Vintage Grand Inquisition part 3: Furries.

‘Oh, my only true love, darling. I live for furs. I worship furs! Aaaah…. After all, is there a woman in all this wretched world who doesn’t?’ Cruella De Ville

Mae looking fabulous...

‘Get a feel for fur:  Slam your fingers in a car door.’ Audubon, November 1990 

There are seven perennial subjects which never disappear from the vintage world: red lipstick, the search for bargains, hair that won’t curl and fur. I was interested in this and several other bloggers have written good posts about the subject. I direct you to Retrochick: on wearing vintage fur and Rockalilly on demonstrations against fur outside a vintage shop.  

I am frankly horrified when thinking of how many of these...

Make one of these.

It’s an emotive subject and so I added a little furry section to the vintage survey. Before I continue I have to  nail my colours to the door. Personally I find many fur coats repulsive and cannot justify wearing small animals bred for decorative purposes, having lived in Asia I have no illusions about how most of the world’s fur is produced: vilely. However I am an omnivore and don’t feel I can draw the line at coney and horse and deerskin when I would happily eat the creatures and wear leather. So I feel a little wooly.and  resemble the  vegetarian who eats fish (or a fish and hypocrite as my friend Dooj describes it). It isn’t clear cut. I find old fur is often smelly and dislike the beady eyes on fox stoles.

Yet even I have to admit that fluffy fur  in itself is a beautiful substance and  a vintage Mae West looks sexy in hers. Until recently in many countries it was your only option in the freezing cold. Also how can you justify destroying fur, if you can't do this what do you do, hide it in a cupboard or wear it? My mother  sensibly gave all her inherited mink to a charity to be used for blankets  Then again, I eat foie gras and have a thing for very bloody steaks so who am I fooling?  But I really do draw the line at budgie hats and chinchilla coats even if Cruella De Ville is one of my style icons.  In effect I never buy vanity fur because I am not sure and that makes me uncomfortable wearing it and I wear vintage clothes for pleasure. I

Ultimately though I may carp and argue and wrestle, but the one thing I will never do is tell someone not to wear it. Neither my business nor my right, nor anybody elses.

But I'd happily wear aviatrix leathers...

Survey Results.

Here are the results from the survey, incidentally the response counts to the questions was variable and ranged between 91 – 95 % so a good response. I just wish I had the wherewithal to ask the ladies and gents separately. 

It would seem from this that the larger number of respondent actually dislike fur....

However a look at the above diagram indicates a similar if not stronger percentage who do not mind or approve of fur!

This may be the result of two things; people not reading the questions (designed to eliminate an element of bias) properly, badly designed questions (ooops) or a general ambivalence. The people responding to this are bright (my bias!) so I suspect the latter. As people who might vaguely label themselves 'vintage' are in a sense 'alternative' there might be a reluctance to firmly place themselves in one camp or the other.

Some of the questions attempted to gauge whether those that are happy to wear fur are influenced by their vintage tastes. It would seem so, most agreed that it's destruction was wasteful, logical really as even those who are anti-fur would agree that one reason for this is the waste of animal life and resources that go into fur farming. Many felt that vintage fur was in addition a different material from the modern variety. Perhaps we shouldn't apply contemporary morals to a coat that was produced in different times, when artificial alternatives were not available? The counter-argument is of course that fur in the west was a luxury substance rather than a necessity but this is leavened by the fact our grandmothers may not have been as aware of the issues, or that in those times there were different priorities. Many also felt the vintage fur trade does not support the modern trade, which financially it obviously does not. In fact the might the availability of cheap vintage fur dissuade someone from buying new?

.

I am, like some of the people in the graph above not convinced by this, probably because I think if one of us goes outside looking good in fur it may persuade people to buy it. It is a moot point however and I would be interested to get some comments or opinions on this. People did not particularly share my scruples about hypocrisy; that if you eat something you should be prepared to wear it although some did.  Again I would be interested in canvassing opinions.

I suspect in conclusion that a more general survey might have picked up a more negative response to fur., who knows? I don't believe that means the vintage community are less caring but that possibly their love of old things and the history of clothes perhaps overrides some of the scruples others might have. On the other hand it may be a reflection of the tendency to not be swayed, either way, but contemporary mores. It certainly does not reflect an overwhelming tendency towards reactionary attitudes, as, I can leak in advance that the survey revealed a wide range of philosophic leanings with a bias towards liberalism. 

My own suspicion is, despite the efforts of the fur trade, the wearing of fur will slowly die out in modern industrial nations apart from trimmings. To pick on fur alone is to ignore the damage caused by cotton farming and wool production. I'm not a fur wearer, but amongst vintage types I am in a largish minority. 

Were you surprised, annoyed, reinforced by these results? It would be interesting to hear, please comment. I know it is an emotive subject but an intelligent debate can never do harm....

Minn x