Neiman Marcus to File for Bankruptcy.

only the beginning

But what about our wedding registry?

It’s absolutely insane when you think about the credit system and the fact that we let a company get into $5 Billion in debt. If a company needs that much debt to function it should not be open.

R3: If you remember quite a few years ago the credit default swaps that nearly bankrupted he big financial firms? In essence they were betting on people defaulting on loans.

Good. Was vulgar and cunty.

No surprise. Even as a kid we knew them as “needless markup”

I am a former employee. 5 billion in debt is nothing. The company can pull themselves out of that in a matter of days.

I had excellent times working there and earned impressive commission on the daily. I hope it's not the end for them.

I've been getting increasingly desperate mailers from Last Call over the last week.

I can't believe they opened that new one at Hudson Yards to be honest.

Nooo! Not Bergdorf Goodman!

Best store ever.

Sad news

I went to an event years ago that gave away $50 Neiman Marcus gift cards to all the attendees. I told myself I would only buy something that the gift card covered. Literally the only products the store sold for under $50 were socks and underwear. I bought a paor of underwear.

I had bought some clothes from them before, which were of course expensive, but that little experiment made me realize how much it and Saks gouge customers and I decided no more of that for me. So good riddance.

Sad. Only store that makes me feel like Holly Golightly.

Good riddance! I can buy caramel popcorn at the dollar tree, not pay $35 for a fancy tin! Luckily they are not listed on any stock exchange!

These gorgeous elastic-waisted Versace brocade-diaper printed pants can be yours for a mere $825.

I don’t know how the store that offers such bargains could go under during the onset of a depression. People have needs!

I loved the Mermaid Bar at the Neiman Marcus at NorthPark Center in Dallas.

THAT is not a good look on anyone, R15. No matter how fit you are.

Goodbye, malls! Because I used to love you, but it's all over now!

r7, I used to work there too, in Palo Alto, Union Square (at the height of the AIDs epidemic), and Beverly Hills. They were rare retailers wherein you didn't hate working there, and made a good living. However, I could never go in and shop after I quit, as I always felt judged by the employees.

Isn't this the same store Joan Crawford slapped those men in that Movie, "It's a good feeling"?

I always wondered about that.

It's just like someone on Twitter said, Neiman's sell $100 dollar tshirts and there still going out of business.

Obviously, it's a new world; one where the former way of buying consumer goods, necessary or luxury, is gone and it ain't coming back.

Laugh if you will, but growing up in Milwaukee in the 60s and 70s, there wasn't a Neiman Marcus, of course. But downtown, on Wisconsin Ave, there, in all of it's Christmas-decorated glory, stood Boston Store and Gimbel's.

My parents hardly ever took us into department stores, except once every Christmastime. The excitement was almost overwhelming. And you better believe we behaved. Our parents wouldn't have stood for it otherwise.

Then as an adult, Marshall Field's, Dayton's (same store) in MPLS....

*sigh*

“However, I could never go in and shop after I quit, as I always felt judged by the employees.“

A single comment from Edina Monsoon reset my perspective on this forever.

They put in an application at a bunch of stores in the mall. If they hadn’t been hired by Neiman Marcus or Saks or Barneys, they’d be folding clothes at Old Navy.

There is no reason for Neiman Marcus to exist anymore. They used to source beautiful, high-quality products that a consumer would never be able to find. Plus they aggregated high-end designers so you didn't have to go to multiple boutiques.

That's all gone. Everything's available on the internet. They may still do well in Asia - their malls seem to do very well for some reason. But I don't think they have any stores there.

NM owns malls in Asia?

R25 - no, I meant that high-end malls in Asia do well and that may be a place where they could succeed. But it won't happen - too late.

Barney's just finished their close down (or close to it) right before the Covid outbreak. I saw the one in SF in the close down process and now back in LA, the BH locations held a prominent space on Wilshire Blvd and is now gone. This massive, beautiful (this is sounding trumpian) building is now sitting empty. Aside from the department stores, commercial real estate is supposed to be hit quite hard. Like one of the posters said above, these types of stores just aren't special anymore. The main 3 - Barney's, Saks, & Neiman's have essentially become mini malls comprised mostly of designers boutique installations (Gucci, LV, etc) under 1 roof. Typically these types of department stores are locate within walking distance to actual boutiques themselves.

Does anyone remember the Neimans chocolate chip cookie scandal or urban legend? When I was a kid in the mid 80's, moms everywhere (mine included) passed around the recipe for the NM chocolate chip cookie. The legend was that some woman was having lunch at the store, asked for the recipe, the waiter said it cost "ten-fifty" or something like that, gave the woman the recipe and then the bill for $1,050. Since she had already seen the recipe, NM wouldn't reverse the charge. As revenge photocopied it and mailed it to everyone she knew.

R19 I was the bridal registrar at BH store. Made good money, 8% commission.

You fall for anything, R27.

[quote]What we have here is a golden oldie of an urban legend, the ultimate “strike a blow for the little guy” tale, and in that aspect lies its appeal: by forwarding it on, we can be armchair heroes.

[quote]Though its present incarnation casts the Neiman Marcus chain of department stores as the bad guy, this legend has been around for at least 70 years or so, and it’s been told of various companies (and various confections) during its long history.

[quote]Here’s a fine example from a 1948 cookbook, Massachusetts Cooking Rules, Old and New, which lists not only the recipe for “$25 Fudge Cake” but also gives the following explanation for the name:

[quote]This friend had to pay $25 upon the receipt of the recipe from the chef of one of the railroads. She had asked for the recipe while eating on a train. The chef gladly sent it to her, together with a bill for $25, which her attorney said she had to pay. She then gave the recipe to all her friends, hoping they would get some pleasure from it.

And MORE examples predating the fake Neiman Marcus story.

Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.

Thank you R29. I hadn't thought of the story in forever. I figured it was an urban legend.

Anyways, I hope NM survives along with the jobs they provide.

I'll bet good money Lord & Taylor and Saks will be following closely on Nieman's heels.

Needless Markup!

r15, who bought those things - Elton John?

Back in the day, I saw that Nieman Marcus story attached to many different recipes.

As for Nieman Marcus themselves, I always found those places terribly depressing. I had a friend who'd drag me in, and 80% of their crap cost $700, even things like plates and Christmas ornaments. The rest of the crap cost thousands or tens of thousands.

R32 Lord & Taylor in the mall by my dad closed early this year. It was sad. He took me there and they had price tags on everything, including the metal clothes racks and shelves. Seeing a shop made to look expensive stripped down and sold off for parts felt like a life lesson about the inherent fraud of facades.

[quote]Neiman's 43 stores all shut down during the self-quarantine, along with its Last Call stores and its 2, NYC Bergdorf Goodman department stores.

I wasn't aware Neiman Marcus owns Bergdorf Goodman, Wow...if Bergdorf closes that will be quite a blow to NYC and that iconic corner.

R37 Don’t worry about it. Amazon is sure to buy the real estate and it use for warehousing or computer server storage!

It's not the 30s 40s 50s or 60s any longer. These upscale department stores served women from high society and Hollywood o the earlier 20th century. Those days are over now.

Ladies who lunch and Movie Stars largely shop and order things online now.

It's a new day.

The market for what they carry largely disappeared.

For a variety of reasons designer clothes went out of fashion and people who are still into it would rather shop at the store's own boutique than at a department store.

Bankruptcy is just a tool. They are fine financially. You simply remove all your debt and start over. I've worked for lots of companies, they file for it, restructure and get rid of the deadwood and emerge strong.

It's just a tool, nothing more.

R36 - Lord & Taylor owns the iconic Canadian stores Hudson's Bay Co. That doesn't bode well for HBC.

It was such an outrageous rip off. The costume jewelry from bored hedge fund housewives was laughable.

The one in Beverly Hills sold ugly tye dye shirts for $450.

Where will the lipstick and prada queens of Dallas go now?

This can be yours for the low low price of $1,550!

Hurry!! Only 2 left!!!

If you order in the next 30 minutes, Versace will throw in a jar of Donatella’s vomit, personally autographed!

PS—You could also just ask a Buca di Beppo manager where they order their wallpaper from and cut out your own smock for $25 plus shipping.

I should think someone will save Bergdorf's.

Lord and Taylor has been on the way out for at least two decades if not more. They haven't been able to compete with the likes of Bloomingdale's, Nordstrom's or even Macy's since, when, 1996?

That being said, I used to love Lord and Taylor's eveningwear and formalwear women's departments given L&T was a much smaller and less-dominant department store.

I say good riddance to Needless Mark-Up

[quote] Lord & Taylor owns the iconic Canadian stores Hudson's Bay Co. That doesn't bode well for HBC.

No. Hudson's Bay owns Lord and Taylor.

They are/were a good source for Theory without sneaking in factory seconds. I don’t bother with their shoes for reasons known to them.

First they came for Barney's, but I said nothing because I was not a Barney's shopper.

Then they came for Neiman's -- but I was silent because I never went there.

Then they came for the Dollar Tree!!!

R46

Neiman Carcass

It's a store and brand and idea from a bygone era. Even the common criticisms of N.M. are spoken by people with one foot in the grave. I'm so tired of hearing about that stupid cookie recipe story. Good times! But everything eventually ends.

Bergdorff will probably be shuttered, the real estate on billionaire’s row is too valuable and now that there’s a Neimans at Hudson Yards it was competing against itself.

This will be the final blow to upscale malls that have struggled to stay relevant, like Scottsdale Fashion Square. It expanded and expanded, anchored by a Barneys, a Neiman Marcus, Dillards, and Nordstrom. Now only the Nordstrom remains. This is the end kids, malls will become something else. What, I have no idea, or server farms as one above noted, as commercial real estate will be collapsing all around us.

Here’s their problem (linked below):

I just ordered this very same dress for $40. And quite honestly, I won’t even wear it where I live. I ordered it for a now cancelled trip to Los Angeles I had planned.

The dress is essentially a fancy slip, to be worn around the house in front of your cat and/or boyfriend. No way am I paying $300.00 for a slip.

The airfare was a little more than this Neiman dress itself (round-trip), & I get miles that I save for overseas if the occasion arises.

Same dress from Urban Outfitters:

Any chance that Sears finally goes belly up. I don't understand how that chain has stayed open for so long after being irrelevant for close to twenty years.

Appliances, R61.

Their clothes are horrendous, other than the Levi’s jeans they sell there.

Levi’s is a solid brand. But so is Maytag!

What about Sears brands Kenmore, Craftsman tools and Die hard? Those were/are quality products.

Upscale, designer fashion brands being sold in any bricks and mortar department store have a bleak future. Online shopping and the popularity of fast fashion have taken their toll.

Neiman's never carried my size anyway.

I was reading something about how difficult it is to convert today's large multiplex movie theaters into other uses because of they way they're designed and constructed.

It's not known as "Needless Markup" for nothin'.

[quote] What about Sears brands Kenmore, Craftsman tools and Die hard? Those were/are quality products.

Didn't they sell all those off for the cash? I know they sold the Craftsman brand to Black & Decker and those tools are sold everywhere now, Lowes, Ace Hardware.

R59/r60 even online the difference in quality is apparent — the Urban Outfitters one is total crap.

The Needless Markup label is dumb and inaccurate— yes they carry more expensive brands on the whole, but they’re not marked up vs if you get those same brands anywhere else. And dept stores generally have better sales than the boutiques.

Would be a major blow to NY if BG closes, Barneys closing would be nothing in comparison.

R43, you made me LOL. I know one of them. It’s funny because it’s true. She’s a “businesswoman” with a “career”!

R68, I bought mine in red and it looks fantastic.

I nice pair of earrings, a nice watch & a nice bracelet make it perfect. Hair in a loose bun, minimal, tasteful makeup, a small black clutch and black, leather, strappy heels, & it’s a wrap.

Yes, the other one looks nicer, but not 250.09 nicer.

Hey, these were my childhood stores. I lived in Saks on 5th Avenue in NY as a teenager, & BG is still one of my faves. I like nice things. However, I am no longer able to afford spending that kind of money on a slip dress. I now buy really nice stuff at thrift shops, get them dry cleaned and I’m set, or I buy a dress at urban outfitters, and make it look nicer with really nice, classic, keep forever jewelry.

These stores are closing down because Americans like me used to be able to shop there, and now, we cannot afford to because we have other expenses and aren’t millionaires.

The Nieman/Urban Outfitters dresses are “the look for less.” Seeing them side by side, the expensive one is obviously much nicer looking. But the same overall impression—a less luxe version of it—is created by the other one.

If I were a woman and wore dresses, I think I’d have a hard time justifying a lot of money for something called a slip dress. It sounds like something inherently skimpy and not like something that would scream “class,” and so I’d expect to see the high-end one worn by a trophy wife like Melania or Sonja, who shaves her pussy, or a trophy daughter-wife like Ivanka.

R70, I’m a thrift shopper and have a beautiful wardrobe thanks to the UES women who get sick of their fancy dresses. That’s the way to go.

Agree, r68.

OMG, R71! Lol. I wear underwear when I wear slip dresses, AND I wear them with a nice blazer, too, so it’s not like I go out looking like a hooker. I’m pretty conservative in my choice of clothing and ensembles, however, I still like looking a little bit sexy, here and there. I’m still in great shape, have fantastic legs, and one day, I won’t! You only live once!

I have a gorgeous, black, velvet blazer for the one I purchased from Urban Outfitters. The blazer is high end, and I got it at a thrift shop! Lois fabulous, so there you go.

R72, same here. I have GORGEOUS stuff, including high end evening gowns for formal wear and a top shop, professional wardrobe, due to shopping at knowing which thrift shops have the best stuff. These aren’t goodwills. They’re thrift shops where you’re gonna pay a bit more for quality clothing that’s either never been worn, with tags still on them, or stuff that’s been gently worn a few times.

