Gemma Cartwright writes...
After my ranting last week about the benefits of good underwear, it was fitting that today I stumbled upon Carol Midgley's 'Bargainhunter' column on the Times website, a sweeping generalisation of womens views on tights vs stockings. According to Midgley "in real life...normal women loathe stockings and suspenders." This is something frequent readers of this site will know was bound to get my goat as a big fan of old fashioned stockings and hold-ups. Midgley argues that women who say they wear stockings only do so to persuade men to marry them. It's a nice idea, but in my experience the type of men who like stockings definitely aren't the ones who're going to put a ring on your finger...
I will admit that the chore of putting on stockings and suspenders and dealing with the (possible) lumps and bumps means the real vintage styles are not particularly functional for todays fashions. They're great with tea dresses, but not so good with lycra, so I understand why many wish to leave them to the Dita Von Teeses of the world. Hold-ups, however, are a girl's best friend. They give you all the benefits of stockings without the fuss, and they're much more flattering than tights that dig in or sag. Considering they manage to combine functionality with sex appeal, it's strange that they often get forgotten about.
According to industry mag Drapers Record, a recent study by Mintel shows that hosiery sales have finally picked up after almost ten years of decline. And while 70% of the market is still dedicated to tights, retailers have been reporting an increase in sales of stockings too. At Figleaves, stockings took five of the top ten spots in the bestsellers list, and La Senza also report that traditional stockings sell better than hold-ups. I can't imagine all these buyers are Midgley's suggested chat-line workers and desperate singletons?
Maybe I'm wrong, so it's time for your votes. For this one you can make multiple choices if you wish...
