WEBVTT - Short Stuff: The Style Cycle

0:00:04.230 --> 0:00:06.050
<v Speaker 1>Hey, and welcome to The Short Stuff. I'm Josh, and

0:00:06.070 --> 0:00:09.260
<v Speaker 1>there's Chuck, and I'm super stressed out. Jerry's there, too,

0:00:09.360 --> 0:00:11.540
<v Speaker 1>and she's sitting in for Dave, and this is Short Stuff.

0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:15.460
<v Speaker 2>That's right, about the style cycle, thanks to Popular Science

0:00:15.680 --> 0:00:23.280
<v Speaker 2>Sartorial Magazine, baracko.com and not barackobama.com, but baracko.com and earth.com

0:00:23.420 --> 0:00:24.160
<v Speaker 2>for this information.

0:00:24.820 --> 0:00:27.730
<v Speaker 1>So the style cycle, if you haven't guessed already, refers

0:00:27.770 --> 0:00:32.110
<v Speaker 1>to that idea that fashion styles come back in vogue again,

0:00:32.130 --> 0:00:37.610
<v Speaker 1>to use a fashion term, every 20-ish years. I always

0:00:37.650 --> 0:00:40.130
<v Speaker 1>thought it was more like 30, but I think 20

0:00:40.130 --> 0:00:43.090
<v Speaker 1>is what most people say. And it's always been this

0:00:43.229 --> 0:00:49.090
<v Speaker 1>anecdotal observation that most people agree on. But I think recently,

0:00:49.110 --> 0:00:51.550
<v Speaker 1>I didn't see when the study was conducted, but some

0:00:51.590 --> 0:00:55.980
<v Speaker 1>researchers from Northwestern University came up with a very clever

0:00:56.060 --> 0:00:58.450
<v Speaker 1>way to actually study it to see if it's a thing.

0:00:58.480 --> 0:01:00.550
<v Speaker 1>And they found like, yes, it is indeed a thing

0:01:00.570 --> 0:01:04.710
<v Speaker 1>that fashion exists basically on 20 year cycles. And that

0:01:05.090 --> 0:01:08.830
<v Speaker 1>fashion designers are very, very lazy by year 20. They

0:01:08.870 --> 0:01:10.630
<v Speaker 1>just reach back and start over again.

0:01:11.209 --> 0:01:13.810
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, they did quite a few things for the study.

0:01:13.870 --> 0:01:18.620
<v Speaker 2>They analyzed 37,000 images of women's clothing. So this is

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:22.580
<v Speaker 2>for women's style from 1869 forward. And this was a

0:01:22.620 --> 0:01:26.020
<v Speaker 2>big deal. This was presented at the American Physical Society

0:01:26.060 --> 0:01:30.640
<v Speaker 2>Global Physics Summit in Denver. And they didn't just look

0:01:30.660 --> 0:01:33.750
<v Speaker 2>at pictures, right? They had all those 37,000 images, but

0:01:33.770 --> 0:01:34.530
<v Speaker 2>that wasn't good enough.

0:01:35.170 --> 0:01:38.030
<v Speaker 1>No, they found a bunch of runway images from over

0:01:38.090 --> 0:01:43.050
<v Speaker 1>the decades. They found sewing patterns from the Commercial Pattern

0:01:43.110 --> 0:01:46.440
<v Speaker 1>Archive at the University of Rhode Island. So they assembled

0:01:46.470 --> 0:01:49.910
<v Speaker 1>a ton of images. And then this is what they

0:01:49.930 --> 0:01:53.970
<v Speaker 1>did that was so clever. They used data points starting

0:01:54.010 --> 0:01:58.040
<v Speaker 1>with the distance from the eye to the neckline, the

0:01:58.100 --> 0:02:03.540
<v Speaker 1>neckline to the waist, and the waist to the hemline

0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:05.660
<v Speaker 1>at the bottom of, like, say, a dress. I think

0:02:05.700 --> 0:02:10.320
<v Speaker 1>they just studied dresses exclusively. And so because now they had, like,

0:02:12.010 --> 0:02:15.460
<v Speaker 1>data points, they were able to quantify this, like how far–

0:02:15.660 --> 0:02:18.300
<v Speaker 1>the neckline plunged or how far it came up. And

0:02:18.340 --> 0:02:20.020
<v Speaker 1>so they were able to watch it over time. And

0:02:20.060 --> 0:02:23.120
<v Speaker 1>what they saw when they drew each thing in a

0:02:23.200 --> 0:02:26.139
<v Speaker 1>flip book, it took them forever. And then they flipped

0:02:26.200 --> 0:02:28.290
<v Speaker 1>through it. You could see like the neckline going up

0:02:28.350 --> 0:02:30.889
<v Speaker 1>and down. You could see the hemline going up and down.