It’s somewhat surprising how many things wealthy women buy, and only wear once or never wear at all.

The only things I don’t buy at thrift shops or consignment shops are personal items, like underwear, regular sleepwear, or lingerie, obviously. Nor do I purchase used shoes. That’s a bit too much, and I cannot wear previously worn shoes or intimate apparel.

R74 I hope it came across that a lot of what I wrote was meant to be tongue in cheek and not to be taken seriously.

Everyone knows Sonja does not shave her pussy.

Only Ramona’s.

Their bathrooms are the only suitable ones for a hookup at the mall where I live!

[quote]These stores are closing down because Americans like me used to be able to shop there, and now, we cannot afford to because we have other expenses and aren’t millionaires.

People back then weren't millionaires either. They also had other expenses. But you saved money and you got something nice and most importantly, of good quality.

Cheering that these stores are going under, you know what you're going to be left with? Walmarts and Amazons. And the garbage way they treat their employees. The modern day sweatshops, kids. At least these old department stores at one point had owners who supplied their employees with incentives like decent health plans, commissions, salary increases when you worked there every so many years. Pensions.

There's nothing great about any of this news.

Neimen never sold sex toys. That’s why they fail.

R77 People have always had other expenses but today we really have A LOT of other expenses. Landlines were cheap. People didn’t need so much technology. People didn’t *feel they needed* (which they didn’t but people today feel they do) gym memberships and other luxuries.

Some standard expenses today that weren’t standard or even available 20-30 years ago:

—Personal computers that have to be replaced every few years

—Smart phones that cost as much as computers, have to be replaced every few years, and cost ~$100/month for service

—Internet

—Cable

—Netflix/Amazon/Hulu

—Gym memberships

—Four years of college that costs $18,000 to $60,000 per year, and is paid for with loans that have significant interest rates

...and the sick part to me is that all of us pay the same for these things, no matter how rich or poor, and poor people really cannot afford these expenses

r77, people who want upscale clothes will just shop online. They're not going to Wal-Mart.

All true R79 and excellent point...top colleges are actually now closer to $75K than $60K, but that just means even more money that people don't have.

And clothes are not important to Gen Z. They will buy Lululemon or Aviator Nation or whatnot, but mostly status is having the newest iPhone or the most TikTok love.

Too many fraucunts stinking up this thread.

We don’t care what you wear, heifers.

R74, just shut the fuck up you stupid bitch.

[quote]People have always had other expenses but today we really have A LOT of other expenses.

Mostly, though, we've replaced one set of expenses with another. Landlines, for example, used to charge a lot extra for long-distance calls and people had to be careful when they called and how long they talked. And the phones broke down and had to replaced then, as well.

We had Internet and cable 20 years ago and those were as expensive. Heck, these days, I don't need and don't pay for cable, so I'm ahead there.

When we didn't have streaming video, we had to buy or rent the content we wanted, with expenses that were easily as much as streaming video.

Personal computers were around 20 years ago and were more expensive then. We have more options today and even the lower-end computers work just fine for 90% of us.

Gym memberships are basically the same today as they were 20 years ago.

College is the only item on your list where costs have climbed pretty dramatically, mostly because states simply stopped funding it.

R84 Yes, in many cases these expenses existed 20 years ago. And that’s when generational prosperity slowed and when the wealth gap began to grow at a rapid clip. Thirty and more years ago, people were not so chained to basic operating expenses. It’s a real thing. The reason mortgage loans historically have been based on a 20 percent down payment is because historically it was actually possible for middle class people to save 20 percent of the cost of a home as a down payment, and people didn’t think about buying homes without this and banks didn’t consider lending to them. That changed to accommodate the reality that most people cannot save cash as they used to be able to do, and because the new structure works better for predatory lenders, anyway. Our economic system has evolved to be based on constant growth while also guaranteed the majority of people can only contract. It is a setup doomed to fail. Occupy Wall Street erupted a decade ago because of the mortgage bust—which was a litmus test—and the advent of both Trump and Sanders movements are outgrowths of an economic structure designed to fuck over most people. And so most people are frantic and feel like they are being crushed and doomed by an evil system. They just disagree about the causes of that system, but they are reacting to the same system.

It's something of a plot point in the musical "The Most Happy Fella" leading up the great song "Big D". "Evenin' ma'am!"

The country reacts to the news:

Real Housewives: Oh no! Where will we shoot our lunch scenes?

New Yorkers who could never afford to shop there: Oh no! We’re losing an iconic symbol of the great old New York City!

Former white mall shoppers: Oh no! That’s that store I wandered into once and saw a $1,050 tee shirt in!

Former black mall shoppers: Is that the overpriced store I wandered into once and was stalked by the staff and touched every damned overpriced thing I could just to make them nervous?

Millennials: What was it? Like Target for old people?

R32 They have already closed Lord & Taylor in many cities.

Can you imagine all the unemployed shopbottoms?

Lord & Taylor's main store in NY was taken over by ... get this... WeWork, which having screwed up their business plan and laid off many employees in their rush to buy real estate all over, WeOuttaWork.

r28, I was in cosmetics, 93'-97'. 9% commision, but a lot of my sales were out of department. During the time I was there, our assistant manager committed suicide, and we churned out (including myself) 3 good makeup artists that are successful in the tv/film industry and 2 somewhat successful character actors (Mugatu's assistant in Zoolander and a nerdy/cool white guy I see all the time in commercials). Last time I went to buy something there, a career salesperson, Mary Jane, told me that I was lucky to get out when I did, because they got rid of the high commission.

What do you do now?

R34, Elton John was one of my customers :p

The Neiman Marcus in BH has a huge elliptical bar upstairs in the men's section. It's quite odd actually to be sitting there while people ware running around buying over priced shoes and men's clothes.

I actually buy a lot of my clothing from NM, Saks, and Bergdorf Goodman. I've learned to shop the sale items online, and I have found some very nice clothing at affordable prices. Most of my better clothing is Ermenegildo Zegna, but I admit to having a lot of jeans and work stuff purchased at KMart or Target. My record buy was a $3000 Burberry tux for $85, with free tailoring thrown in at Nordstom.

My poor coke addicted neighbor upstairs will be heartbroken. He makes a ton of money working for a health insurance company, the more people they deny claims the bigger his monthly bonus gets. He whines if its less than 30,000. And that's on top of a 150K salary. He spends it all on blow and Neiman Marcus crap. He was so into Neiman's that one day he was bragging about a special catalog from them he bough that cost something like over $100. For their "exclusive members".

So that's where you money goes kids when you get denied life saving coverage from your private insurance companies.

R94 hope he OD’s

I'd love to see R93's wardrobe. Sincerely. You must look great as it sounds like you know quality and what to avoid.

I love malls!

Unfortunately no R95. He moved to NYC and married a medical doctor. Endless supply of drugs I assume. I am pretty sure he married the guy just for access. His story is actually worse than that. When he was my neighbor, his "boyfriend" a term I use loosely was a 20 something B grade Hispanic porn start. You could tell the porn guy was not into him except for the free drugs. He would bring his friends over so they could do free drugs as well. I am not talking 80's era culture, this was about 10 years ago just before Obama care started to become a thing. Of course he was against that. Lifetime caps was one of their main vehicles of cutting people off and saving company money which went right to their bonuses in a roundabout filtered sort of way.

[quote] There is no reason for Neiman Marcus to exist anymore.

What a short sighted view. The loss of Neiman Marcus would immeasurably complicate my Christmas shopping.

On of my Frau coworkers asked me if I could drop off a return for her there once since it was no my way home. She called in advance to make sure there were no problems. Easy enough to do, but to my surprise when they told me the refund amount she was getting it was 3,000 for 2 scarves! Bitch! WTF that future ex-husband you are dating must be loaded!

R96, Thank you for the compliment. I prefer clothing lines like Zegna because they tend to be low key and not flashy. Some of their youth oriented line is a little over the top for me, but suits, slacks, shirts are fine. I also have a couple of pairs of their shoes, but I prefer Allen Edmonds. I also have a few things from Canali and Brunello Cucinelli, but especially the Cuccinelli items don't fit me too well. Their shirts seem to be cut too small for me. Since I retired I pretty much stopped buying that much clothing, as I tend to work on the old car and my house and its generally jeans and t shirts every day lately.

Rich people thread.

R102, Actually not rich people on my part. I just shop very carefully.

R74, I’ve had fantastic luck at my UES Goodwill. The people pricing don’t recognize smaller luxury labels like Shanghai Tang or Magaschoni or Armand Diradourian or Brahmin. So I’ll get a cashmere sweater for $8. You have to pick through cheap schmattas, but it’s so worth it. There are designer consignment stores with beautiful curated things, but they’re still expensive and I enjoy the hunt.

I just get my NM goods via middle-man.

The best Goodwills I've ever seen were in rural parts of East Texas and Louisiana. When the old oil money ladies die, their stuff ends up in Goodwill and no one knows what it is.

Was NM considered more high end than Barneys. Was BG more high end than Barneys. I used to go in Barneys all the time - to me it was a very modern high end. There was nothing like being in Barneys between 1990-1999, when minimalism was a thing in fashion for the Martin Margiela, Comme de Garcons, the fragrances,

IDK I feel like these luxury stores were on their way out before coronavirus.

I just hope Bloomingdales is all right, I've hooked up in their bathrooms for years.

R70 - "Saks on 5th Avenue"? Still posing as a New Yorker, Zelig?

Like someone mentioned above, I do question whether this is the complete end of Neiman's (strategic bankruptcy in business is pretty common). But that remains to be seen. I do a lot of market research for my job that looks at general spending patterns in America and, although I don't really know anything concrete about the luxury fashion industry, the luxury industry, as a whole, has been getting hit hard for a long time. But it's not just simply that these stores are dinosaurs catering to a dying crowd. The fact is, people want and always will want "nice" things, especially those that give them a feeling of accomplishment (and perhaps superiority in certain circles). The big problem that a lot of luxury sellers are encountering is that their products really no longer give those feelings of accomplishment and superiority. In a lot of ways, the concept of luxury has been over-exposed in America for decades and used far too loosely to really have any legitimate meaning anymore.

Another factor is that online shopping has had a major effect on consumer shopping, and not just the ease of buying online; it's allowed consumers to price-check almost instantly and it's allowed consumers access to reviews to make more informed decisions. It's opened up a much larger marketplace to them where they have significantly more options. Also, technology has allowed consumers access to a great deal of information regarding manufacturing processes an exposed a lot of the myths that surround luxury products, e.g. high-end brands being made in not-so-fancy countries or using deceptive practices. Basically, consumers are far more intelligent than they once were, and luxury products have always depended on a certain "uninformed" customer for purchases. Neiman's and other high-end stores' problem really is that they haven't made any adjustments to account for this change in consumer intellect.

[quote]Basically, consumers are far more intelligent than they once were

Too bad voters aren't.

Most Neiman Marcus stores can be retrofitted into "Pre-Virus Museums" as they are laid out like galleries already.

In the late 80's, I bought a black, zip-up, turtleneck sweater for about $120, at Neiman-Marcus, Fashion Valley, San Diego. I may have paid a lot, but I wore that sweater for 20+ years. It was well made, and now I wish i hadn't donated it to my local Goodwill.

R106 not more high end just different. Barney’s was younger and more into the “up and coming” expensive brands, while BG was more about the established ones.

R106 Thank you, xennial I agree with your answer - how would you classify NM compared to Barneys Online I saw Nordstroms classified as similar to Macys

NM was old money and all about inaccessible items. Nancy Reagan used it as her personal lending library, as did Darryl Hannah. The SF Union square store used to have a really good charcuterie on the top floor.

Neiman Marcus has been struggling for years. It was never “hip” or “cool” even if you were a young person that could afford to shop there in the ‘90’s or ‘00’s.

I’m 34 and only wear designer brands. All my clothing comes from online retailer YOOX. They have all the luxury brands like Prada, Comme de Garçons, AMI, etc at deep discounts, why would I pay full price at a department store?

Retail as we know it is dying but certain shopping centers will always draw lots of buyers, simply based on their locations. Scottsdale will always be a destination due to its golf clubs and nightlife. So I don’t see high end retail there going under. Same with Beverly Hills or Greenwich.

I spent five seconds on YOOX design décor page. Pretentiousness to a T.

The minimalist design is played out.

R108, I know it’s Saks 5th Avenue, dweeb. Just because I can write in English, and change things around a bit, doesn’t mean I’m not a New Yorker, born AND raised, doll face.

Our friend NyQuil, however, writes like Trump. So I will admit, being born and raised in NYC means very little for some of us.

R104, where’s this Goodwill? I want to check it out next time I go back to visit my family back home.

Thanks in advance!

It's Nordstrom.

Not Nordstroms

I miss Bluefly. It was a Filene’s Basement for stuff that just didn’t take. NM was more of a comparison model.

I miss Loehmann's, which was equivalent to Filene's, yes?

About fifteen years ago I was taking a language test in downtown Chicago. We had a written test in the morning, then in the afternoon session we had one on one verbal tests with the professors. Had a lot of time to kill, and wandered up to Neiman Marcus. Wandered around the store, looking, and everyone was very nice. This older portly gentleman, with a gorgeous blond on each arm, came up to me and started talking, asking how I liked the store and all. It was only after he left that I realized that I had been talking to Stanley Marcus. I was a young guy in jeans and a wrinkled shirt, and he had the courtesy to stand and talk with me for the better part of fifteen minutes!

