Wellies revisited...

 
Last February we had snow, and I posted about finding wellies to accommodate the larger calf - with your indulgence, I'll post that again here, but with updates based on a test of my newly purchased boots in the snow today.  If you remember the original post, just scroll to the end for the new stuff.

I don't often need to go places where my feet will get wet. Other than the shower, that is. But one ought to own a pair of wellies - this much has been evident today - when surely I would have frolicked with unbridled energy in the snow (as opposed to staying in my cosy bed all day) had I only owned a pair of good old gum boots.

I did have a pair. They were £6 in Tesco's kids department several years ago. I eventually pressed them into employ on one weekend, at last year's Endorseit festival, and I was jolly glad of them in the Somme-like conditions. By the end of the weekend though, I'd sliced them down the back (because it's one thing getting your legs in; losing all feeling in your feet due to constricted blood supply is quite another), and eventually threw them away on the way home, in a motorway service station bin, because our car was rammed to the gunnels, and the boots had doubled in size thanks to having half a Dorset field clinging to them.

So now I am bootless. It's quite discomfiting to discover myself lacking in clothing or footwear for any occasion, so I've been looking on the internet for my next pair of wellies. Of course, if I do buy some, they won't be delivered before the snow disappears... but I'll be ready if it happens again, goshdarnit!

But my word - buying wellies which will accommodate the larger calf is harder, and in some cases more costly than buying lovely leather boots from Duo. Who knew?

Purveyors of Serious Wellingtons, Hunter, stock a larger calf size in their more boring styles, but prices start at £50 - rising to £240, and the most exciting colour in the wide fit styles is black. There are other serious brands selling serious wellies - mostly for horsey types - but the only brand selling purpose-made, wider-fit wellies that don't look eye-gougingly dull are Jileon Ltd. Jileon are welly specialists who stock loads of cute and glam welly designs at around the £25 mark. Sadly, only one pretty pattern makes it to the wide-fit style, but it's a versatile black-and-polka-dot boot (above), which should please many. However, for some reason, for the larger fit they nearly double the price - to £44.99. Even then, I was tempted... but sadly, their smallest size is a 5. Tsh! Back to the drawing board.

I should probably point out that Jileon stock two other 'wide fit' styles - which cost £19.99/£32.99, but they are that ubiquitous muddy green colour. They'd have to be free to find a place in my wardrobe...

Another welly-specialist is Funky Wellies - and the name sounds promising. Their neoprene-lined range is supposed, according to their blog, to be more capacious around the calf. They have a cute pink floral boot, but I rather love the royal blue ones patterned with cars and camper vans. I don't love them to the tune of £45.95, though - even though they have them in my size. Lakeland Welly Workshop do a cute daisy boot with handles for £25, which they say is good for wider calves - but seem to have very few sizes in stock.

So what, then. Well the choices seem to be one of two: buy a pair of sensible wellies in sludge green or black; or go for something other than a standard welly. Plenty of retailers sell ankle-height wellies, which will fit - but you can't exactly tuck your trousers into them. I know serious outdoorsy types who reckon wellies are for fools anyway, and would encourage me to buy some stout walking boots and waterproof gaiters. Quite apart from the cost, walking boots seem to only come in ugly colours, and I guess I'm just too shallow. And that's before I even contemplate wearing 'waterproof gaiters'. There is a compromise of sorts in low-calf boots, epitomised by the Crocs above (£25-£35). Pretty colours, yes - and if you buy the imitation ones on ebay they can be cheap as you like... but they're truly very odd looking. Maybe I'll wait it out...

Proof that I did wear wellies once. Even if they were the most sensible part of my outfit...

Update:

So, despite the recent Arctic weather not really troubling us that much in London, I felt frustrated that there might be other occasions when I would want to frolic in the snow, and be denied due to my inadequate footwear. The situatation in terms of what's available hasn't really changed, but Jileon did have size 4 boots in stock, which is close enough - allowing for two extra pairs of woolly socks, so I bit the bullet and shelled out close to fifty quid (including delivery) for a pair of spotty wellies.

