Thrills and Frills

John Kricfalusi, of Ren and Stimpy fame, has written a blog post about how old toys have better form and aesthetic value than toys now. In some ways, this is totally true. The things that kids are given to play with absolutely suck compared to their counterparts from 40 or so years ago.

I had my own encounter with this phenomenon, not unlike the Chipmunk dolls John K talks about. When I was 9 or 10, I was obsessed with 1960s Barbie memorabilia. I'm the child of antique dealers, and in the days before ebay, my folks set up at half a dozen shows a year. I developed the interest in Barbie stuff to keep myself entertained amid all of the fragile grown-up things. But immediately I understood how much better these clothes and accessories were compared to what I'd grown up playing with. For one thing, the outfits had names: "Enchanted Evening," "Friday Night Date," "Orange Blossom," "Garden Party." Barbie clearly had a busy social calendar, and the perfect outfit for every activity. They had real metal YKK zippers and gorgeous detailing in the form of tiny buttonholes, appliques, lace, beading, and all that other fun stuff. I was taught from a very early age to handle antiques very carefully, though I'd be lying if I said I always resisted the urge to handle the outfits, and even dress and pose the Barbies.

Barbie's wardrobe today emphasizes quantity over quality - where you can now buy twenty times as many different outfits for your Barbie, they'll all be made of the same cheap polyester blend with a velcro closure, they all come in the same bland packaging with no name, and you're lucky if they come with shoes. The vintage outfits came immaculately accessorized, too, with handbags, hats, shoes (open-toed, pumps, wedges, sneakers, boots), and even gloves and jewelry.

How could you not fall in love with dresses like this? I had this one ("Sophisticated Lady," it's called), and it was my favorite. I believe I had the shoes, and maybe even the gloves, but unfortunately no tiara or pearls.

While I haven't carried my Barbie obsession into adulthood, I'm drawn to clothes that remind me of what I used to buy for my Barbies - full circle skirts, coordinating colors, intricate patterns and details. I'm even thrilled by metal YKK zippers in vintage dresses. I'd love to dress like 1960s Barbie every day of my life, if I could. I'd even name my clothes. (Most of my wardrobe, I'm sad to say, still looks like it should be called "Work Day in Very Casual Office Environment" and "Weekend of Indeterminate Hanging-Out". And most all of it would look like jeans and a long-sleeved t-shirt in a solid color.)

Barbie nowadays just looks cheap, unless you're talking about those collector-edition toys that aren't for kids and aren't meant to be removed from their boxes. (Which brings up a whole other rant inspired by JohnK's blog post - yes, there ARE toys as fascinatingly intricate and well-made as toys used to be. These toys are hardly ever marketed to children, though. Most people who buy them don't even take them out of the box, much less touch them or play with them.)

I think my ten-year-old self, upon viewing her adult counterpart, would probably be most disappointed by the lack of a human-sized counterpart to "Sophisticated Lady" in my closet, to say nothing for the dearth of excuses to wear such a thing.