NM tended toward vulgarity, when needed. I used to go through the Atlanta store at Lenox Square--it was easier to park by NM because it had fewer customers, but was near the center of the mall. The Stueben boutique had Stueben's ugliest pieces. The main floor had a huge sign for Chanel in the dress department---I was always under the impression that if you could afford a Chanel you didn't need a sign to find them. The store seemed showy with little class. Shortly after moving to DC, I went to NM out of curiosity---no ugly Steuben (they were out of business) but also no signs for Chanel in the dress department. If they knew you weren't some ostentatious Frau in Atlanta, they knew enough to be more subtle.

Bergdorf Goodman NYC is in its own world. I can't imagine it ever closing.

It’ll be sad when Neiman’s goes away, regardless of the way some of you feel about it. It’ll join Marshall Fields, B. Altman, The Emporium, I. Magnin, Capwell’s, Joseph Magnin, The Broadway, May Co., Robinson’s, Gimbels, Liberty House, Rich’s, Orbach’s, Roos-Atkins, Buffum’s, Bullock’s, Bullocks-Wilshire, Hale’s, and specialty stores like Barney’s, Bendel’s, Ransohoff’s and Gump’s. We’re down to only a few select Saks, Penney’s and Macy’s locations & that’s it.

No matter what these stores do at this point, it’s just a matter of time.

Ahhh Marshall Fields at Christmas time in Chicago was magical. To visit and shop was a planned event, with viewing all the windows and eating there.

Scottsdale?

Are they BOTH filing? Or just Neiman? Or just Marcus?

Does any one really consistently buy what's considered "high fashion" anymore? I remember back in the 2000s, I would see a lot of people wearing clothing and carrying bags by high-end designers, particularly the bags by Prada, Kate Spade, LV and Fendi. Aside from the usual smattering of LV bags women carry (which I don't feel I see all that often anymore), I don't really ever see anyone sporting Prada or Gucci or Chanel. I'm a lawyer and work in a your typical downtown office (i.e. people have cash to blow), and no one with whom I work (myself included) wears or uses those kinds of goods. And these are shareholder attorneys making a quarter million and more a year. I feel like high-end designer stuff has just really become passé and, possibly, even gauche. I have some expensive items I bought back in my 20s that I love and still could use, in that they're more classic than trendy, but I feel like carrying a Prada or LV messenger bag or wearing some fancy coat just makes one look as if they're trying way too hard.

R129 id say it’s mainly now:

1) people in fashion & PR

2) people with rich husbands

3) Asians

R129, I agree. I was more into jewelry/timepieces than clothes. I have a nice wallet I've had for over 10+years that I still use. There were some trendy items I really thought hard over and I'm so glad I passed over them now (trashy Versace jeans, etc.)

Sadly, the quality of some designer items has gone to trash, and it doesn't hold up so well. Or the people that own it just don't take good care of it.

It's all about having the latest phone now anyway. Surprised I don't see too many people with designer phone cases.

R130, your first bullet makes a good pint. These days, I feel like the only people who really care about high fashion are those who work in it/sell it. Otherwise, I don't know of anyone who still really spends money on that type of stuff consistently. Also, I think I disagree with your assertion of rich people being a primary consumer. As a lawyer, I do encounter a lot of wealthy people (not a humble brag, I don't have the kinds of money these people do) and the partners in my firm all make very high salaries, some likely in the millions, and my parents and their friends are all very wealthy. My parents definitely don't buy those kinds of fashion items, and none of my mom's friends or acquaintances do either. One of the gals in my mom's neighborhood circle is married to a man who runs a successful high-end cabinetry business. Although it's unknown as fact, the rumor is she and her husband are now billionaires. A few months ago I saw her in my parents' local grocery store walking around with some unflashy bag, like a Fossil or Cole Haan or something. Anecdotal, I admit, but I just don't feel like the wealthy spend their money on Neiman's-type stuff anymore. And for good reason, Like R131 wrote, it's all quite poorly made now. With that said, I miss Juicy sweatsuits.

R129 It's not about you and your friends.

There's a big world out there. With lots and lots of new money.

Chanel, Dior, Gucci etc sell shoes, bags, perfume, watches, all kinds of accessories not just clothing,

The luxury brands market has been growing for years. It'll certainly take a big hit this year as with everythig, but it's the luxury brands that will ride this storm the best.

All of those top brands have their own shops on the world's greatest shopping streets and luxury malls, and their own on-line shops. They don't need department stores as they once did.

[quote]id say it’s mainly now: 1) people in fashion & PR 2) people with rich husbands 3) Asians

You left out Persians.

I work in Beverly Hills and by far the biggest groups are Asians and Persians. Both of those groups are really hung up on labels more so than quality. LV bags, big logo Hermes's belts, Gucci etc. Got to have the giant logo on it.

R84 Not sure where you shopped but landline phones didn't "break down" much. And they were relatively cheap if they did.

I went to NM last fall and in the men’s department, especially the shoes, almost everything was tacky. There were not many simple, nice looking clothes to choose from besides Brunello Cucinelli or Zegna (which I love but rarely spend that much). Then the items I did find were repeated in their own brand’s stand alone stores in the mall and/or at Nordstrom.

All the high end stuff is now online: Yoox, Farfetch, Ssense, Matches...

When they have markdowns/sales you can get great stuff at a great price.

And, not all high end fashion is gaudy leopard print shit.

R3

"We" did not do anything, NM got swallowed up by a leveraged buy out, and they did what is normal; loaded up the company with debt that is now a millstone around its neck.

Is it really a loss? Put the nostalgia aside and think about it. They were always over priced and so generic you could go to any major city and find a dozen version of the same store in every nearby community. Their quality has been going down hill for the last 30 years and everything made in china with prices you would expect to pay for something handmade in Italy.

There was a time in America when department stores didn't exist, maybe it's just that natural life cycle of commerce. I see nothing wrong with internet shopping and returning to small mom and pop stores. The only thing gone is the glamor of those glitzy large spaces and Christmas decor. Wont miss it, tacky shit anyways.

Internet shopping is convenient, sure, but for some things, I'd prefer a bricks and mortar option - like clothes. But, at this point, what does it matter - clothes generally suck anyway - even at department stores. The clothes are often cheaply made and consumers are now so used to paying so little. I doubt they could bring back quality clothing for a higher price for the masses.

I'm tempted to buy 1000 shares of JCPenney stock at $0.26. If they somehow emerge, restructure, and make it to, say, $4.50 - that could be a nice score. On the other hand, I'm probably just throwing away $260.

I dont see JCPenney making it. Race to the bottom which Walmart and Target are already there.

I guess you have to go to Europe for the Grand Dames of department stores now.

Nordstrom is the only one that remains fresh and contemporary. Macy's (which replaced Burdine's here) is a weird version of Target and a Christmas decoration store. Bloomingdale's manages to keep itself fresh, but it has an overgrown hothouse flower feel to it.

BTW, the Sear's Catalogue is still around -- just called Amazon now.

There's time BC-19 and AC-19. Before Covid-19 and After Covid-19.

I rue the day that casual took over. Don't get me wrong. One shouldn't dress-up for everything; context and event is all. Still, for at least a few decades, casual dress has taken over putting in any effort to dress-up, even for expensive weddings and parties.

Dressing-up at weddings, funerals and fancy parties is a thing of the past. Hell, those events are becoming a thing of the past. So now, nobody needs or wants expensive retail clothing.

And given the current health and death crisis and atmosphere, I question whether wearing expensive clothing is in poor taste. Not that everybody should be in sackcloth, I'm talking about gaudy, .ostentatious clothing, toys, cars.

r134 "Persians" (i.e., IRANIANS) are Asian.

[quote]Sear's Catalogue

Oh, dear.

r146, they're not considered that in America. Much like the Indians/Pakistanis.

Couldn’t they sell their overpriced garbage online?

[quote]Is it really a loss? Put the nostalgia aside and think about it. They were always over priced and so generic you could go to any major city and find a dozen version of the same store in every nearby community. Their quality has been going down hill for the last 30 years and everything made in china with prices you would expect to pay for something handmade in Italy.

Because places like Walmart came along and essentially dismantled the retail model by reducing wages, and reducing quality. It's amazing that people still think they're getting quality at good deals at Walmart. It's all knock off shit of inferior quality. But its massive success convinced the public and other business owners that it was a successful business model, and he we are.

There's no nostalgia when discussing how these department stores at one time were viable jobs to work at. An employer could work a stable schedule every week, not even have to worry about working weekends depending on what position they were working in. They got health insurance, they got a decent salary with timely raises, and they could get commission.

Compare that to today. Amazon workers are at the front line of this crisis, and are STILL having to fight for basic working conditions that would have been a no brainer thirty years ago.

It's not progress, no matter how many deals you find and how many shiny new technological gadgets there are to play with.

Agreed, r150.

I had my cuntiest shopping experience at a Neiman Marcus.

I was shopping for sunglasses.

ME: "How do these look?"

SHOP QUEEN: "Hmmm. They're a little YOUNG."

I was 30.

I had my cuntiest shopping experience at a Neiman Marcus.

I was shopping for sunglasses.

ME: "How do these look?"

SHOP QUEEN: "Hmmm. They're a little YOUNG."

I was 30.

Neimen's sister company, 99 Cent Only Stores seems to be recovering. Both owned by the same investment group.

[quote] It's amazing that people still think they're getting quality at good deals at Walmart.

Said no one everywhere. It's just cheap, that's what America wants. Prices overrides quality and design all the time. Only the rich can afford quality these days.

"Dressing-up at weddings, funerals and fancy parties is a thing of the past. "

It's decreased a lot, no doubt. But, there's still a a dedicated portion of the population that does get dressed up for some things.

R152, what was your retort? I hope you gave it to the shopgirl/gurl/boy

[quote]It's not progress, no matter how many deals you find

No one said it's progress. What I said upstream is that maybe it was just a natural life cycle. Idea is born, grows, flourishes, levels off, starts to dwindle then eventually dies off.

Ever hear of a buggy whip? There was a time before cars where there was a whole industry built around making horse whips. It died overnight once cars became affordable. All of them lost their jobs, their life long skills became worthless. Things change, that's how the world works.

R157 I just said, "I hope that was worth it."

I then went full-on Karen and had a word with the manager.

I wasn't all that angry because I thought it was pretty funny. But I also thought it was a very stupid thing to say to a customer.

You should have said " I don't know, maybe I need an opinion from someone that has a real job"

R160 Let me guess...you're something TERRIBLY important.

Know many who still buy Gucci, Prada, Fendi, YSL, etc.... But they purchase things more for style, quality, design and other factors over merely any piece of tat with a label/logo.

Some things have been abandoned by la belle monde when they became too common. Friend summed things up when she said stopped carrying Louis Vuitton bags when her assistant showed up one day with one.

Between easy credit and knockoffs exclusivity isn't what it once was; so many stick to certain things but shy away from others. Barney's went out of business for basically that one reason. People weren't willing to pay $$$$ for a pair of jeans made by someone they never heard of before.

Days of being like Eddie Monsoon slavishly wearing a LaCroix or Jean Muir just because of the label and to impress others went out with 1990's for most people. It is only rap stars and their ilk who run about talking about LV and other labels.

[quote] It is only rap stars and their ilk who run about talking about LV and other labels.

And tacky queens.

LV Queens are the worst.

Having a piece of LV luggage basically screams to me two things.

1) "I'm a tacky label whore"

and

2) "Rob me"

People with money still buy expensive watches as jewelry and statement Pieces even though they’re no longer needed.

Just to my point that something doesn’t necessarily go out of style because it’s no longer the necessity it once was. Just like most still like to have TV & cable even if most everything can be streamed.

Only LV remotely worth being caught dead with is the hard side stuff, especially vintage.

Soft LV bags can be had either on credit cards or just get any of the reasonably good counterfeits; no one truly is going to notice the difference really. Well some LV queens who have an obsession with the stuff and take pleasure of announcing "mine is the real thing...".

[quote] and its 2, NYC Bergdorf Goodman department stores.

Bergdorf Goodman?

[quote] Having a piece of LV luggage basically screams to me two things.

[quote]1) "I'm a tacky label whore"

[quote]and

[quote]2) "Rob me"

You left out "screams I paid thousands of dollars for a bag is made of PVC" Oh, but the strap is real leather.

r167 What's your point?

LV luggage stopped being stylish when my great-grandmother was alive.

Your grandmother's LV luggage is worth 10s of thousands of dollars today.

R171 It's all in storage. It's so impractical now. HUGE steamer trunks. Large suitcases with no wheels. Nobody travels like that anymore.

I'm going to admit to something that will make some of you retail queens scream.

My grandmother had a very large LV steamer trunk, which my parents gave to me to put in my bedroom to keep toys, etc. in.

One day, at 11 years-old, I decided that the brown didn't work with my decor, and I painted it.

I'm going to admit to something that will make some of you retail queens scream.

My grandmother had a very large LV steamer trunk, which my parents gave to me to put in my bedroom to keep toys, etc. in.

One day, at 11 years-old, I decided that the brown didn't work with my decor, and I painted it.

R172

Impractical perhaps to you, but there are people out there paying huge sums for vintage LV hard side luggage. This includes steamer trunks and other large cases.

On offer:

Sold:

R168 they have all leather bags that run about 4/5k. Ghetto people don’t really carry those, just the cheaper ones.

But is there really a difference between those people who pay 4k and those who pay less? I would say not.