0:02:30.910 --> 0:02:35.910
<v Speaker 1>And it was about on a 20-year cycle that it

0:02:36.090 --> 0:02:39.190
<v Speaker 1>did these things, that it repeated, swung back and forth.

0:02:40.410 --> 0:02:42.530
<v Speaker 2>I'm going to say something that will not surprise you

0:02:42.590 --> 0:02:44.980
<v Speaker 2>or anyone else listening. My brother used to do flip books.

0:02:45.400 --> 0:02:46.560
<v Speaker 2>When we were a kid. Man.

0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:48.060
<v Speaker 1>Was he good?

0:02:48.680 --> 0:02:50.500
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, they were good. They were like stick figure thing. Well,

0:02:50.660 --> 0:02:52.700
<v Speaker 2>that's not true. A lot of them were stick figures. Like, uh,

0:02:53.300 --> 0:02:55.560
<v Speaker 2>I remember very distinctly a flip book. And of course

0:02:55.600 --> 0:02:57.820
<v Speaker 2>I would just eat this stuff up and do my

0:02:57.880 --> 0:03:02.100
<v Speaker 2>own poor versions afterwards. Uh, but like, I remember a

0:03:02.139 --> 0:03:04.860
<v Speaker 2>stick figure pole vaulter, like running down and pole vaulting. Uh,

0:03:06.060 --> 0:03:07.940
<v Speaker 2>but then like my brother was a really good artist.

0:03:07.980 --> 0:03:10.040
<v Speaker 2>He would, I don't know why, but for a certain

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:12.600
<v Speaker 2>period in his younger years, he was drawing like, like

0:03:12.720 --> 0:03:15.239
<v Speaker 2>war stuff and people getting blown to bits. Like, A

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:19.600
<v Speaker 2>flipbook of a hand grenade like blowing a guy into pieces. Yeah,

0:03:19.639 --> 0:03:21.780
<v Speaker 2>very interesting for such a peaceful guy.

0:03:21.870 --> 0:03:22.250
<v Speaker 1>For sure.

0:03:22.270 --> 0:03:25.989
<v Speaker 2>Anyway, just flipbook memory.

0:03:26.430 --> 0:03:29.450
<v Speaker 1>I went to go make one the other day and

0:03:29.510 --> 0:03:31.310
<v Speaker 1>I was like, forget this. This is going to be

0:03:31.870 --> 0:03:34.090
<v Speaker 1>hard and take a lot of time that I don't have.

0:03:34.220 --> 0:03:37.280
<v Speaker 1>So much respect to your brother for that.

0:03:37.780 --> 0:03:40.500
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, mine were pretty jumpy. So this idea of fashion

0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:43.960
<v Speaker 2>is that people want to They want to fit in,

0:03:44.040 --> 0:03:46.380
<v Speaker 2>but they also want to have their own style. And

0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:50.580
<v Speaker 2>there's also an idea with designers that once something becomes

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:55.550
<v Speaker 2>too widespread, that designers are done with it, basically. So

0:03:57.290 --> 0:03:59.510
<v Speaker 2>it's sort of a give-and-take idea.

0:04:00.010 --> 0:04:04.510
<v Speaker 1>It is. So say that mom jeans were a new

0:04:04.610 --> 0:04:09.670
<v Speaker 1>thing in the 2010s, right? Yeah. They were actually... From

0:04:09.730 --> 0:04:12.610
<v Speaker 1>the 80s and 90s, but to the 2010s, they were

0:04:12.650 --> 0:04:16.230
<v Speaker 1>like brand new and they were quite revolutionary and daring

0:04:16.870 --> 0:04:19.270
<v Speaker 1>that somebody would try to rock mom jeans because they've

0:04:19.300 --> 0:04:23.860
<v Speaker 1>always been looked at as just like frumpy, right? Mom

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:27.080
<v Speaker 1>jeans became so prevalent that you could not find women's

0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:30.500
<v Speaker 1>jeans that weren't essentially mom's jeans in some way, shape

0:04:30.560 --> 0:04:33.930
<v Speaker 1>or form. And then eventually the designers are like, we're

0:04:33.970 --> 0:04:36.089
<v Speaker 1>bored with this. I want to come up with something else.