No sooner had I placed my order than a friend sent me the following report:

I bought some of those and the strap on the side broke as soon as I put them on. I was really unimpressed with them, the soles were very thin too.

I never got round to sending them back so I might stick them on ebay.

I hope you like yours, I guess it depends what you want them for but I knew the thin soles would make walking round festivals very uncomfortable.


Which was discouraging to say the least, so I awaited their delivery with some trepidation, and as soon as  opportunity afforded itself, I gave them a good old test.

Look - they match my diary!

They're certainly spacious.  I have large calves, even for my size, and they had no problem accommodating them, plus three pairs of socks, and my turned up, wrapped-round bootcut cords.  I reckon these would easily fit up to a UK dress size 26 - perhaps even larger.  The straps on the side aren't terribly heavy-duty, it's true.  I used them to hold the sides in place after I decided how much folding the gussets needed; you wouldn't want to use them to actually pull the sides in snugly.

So I set off, first on pavements - where the slight heel (half an inch) gave me more traction on slippery surfaces than my trainers have done - and then over the parkland of Peckham Rye.  The snow wasn't super-deep: perhaps two and a half inches in places, but after about half a mile (and then a couple of hundred meters more on pavement again) I reckon I got a sense of what they're be like to wear.  I found them very comfortable. Perhaps it was all the socks, but the soles didn't feel thin to me at all.  At one point I wasn't sure if they were leaking ever so slightly at the heels - it may have just been the cold - but the sensation didn't last long, and when I got home my socks were dry.  I liked them.  I think for a pair of wellies they're too expensive, but at least I have a pair now, and can go festivalling, snowballing or puddlejumping with the best of them for, hopefully, many years to come.

What you want - 2: A big man

So, I have a lovely friend - very stylish, gorgeous, sharp...  and she has a chap who is also lovely - but struggling rather, in the struggle to match her sartorial splendour, and so she's written me an impassioned plea for ideas.  As you know, this isn't my field of familiarity: I'm no expert on where to shop for men's clothes, but I'll do the best I can using basic principles.  My friend's boyfriend is 40, tall and broad shouldered, but she describes him as "portly of tum", and "generally top heavy".  I can't reproduce all of her letter here as it gets a bit 'frank', and it wouldn't be politic to use a photo of the chap himself, so I'm going to use the actor Vince Vaughn to get the body shape in your minds.  I get a bit weak-kneed about Vaughn: he's a great big scrummy bear of a man. 

It's hard for men.  There are far fewer variables of shape and form in men's clothing, and their bodies don't offer many failsafes that can distract the eye from the imperfections.  Where a woman can put on a slash of vivid lipstick or show a splendid decolletage, most men would consider these strategies as probably not enhancing their look.  But there are some opportunities: my friend's chap has a good head of hair, and I strongly advise him to adopt a hairstyle that's a bit flash - short at the sides for slimming effect, but longer on top in the tousled style of Hugh Grant, David Tennant's artfully messy fringe, or Vaughn's own suggestion of a quiff with killer sideburns. A pair of stylish glasses can also draw the eye.

Some things don't change, though - the rules of what is optically slimming are the same for men and women.  It's no more flattering for a man to wear a t-shirt, with its unforgiving high neckline, than it is for a woman.  Any man who wishes to look a little more svelte would do well to eschew just about everything other than the traditional, button-front shirt, worn two buttons open at the neck, just as above.  The V shape neckline elongates the throat and counteracts any burgeoning double chin (a beard can help, but should be well groomed.  Those of us carrying extra weight have an unfair tendency to look unattractively ragged). The line of buttons going all the way down the front draws the eye down, creating a slimming effect.  A shirt with vertical panels will enhance this too, and generally indicates a closer fit. It may seem counterintuitive but heavier bodies shouldn't be swathed in tent-like quantities of fabric; a more fitted look will reduce bulk.  Just make sure the shirt is big enough (and long enough) to allow for a full range of arm movement when done up.  As a general rule, unless very smart dressing is required, leave the shirt untucked and remember that long sleeves are far more flattering (and classy, and elegant, and stylish) than short ones.