R133 Thanks for the link, and it was interesting in that I didn't know LVMH did so well last year. However, my comment was more geared towards the American market for these goods (as Neiman Marcus is an American vendor of high-end goods, and I don't believe they have stores outside the US). I have no doubt that in other parts of the world, particularly in rising nations getting solid financial holds, these types of goods sell well. And just to be clear, I am very well aware of how well high-end industries do in Asian and Middle-Eastern markets, so luxury fashion retail isn't necessarily dying world-wide. With that said, it would be interesting to see the amount of the 41% from LVMH's fashion holdings that came from American stores. Again, I don't have a solid knowledge of luxury fashion markets, but I do study market trends that include other other luxury industries, mainly housing, travel and auto, and the future is bleak as of right now. Based on what I've seen, I'm inclined to believe the bulk of that 41% came from foreign markets. Most market research shows American spending habits as shying away from luxury products altogether. That doesn't mean luxury fashion will go under, but the American market is big and important globally so it definitely has an effect. And I do apologize for using anecdotal statements. I don't think my social group is an arbiter of all things economic. I truly was simply making the observation that I just don't see the people around me (those who can afford to) buying these types of goods. And I do happen to know a lot of people who could buy them. But it makes sense based on the type of work I do and spending trends.

One thing that should also be mentioned is that while 59 billion is certainly an impressive amount, when taken in comparison to other companies' 2019 revenues, it's actually quite low. If I recall correctly (I couldn't find it in a quick search) Walmart's revenues were somewhere around $140 billion just in their 2019 4th quarter (and some half a trillion for 2019 total), and that was apparently "low" for them. Target Corp's 2019 total was $75 billion, which was also a crummy year, and they have a significantly smaller world-wide presence than LVMH. Again, not to be a downer, but it does need to be mentioned that the article really is making a much bigger deal out of that $59 than what it really should. For as big as LVMH is, it's actually not all that compelling.

R175 Here's the good stuff:

R179

Target Corporation total assets: 41.29 billion

LVMH total assets: 128.550 billion

Used LV bags:

R181 Can you expand on what you meant to express with the asset numbers? Just curious for the sake of discussion and argument.

Someone once suggested that I get a LV trunk for the back of my 1930's limousine. I looked at them like they were out of their minds. I would, however love to find a trunk by Charles Wilt & Co. I have an old steamer wardrobe trunk for them, from about 1900, that I use as a closet. Great old Chicago firm. The trunk I do have for the limo does not have a manufacturer name on it, but it fits on the rack perfectly.

r154 99 cent only stores are great but they're morphing into cheap Target. The amount of stuff that is now priced from $2.99-9.99 has overtaken entire aisles. I went there for a cheap broom and ended up paying like $7. It's also an example of how companies have gotten really fucked by conglomeration. if I were investing, I'd like to buy into 99 cent only. But to do so, i'd have to buy into Neiman Marcus also. Not even sure the diversity is good for the companies--it's just wall street people and banks making money off the transaction.

The LV queens have just come out of the woodwork on this site. Gee what a surprise. Talking about labels they worship. So vapid and pathetic.

Brick & Mortar retail will always be around thanks to all the women who love nothing more than going shop-hopping. It's like a religious experience, the minute they set foot in a store they enter into a trance and will only leave after they have perused every item, felt it, tried it on, exchanged opinions with the clerks. That's something you can't get online. Some women can happily spend a whole day waltzing into shops only taking a break to maybe have some coffee. The ones who prefer online shopping seem to be the fat lazy ones who do it because 1) they never find their size at the physical shops and 2) they hate to walk. It's probably why brick & mortar is suffering in America while in the rest of the world it seems to be holding up.

Maybe if department stores in America installed drive throughs they might still have a chance.

I know a lot of woman who buy on line who are not fat fraus R187. But that said, they are just as annoyingly obsessive about it. Tons of returns to the point that a whole cottage industry has popped up where you can order a bunch of stuff try it on and only keep what you want, returns are free. Woman love that shit. Men can do it to. Although the male version of that is a whole outfit one at a time.

The retail sector is just suffering the slings and arrows of death by a thousand arrows.

You can blame a few factors - the rise of online retailers who undercut them. Amazon and Walmart. For example we buy online only. Have not set foot into a physical store in years now. The only drawback to online is the boxes but I just burn them.

Idiot at R186

R190 the LV Label Queen is Triggered! Watch out everybody.

For our idiot at R191.

I've never owned a piece of Vuitton anything. Nor do I desire to.

To give you an idea, my last clothing purchase was a sweat shirt and a hood-sweater, bought at Walmart.

However I did post here about LVMH's sales growth, the company's worth, the value of it's used luggage and bags.

Having worked for years in marketing in the luxury sector, the subject is fascinating to me and of interest to others.

So save your juvenile comments. So vapid and pathetic.

R187, Online shopping allows me to buy my size and gives me info - exact dimensions, fabric weight/content.

I feel like I’m working clerks for no legitimate reason when I ask for anything in my size. It’s not carried, sold out, or not available - but we could call????

I’m also competing with all the other elf-sized people who share my taste.

R193, Brick & mortar shopping provides a multi sensory experience that can not be replicated online.

You might prefer the lifeless, practical online transaction but for many others (specially outside the U.S) being able to go out shopping brings much satisfaction and a kind of joy that a stark "click" won't .

r184, I've been shopping online for so long, that the "multi sensory experience" is too much for me- it's overwhelming- too many choices, people asking me if I"m okay/needing help, trying to look for my size, getting distracted by other things.

And we get the satisfaction and joy opening the boxes when they arrive- it's like Christmas, sometimes I forget what I order, so it's a nice surprise.

[QUOTE] I've been shopping online for so long, that the "multi sensory experience" is too much for me- it's overwhelming- too many choices, people asking me if I"m okay/needing help, trying to look for my size, getting distracted by other things.

You are far too delicate for this world.

Maybe, r196, but when I'm actually working, I work 60-80 hours a week, and the last thing I want to do with my free time is shop in a store. Also, I was in retail for 20 years (10 of those at Neiman Marcus), so I have sufficient.

I’m the 34 year old YOOX shopper from above.

There is definitely a (small) contingent of people who still wear and appreciate well established designer brands like Prada, Marni, Neil Barrett, Jil Sander, Kenzo, Wooyoungmi, etc.

These are high quality brands which never have labels so you wouldn’t know someone is wearing it. I hate labels and buy these clothes not to show off but because of the quality and cool European fit of these brands.

I also can’t really figure out who the target demographic of Neiman Marcus is. Obviously mostly women, but as the poster above said, no one in my parents upper middle class Dallas neighborhood wears these sorts of designer clothes. These are late Gen X/retired Boomers who could afford it but choose not

The only catch is shoes.

You really do have to try shoes on.

Actually, pants, too. How pants are cut make a big difference when it comes to a good fit.

[quote]You might prefer the lifeless, practical online transaction but for many others (specially outside the U.S) being able to go out shopping brings much satisfaction and a kind of joy that a stark "click" won't .

Actually you kind of have it backwards. Americans love to touch, try on clothes they never will buy, but in Europe it's the total opposite unless you are actually going to buy. They don't like people touching everything and it's respected by the culture not to do it. Oh, and don't get me started about touching the fruit in France or Italy. Big no no. The retailer will pick it for you.

Missing from this conversation is one key fact; roles of women have changed dramatically since 1940's or even 1960's.

Department stores were largely built around women and their habits. In particular the new and growing middle class housewife whose major role (among others) was spending her husband's money in ways such conspicuous consumption equated with status.

Our mothers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers would to and spend hours on end at various department stores "shopping". Sometimes buying things others not. It was job of retailers to get Madame to buy things she didn't know she needed until she saw it in a shop. Then you had bored, lonely, depressed or whatever females (married or single) for who shopping was like medication. A new handbag or maybe a little knick-knack...perhaps a bottle of perfume....

Those were days when few married women worked outside the home; now a majority do and they don't have that kind of time. Spending hours on end in a shop wandering about "shopping" is just about dead as the ladies who lunch set.

Despite what many claim or think e-commerce makes up only about < 14% of retail transactions. Women and men still do want to shop in physical retail, but retailers have to give them reasons to set foot past front door.

People still want to examine items, feel the material, judge quality of workmanship, see who things fit, etc.... There is something about seeing a garment and falling in love with it knowing you are just what it needs.

[QUOTE]People still want to examine items, feel the material, judge quality of workmanship, see who things fit, etc.... There is something about seeing a garment and falling in love with it knowing you are just what it needs

There's also the social aspect of live shopping. This fucking lockdown has made me realize how much I miss being able to be out and about on a Saturday afternoon shop-hopping with my 2 best friends, cheking out the shop's merchandise while talking about recent events in our lives, doing some serious people watching and ending the day having a couple of beers at a bar while examining our purchase, be it a book, a kitchen utensil or a simple pair of socks.

Clicking on the little shopping cart on a screen while sitting in my sad little living room can't compare.

[quote]Despite what many claim or think e-commerce makes up only about < 14% of retail transactions

Not for long. Look at which group dose the least amount of online shopping and which one is going to kick the bucket soon.

67 percent of millennials prefer to shop online

56 percent of gen-xers prefer to shop online

41 percent of baby boomers prefer online shopping

only 28 percent of seniors prefer online shopping

[quote]People still want to examine items, feel the material, judge quality of workmanship, see who things fit, etc.... There is something about seeing a garment and falling in love with it knowing you are just what it needs.

Clothing is the really only argument you have for that. Look at Best Buy going down the tubes. When Amazon got really big, people would go into that store try out the electronics, check out the TV's and computers, snap a pic of the price, then go home and try to get it online cheaper. They publicly acknowledged this years ago and tried to restructure their stores to address that problem but at the end of the day the are still struggling with ever fewer customers. They even offered to price match if you had a legitimate online link for a cheaper price. And they are just one of a thousand types of business whereby you don't need to touch and feel quality.

I said it before and I will say it again, Americans first priority is always the price. If they have to sacrifice touch and feel they will do that. Besides, you can always return anything you buy on like pretty easy these days. I know lots of people, mainly woman that do that. It's a constant flow of deliveries and returns.

R204 well there’s also the issue of fit because what’s a size 4 in one brand can be a size 0 in another. Or even within the same brand actually. It’s true we hate trying on clothes in those florescent dressing rooms but returning things with a return label (and if you don’t have a doorman, which most people in the US don’t, having to drop it off yourself) is a pain in the ass. Returning things in general is a big pain in the ass. Time is money.

[quote]Department stores were largely built around women and their habits.

And they still are! Have you been to a mall in the last 10 years? The vast majority of retail stores are still cater primary to woman. Department stores especially, you are lucky if one corner of one floor has a men's department. I only know of one or two store in LA and OC that have an entire floor of men's clothing. And that's only because they are in very affluent areas like West Hollywood or Beverly Hills.

My underwear has been down since the start of this coronavirus

R206

Historically men (at least straight ones) aren't huge shoppers, well not in the same way as females. The idea of spending hours aimlessly wondering around a shop "just looking" is usually totally alien.

Most men are probably like my dad and uncles; arrive at store (if by car park at nearest entrance to store), to area/department where what is desired is located. Ask clerk to fetch wanted item, or find it themselves, pay, and head right out of the store.

R203, did you pull those numbers out of your ass or out of Bezos's ass?

I don’t understand males who enjoy shopping for clothes.

[QUOTE]I don’t understand males who enjoy shopping for clothes

Do you also not understand males who enjoy sucking cock?

To each their own

Women used to shop for men too. With the advent of casual clothes at work, a lot of men don't even have a proper suit anymore.

Yeah I dress casual 98% of time. Even at work

Even at church

It's also about the fatness. A lot of women are just too fat for nice clothes now. Also too fat for Victoria's Secret bras. Too fat to dress up for anything. Fat.

And weddings.

[quote]Clicking on the little shopping cart on a screen while sitting in my sad little living room can't compare.

Maybe if you spent less money shopping and going out for beer, you could afford a nicer living room.

r203 What's the dividing line between boomer and senior? I'm 67, so I'm both. (And I buy almost everything online.)

Some of us enjoy looking for clothes that we like and look good on us and at an affordable price.

The fact most of the world now dresses like a 13 year old, sportsball playing fan boy is another reason why I like to make an effort.

I have no desire to look like a 13 year old sloppy ass child.

This is my particular point of view as someone having worked for the Neiman Marcus parent owned store Bergdorf Goodman.

I grew in the midwest with midwest values. I moved to NYC, which is a completely different beast all together. I will just say, there is a level of wealth in this country and in the world, that most people will not understand or can fathom exists. I am not talking about the blatantly obvious millionaires, the celebrities, the in-your-face-wealth that we are all accustomed to seeing. I am not even talking about old money, generational millionaires that we know exist but never see. I am just talking about every day people with a shit load of money that you would never imagine.

My quick realization of this. I started my career in shoes. A woman would come in and buy a pair of Chanel flats for $500. I would be ecstatic to sell them to her. I was over the moon if she bought two pairs. I soon transferred down to Chanel handbags and realized this same client who would make my day buying a pair of flats, would go downstairs and buy a $5500 handbag. Of course I was ecstatic to sell her the $5500 handbag and be done with her. Then I would see that same woman go into the jewelry department and buy a pair of $75,000 earrings. You wouldn't be able to spot her from Eve walking down the street. You would never look at her and say, wow this is a rich woman. But she casually spent more that day than most people in the country make all year. She wouldn't be stuck up, or snooty, or demanding. Actually usually just the opposite. She would be the nicest person you'd encounter all day. Understated, sweet polite. I've seen $15 million commissioned jewelry pieces with a $250k commission attached.

This is my particular point of view II

Luxury retail commission associates make between $150k - $500k a year because of people like this. Now... Not for much longer.

