winter months — it does as a coat but isn't ludicrous worn indoors, which is helpful because we don't put our heating on much.
There are some things I could lose, at a pinch and if I had to. I suppose I don't actually need a skirt (or the tights I keep to wear with it), but there just are some occasions when I'd feel inappropriately dressed in trousers. My skirt is wool (knitted); so if one of those occasions when I felt obliged to wear a skirt cropped up in summer, I would buy a lightweight one — but such events are rare enough that I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
And I don't really think I need that very lightweight jacket — on the other hand it is extremely useful and folds up as small as a t-shirt, so I keep it for now.
So, all in all I think my clothing kit is fairly basic; but I am always keen to hear from people who get by successfully with fewer items of clothing. I think if I were starting over, I might have fewer things than I do — for instance, I could manage with 2 cardigans instead of 4, and I don't really need a sweater at all because I could wear a buttoned up cardigan instead. However, the sweater and 3 of the cardigans are cashmere (the 4th cardigan is alpaca), so it could cost a lot of money to replace them. I bought them either in half-price sales or remarkably cheap on eBay, and there's no guarantee I'd find replacements for those prices in the right colour, fit and style. As having 4 extends the wear (only having 2 would mean they wear out quicker), I think hanging on to them is prudent not just an excuse to own more and more things.
Anyway, in reading articles about people with minimalist and capsule wardrobes, I often come across posts on what is called 'The 10-Item Wardrobe'.
When I first saw this, I hurried along eagerly to find out about it, but found myself baffled by what I read.
Because the so-called 10-Item Wardrobe might be made up of:
1 pr trousers
2 pr jeans
2 dresses
1 skirt
4 blouses
Fair enough not to include underwear and night clothes in the list, and I even think it's reasonable not to add in accessories (hats, scarves, gloves, bags etc), jewellery and shoes.
But I thought, 'Jeepers, isn't she cold? No knitwear?'
Then, reading on, I discovered all was not what I'd thought at first. Because yes, she does have knitwear. Sweaters are not counted in the ten items. They, along with t-shirts, coats and jackets, special occasion wear, accessories, nightwear, sportswear, underwear, and jewellery — don't count! They're 'extras'.
What? No they aren't! A person's wardrobe is the clothes they have. How can you possibly say your jeans are part of your wardrobe but your sweaters aren't? That's just silly.
Not only that, but the people who write about the so-called 10-Item Wardrobe also invariably say that, hey, nobody's counting, it doesn't matter if you have 15 items or even 25 — whatever works for you.
With the result that you could have:
5 pairs jeans
3 skirts
6 blouses
4 dresses
16 T-shirts
30 pr shoes
12 sweaters
9 cardigans
8 jackets
4 coats
32 bags
6 hats
A whole drawer of nightwear
Another whole drawer of underwear and one for tights and socks
More jewellery than you could shake a stick at
— and still say you had a 10-Item Wardrobe.
But even then that's not all: out-of-season clothes are all in store. So the person could not only have everything on that list above, but two more sets of clothes of equal magnitude for the other seasons of the year! And that would still count as a 10-Item Wardrobe.
Delusional or what?
Brilliant! Thanks for casting light on a problem I’ve never been able to crack. With small ( it’s all relative I know) means, and an equally small storage space I’ve never thought my clothing to be excessive, and yet I’ve way more than the magical capsule wardrobe of 10. I think I would soon get tired of re-imagining the combinations for all eventualities and staying sweet-smelling may become an issue during a typical British winter when line drying becomes a damp and grey affair. Then, of course, there’s the thought that casting clothes aside might just be adding to the pile of things sent ‘away’. Better perhaps to donate what really would suit someone else, and to use, use, use the rest until it’s only fit for mending - by which time it’s gloriously soft, comfortable, and worn. As always there seems to be a dilemma about the best path to take...
ReplyDeleteDeb x
Ps. I also wish we could wear floor length robes without anyone thinking anything of it! But they would just HAVE to say something;)
Definitely delusional. I now have two coats and I live in subtropical Australia! I keep my wardrobe minimal too but have far more than 10 items.
ReplyDeleteHi Deb — yes, friend you speak my mind! I heartily concur with all of that. We will just have to wear the long robes in our imagination — but maybe ankle-length not floor length, so we can still go out barefoot in the summer grass. x
ReplyDeleteHi Suzan — What I find especially annoying about the 10-Item nonsense is that it doesn't provide a lantern for the path. Those of us with little space and small means, who are trying to find a wisely minimal way forward, would be helped by a realistic example, not by someone pretending to espouse minimalism when clearly they are not. An honest way forward would allow us to question ourselves and sharpen our practice. x
A ten item wardrobe is not much of an option in NE Indiana, summer days can be in upper 90's with high humidity, and in the deep of winter it can be sub-zero, last January we were at -16. I know I have way less clothing than most people, but I still like a bit of variety, and I don't want to do laundry every few days. My husband works a physical, outdoor job, he has clothing specific to work, and then clothing for at home.