Just as with larger women, heavier men should pay attention to pattern.  Checks add width, horizontal lines are not to be countenanced, and patterns should be on a larger scale the bigger you are - but avoid anything too big  as you may end up resembling a sofa.  If you're going to wear the shirt without a jacket some kind of pattern is advisable, as unbroken blocks of colour can give the impression of acreage.  Perhaps surprisingly, since vertical lines = slimming, I'm advising against the ubiquitous Paul Smith-style striped shirt.  It'll make you look like a deckchair.  Not all colours are great to be worn near the face: pale colours can make you look washed out, and yet slimming black makes some look completely drained.  Experiment with dark wine reds, purples, blues and blue-greens as these shades suit all but the fairest skin and hair.  Primary colours are for children and those with very dark skin only.

If the belly protrudes significantly over the waistband, the solution is another layer that will follow the form of the body.  In winter you can wear a fine knit V neck sweater or tank top over the shirt and this will bring the shirt snugly to your waist. Summer is harder though, as obviously you won't want a knitwear layer.  You can wear a t-shirt tucked in to avoid exposing the tummy, but t-shirts themselves are so unflattering... I would advise a t-shirt in a colour no darker than your skin tone, and wearing an untucked shirt on top, done up (apart from the top two buttons) or worn undone, like a jacket. 

Over the shirt, jackets and coats should be tailored with vertical shaping, like a well-fitting suit jacket.  A retro-style leather blazer in black, brown, or warm cherry red is a fantastic everyday standby.  Finding one in the right size may be a problem as many are vintage, but keep an eye out.  In the meantime consider a well-cut suit jacket as a standby.  In colder weather, a classic overcoat like this from Crombie at House of Fraser is an investment that will flatter him and cut a dash for years to come.  It's available up to a 48" chest, and costs £395 (reduced from £675!).  Cheaper options are undoubtedly available, but it's the shape you want - deep V line, mid-width lapels, single breasted.  It needn't be black: charcoal grey is an easier shade to wear for people with paler colouring.

What then to balance out the bottom half?  Avoid anything with a tapered leg, and conversely, also avoid bootcuts.  Bootcut trousers are designed to balance out a heavy thigh.  Great for pear shaped women and rugby players, but heavier set men tend not to have proportionately wide legs.  We want a trouser style then that will add bulk and an impression of width to balance out the top half.  Cargo / combat pants do this, but probably won't work with the button front shirt and form fitting jacket.  Instead I'm going to recommend a wide leg trouser in flannel or corduroy for winter: in summer adopt a dark linen suit with a wide leg. It should be long enough to crumple over the shoe at the front, but shouldn't rub the floor at the back: this is a fairly smart look.  Avoid all except very dark denim with a wide, parallel leg, and say 'no' to shorts and cropped trousers altogether.

Footwear is important, and this look won't work with most trainers, although retro style tennis shoes, baseball boots etc would give a creative edge.  More conventional would be a lace up (or ankle boot for casual wear) with elongated lines, echoing the vertical tailoring of the shirt and jacket.

Giving you what you want - 1: Tights

I recently asked members of the facebook group what they wanted me to cover, and I'll be working through their requests in the order I recieved them.

First out of the gate was lovely Miss Dippy, who replied:

Ooh tights. As it's winter. I am often confused about what tights are in fashion for evening wear and what tights go with what shoes and colours etc? Ta x

And you all know me: I love this kind of thing as it allows me to get all bossy and lay down some rules.

Basically there are three kind of tight-wearing occassion.  There are everyday tights, classy tights and statement tights.  (For the purposes of this post, please read 'stockings' for tights, if that's your preference, especially in the 'classy' section.)