For a large group of people the world of luxury retail is very important. They don't consider the pieces expensive. They are not like wow, look at me, I'm buying a pair of $2500 pants. A man will purchase a $8500 Brunello Cucinelli suit like I would purchase a $650 from Theory. You never count someone else's money or judge them for it. It is all relative. So relative. Someone would look at me like I'm crazy for spending $650 on one item. Everyone in this thread is living someone's fantasy existence. We all personally have more than most of the world. So I am going to judge someone for something that in a way I'm guilty of as well? No.

Chanel handbags START at around $3000. So if you see a woman with one, unless it was given to her our bought second hand, she spent at least that much. And Chanel isn't sold online. Dior handbags aren't sold online. Celine handbags aren't sold online. Goyard isn't sold online. And those handbags NEVER go on sale. And a lot of the top designers like Valentino and Fendi that are sold online, their best pieces never make it online because they are reserved very early for the exact clients I mentioned above.

The problem with Neiman's isn't their prices or their products. The problem with Neiman's is that they tried to expand too heavily into markets that just don't get it. That don't understand that a shirt can cost $800 and not have huge Gucci letters written all over it. The tried to chase every market and turned their backs on their core audience that demands exclusivity. Making exclusivity attainable for all is an oxymoron.

This world is not for you. If I wasn't working in it, this world wouldn't be for me either. I could never afford this pieces. Even with my discount I still spend $600 on sneakers, $250 on t-shirts. It just is what it is. It's not fair or unfair. It's not for everybody, especially anyone who brags they can get the same thing at Walmart for $8. Trust me you're not. But this type of consumption isn't for you. And that's OK.

Check out Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli, Canali, Ero, Kitan. Check out Neil Barrett, Tom Browne, Margiela, Valentino, Saint Laurent. Check out Gabriela Hearst, Tom Ford. All these designers are widely popular and don't charge less that $300 for anything. Canali, Loro Piana and Cucinelli look like Banana Republic but 10x as much.

People have money, people. People spend money on clothes, people. It's nothing for a client to come in with an appointment and spend $225k on a wardrobe for the season. And that's just the women. The men don't come in. They'll just call and say send me six more of the exact same thing that worked last season. It's the way it always has been.

A place like Bergdorf Goodman will always exist if only as a museum to luxury retail. Yes everything will move online. But the very rich do not sit at a computer and shop for themselves. They just want someone to pick it out for them, know what they want and need to wear so they can go about the rest of their lives. They don't want to fight online getting the latest, first. They want to rely on someone to get it for them for the amount of money they are paying. For time immemorial people have wanted to wear their wealth. A men's Richard Mille watch is easily $350k. And people have multiple. So bemoaning the expense of a lifestyle you don't or can't comprehend or have never seen first hand is simple minded. It's like an adult saying, "I don't like vegetables." Ok, you can go sit over there then.

I think one important point being left out here is how peasant luxury shopping is. What a great experience it is.

That will never be duplicated on line.

My particular point of view III

To piggyback on what R223 said, people who consume at this level actually want to be seen by people at their level consuming. For a number of them that is the rewarding part. The private personal shopping suites at places like Saks know this. They will have entire floor dedicated just for a certain level of shopper. Entire rooms of merchandise will be pulled from the store by a shopper. The client just shows up, goes into her dedicated room and private tries on everything with the shopper and the fitter deciding what she really likes. Getting multiple of something that she loves.

These people have multiple homes. They do not like packing. So they will buy four of the same thing (each dress could be $3500), have all of them fitted, and shipped to their four homes, so their exact wardrobe is replicated in each place. Of course warm weather things are shipped to Bermuda. The cold weather items shipped to their home in Wyoming.

But at the end of the experience the client will go out to the front desk where her bill has been totaled. She will bump into Mrs. So and So and begin chatting her up. In the meantime the rack of $250k clothes will be wheeled out behind the client so Mrs. So and So can see what the client just bought, see how much she consumed. Meanwhile Mrs. So and So probably is having her consumption being prepared for view. That's why Hudson Yards here in NYC just doesn't work, or shoe salons that combine contemporary with designer. These clients don't want to shop with people walking around with H&M bags. They is no fun in impressing an H&M shopper. (Mind you I'll spend $300 on a Saint Laurent T-Shirt but buy ALL of my pants at H&M, because they just fit me off the rack.) As a matter of fact, as soon as sales racks go up in department stores, these customers STOP shopping. These people want to be seen by their circle spending money.

One of the joys of "making an effort" by buying and wearing good clothes is getting complements from OTHER people who also make that effort. And, sharing stories..."Oh, gurl! I got this Prada windbreaker in a thrift shop for $80!!! It retails for $800!!"

For arty fashionable people who are poor (me) the fun of it is FINDING great looks at great bargains.

Idiots pay full price for things.

They're not idiots if buying it full price means nothing to them R225. They don't want to hunt for something. They want it when they want it and they buy it. They probably lose money hunting something down. And by the time you find a great bargain on Prada, it's been on the shelves of 6 to 8 months. Meanwhile this person bought it before it even came out straight from the designer.

One thing I do is just send a box of brand new stuff to a major client on consignment, stuff that hasn't even hit the shelves yet. They keep what they want and sent back the rest.

Two words come to mind that are very important - Trust and Access

Most people, including me in the beginning, do not trust their own taste when it comes to the world of fashion. Yes you can go online and buy until your heart's content. At the end of the year you go into your closet and you have ten pieces that look exactly the same. You remain the same person year after year just based on your own taste. It takes a lot to pay attention to trends and which trends will actually work for you. Of course following trends and having taste are NOT the same thing. You have to know what works for you. But it takes a lot of attention to detail to maintain and grow your own sense of style. You could have 25 million in the bank and have zero taste and fall way short when it comes to representing yourself. Clothes are, after all, an outward expression of how we wish the world to view us. If fashion doesn't matter to you, if quality doesn't matter to you, your style will reflect that. But fashion allows that person to say I love being noticed. It allows a different person to be extremely understated but very well appointed. Someone can be timeless and classic or super current and flashy. It all comes down to your personality. But both styles need to be curated. And a lot of these women are in social settings where they need to be the best version of their own personal style. But they don't trust themselves enough to know what is the current expression of their personal style. So they need help, someone whose job is exactly that.

And then access. Say if Chanel's ready to wear collection for Fall 2021 hit the runway this past December. I am watching the show, looking for pieces. Our buyers are in Paris and I am home watching it on my computer making annotations. Our buyers come back and have a review. They'll say, "we picked up this or that, and passed on this." I'll say, wait a minute, I have a client who'd love this dress, can we get it in a six. Noted, we'll buy that one piece in a six. So when the collection ships six months later, my client is getting one of the maybe ten pieces of that dress made in the world. I have just given her direct access to one of the major fashion houses in the world that no one else will have just because I said, make this for her. You're not going to get that online, ever. What you get online are the pieces they've chosen to make on spec for people who might buy them. Those pieces are beautiful too. Not that you can get Chanel ready to wear online. But say if it's Fendi, you are buying from a pool of the most sellable pieces buyers thought they could take a risk on. Not pieces hand selected for you.

So luxury shopping is a full spectrum. Again it's a world 99% of the world doesn't give a shit about. But it's not a billion dollar industry for nothing. There is a desire. And at the top of that desire is a world of shoppers and personal shoppers that desperately need physical stores to exist, to move around in, be inspired by to buy. I've seen how online personal shoppers shop for their clients, and it's not pretty. It's a hunt and peck system that's more guessing than technique.

I've devoured these fascinating posts in this thread.

There are a few wealthy Singaporeans and Chinese women that I'll occasionally check in on on IG, and my mind cannot even fathom how much they spend every season on clothes, shoes, jewelry, and bags. For instance, this Singaporean woman has a specially made closet for all her goods:

[QUOTE]And Chanel isn't sold online. Dior handbags aren't sold online. Celine handbags aren't sold online. Goyard isn't sold online.

I guess that's why some say that the new definition of luxury is : "Anything that's NOT found on Amazon"

R221 R222 and R224 Jesus Christ, shut the hell up. You wrote all that and you didn't make a single goddamned point germane to the discussion. And your text comes across as foreign-y and creepy.

R231, typical. You're doing the exact goddamn thing you derided me for above. I think you just wrote that response so you could use the word germane after looking up the spelling on Merriam Websters. I guess you would find something "foreign," creepy. Your type usually does. Just put the gun down. You can STILL go outside and you DON'T have to wear a mask if you don't want to, I promise.

The point I was making is that places like Neiman Marcus are not going out of business because of the prices of the items they sell. That argument was being brought up again and again. Places like Neiman Marcus are going out of business because they over expanded into areas that did not have enough support from a customer base. So what I've said is germane to the topic at hand.

and r229 those are Hermes Birkins. The basic ones start at $10,000. The price goes up based on the color and the availability. The skins such as ostrich and alligator can be anywhere between 20K and 120K. The most expensive is the Himalayan, I believe, which is white alligator. The most expensive one with white gold hardware and diamond hardware sold at auction for 300k.

The amazing thing about Hermes, which luxury retailers should take note of, is that they make their product very difficult to get. First of all you have to be in a store to buy one. You cannot buy them over the phone. And since the Birkin is the most popular of their bags, you can't just go into the store and buy it, no matter how much money you have. Hermes handbags are ONLY sold in Hermes stores and all of their stores are connected globally. You have to have proof in their system that you have "bought sufficiently into the brand" before you are given the privilege of being allowed to buy a Birkin. They actually will look your name up in the system and see how much you've spent on other items. They won't tell you why you're not getting one, they will just say, "No sorry, we don't have any available," even though there can be 10 in the back. What the truth is, is that you have to get your annual spend up before they will sell you one. People hate it, but they keep coming back for the abuse. And the bags keep going up in value.

R231 I think your response is a bit harsh and over the top. What's wrong with foreign? Wait, don't tell us, you've fallen prey to the Xenophobia so popular and trendy today.

I'm not about to purchase an Antique George III "electrified" chandelier for over £100K, but it doesn't mean I cannot enjoy looking at one, or want places like Sotheby's or Christies to go under. I think for many who appreciate fashion, stores such as N-M & Bergdorf's represent an aspirational fantasy, or entertainment factor. They may enjoy strolling in there and meeting up with friends for lunch, just as some may enjoy going to an art museum. It's a part of culture, and civilisation, whether we petsonally take part or not. I think it's sad, and an end of an era. Lots of glamour goes missing from the world with each passing decade IMHO.

Any capitalist, and any patriotic American for that matter probably doesn't like to read about legendary storied retailers headed out of business. I think it's not only in poor taste to revel in others' misfortune, but quite bad karma as well. I do believe this former salesman gives very interesting and germane reasons why such stores exist, or even once thrived.

R228 Same here as well.

In [italic]Molly's Room[/italic], Molly's lawyer (Idris Elba) asks Molly (Jessica Chastain) if he's putting too much pressure on his teenage daughter. She recounts a story about a young woman she knew who had spent a weekend in London with a man which was arranged by a third party.

Molly: You know how much she got for the weekend?

Lawyer: $5000?

Molly: A Chanel handbag. A handbag. Take whatever you're assigning your daughter and double it.

So, if Chanel bags [italic]start[/italic] at $3000, then that girl might have made a good deal, right?

Now that the Last Calls have been closed is the GOOB sale going to be online?

[quote]R203, did you pull those numbers out of your ass or out of Bezos's ass?

NOPE. Those are facts. Sorry to burst your bubble, let me re post them so they sink in Gramps. Link provided.

Look at which group dose the least amount of online shopping and which one is going to kick the bucket soon.

67 percent of millennials prefer to shop online

56 percent of gen-xers prefer to shop online

41 percent of baby boomers prefer online shopping

28 percent of seniors prefer online shopping

After it exits bankruptcy, Neimans will have to close many underperforming stores. I see no other way for them to survive. And honestly, the vast majority of people who buy high end clothes don’t care about having an item before it’s released to the public.

Neimans will struggle, moving forward, even after restructuring because the vast majority of millennials and younger—the demographic which will soon be the target demographic of a Neimans—shop very differently from their predecessors.

I don’t care that the Neil Barrett pants I bought on YOOX were from two seasons ago. I care that they are well made and high quality. The Prada windbreaker I bought on sale was also a season old when I got it. Couldn’t care less.

And yet, in spite of these deals that I find online I am still overdressed amongst people my age (millennials). Many millennials with money don’t wear designer clothes at all. The demand for these types of over the top luxury items, in the US at least, I predict will become less and less simply based on the preferences and buying habits of millennials.

Many millennials with money are dripping in the chav luxury of Gucci.

R238, so all those young people who pack the local Uniqlo are actually seniors in disguise?

Your numbers are bullshit.

My numbers are bull shit? Really? Well Gramps, they are not my numbers, check the link I posted. Seems someone is edging towards senility and cant handle it.

R242, I can post a link to an article that says Trump is the greatest American president since Lincoln but is that true?

The link you posted is clearly biased. In other words, it's bullshit.

It was the collard greens!

That was simply the last straw and it broke the camel's back.

Imagine paying $66 for a bag of collard greens?

I mean... $35, or maybe $40, yes.

But, $66 for collard greens? PLUS SHIPPING????

I was FINISHED with them!

They jus built and completed a brand new store at Roosevelt Field Mall on Long Island, maybe two years ago. Huge beautiful store. Now they're filing bankruptcy? They're some bad business people.

r237, Last Call has been online for years:

But... could we revisit R59 and R60... It's the girl who bought the slip dress and then wore high heels, etc to feel sexy and turn on her boyfriend...

BOYFRIEND? Woman turns on man? Heterosexual?

GURL! What chu doin' up in heyah????

(smile)

I must write to many of you posters here that I have REALLY enjoyed many of these posts and topics that are being discussed. Let's keep it going!

[quote] The Prada windbreaker I bought on sale was also a season old when I got it. Couldn’t care less.