0:04:36.430 --> 0:04:39.250
<v Speaker 1>So they do something else, right? That's essentially what you're saying.

0:04:39.750 --> 0:04:42.490
<v Speaker 1>What this is saying is that the something else they

0:04:42.510 --> 0:04:45.130
<v Speaker 1>do is jump back 20 years again.

0:04:45.250 --> 0:04:45.610
<v Speaker 2>Right.

0:04:45.990 --> 0:04:48.610
<v Speaker 1>And they pull from that. And now all of a sudden,

0:04:48.810 --> 0:04:51.229
<v Speaker 1>I've just been waiting for parachute pants to come back in,

0:04:51.270 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 1>but they won't do it.

0:04:53.500 --> 0:04:56.299
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that seems to be one that has resisted.

0:04:56.830 --> 0:04:59.510
<v Speaker 1>For sure. And I can kind of understand why. But

0:05:00.050 --> 0:05:02.760
<v Speaker 1>what I'm saying is it's like the designers, they come

0:05:02.820 --> 0:05:05.960
<v Speaker 1>up with new things. But essentially what they're doing is

0:05:06.020 --> 0:05:09.520
<v Speaker 1>it's like that Shakespeare quote, there's nothing new under the sun.

0:05:09.860 --> 0:05:12.400
<v Speaker 1>That really applies to fashion design.

0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:14.580
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, for sure. Should we take a break?

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:16.930
<v Speaker 1>Yes, because I'm getting worked up.

0:05:17.650 --> 0:05:44.820
<v Speaker 2>All right. We'll be right back. uh okay we're back

0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:48.200
<v Speaker 2>everybody and this 20-year rule does have sort of data

0:05:48.260 --> 0:05:50.659
<v Speaker 2>points that support it at this point because of that

0:05:50.720 --> 0:05:55.350
<v Speaker 2>study uh but they're thinking that that that 20-year may

0:05:55.390 --> 0:05:58.810
<v Speaker 2>be shorter and shorter as we move along. Because starting

0:05:58.830 --> 0:06:01.910
<v Speaker 2>at a certain point, you know, the five stages, which

0:06:01.930 --> 0:06:05.540
<v Speaker 2>is you introduce a style, there's a rise, obviously, a peak,

0:06:05.570 --> 0:06:08.510
<v Speaker 2>then a decline, then it becomes obsolete. But it seems

0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:12.520
<v Speaker 2>like that cycle is speeding up now, kind of at

0:06:12.580 --> 0:06:16.239
<v Speaker 2>the rate of people's attention spans almost with the internet,

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 2>it seems like.

0:06:16.900 --> 0:06:20.460
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Like social media has had a huge, huge effect

0:06:20.540 --> 0:06:23.580
<v Speaker 1>on this because you can see other people's style and

0:06:24.029 --> 0:06:26.489
<v Speaker 1>If other people like that style, they'll pick up that style.

0:06:26.510 --> 0:06:28.930
<v Speaker 1>And then all of a sudden there's a trend on TikTok, right?

0:06:30.130 --> 0:06:33.450
<v Speaker 1>That in and of itself isn't necessarily harmful. It's that

0:06:33.680 --> 0:06:38.140
<v Speaker 1>fast fashion, like say H &amp; M. Well, they have

0:06:38.320 --> 0:06:41.040
<v Speaker 1>people whose job it is to troll social media, to

0:06:41.100 --> 0:06:45.440
<v Speaker 1>look for trends. And then H &amp; M designs clothes

0:06:45.600 --> 0:06:47.880
<v Speaker 1>according to those trends as fast as they can and

0:06:47.940 --> 0:06:50.400
<v Speaker 1>gets them out to stores. And the reason they want

0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:52.560
<v Speaker 1>to do it as fast as they can is because these,

0:06:52.660 --> 0:06:55.219
<v Speaker 1>what are called micro trends, come in and out in

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:57.320
<v Speaker 1>the blink of an eye. So you want to be

0:06:57.400 --> 0:06:59.380
<v Speaker 1>able to figure out exactly how many you need to

0:06:59.430 --> 0:07:01.640
<v Speaker 1>make of a thing because you know it's not going

0:07:01.690 --> 0:07:03.510
<v Speaker 1>to be around very long and you want to get

0:07:03.550 --> 0:07:06.130
<v Speaker 1>it out to stores as fast as you can. Yeah.