For everyday and night, your wardrobe should have a good stock of opaque black, probably brown, and possibly navy blue tights - as high quality as you can afford.  There's a world of difference between cheap tights and more expensive ones in terms of softer fabric; closer, longer-lasting fit; and durability, so buy the best you can afford.  Opaque tights tend to last for years in my experience, so you can justify spending a bit more for an item you will wear loads of times.  Obviously tights can suffer in the washing machine if they come into contact with zips and bra hooks.  You can buy net bags to wash them in, or tie them in a pillowcase.  The style rules dictate that you match your tights to your shoes or boots, and also to your hem (if it's black, brown or navy).  If you're wearing a brighter colour, match your shoes and tights anyway, depending on which neutral colour fits your preference and what suits the colour of your skirt.

Opaque tights are durable, flattering, easy to wear, and they allow the modest wearing of shorter skirts than would be viable with bare legs or sheer tights... but sometimes they just won't do.  Some workplaces require a level of grooming that won't be met by the more casual look of opaques, and by extension of the rules above if you're wearing a light coloured skirt you really need flesh tone tights.  As I wrote yesterday, retro dressing requires sheer hosiery and indeed, there are social occasions at which you will feel more elegant in sheers.  The best rule of thumb is your footwear.  The more elegant and ladylike your shoe, the less likely you are to wear opaque tights.  A simple court shoe needs sheer tights, where a chunkier mary jane probably needs opaques.   The spohisticated tapered heel above screams for sheer tights, whereas all kinds of boots look better with opaques. Peep toes can be worn with sheer tights if the 'peep hole' is small, but a fully open toe should be worn with bare legs.  Sheer tights should be worn in a colour that represents your actual skin tone (don't try and use your tights to give the sense of a tan: it looks wrong), or in Nearly Black (a warm black tint) for most occassions.  Pure black sheer tights can look a little more dramatic than elegant.

Tights, though can be fun when worn creatively.  I'd avoid patterned sheer tights like those on the right, as they can look like blemishes on the legs, but vertical patterned lace tights look fabulously 'Moulin Rouge' when worn with boots, plain heels or with simple ballet flats and a short skirt (beware, though: lacy tights can chafe if your thighs rub together).  In this case, keep the rest of your outfit plain - as a rule, the more attention-seeking your legwear, the plainer everything else needs to be in relation.

Opaque patterned tights make a real statement.  Be aware that they're not going to be flattering on the whole (though a vertically ribbed pattern will of course elongate and slim the legs, optically), but sometimes fun is more important than flattery.  Diamond tights are widely available, and suit straighter legs, whereas the also widely available herringbone pattern is great for all leg shapes.  Patterned tights can be worn with any footwear, including sandals, but complicated straps will detract from the impact of the pattern.

Less dramatic, more 'stylish' impact can be had by the bold use of colour contrast with plain opaque tights - and it's also an easier look than he patterned looks above, especially if you're less than leg-confident.  A mary-jane or T-bar shoe is perfect for this look, as it evokes a kind of retro nursery-chic, but you can also experiment with open toed shoes and sandals.  The simplest look is pastel opaques worn with darker shoes (though beware the widening effect of pale colours).  But as shown above, coloured tights can add drama to some quite unassuming shoes.  The juxtaposition of colours makes the impact of both thights and footwear more dramatic.  Equally, teaming your plain old black opaques with a splash of lighter colour makes a bold, stylish statement.

What I wore on my holidays part one: Hail to Miss Holloway.

Ah, how I've missed having clothes to write about that I didn't hate.

I have a bargain for all you retro-chic acolytes worshipping at the shrine of Mad Men goddess Joan Holloway.  I recently watched all on seasons two and three back-to-back and made a resolution, inspired by that statuesque siren to put myself together a little more elegantly.  Well, having sprained both ankles a while back, I've had to eschew heels, and I did try to wear foundation every day but it made my skin break out... maybe it's a look for occasions...  And I have found a great dress to wear on those red-letter days.