This is so very, very something.

For me, it always comes back to the question of; What is luxury?

I feel that it is something that is not appreciated and valued anymore. With today's clothing and other items there is no quality of material, craftsmanship, etc. The stuff is just made to look good at the cheapest possible costs and then to sell. There's probably much more money allocated to marketing/advertising a piece rather than allocated towards producing a quality piece. I'm sorry, but... I'm not paying over $1000 for something constructed in polyester and love it because some legacy name is stitched on the label and I bought it from a "certain" legacy store.

I want hand stitching, hand pressing, hand cutting, etc. I want to feel the manual love that has gone into making a piece rather than some industrialized version of something where the poorly paid laborers are paid by the piece on how much of it that they can run through. For most of these upscale stores and the brands that they carry it has come down to too much emphasis on the bottom line and not nearly enough emphasis on the product that they produce and carry. Too many of them are just living off of their legacies and trying to capitalize on that.

[quote]I want hand stitching, hand pressing, hand cutting, etc. I want to feel the manual love that has gone into making a piece rather than some industrialized version of something where the poorly paid laborers are paid by the piece on how much of it that they can run through. For most of these upscale stores and the brands that they carry it has come down to too much emphasis on the bottom line and not nearly enough emphasis on the product that they produce and carry. Too many of them are just living off of their legacies and trying to capitalize on that.

For the most part the top lines of the top French and Italian brands are made to high standards. Forget "poorly paid laborers " they're craftspeople who are paid well and are valued.

I found this, R250

The question (it's from Quora) Do designer clothes actually have better quality compared to “no brand” clothes, or does designer clothing cost much because there’s someones name on it?

Michael Eisman, Consultant-Offshore Apparel Manufacturing at Self-Employment (2009-present) Answered Apr 14, 2019

It depends what you mean by better quality (many fabrics are more expensive than others, etc.)

If we are comparing apples to apples (two exactly the same garments using the same fabric), in many cases the answer is no.

I have made products in factories that make very similar products for designer brands.

On numerous occasions I have asked what the AQL (ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL) is for some designer brands.

In many cases it is the same for non designer brands.

In cases like this you are simply paying for the name.

R249, you are so high maintenance, dude

R251

He's so full of shit.

Take an unlined mens Ferragamo summer suit. The exposed seams inside are perfectly cut and finished. A winter/fall suit has expensive interfacing fabric sewn in. Lesser suits have cheap interfacing that's glued in.

That's why you'll have the Ferragamo suit for years.

The problem is that people have no clue about what constitutes quality.

[quote] Take an unlined mens Ferragamo summer suit. The exposed seams inside are perfectly cut and finished. A winter/fall suit has expensive interfacing fabric sewn in. Lesser suits have cheap interfacing that's glued in. That's why you'll have the Ferragamo suit for years.

Sure. Until you get a stain that can't be removed or a rip that can't be mended. Expensive clothes are a complete waste of money.

Sure. Until you get a stain that can't be removed or a rip that can't be mended. Expensive clothes are a complete waste of money.

These clothes aren't made for you.

[quote]Sure. Until you get a stain that can't be removed or a rip that can't be mended. Expensive clothes are a complete waste of money.

These clothes aren't made for you.

[quote]I can post a link to an article that says Trump is the greatest American president since Lincoln but is that true? The link you posted is clearly biased. In other words, it's bullshit.

This sounds like you R243

Are you a Trumpeter or just a grumpy old man? Traditional retail is dying off as fast as it's Boomer shoppers. It will never be gone completely of course, no one is saying that but it will be the least preferred method of shopping by the vast majority of people very soon.

[quote]but it will be the least preferred method of shopping by the vast majority of people very soon.

It probably already is the least preferred method of shopping by the vast majority of people

But true luxury shoppers are not "the vast majority of people"

They'll still frequent a luxe brand's boutique.

[quote] But true luxury shoppers are not "the vast majority of people" They'll still frequent a luxe brand's boutique

True you only have 1% or less that can do that meaning there will be no reason to keep big department stores like Neimans alive. Rodeo Drive and similar 1% shopping districts is all you need to fill that gap. In that price range, it feels a lot better shopping in an authentic boutique totally designed to fit the brand as apposed to a makeshift corner of a 3 story department store.

[quality]The problem is that people have no clue about what constitutes quality.

Well, I agree with this. That's the issue from a customer's and retailer's angle.

Ya know... what I find very sad with all of this is not just the loss of jobs but the loss of skill sets too. Many people tend to overlook or simply dismiss the skills that a retail associate has learned. Now... I'm always a believer that many skills are transferable to other professions. But, where does the retail associate go? There are only so many personal shopping jobs, event planning jobs, etc. However, the skills that many of them have learned are valuable. It's as if an entire profession is being wiped out.

Boo hoo. Overpriced CRAP!

So much many "luxury" brands have parts made in Chins an ASSEMBLED in France or Italy.

So many of the "counterfits" smuggled into the US are made on the same assembly line run for a few minutes longer after shutdown and loaded into a cousin's truck. THE SAME!

This is what actually happens when you go into Hermes

What actually happens when you go into Hermes....

A long piece BUT an extremely good read!

Should Neiman Marcus Exist?

The inside story of the Dallas-born luxury retailer’s struggle to remain relevant—and solvent.

BY JASON HEID

DATE APR 24, 2020

Well R259, a lot of people enjoy seeing one designer next to another and being able to compare and mix and match. If you just work in a Gucci boutique all you can sell is Gucci. What if Gucci's collection sucks this season, then you're shit out of luck. When I pull for clients, I might pull a skirt from Dior, a sweater from Chanel. I might pair that with a pair of Valentino shoes, or a Saint Laurent t-shirt. It's better to have a wide range of options to complete a look. Even Chanel will tell you they prefer their clothes matched high/low. Of course they have to style it all Chanel on the runway, but they see absolutely nothing wrong with pairing an H&M t-shirt and jeans underneath a $8500 Lesage tweed Chanel jacket.

As far as quality is concerned, you have to know what the brand you're shopping for is KNOWN for, originally. That is the area where they will excel. Gucci, Ferragamo, Louis Vuitton, Prada are all leather goods brands. They got their start making horse saddles, luggage, shoes, carriage interiors. It's not coincidence that both Gucci and Ferragamo's symbols are Bits from horse bridles. So these houses will excel in leather goods. Now they might branch out into fashion, makeup or sunglasses, but its the leather that's in their blood. Now Chanel, Dior and Valentino are major fashion houses. They are known for their impeccable craftsmanship when it comes to their Haute Couture. You buy a piece of clothing from them and you know it was put together by some of the best craftsmen in the world. Now when Chanel makes sneakers (an item not native to the house), yes its mostly likely an elevated New Balance with CC probably made in the same way. You have to know what is native to the heritage of the designer you're buying from.

The above is for Chanel's haute couture. But as much detail is put in their Ready to Wear collections as well. That's why the sweater in this video I believe was around $3500.

The issue is this is a world that has always existed but on a much smaller level. Major fashion houses and luxury retailers were so captivated by growth and sales that at some point they began giving up their initial principles to chase money. What they didn't realize is that they were chasing a particular client that wouldn't be true to them, only wanted their product discounted, and would ditch them for another. Again, the idea of luxury is fantasy, the best of the best - it's not suppose to be for the masses. Actually the masses want to be able to aspire to something as well. But they saw what happened when H&M paired Margiela, or Versace. The collections made hundreds of millions, and only needed design, not quality, and the brand's name was revitalized among a new generation. But that was actually the beginning of the end of it all. If you can attain something, you no longer want it. And when people begin to see brands care less about their quality and more about making money, people themselves begin to care less about the brand. Every major fashion house is guilty of this now - look at the proliferation of sneakers. Balenciaga, (a 100 year old fashion house) is now known more of a sneaker than anything else.

Shoppers are changing. Millennials (except Chinese and Japanese) don't shop luxury fashion the way their mother's do. They don't enjoy the process. And the brands are so diluted anymore and everything is disposable.

As a sales person you become jaded with everyone's Amazon, if I want it I can get it attitude. My favorite exchange:

- Do you have this, I would like to buy it. - No, unfortunately it is all sold out. - Oh, ok. I'll just see if I can get it online. - Actually it's not sold online, I'm sorry. - Then how do I get it? - I wish there was away, but unfortunately there are none available. Trust me, I'd love to sell it to you. - When will they make it again? - They won't, it was very specific to this particular collection. - So I can't get it? - No, I'm really sorry.

Head explodes.

r250

Maybe, then again maybe not.

Tons of "Made in Italy" from clothing to footwear is either partially done in China, or made in Chinese owned/run sweat shops in Milan or other parts of Italy.

Prato area in particular largely if not heavily is Chinese now.

More:

Thank you, R266. I enjoyed that and your posting. But, THAT's what I'm talkin' bout! Put some HANDIWORK and LOVE into a piece!!!!

But, of course... most of this clothing is out of reach for most people. Well, so is a $1000 pair of pants. But, there has to be a happy medium found. I think it's criminal the prices that Louis Vuitton charges for its goods given their quality levels now.

As discussed in another thread the Chinese/Italy connection is responsible for covid-19 outbreak in the latter which spread throughout many parts of Europe and onto North America.

Raid on sweatshops in Naples found workers making things for Saint Laurent/LVMH ...

Yet more....

Basically same sort of things you saw in early 1900's NYC garment trade are now found in Italy's luxury goods market, this includes piece work done at home by poor laborers.

Thing are getting interested for NM and that bankruptcy filing....

LOL!!!

The R238 twathole who keeps insisting they have the down low on the "facts" on the death of brick/mortar retail because they included a link to an unknown website and an article that had the "facts" that consist of a poll from some site called Statista.

Yes. That is definite proof of the facts.

RE: The Italy/Chinese discussion

One of the articles above says:

"And in the past decade they have become manufacturers for Gucci, Prada, and other luxury-fashion houses, which use often inexpensive Chinese-immigrant labor to create accessories and expensive handbags that bear the coveted “Made in Italy” label."

I know Prato. Believe me, no Chinese sweatshops are making expensive handbags for Gucci or Prada. Pictures please.

The article at R272 does not say a raid on sweatshops "found workers making things for Saint Laurent/LVMH ..." it says allegedly. And the Houses deny it.

Show the products...it would be a major scandal....but there are none.

There ARE such sweatshops that make designer knock-offs that are sold around the world. That is most likely what that sweatshop was making. They're raided all the time.

More interesting is the NYT article. Italy has had women working from home, sewing, embroidering, since forever....I've visited them....working for cash, earning little.

At the same time the fashion industry in Italy employs thousands of skilled craftsman working in pleasant well regulated workshops, earning a very good salary with full benefits.

The factories of Brunello Cucinelli

Bottega Veneta.

Making the classic Gucci Mocassino.

I believe that it was mentioned upstream about costs on this thread. In my opinion, there really isn't much of a market for these goods at these price points. A consumer has not been groomed to appreciate such luxury. But again, is it luxury? The Bermuda shorts below are being sold for $545!

Brunello Cucinelli

[quote]Garment dyed drawstring Bermuda shorts in American Pima comfort cotton gabardine. A nuanced and ultra lightweight texture of the American Pima comfort cotton gabardine pairs perfectly with the sporty style of these Bermuda shorts, a must-have summer piece. The elasticated drawstring waistband and double pleated details complete the garment, which offers a regular fit.

Zipper closure with metal hooks and drawstring

Front pockets

Back welt pockets

Double pleat

97% COTTON, 3% ELASTANE

[quote]The American Pima cotton variety offers superior quality in length, luster and strength of the fiber. Furthermore, the dyeing performed directly on the garment and the particular finish give the color a dusty appearance and slight shading along the seams. The comfort is perfected by a small percentage of spandex present in the fabric. Our products are created in the hamlet of Solomeo and produced in Italy, with respect for people, the dignity of work and in harmony with the land. Wash at a maximum temperature of 30°, do not bleach. Do not tumble dry, iron at medium temperature.

So, what am I missing? Washable Bermuda shorts that cost $545?

They sound like great shorts R280. Someone who wants the best and can afford it might buy them. Yes, few people fit that market. For the price, I’m happy with my shorts from Amazon.

12" Wide-Leg Khaki Shorts $20.00

[quote]Smooth twill weave. Button closure, zip fly. Front slant pockets, rear button-welt pockets. Assorted colors. 100% Cotton Machine wash.

You take them to a tailor and have them cuffed. So, add another $20

Pants from The GAP

[quote*So, what am I missing? Washable Bermuda shorts that cost $545?

For the multi-millionaires and billionaires of the world, $545 is like loose change you might find between the cushions of your sofa.

[quote]So, what am I missing? Washable Bermuda shorts that cost $545?

For the multi-millionaires and billionaires of the world, $545 is like loose change you might find between the cushions of your sofa.

Another thing you're missing:

The Gap pants are made in a sweatshop in China or Taiwan.

The Cucinelli pants are made in Solomeo Italy.

This is the factory.

And I suggest you watch this.

If you had the money, would you rather buy from the Gap or here? Cucinelli explained:

You don't have to be a millionaire to buy nice clothes.

I don't have any $545 shorts mainly because I'm not rich and when I spend my money on good clothes I spend it on "show pieces", things I really love and frequently it's jackets and coats. Who "loves" shorts or pants? As long as they fit properly, who cares?

My most expensive piece of clothing is a gorgeous winter coat from AMI Alexandre Mattiussi that retailed for about a thousand dollars but I got it on sale for half that. I wear it with $50 Levis or $40 pants from Nordstrom Rack.

If you want to look good and you're on a budget, spend your money on a good coat or jacket or sweater and wear nice but inexpensive bottoms with it.