0:07:06.190 --> 0:07:08.010
<v Speaker 2>And I think one of the ideas is that a

0:07:08.089 --> 0:07:11.150
<v Speaker 2>micro trend may thwart this 20-year cycle because it doesn't

0:07:11.190 --> 0:07:14.110
<v Speaker 2>become a really big, huge, widespread thing for a length

0:07:14.150 --> 0:07:14.570
<v Speaker 2>of time.

0:07:14.690 --> 0:07:14.910
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:07:15.590 --> 0:07:19.310
<v Speaker 2>So it's... We're probably looking at a situation where a

0:07:19.530 --> 0:07:22.510
<v Speaker 2>TikTok micro trend isn't going to come back in 20

0:07:22.510 --> 0:07:26.240
<v Speaker 2>years because it never even fully registered as a genuine, like,

0:07:26.520 --> 0:07:27.060
<v Speaker 2>big trend.

0:07:27.520 --> 0:07:31.740
<v Speaker 1>Right. Exactly. The problem is, is the closer and closer

0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:36.350
<v Speaker 1>we get to a trend reaching back to maybe the

0:07:36.380 --> 0:07:41.150
<v Speaker 1>day before, when it happens that a trend comes into

0:07:41.210 --> 0:07:45.870
<v Speaker 1>existence and then comes into existence again, As a retro thing,

0:07:46.190 --> 0:07:49.500
<v Speaker 1>on the same day, the universe will collapse and not itself.

0:07:50.640 --> 0:07:53.780
<v Speaker 2>That's right. You mentioned fast fashion. This stat is sort

0:07:53.800 --> 0:07:56.840
<v Speaker 2>of disturbing, but we produce about 80 billion pieces of

0:07:56.920 --> 0:08:02.230
<v Speaker 2>clothes a year. And that is a 400% increase from

0:08:02.230 --> 0:08:03.130
<v Speaker 2>20 years ago.

0:08:03.150 --> 0:08:06.010
<v Speaker 1>That's really rough. Yeah.

0:08:06.170 --> 0:08:09.270
<v Speaker 2>And it used to be very easy to see a

0:08:09.370 --> 0:08:12.890
<v Speaker 2>70s look, an 80s look. And it's just becoming harder

0:08:12.910 --> 0:08:16.170
<v Speaker 2>and harder to pinpoint like certainly like a decade's worth

0:08:16.250 --> 0:08:16.590
<v Speaker 2>of look.

0:08:17.710 --> 0:08:21.940
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. This article points out the Indie Sleaze aesthetic, which

0:08:22.100 --> 0:08:25.300
<v Speaker 1>is essentially what the Brat Summer aesthetic was based on.

0:08:26.060 --> 0:08:28.720
<v Speaker 1>And the Indie Sleaze aesthetic only went away from like,

0:08:28.880 --> 0:08:33.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, like 10 or so years before, which is

0:08:33.640 --> 0:08:37.540
<v Speaker 1>way faster than the 20 year rule. I also saw

0:08:37.580 --> 0:08:42.280
<v Speaker 1>it argued by fashion bloggers that the Indie Sleaze revamp

0:08:42.870 --> 0:08:47.610
<v Speaker 1>was totally made up by overworked people who have to

0:08:47.650 --> 0:08:50.790
<v Speaker 1>trawl social media to find new trends. They just made

0:08:50.830 --> 0:08:52.929
<v Speaker 1>that up that that was a thing again. And that

0:08:52.990 --> 0:08:55.830
<v Speaker 1>actually made it a thing. It brought it into existence.

0:08:56.250 --> 0:08:59.210
<v Speaker 1>Who knows? But I think that means you have to

0:08:59.290 --> 0:09:02.210
<v Speaker 1>take that that particular example with a grain of salt,

0:09:02.230 --> 0:09:04.230
<v Speaker 1>because it may or may not prove that things are

0:09:04.250 --> 0:09:07.729
<v Speaker 1>speeding up too much. I think the other evidence supports it,

0:09:07.770 --> 0:09:11.800
<v Speaker 1>but that particular trend doesn't necessarily. Yeah, I agree.

0:09:11.820 --> 0:09:15.900
<v Speaker 2>Uh, and you know, nostalgia drives a certain amount of this. Um,

0:09:16.200 --> 0:09:18.640
<v Speaker 2>when a new generation comes along, they, a lot of

0:09:18.679 --> 0:09:21.220
<v Speaker 2>times with its, you know, music or movies and in fashion,

0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:25.410
<v Speaker 2>they'll look back a couple of decades. Um, but sometimes

0:09:25.450 --> 0:09:26.770
<v Speaker 2>it comes back in a different form.