In limited sizes now from Ann Harvey but only £22 in the sale (of course, I paid £40 - sod's law, but still a decent reduction from £80), it's a really interesting piece of tailoring and much more flattering than the photo suggests.  Even if it isn't still available in your size, it's worth having a look at why it works.  The wide, V neckline acts as a frame for your face, while also simultaneously drawing attention to the boobs and making them look less bulky (this dress won't work unless you're fairly buxom - although you needn't have quite my ridiculous proportions). The deep bands of trim that follow the crossover shape of the bodice also detract from the obvious shape of the boobs.  This gives a more sophisticated, tailored look.  The vertical darts at the front avoid excess bulk without the need for a stretch fabric, but aren't so tight as to make the dress cling to the tummy: always a problem with 'pencil' skirts and dresses.  The sleeves are an absolutely optimum length for flattery.  They cover all the worst, widest parts, the length balances them out beautifully and is right for that retro look, where short-short sleeves are rare.  I'm not so keen on the length on me, and the colour isn't easy to wear, but it's a fantastic example of this kind of frock.

Where else can you look for this kind of dress?  Well, there are many sites in the states, of which Pin Up Girl Clothing is my favourite - an absolute Aladdin's cave of hourglass frockery.  To buy in the UK without incurring prohibitive postage charges and running the risk of customs fees, I recommend Pin Up Parade.  The owner of the site imports the frocks from America in low numbers, so it's a bit luck of the draw.  At the moment she has this curvetastic number in an XXXL only (size 20, nominally, but check the detailed size chart) - £80.

This has a high neckline, so be aware that it will make your boobs look bigger.  Both the dresses so far have really been for the girl who already has something of an hourglass shape.  This look is a little different on ladies with less waist definition, but still very classy.  You need to look for something with a high neckline, and pleated tailoring either side of the waist.  This frock (below, £65) is really classy, has wonderful sleeves and reminds me of sixties air hostesses.  It'd look sexy as hell with a pair of scarlet heels, too.

                             

Keep belts thin and stockings sheer for this look.  Heels and lipstick must be worn. This is high maintenance dressing, but in a really good way.

Back (to the eighties)

So - wedding planning took the place in my day that blogging used to - but then when I wanted to come back, I found that fashion had moved wholeheartedly to the eighties revival... and it's all just so ...ugly. And worse: it's unflattering. Batwing sleeves, dropped waists, slash necks, blouson jackets: hideo-rama. How is a girl supposed to negotiate her way through if she isn't long of limb and lean of flesh?

And then I began to see a path...

First I bought some truly wonderful boots in M&S. I wasn't looking for boots, but the leaped out at me - and I didn't have terribly high hopes: I don't wear heels well, for my feet are too short and the downward pressure is too high. In the event, it transpires that these are possibly the most comfy heels I've ever worn. I wore them out last night with no flats to change into, and then managed to wear them all day at work with no pain. Wonderous indeed.

They were £35, and obviously are Not Leather - which is a shame, as they won't last long. Sadly they now only seem to come instore in brown (mine are black) - and aren't online at all. Still a fab buy, though. The foreshortening effect of the ankle cutoff is offset by the heel, and the eighties rock-chick studs and straps are subtle and grown up. The curve of the toe is echoed by the shape of the chunky heel - all in all a great piece of cohesive design.


My second eighties-tastic purchase was this top from Evans:

I'm really loving peacocks as a design motif - and they're all over the place this A/W. Last Autumn / Winter I bought a fabulous peacock-patterned rockabilly frock from Collectif (still not my best friends, since they've seriously restricted their plus sized ranges). I wore it for my Aunt's wedding last month - as you can see below. Peacocks give you all the best blues, plus purples and turquoisey-greens. Colourbomb time!