Oh, but buy decent shoes. Shitty cheap looking shoes are always a mistake.

That’s my philosophy too R287

R284, my partner knows a woman whose husband gives her $150K a month 'fun money'. She wouldn't wear Bermuda shorts irrespective of cost but I doubt she'd flinch at spending $500 on a piece of clothing. As you say, that's like pocket change for them.

Neiman Marcus is rubbish for dreadful hillbillies

HEY! Watch your mouth!

Neiman Marcus is a Dallas store.

it actually clears up a lot for me--the explanation that Neiman Marcus expanded into areas that couldn't support it....They pushed into a lot of high end suburbs--places where wealthy soccer moms could spend big occasionally on a dress or handbag, but not buy an entire wardrobe where every item cost over $1000...or even dream of doing that. The price points are for multi-millionaires, not just rich people. Their prices were for people where money was no object.

Exactly, R293. In Dallas, Neiman’s has three stores—the downtown location, North Park, and Willowbend (Plano).

Based on its high incomes and preponderance of luxury car dealerships, at first blush Plano would look like a solid place to have a NM. But it’s not Highland Park, and people there are upper middle class, having their money the hard way. They don’t for the most part spend frivolously on clothing.

I predict that Neimans will exit bankruptcy with only a third of the stores it currently has. Closing underperforming stores is a necessity to stay in business, and it’s practically inevitable that within 5 to 10 years few “big box” retailers outside of Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart will really have much relevance.

[quote]Neiman Marcus is rubbish for dreadful hillbillies

Did you call me a hillbilly?

r294 wow, i had no idea Dallas had three of them. Even someone driving an $80K car--the wife might want a gucci or LV purse. And only one or two items per year. they would just as soon buy it in a local Gucci or LV store (which have proliferated in high end malls along with Neimans in past 15 years). My guess is a lot of people in Dallas wouldn't be familiar with the niche fashion brands carried at Neiman Marcus anyway....and even those who are familiar know that nobody else knows the brands

I think they just saw an opportunity to follow Nordstrom's expansion path and possibly squeeze Nordstrom out of some of their market.

The only guy I knew from Texas was the biggest retail label queen I had ever met. He lived and worshiped Neiman Marcus. That and lots of cocaine. Major functioning drug addict. Anyway I called him out on it one, (not the drugs) and he said the reason he was so into all that materialistic showing off is there was basically nothing else to do growing up there if you were gay. Most people spent 90% of their time indoors. He said all his friends who could afford it did the same.

So when I seen that Neimans logo, my first thought is not luxury, it's coke addicted label queen.

I know people buy head to toe super expensive designer outfits but you so seldom see them out and about....especially in Texas.

Yet to meet/see a fashionable Texan.

If I see anyone on the streets wearing high end stuff, it's almost always young Asians.

Though, I have seen this one youngish white guy in downtown Seattle a couple times who wears head to to Thom Browne....which is really expensive.

The thing is, most luxury labels are not recognizable. Yes you have the Guccis and the Diors with their logos. But what about Celine? That shit is fucking expensive as hell. What about Gabriela Hearst? Brunello Cucinelli, Loro Piana? There are no labels on those items. It's not about showing off. I work around a lot of designer luxury brands. And even with those brands, you have to know how to spot the shitty pieces in a collection from really quality investment pieces. An $800 Coco Cuba t-shirt is nice, but not made any different than say one from The Kooples. If you have the money, it's a cute kiki piece. The same with the the sneakers. BUT a proper Chanel shoe is still crafted by the House Massaro. And what people don't realize it's not just about the clothes. As a seller, sizing up clients, it's not about race or age at all. That is a big misconception. The funny thing is if I see a flashy black guy coming into the boutique I rush to help him. It's usually all cash for a gift that's not coming back. You have to look at someone and tell they have a relationship with luxury goods. Yes it's their outfit, their shoes, their bag. But you look at their $500 blowout. The $50,000 in jewelry that they are casually wearing. Their skin, not color, but health. It's a lifestyle. And you can be carrying a $10,000 birkin, but if you have on an ill fitting coat, greasy hair, bad skin and Tory Burch flats, most associates would assume you either stole the bag, just turned a trick, or someone recently died and gave it to you.

And the associates don't see themselves necessarily as better than you, but if your livelihood depended on being able to spot money over someone who is going to waste your time acting as if they have money, you'd become rather aloof too. People are fucking draining!

By the way, the Neiman Marcus CEO is a very hot Gay daddy from Belgium. I really wish the best for him. I wish he didn't have to course correct a company that was already headed downstream before he came on. I'd love a good success story for him. He is a really nice guy too, who through this pandemic has really tried to do his best for the company and by the employees. He's given up his own salary during all of this.

Neiman Marcus is top tier, Nordstrom is lower rung.

Was Nordstrom once higher tier? I shopped there in the 90s, not for luxury good, just generally, and I though it was excellent quality.

Then again, lots of midtier dept stores had quality stuff. I grew up going to Dayton's - whose parent company eventually bought Marshall Fields (many think it was the other way around) and then in turn was purchased by May Company.

To R221 R222 R224 R233 and whatever other responses you've written, apologies for the comment at R231; my intention was to inject a bit DL cattiness, which just came across as rude. I don't want you to be killed.

I now see the point you're making (although I still don't know what all the other filler was getting at), thank you for clarifying as it was heavily disguised amidst the pages you wrote. I'm certainly no expert on the topic of high-end fashion. But I suspect the distinction you're making is ultimately one without a meaningful difference. I don't know all of where Neiman's has stores, but I do know it's not some huge conglomerate with hundreds of locations nationwide. Economically speaking, it's a pretty small player. So the argument that their reach into markets that don't "get" them is sending them into financial ruin is feeble. Further, even if a store is placed in an area where you believe the market "doesn't get it," they can still curate the store to appeal to the population. Almost all stores do this, Nordstrom's does this very well and I know Neiman's does this as well. Further, even with those under performing stores, a successful company can still keep itself afloat with a bevy of successful ones. So the fact that Neiman's isn't closing down stores but rather the parent declaring bankruptcy leads me to believe that it's a systemic problem as opposed to a few bum stores not carrying their weight.

Your entries are simply litanies of bittersweet anecdotes of people buying luxury goods who have impeccable taste with lots of prices s and brand names I can't even pronounce, let alone never heard of. This is what drives me nuts about a lot supporters of luxury fashion (and other luxury industries); it always comes down to a fascination with people spending money on these high-priced gods. And it's an inherently uninformed viewpoint that is solely supported by an unflappable belief that these goods are better by virtue of their pricing and their origins. It really is cult thinking that is not, in the least bit, forged with any mind towards economics or the markets in play or even with an accurate assessment of what the quality of these goods really is. Quite frankly, it's silly. To extol the greatness of some whatever-brand handbag simply based on a (likely incorrect) belief that it's inherently made better than something else is truly silly. That's not to say that the products aren't made better, but they're not better simply for the reason they are made by one brand than another. First hand, I (and I am sure many on this board) can attest to products of high-end brands that have not lasted as long as similar products made by "lower" brands.

Nordstrom isn't "lower tier". Macy's and Dillards are both under Nordstrom which is pretty solidly in the middle except for a couple of its flagships which are upper.

Gucci doesn't put boutiques inside Macy's or Dillards.

(Continuing on) Several of your posts drag on about quality. And I don't really think you're wrong. Rather, I think you're placing an emphasis on quality that is ultimately meaningless. Yes, if I buy a $3000 bag, I want it to last a long time. But it doesn't need to be made with such quality that it could withstand a nuclear blast. And, quite frankly, quality beyond simple wear and tear is really all a fashion garment needs (buttons should stay on, seams should stay tightly closed, zippers should work well, etc.). To get that doesn't require a $3k payment, and nor should anyone be paying for that. And even if that $3k gets you some insurmountable quality, for most people, there's not much value in that to warrant the extra cost. So to your point, while Neiman's may be declaring bankruptcy (they're not closing as you said, at least not yet, and they probably wont collapse completely), the fact is, people aren't buying their goods, whether the goods are in markets that "get it" or not. And as has been mentioned above, a lot of this has to do with changing attitudes towards the concept of luxury in American shoppers. Most people don't want $800 t-shirts because, really, because a t-shirt has no value even remotely commensurate with that price point; there's no such thing as a cotton t-shirt that's worth $800 and there's no such thing as a leather bag worth 10s of thousands. A store may charge that, someone might buy it, but it doesn't mean it's actually worth that. And American shoppers do now realize that what they're paying is not what they're getting, at any level of retail. And sadly, the few people that may drop 10s or 100s of thousands in these stores, those sizeable purchases just aren't enough. My friend manages a David Yurman store and she does have a few ladies that will come in every so often and drop large chunks of cash on several pieces of jewelry. However, it is the minutiae of every other smaller transaction of single, lower-priced pieces, adding up to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars yearly, that ultimately keeps her store afloat. The fact is, there aren't enough rich ladies spending huge amounts money in these to really make up for the loss of the regular, not-so-extravagant consumer.

OK, where in the hell is anyone getting this idea that Nordstrom's is "lower tier"? My local Nordstrom's is all expensive brands, with the exception of their section of house brand stuff (which is still not what I'd consider "cheap). In what Nordstrom's are you people seeing FUBU and Inc? Because that doesn't exist where I live.

R305 I think it's just one troll trying to promote the "Nordstroms is lower tier" nonsense.

He probably works for Federated.

Nordstrom’s is by no means lower or even middle tier. As far as department stores go, it’s broadly upper middle tier, the likes of Bloomingdales.

The brands you’ll find in a Nordstrom’s run the gamut and are contingent upon the market or even the community that the store is in—super high end or more middle of the road brands.

Case in point in Scottsdale, AZ the Nordstrom’s men’s department has super high end brands, and the men’s area is always packed.

In Austin, the Nordstrom’s at the Domain doesn’t have very many high end brands and is mostly middle of the road and even lower brands like Topman. It’s all about the demographics.

To me, Nordstroms is comparable to Lord & Taylor.

So how is it that the European department stores (Selfridges, Marks & Spencer, Galeries Lafayette, Le Bon Marché, etc) are still vibrant?

^Different cultures.

[quote]He probably works for Federated.

Federated no longer exists.

Nordstrom and Neiman-Marcus and the upper end stores aren't the same as the mid-tier places like Macy's since they mostly carry clothing, accessories, and cosmetics. No housewares, furniture, or home goods, usually. Maybe a small gift department.

The Nordstrom in Roosevelt Field Mall on Long Island is ghetto. I don't go in there anymore. All black workers, they completely ignore the white customers, but gush over the black customers. Fuck them.

R309

"Ward said that diluting the exclusivity of brands has been the downfall of many American department stores."

[quote]Nordstrom isn't "lower tier".

It isn't top tier so it's lower tier. Barneys, Saks, Lord & Taylor and Neiman Marcus were top of the heap. If you're not on top you're lower tier. Just depends on which basement your in, or sub-basement

R315 You're an idiot.

Or, in words you'll understand, "your an idiot".

[quote]you can be carrying a $10,000 birkin, but if you have on an ill fitting coat, greasy hair, bad skin and Tory Burch flats, most associates would assume you either stole the bag, just turned a trick, or someone recently died and gave it to you.

Tell me about it.

Only a bunch of shop-bottom drama queens would carry on a conversation about which stores are "top-tier"...

*sigh*

It's not Nordstrom's. It's not Nordstroms.

It's Nordstrom.

Brooks Brothers is in trouble, and may be sold (yet again), or simply wound up.

Here again you have another classic example of brand dilution having unforeseen consequences.

Long known in certain upper class and banking circles as clothier of choice, Brooks Brothers expanded into the gutter so to speak by opening stores in malls, introducing lower priced lines and other efforts to attract customers from lower tiers. Now that is all coming back to haunt the company in a big way.

Brand dilution NEVER works out.

The idiot corporations who buy luxury brands make a fast buck but then that kills the brand.

EVERY single time.

So stupid.

Nordstrom's customers are assholes..

No, it's Nordstrom's.

A rich person will be as successful entering heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle, that's how good bouncers are at heavens gate.

No, it's Nordstrom.

"Further, even if a store is placed in an area where you believe the market "doesn't get it," they can still curate the store to appeal to the population. "

A company like Neiman's doesn't buy for one store. When they go to market in Paris, Milan, and all over, they are buying across the board for all of their stores. Yes, stores in more fashionable markets like New York, Miami and LA will carry more expensive items, but the store goes into contract with a designer to carry certain pieces in all of their stores. So no, Neiman's can't buy mid tier and lower tier brands just to meet their customers in a certain market.

The high end American Department Stores probably go in this order - Bergdorf Goodman, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, Nordstrom. Nordstroms could also be the high end of the mid tier like Bloomingdales, Lord & Taylor, Macy's.

and r302, don't say you "Don't Know" where Neiman's stores are. That's easy enough to find on the web. Just say you are fine without knowing - or don't care to know, like seems to be the case with several other key pieces of information on this thread. It's OK not to know. But don't hold your ignorance up as justification for your arguments. Neiman's in New York City may be booming, but I have no idea how they are supporting three stores in IL when Chicago itself is hardly a fashion destination.

I think you are missing the point entirely as far as the pricing goes. I'll try to explain it this way. Certain luxury brands are driven by the vision of one designer. The people who buy the clothes are fans of that designer's vision. Karl Lagerfeld did Chanel AND Fendi for over 40 years. Dior has come to life under the helm of Maria Grazie for the past couple of years after it squandered when they had to let go of Galliano. I know from the outside it seems like a huge conglomerate creating these things. BUT at the major luxury fashion house, there is a major designer with a vision that the house truly believes in. Phoebe Philo left the house of Celine and frankly the brand has tanked since she has. When Tom Ford, who was known for overtly sexual, aggresively-feminine designs, left Gucci, it squandered until Alessandro Michele took over and completely reinvented it into this avant guard, quirky brand that's on fire now. Marc Jacobs left Louis Vuitton but it's trying to find its feet again under Virgil Abloh.