ReplyDeleteSome of the minimalists become so minimal it is almost as if the minimilism has taken over their life and become an obsession.
I view many YouTube influencers with a skeptical eye, we don't really know who these people are, some seem very genuine, but others seem to have very professionally produced videos and I wonder who is paying for it all, and some spend a lot of time showcasing products throughout their presentations, and always have links to where you can buy stuff. And I suspect some present a life on the YT channel that they want us to believe they live and then I suspect they actually go home to their "real life" the moment the camera stops recording.
Bean
Sort of visual novelists!
ReplyDeleteI love the barefoot in the grass comment. One of my favourite things is walking on green grass that isn't brown and crunchy. A simple delight. I would love ankle or floor length clothing. At school I had to make a dress. As soon as the teacher marked it I added a long frill and lived in the dress. During our summers I find longer clothing cooler. You don't stick to seats, it is modest etc.
ReplyDeletehere in iowa we experience all four seasons (like bean above) and we need clothing that is appropriate to each season. thus i find that the project 333 model works best for me. that means 33 items (including outerwear and accessories and nighties) for each three month season. our temps in winter can (and frequently do) fall to -27 fahrenheit and can easily hit 100+ in the summer! wow, that's quite a difference. so we definitely have to have more clothing items overall than those who live in more temperate climes. it also depends on how whether you work outside the home in a professional setting or do a lot of outdoor work (gardening/animals) which can all influence what you may need. simplicity and flexibility seem like reasonable goals.
ReplyDeleteHi Suzan — I can just imagine that lovely dress!
ReplyDeleteHi Greta — Ah, yes indeed, context so strongly determines apparel. For me, simplifying has been multi-dimensional, to bring everything together into the smallest and simplest possible — because it's true complexity breeds complexity — there's a knock-on effect — occupations, personas, uniforms, toolkits . . .
Your math on this minimalist comes out about the same as my math on the fellow who "only owned 100 items"
ReplyDeleteTurns out in the background he had a wife who owned pots and pans and dishes, and a bed and bedding and kids with bikes and clothing and toys and there were tools that "belonged" to the garage, and the car stuff all "belonged" to the car. etc, etc.
Tricksy calculating. ; )
Haha! Yes!
ReplyDeleteThis morning, beside the reservoir where anglers can fish in our park, I saw a fisherman packing up ready to go home after a night's fishing. He had the world's niftiest kit! A sturdy trolley with numerous places to strap on his various boxes and bags, his folding mattress and chairbed and bivi tent and rods. I almost stopped and said to him, "Man, get yourself an outboard motor and a little step platform for that rig, and you could travel the length and breadth of the land! With your rods to catch fish for supper and wild herbs and berries for your carbs, you'd be free of all the encumbrances of our society and need never go home again!" But I walked on by without saying anything — in case he either thought I was mad or went and did it.
Pen, you’re right that what is more important than the magic number 10 is the ‘lantern’ to show the way to minimalism. With fewer clothes, one will inevitably have to do more washing. Environmentally, which is worse for the planet: clothes consumption/production or the energy needed to wash and dry clothes? I know one is personal about buying clothes and having a certain minimalist lifestyle and one is about the impact on the environment, but I see them together. I would definitely have to do a lot more washing if I had fewer clothes. At work, in the ladies loo, there are those cloth towels on rolls which are carted off every so often to be washed and there is an electric Dyson blower too. I’ve asked the teachers in charge of our ‘eco school status’ which is more environmentally friendly, cloths which can be cleaned and reused or the blower, and no one can tell me! This is also where we need people to shine a light on simple every day choices we can make to help the planet and be more aware of the impact of our living!
ReplyDeleteThat's the things, isn't it — looking at things as a whole. I think we actually wash our clothes, our hands and everything else a bit too often, maybe. I read a thing the other day that made me laugh — "If you don't like bacteria you're on the wrong planet". I can relate to that. In our bathroom we have special soap (from Galinée) with bacteria in it to nourish the microbiome of our skin. Every time I wash my hands to get rid of bacteria with soap to put it back again I wonder if our family has actually lost its mind . . .
ReplyDelete