Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think either one is particularly stylish or flattering. There are many coats out there that would probably look a lot better and you don't have PETA members throwing paint on you.
I am trying to relocate for my graduate school to Canada or Iceland. I have decided to go with a real fur but vintage to save money and be more socially conscious. I have decided on the fur species and color I want, but am unsure on a style. Which do you think is more stylish, better looking and less matronly?
1) Why would anyone think that going to school in either Iceland or Canada must require a 'fur coat'? I can tell you ... it doesn't. In fact, it is far more practical (and often cheaper) these days to go with down or fake down-filled. But, even then, what makes you think that you can even attend a school in either country where it is even cold enough to justify (much less 'need') a fur coat? Not only is one not required for comfort, but, you will look very out of place these days in any place there is even a university you could attend in those countries.
2) I won't argue with people who insist that fur coats indicate some grave social and intellectual flaw on the part of the owner/creator (because no one will 'win' so what is the point), but, when I grew up, in the far north, they were practical and were all handmade by the people who trapped the animals, and who, in most cases, also ate the rest of the beast. I guess I don't quite see most 'fur farming' the same way as some do.
3) I had a rabbit 'fur coat' when I was a teenager. I personally shot those rabbits (I was 12, supervised by my father, and I am female) in a year when rabbits were over-running everything, as they tend to do every 7 or 11 years. My rabbit fur coat was completely tanned and made by my mother - and we ate the very rabbits that supplied the 'fur' for dinners all winter. In the north, very little is shot or trapped without using all the animal - even moose. Again, my parents tanned every one of my father's moose kills and made things for the family - and we ate almost every bit of what was inside that 'fur'/skin coating. That was not cruelty. It was humane, smart and practical.
My mother had a fox fur coat that came about in similar ways. We didn't eat the fox meat at our house, mind you, but we donated it all to the local natives who did make use of it. Trapping these days is also very controlled - even for the natives who must only use approved traps. So much misinformation is out there on this subject. Fur for me is not any kind of 'fashion' statement. It is useful, practical and in many cases, actually it is helpful to control the populations of some fur producing animals.
4) On my bureau, I have a wonderful 'mink' - the actual animal .. it still has all its fur but it is dead nonetheless. My father unfortunately killed that beast by accident (while driving) .. and he got out of the car, picked it up, took it home and my parents sent it to a taxidermist. 50 years later, it still has 'life' and 'purpose' - it still makes me smile and brings back great memories of my time living in the far north. However, I do admit we didn't eat the mink meat and in that case, I doubt anyone did. But, I killed a rabbit by accident many years later and I picked it up and made a very delicious 'roadkill' stew from it. Dad (and the local natives) taught me the right way to treat animals. Not to mention that all things die anyway - whether we kill them or not. In my humble opinion, we should use what the land provides us as much as possible without disturbing the ecosystems - and only if we do it for the right reasons - and those reasons don't include aesthetics!
5) There is a really valid purpose for a fur hood strip - over choosing one that just 'looks like' the real thing. This is not a 'fashion' issue at all. Fur sheds moisture better at low temperatures and keeps the wearer much warmer - and safe from frostbite. That is also a good reason why many men wear beards in the north in winter. My dog has 'wet fur' a lot in winter - he simply sheds off the snow, ice and water .. because his fur is real. Yep, he does smell like 'wet dog' a bit more in winter but he also doesn't smell like chemicals either.
But, all the above said, I still don't understand why anyone (especially someone who purportedly is smart and old enough to be pursuing a graduate degree of some kind) would not know that unless they are going to a REALLY far north place (well above where 95 percent of the people live in Canada - and where there are NO universities anyway) - which certainly is not Canada or Iceland (where temperatures are actually quite moderate due to hot springs and the ocean flows from the south coasts of North America) - would immediately assume they need to purchase a fur coat. And, further, even if one thinks they MIGHT need a warm coat up there, why would they need to purchase it before they go - and take the risk that either they will feel out of place or will be wearing a fur that is not locally produced in a humane, sustainable way?
However, if there is some reason the OP must have a fur coat - and is opposed to using furs that are 'new' .. go vintage, not new. I bought a used mink coat about 40 years ago for $10 in a Salvation Army shop and got another (daily winter) 10 years use out of it before it was too moth-eaten to be worn (at which point, it was cut up and ... heaven forbid .. became the trim on some moccasins and an old parka. Dead is dead at that point - why not just continue using it. That shows more respect (and is better for the environment) than buying some fake fur that is probably made by using environmentally unsafe procedures/putting out contaminants into the atmosphere.
I don't think either one is particularly stylish or flattering. There are many coats out there that would probably look a lot better and you don't have PETA members throwing paint on you.
I don't think the coats look great either.
They're sort of...someone said matronly. That might be a good way to put it.
Buying a vintage coat means you're not actually supporting the fur industry or the killing of animals. The animals died decades ago. I have several vintage jewelry pieces made from horn/tortoise shell that I would never, ever buy new.
Buying a vintage coat means you're not actually supporting the fur industry or the killing of animals. The animals died decades ago. I have several vintage jewelry pieces made from horn/tortoise shell that I would never, ever buy new.
Sort of yes and sort of no...making it "okay" to buy fur (though I'm not making that judgment myself) is a statement all by itself and will certainly ultimately support the industry from which it came.
I mean if I don't kill a cow but I do eat hamburger meat (I do, BTW, so again...not making a judgment, just giving an example) that was already killed before I ever got to the store, I'm still supporting the beef industry. I'm keeping demand alive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