0:09:27.050 --> 0:09:27.270
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:09:27.370 --> 0:09:31.670
<v Speaker 2>Like, um, Like the like bell bottoms might come back

0:09:31.750 --> 0:09:35.189
<v Speaker 2>as bootcut jeans or something like that. So like sort

0:09:35.210 --> 0:09:37.410
<v Speaker 2>of an homage, but not exactly the same thing as

0:09:37.690 --> 0:09:38.910
<v Speaker 2>it was a couple of decades ago.

0:09:39.460 --> 0:09:42.580
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I saw culottes are back in. Is that correct?

0:09:43.320 --> 0:09:43.860
<v Speaker 2>I don't know.

0:09:44.020 --> 0:09:46.460
<v Speaker 1>Were they ever in before? I know people wore them,

0:09:46.480 --> 0:09:49.300
<v Speaker 1>but I don't know that anyone considered them in. Yeah,

0:09:49.460 --> 0:09:50.740
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I'm interested.

0:09:51.160 --> 0:09:52.020
<v Speaker 2>You're asking the wrong guy.

0:09:52.520 --> 0:09:55.990
<v Speaker 1>Some some things that have come back, like most decidedly,

0:09:56.030 --> 0:09:59.830
<v Speaker 1>apparently 90s minimalism is back. And that is, I don't know,

0:09:59.850 --> 0:10:01.600
<v Speaker 1>it's the best descriptor for it because I went and

0:10:01.620 --> 0:10:03.959
<v Speaker 1>looked it up and I get what they're saying. Like

0:10:04.020 --> 0:10:07.180
<v Speaker 1>it's like kind of basic teas and maybe like cargo

0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:13.199
<v Speaker 1>pants and just kind of like like low, low attempt

0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:18.000
<v Speaker 1>at like dressing essentially. Yeah, I guess that's back in.

0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:21.070
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, I think the whole 80s and 90s,

0:10:22.600 --> 0:10:26.750
<v Speaker 2>I am maybe shamefully or not into wearing, like, good

0:10:26.790 --> 0:10:29.990
<v Speaker 2>clothes when I play golf and, like, golf fashion. And

0:10:30.110 --> 0:10:32.630
<v Speaker 2>there's a trend now. There was a trend in golf where, like,

0:10:32.870 --> 0:10:36.190
<v Speaker 2>you know, like tighter pants and shirts and things like that.

0:10:36.630 --> 0:10:40.349
<v Speaker 2>But now it's going back to the, like, baggy pleated

0:10:40.550 --> 0:10:41.770
<v Speaker 2>trousers and stuff like that.

0:10:41.830 --> 0:10:42.190
<v Speaker 1>Oh, really?

0:10:42.250 --> 0:10:43.530
<v Speaker 2>Like this real 80s look.

0:10:43.670 --> 0:10:44.120
<v Speaker 1>Dockers?

0:10:44.130 --> 0:10:48.760
<v Speaker 2>I don't know about dockers, like, but, like, double pleats even.

0:10:49.030 --> 0:10:54.360
<v Speaker 1>Wow. Apparently, denim on denim, the Canadian tuxedo is in.

0:10:55.080 --> 0:10:57.160
<v Speaker 1>And I've got a little bit of trivia for you.

0:10:57.640 --> 0:11:02.480
<v Speaker 1>Did you know that Bing Crosby invented the Canadian tuxedo,

0:11:03.380 --> 0:11:06.210
<v Speaker 1>not on purpose, but he showed up at a Vancouver

0:11:06.230 --> 0:11:10.510
<v Speaker 1>hotel wearing a Canadian tuxedo and was turned away?

0:11:10.530 --> 0:11:11.320
<v Speaker 2>No way.

0:11:11.330 --> 0:11:13.530
<v Speaker 1>Even though he was already Bing Crosby. They were like,

0:11:13.550 --> 0:11:14.290
<v Speaker 1>you can't wear that.

0:11:15.610 --> 0:11:17.209
<v Speaker 2>Is that why it became the Canadian tuxedo?

0:11:17.390 --> 0:11:18.089
<v Speaker 1>I think so, yeah.