These designers are artists - at this level, master designers. So owning their clothes, owning clothes from specific collections is like owning a piece of their artwork. Now a dress that a couturier hand beads for over 100 hours might not seem like it's worth $100K, but the fact that it is Karl Lagerfeld's vision makes it so. It's akin to a Picasso. Now if Banksy were to make a t-shirt with his name painted across the front, it might be the best made t-shirt in the world, but it's not the quality that will get the $5000 asking price. It's Banksy's name and the fact that there are only ten in the world and he might never do this again, that gets the asking price.

Funny enough, there are some crap designers who basically steal material from fashion houses and just repurpose it. I would include Michael Kors in this list. Donna Karen was known for buying Chanel and Dior and having her seamstresses take it apart, make patterns, put it back together and return it. I wonder if Stella McCartney actually designs. She has nice pieces but they are all over the place. You'd never look at something and say - That's Stella! Calvin Klein is in the same condition now as his own personal health, all the stores have closed. Marc Jacobs was/is a genius. But even he has said he's lost touch with what women want, and it shows. Based on his instagram, he just needs to transition already.

I have my clothes tailor made, you could buy off the rack but it looks it.

Just to add onto that last bit, I have a funny story. Vera Wang came in with Evan Lysacek, both seemingly a tad high on something, acting just this side of spacey. She had these sunglass on that I recognized, because I owned them. I bought them from Dior the previous season after Kris Kardashian came in wearing them and I thought they were so cool. Anyway I just said to Vera, "Wow, cool sunglasses, I..." she cut in, "You like them? They're mine, they're coming out next season!" And she was probably charging the same price as Dior.

Oddly enough, Michael Kors was discovered by the creative director for Bergdorf Goodman at the time when he was a window dresser at the store across the street from it. I assume he had a vision and a client in mind then. That's why he is in the very cool trailer for this documentary, Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorfs.

[quote] Brooks Brothers is in trouble, and may be sold (yet again), or simply wound up. Here again you have another classic example of brand dilution having unforeseen consequences.

Oh Phaleeeze. Brooks Brothers is a stodgy old man brand and in case you haven't notice men have been wearing few and few suits and ties including people like lawyers and bankers which are the most conservative dressers usually. It's been on a downward slide for the last 20 years!

That's why they needed to diversify. They were already losing money hand and fist.

Part of the problem with luxury fashion is that, in the grand scheme of all things expensive and luxurious, most designer clothing goods are low-hanging fruits to anyone over a certain income, and that threshold isn't as high as some connoisseurs of high-fashion like to think it is. That issue inherently knocks fashion down somewhat because, although items may be expensive for what they are, it's not as if they're completely out of reach; because they're in reach, they just don't hold the same value they once did. I'll be the first to admit that spending $2000 on a bag or a $3000 suit is certainly expensive for the items themselves, but to carry on as if these items are only within the reach of millionaires and that owning such items must mean the owner is wealthy is just warped thinking. Simply put, these kinds of items just don't display the kind of elitism buyers of these items believe they do.

Women who own a $10,000 Hermes bag don't own just one.

Mary Jo) A blouse? You'd spend $5,000 on a blouse? What kind of a blouse costs $5,000 anyway?

Suzanne) I just told you, THIS ONE.

But what are Doug and Clayton going to do?

[quote]. I'll be the first to admit that spending $2000 on a bag or a $3000 suit is certainly expensive for the items themselves, but to carry on as if these items are only within the reach of millionaires and that owning such items must mean the owner is wealthy is just warped thinking.

Oh really? Do tell me how someone making and average salary of say 50,000 before taxes is spending 3,000 on a hand bag? I know a few people who buy those things but they are all woman and they are all at least worth 1 million or more on paper. Not saying they make a million a year, that's not the definition of that word. It's net worth, which can be a house.

J.Crew just filed for bankrputcy as well, and more likely are coming down the pike.

All these retailers are up to their necks in debt, especially the ones "rescued" by leveraged buyouts/hedge funds. Most needed to go into bankruptcy some time ago, but now this covid-19 thing is going to push that hand.

R334

You've not heard of those wonderful things called credit cards?

Plenty of households are living well beyond their means thanks to credit.

Go to any office or whatever and you'll find secretaries, assistants and others well below highly compensated employees carrying high end hand bags, wearing designer clothing, etc...

Many of these high end brands have shops in malls or large department stores. Places like Barneys (when it existed) are (or were) rather liberal with their own store branded credit cards. Often carrying high annual percentage rates those cards are catnip to the lower and barely middle class. People get those cards and buy status luxury goods. Never mind that after only making minimum payments that bag or whatever ends up costing hundreds more than they originally paid.

Only time am impressed is when someone pays for high end goods using a Gold, Platinum or Black AMEX. There at least you know the person has to pay up entire bill next month so must have cash.

[quote]You've not heard of those wonderful things called credit cards?

You've not heard of knock offs? Fakes? 3,000 is a limit on a lot of credit cards for people of that income. I am sure some do it, but I would say vast majority of middle income AKA below 1 million do not spend like that. Not on a purse. In no way can you say the majority of those bags are bought by people with minimal income. They are marketed to people with money to blow, status seekers.

The average Joe and Jane can buy into the luxury brands by purchasing perfume and accessories like scarves.

Not many of them are buying $5,000 Tom Ford suits or Hermes Kelly bags.

Another over priced store bites the dust.

Again another retailer owned by hedge fund/private equity investors is heading to the wood shed. As stated previously there will be others, perhaps many others.

All these retailers are loaded with debt, and things were often bad before covid-19 hit. Now they're going from the proverbial frying pan into fire.

R334, I would agree with you generally, but the income threshold I was thinking was quite a bit beyond $50k. Although one thing to remember is that disposable income (income after debts) can vary drastically from one's yearly net take-home. A person who makes $50k but nets $30l all of that at the end of the year technically has more disposable income than someone who nets $100k but has $80k going out to satisfy debts. When I was in my early 20s and supported by my parents, my shitty retail job that only brought in maybe around $25k provided me with plenty of cash to buy whatever the heck I wanted. In my 30s, I make significantly more than that, but I technically have less money to spend due to bills (trying to get my bills down). I was just simply pointing out that the argument that one has to be a millionaire to buy/afford most luxury items is untrue across the board. Indeed, I used to work in a high-end shoe store and most of my customers were not affluent.

R339 Sur La Table sold quality kitchenware...if you want cheapass, low quality kitchen crap, then you deserve Target and Big Lots as your only options.

10 years ago, Seattle had several quality kitchenware specialty stores. With the death of Sur La Table, they're all pretty much gone. The only place I'm aware of to buy nice kitchen stuff is the chain Williams Sonoma and they're probably on tottery financial ground as well.

Urban Outfitters must be next, trash and shit quality and not cheap. They used to sell graphic tees for like 20 bucks, no more than 30. Now, their tshirts like 40 bucks. NO FUCKING WAY.

I like bloomingdales. great deals during friends and family sale.

[quote]Sur La Table sold quality kitchenware...if you want cheapass, low quality kitchen crap, then you deserve Target and Big Lots as your only options

Oh, poor Sur, I noticed they have not dropped their prices at all. Same price as Amazon and other online retailers. Should they be dumping inventory and consolidating if they are truly short of cash and need to shut down stores?

Not sorry to see them go, I can get the same exact high quality elsewhere.

Sur la Table was the Borders to Williams-Sonoma's Barnes & Noble. We don't need two high-end kitchen retailers.

[quote]Not sorry to see them go, I can get the same exact high quality elsewhere.

You can get everything you need on the internet.

But what happens to the streetscapes of our towns and cities?

JC Penney is cheap less than two bits a share.

Last time I went to NM, I was surprised by how tacky everything looked. The clothing was still extremely expensive, but looked like crap. Just because a designer name is on a garment, doesn't mean it should be worn. Look at this Versace Jeans Couture jacket that costs $475.00. I could go into almost any "urban" clothing store and get that look for $30.00 or less, if I wanted. The "knockoff" would probably look better.

R348 Versace designs that for markets in Russia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, China.

In Dubai you can buy it right at Versace's hotel.

R349 And, it might work there, but not in an American Neiman Marcus. The people who want to wear that, aren't shopping at Neimans.

In the US it can be sold in Miami, NYC, Beverly Hills. But the market is not American men.

.

[quote]Last time I went to NM, I was surprised by how tacky everything looked.

FUCK YOU

[quote] You can get everything you need on the internet. But what happens to the streetscapes of our towns and cities?

Streetscape? Really? You mean malls don't you? 90% of them are located in tacky upper middle class indoor malls for uppity Frauen. Oh, what a tragedy! Where will they buy that matching $800 copper french saute pan to impress other Frauen?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

J.C. Penney Co? I thought they closed down years ago. Haven't shopped there in, well never. No one will even notice they are gone.

I remember the Neima Marcus chocolate chip cookie urban legend. When my mother received the recipe, I made the cookies. They weren't all that!

A lot more people will notice that JCPenney is gone than have ever been in a Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf's, or Barney's.

People keep writing about $2000 handbags and $3000 suits. Yes, someone who makes 100-200k can afford them. but they're probably not buying more than 1 per year. I think the point others made is that Neiman Marcus was for people dropping very large sums of money and can't keep their doors open serving upper class customers who don't have unlimited sums of money to drop on entire wardrobes there.

I just read through this entire thread and I'm seeing a general trend in many of the responses, saying something similar to "I don't shop there" or "I would never spend that much ..." or whatever. A number of lengthy responses went on and on about the store and the products, only to end with saying they've never purchased them or they're too expensive. Basically, no one wants to admit they shop these kinds of stores. And that makes a lot of sense to me. For every "Brooke Astor" shopping in these stores, there's a million members of the hoi polloi playing pretend-rich-spoiled-brat and doing the typical credit card roulette at the register to get that expensive designer purse or fancy piece of jewelry. The fact is, the typical Neiman's customer is not the grand dames and monsieurs of wealthy families of note. Basically, the entire high-end fashion industries marketbase has dwindled down to people who are basically seen as gross and trashy (and I'm not saying poor); no one with an ounce of self-respect or integrity would ever be caught dead trying to emulate the gross and trashy people that shop/work in these places. I think that's why Neimans is failing. Their core clientele is not made up of people anyone wants to emulate.

Will Neiman Marcus Close FOREVER?

[quote]The fact is, the typical Neiman's customer is not the grand dames and monsieurs of wealthy families of note.

I also think the ranks of these types of families has dwindled. Anderson Cooper's family was like this, but look at him slumming as a tv presenter, no longer grand. Old money families are slowly dying out.

Maybe not in Europe, but in the US Americans don't give a shit about old money. Only old money cares about old money. And that's been dying out for decades.

Another one bites the dust; Pier 1 to be wound up. Will close all 500+ remaining stores soon as possible. Many are closed due to local state lock down orders for retail in response to covid-19.

Pier 1 filed for BK long before the pandemic shut down. Just the final nail in the coffin. Just like Neimans. Both sold over priced crape, just on different playing fields.

r336, a person has to pay off the GREEN Amex card each month as well. Are you not impressed by that one because the holder has the good sense not to shell out a higher annual fee just to impress a shop girl or server?

Hertz is next in line to file for Bankruptcy!

They already have.

Damn, I rented a Ford Bronko from there once.

As far as buying a FAKE argument goes, there is one thing I have learned about working in luxury. The only people impressed by FAKES are the ones who don't own the real ones. Everyone one you want to impress with your fake bag, knows it's fake, because they own the real thing. So why waste the money?

And there is a wide swath between people who make 50k a year and people who are millionaires. Of course luxury is not just accessible to millionaires. And of course one can't really make sense buying a $5k bag when you're making just 50K a year. But there are a great number of people who make between 250k and 750K a year who buy lots of luxury items. Take my little sister for instance. She graduated from Harvard Law school with zero student loans and her starting salary at her law firm I believe was 176k a year. Shes a third year lawyer now making 225k a year. She's more into saving than buying luxury. But a to a 29 yo, now, taking home 15k a month after taxes with no mortgage, no debt, no kids and only rent, a Celine handbag is really not that big of an expense. And there are tons of major law firms in NYC and hundreds of girls like her.

[quote]Ford Bronko

Oh, dear.

That NM store at Hudson Yards may not be long for this world......

Word on street Neiman Marcus is considering shutting the space down, while LL is busy shopping the space for office use.

There was a wonderful store in Detroit called Kitchen Glamor. Quality, quality accoutrements for cooking. Pre-dating Sur La Table or Williams Sonoma.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

One thing that all these stores - Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor, Brooks Brothers, Barneys - had in common was that they sold clothes for the upper class, well dressed, out on the town type of person. Those days are kind of over.

R372 - That makes sense. I think Hudson Yards will never be the high end enclave that it was being sold as.

I heard Ann Taylor too!

[quote]Brooks Brothers filed for bankrupty!

OH!!! Just take me now!

I can't take anymore. I just can't...

Brooks Brothers? Couldn't happen to better people. Too bad, so sad, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

People are not buying fancy clothes anymore long before Covid. That just put the nail in the coffin. On the upside, I have noticed lots of underwear adds on the radio. One companies loss is an other's gain.

Muji just filed as well!

Don't worry. We'll always have the Walmart.

Although I wouldn't mind keeping VanRamDong and his company in the Hole.