So the peacock top from Evans (£27) was eagerly awaited, then. The wide neck is deep enough to flatter, and that dippy-scoopy hem is thigh-flattering joy. Sadly (or not), when it came, the print was embossed with glitter - not quite right for my workplace. I wore it out on a Friday night though - with red accents (bangle and lips) - and it was fierce. Loved it. Is it eighties? The big print and voluminous shape make it retro, but the design and colours are tasteful and flattering. Let's call it 'good eighties'.

Ooh - another quicky...

Just stumbled across this Oh-so Jackie O coat at Boden.

Perfect for athletic / less curvy girls, but apple and pear-shapes can also wear this well, so long as They want to show off their pins. The length makes it really realistic and chic for just about every height too, although petite girls will need to shorten the sleeves - a simple enough job for your local alterations place - even repositioning the trim looks like it would be straightforward.

Wear this with a similar-shaped and length dress or skirt to style-up a work look or add panache to a wedding outfit (I'd advise the aqua) - it won't sit well over fullness in the skirt or a long hemline. Alternatively show off your legs with cigarette-cut trousers or capris. Gorgeous and classic - you'll wear it for years, so the £110 price tag seems fair.

Smart Dressed Man

So, you may be a dapper chap with a wardrobe full of fine tailoring, or you may have a partner who fits that description. I, however, don't. My fabulous fiance is actually really stylish in his own way, but suits are not his thing. Recently, he bought a rather lovely suit in the Moss Bros sale for around £200 - but I shouldn't imagine he'll be repeating that experience very soon.

However, it won't do for my sister's wedding next month, because that's black tie. So we assumed he'd hire a dinner suit - maybe from the hire section of the very retailer who sold him the other one. But then my sister discovered that Marks and Sparks are doing dinner jackets and matching trousers for just £49.50 for the set! We're waiting for the suit to come, and of course - for that price you have low expectations in terms of cut, fit and fabric. But how low? This is still Marks and Spencers, after all: sensible quality is practically their brand identity, and while this suit may be the sartorial equivalent to a supermarket's no frills brand of beans - it's still going to be better than if, say, it had been bought from Primark. We shall see. Certainly I expect the cut and fit to be no worse than one would reasonably expect when hiring a suit.

Also available is a dress shirt for £15 (polycotton, but with those all-important swoonsome french cuffs), and a silk bow tie for £9.50. Incidentally, M&S have 14 different bow ties or bow tie and cummerbund sets, but only one of them is 'self tie'. Now quite apart from bow ties not being much harder to tie than your own shoelaces, if you get a ready made one, what are you going to do after dinner when you open your top buttons (always two, lads - one button looks like you've burst out). If you have a proper bow tie you can undo it for that dishevelled James Bond look. Yum.

Assuming you'd have bought the shirt and tie anyway, the suit costs around the same as hiring would do - so if he wears it once more, it's completely paid for itself. And this way, if he tears it or some other mishap befalls the thing, there's no deposit to lose either.

If I were a bloke I'd be tempted to get one anyway, just for a rainy day. But maybe that's the kind of attitude that's left me up to my eyeballs in clothes...

Who are you, and what do you want?

I wonder, if you wouldn't mind and have a spare few minutes, answering this 10-question survey I've created to try and find out more about the readership of this blog.

It's not (just) that I'm nosey - it's because I make a lot of assumptions about the kind of people who are reading this blog, and it would help me to make in more interesting and meaningful if I knew more about you.

It's just for women (or people who want to wear clothes made for women), and more specifically, women who have read this blog more than once (or think they're likely to come back - if this is your first visit (welcome, by the way)).

You'll need a password to take the survey, and the magic word is...

shoes

Please only take it once and be as truthful as you can, but feel free to miss out any questions you don't want to answer.

If I can get some stats under my belt, I can start asking companies why they're not giving you what you want... but it would sound a bit feeble until I know who you are and what you do want!

Back to the missions...