0:11:18.740 --> 0:11:20.640
<v Speaker 2>Huh. Are you pulling my leg with all this?

0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:22.700
<v Speaker 1>No, I swear I'm not. That is for real.

0:11:22.740 --> 0:11:25.439
<v Speaker 2>Because that'd be a weird one. Who could it be?

0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:28.679
<v Speaker 2>Chuck will never doubt Bing Crosby.

0:11:29.100 --> 0:11:32.490
<v Speaker 1>No, it does stink of one of my jokes, but

0:11:32.630 --> 0:11:33.650
<v Speaker 1>it's true this time.

0:11:34.410 --> 0:11:36.470
<v Speaker 2>Apparently animal prints are coming back in fashion too.

0:11:36.530 --> 0:11:38.630
<v Speaker 1>Sure. Have they ever really gone out?

0:11:39.470 --> 0:11:41.070
<v Speaker 2>Again, don't ask me.

0:11:42.990 --> 0:11:46.280
<v Speaker 1>And then some things do come back. Lots of stuff does.

0:11:46.300 --> 0:11:50.480
<v Speaker 1>A lot of stuff doesn't. Like apparently in the early aughts,

0:11:51.440 --> 0:11:54.890
<v Speaker 1>people were wearing all sorts of nutso neon stuff. I

0:11:54.900 --> 0:11:57.490
<v Speaker 1>missed that trend. It looks like a kind of a

0:11:57.690 --> 0:12:02.590
<v Speaker 1>raver thing, I guess. But it wasn't like really in

0:12:02.610 --> 0:12:04.890
<v Speaker 1>when I was raving. So I think it just, you know,

0:12:05.090 --> 0:12:08.470
<v Speaker 1>kind of came after that. They're predicting that that's not

0:12:08.490 --> 0:12:10.770
<v Speaker 1>going to come back. And I can kind of see it.

0:12:11.450 --> 0:12:16.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there's a certain 80s neon thing, puffy stuff. neon

0:12:16.660 --> 0:12:18.760
<v Speaker 2>thing that I don't think I ever really truly saw

0:12:18.780 --> 0:12:19.120
<v Speaker 2>come back.

0:12:19.860 --> 0:12:24.260
<v Speaker 1>Remember the hyper color ones, like the thermal color, like

0:12:24.300 --> 0:12:26.179
<v Speaker 1>you put your hand on your shirt and it'd leave

0:12:26.800 --> 0:12:27.900
<v Speaker 1>a handprint or something.

0:12:28.380 --> 0:12:29.600
<v Speaker 2>That was a thing for five minutes.

0:12:29.760 --> 0:12:31.719
<v Speaker 1>It was. It was very cool, though. I never had

0:12:31.820 --> 0:12:32.260
<v Speaker 1>one of those.

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:33.300
<v Speaker 2>No, me neither.

0:12:33.580 --> 0:12:35.059
<v Speaker 1>Or jams. Did you wear jams?

0:12:35.760 --> 0:12:36.380
<v Speaker 2>Oh, yeah, for sure.

0:12:36.700 --> 0:12:38.319
<v Speaker 1>My mom made all of my jams. So I had

0:12:38.340 --> 0:12:39.380
<v Speaker 1>a bunch of different jams.

0:12:40.080 --> 0:12:40.660
<v Speaker 2>Oh, that's nice.

0:12:40.980 --> 0:12:41.620
<v Speaker 1>I thought so, too.

0:12:41.920 --> 0:12:43.939
<v Speaker 2>My mom made a lot of my clothes, too. Nice.

0:12:44.610 --> 0:12:47.370
<v Speaker 2>Because we couldn't afford things from stores.

0:12:48.250 --> 0:12:50.530
<v Speaker 1>There you go. Whatever the reason, it was still sweet

0:12:50.570 --> 0:12:52.770
<v Speaker 1>of your mom to not just put a potato sack

0:12:52.809 --> 0:12:53.490
<v Speaker 1>on you or something.

0:12:53.530 --> 0:12:55.290
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. And yours. Same.

0:12:55.470 --> 0:13:00.250
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Well, since we just both shouted out our moms fondly,

0:13:00.309 --> 0:13:02.910
<v Speaker 1>then I think, obviously, Chuck short stuff is out.

0:13:06.570 --> 0:13:09.410
<v Speaker 2>Stuff You Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For

0:13:09.429 --> 0:13:13.400
<v Speaker 2>more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

0:13:13.710 --> 0:13:15.490
<v Speaker 2>or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.