Hi! I just wanted to say how much I love your blog - and as a result have bought a dress I would never even thought of from a shop I never go into - Wallis!! Everyone says how good it is - so thank you very much! If you need a new challenge for those of us with non standard bodies, wondered if you could advise me on what I should buy next - am an odd shape! I am 5'8" with really short and fat legs - that are made even shorter by the presence of a long and huge bum... I have a waist that is two sizes smaller than my hips, and quite a flat stomach - 32DD top half - so find it hard to find things that fit, never mind look good... My legs are really bad - I can only wear the dress with tights and boots to hide the lack of leg. What would you suggest? Thanks Sharon

Ok - so first I must apologise to this lovely lady, because I've been sitting on this email since 16th March - quite forgotten in all my wedding self-obsession.

Right, secondly- to the task in hand. This really is quite straightforward: almost everyone can identify themselves as either having a short body and long legs (can be hard to find a waist) or having what I seem to recall someone from my childhood calling 'duck's disease' - where your bum's too close to the floor. As a fellow short-legger I sympathise with Sharon - although she's five inches of height on me - so perhaps not that much!

The silhouette we're looking for is empire line - cinched in under the bust, with a more free-flowing skirt part and then straight-legged trousers worn underneath. This picture is a good representation of what I mean, but sadly it's a back view - couldn't find the front shot - but you should get the idea. Look at the overall silhouette - don't her legs look lonnnnnnng?

Firstly: play to your strengths. Nice boobs and a small waist / back, plus flat tummy. Not all empire lines follow the body in their underbust tailoring, and can look smocky - that's fine if you have flabby abs: I can look pregnant if I wear too close-fitting an empire-line, but if you don't have my problem, then show off that difference between boob and ribcage. If you don't want your boobs to look too big, remember to go for a deep V or kimono neckline, modesty preserved with a vest underneath.

We don't want to fit all the way down to the waist, though, small as it may be. The reasoning here is we want to give the impression of longer legs. With a fitted empire line we get the impression of a trim waist, but without giving away where that waist actually is. It's also very hard to fit to the whole underbust-to-waist area without drawing attention to that bottom.

To length. You don't want a dress that's too long, or the trousers underneath will look like you've thrown the frock on over your pyjamas. Pink here is committing a second error in having two shades of black - this look can work with jeans, but I think you'd want a patterned dress to make the jeans look tied-in. The shorter the top layer, though - the harder it is to sustain the optical illusion of legs that go on forever. Once we start to see the shape of the leg, the game's up - and even with straight leg trousers, that becomes evident not far above the knee. So we're probably not looking for tunics. The other thing that will give the game away is a sheer fabric. diminutive 'Madmen' actress, Maggie Siff nearly gets it right, but due to the sheer fabric you can see that she too, is a duck's disease sufferer. Those flares don't help, either.

Which trousers should you go for? As a rule of thumb, the more trouser on show, the wider-leg you can wear.

These by Wallis would be a good purchase at £35, but I'd stick to no longer than knee length frocks. The right hand pair are more streamlined - don't be afraid of the snug fit, you'll be covering everything from the waist to below the knee with a loose dress. Marks and Sparks, £29.50. Both pairs are black, but you have to start somewhere, and true black trousers (as opposed to jeans) should work under other colours too, so long as they're vivid or have black in the pattern.

An absolutely brilliant everyday standby for work and play is this jersey dress (above left) - £35 from Evans (see what I was saying?) It doesn't photograph well, because it's black - but if you follow the link you can see it on a model, and get a better idea. It is, of course, just like those frocks Dotty P's were doing so well last season - but a little longer it seems. The dress on the right is available in black, but I think is just gorgeous in the pale pink and black print. It's £50 at French Connection.

This dress would go perfectly with straight-cut jeans, and those full sleeves will help to balance out your boobs and any fullness over the bum. It's by Great Plains (£45) and is also available in green. Which means you'll need some jeans to wear under it. Leave skinny straight jeans to the kids - besides which the wrinkled ankle look will not work for this silhouette. I adore these jeans from Monsoon, because they have such elegant lines. They're relatively pricey for jeans at £45, but worth it, I think.