The Smock Shirt From Gucci

I almost posted that here. The entire collection is whack. A lot of sweaters that are cut off at the belly button, ect-

Fucking crazy.

I dig the tacky home items though!

Yeah, that's a dress. Don't wear it over jeans, that's just stupid. Bare legs, or maybe some fun white tights, but not jeans.

THIS IS WHY TRUMP WILL WIN!!!!!!!!

[quote] THIS IS WHY TRUMP WILL WIN!!!!!!!!

Calm down. His base has never even heard of Gucci.

R3, its Gucci, not John Deere

So I'm confused. Its supposed to be a smock for a guy (because that's a guy in the pic, right?) And not a dress for a girl?

what a bargain!

That is the ugliest piece of shit.

Here’s the description copy:

Inspired by grunge looks from the ‘90s and styled over ripped denim pants, this tartan smock in delicate colors reflects the idea of fluidity explored for the Fall Winter 2020 fashion show, disrupting the toxic stereotypes that mold masculine gender identity. The contrast Peter Pan collar and smock embroidery on the front add a childhood inspired element, which ties to a recurrent theme of the collection. Pieces with versatile ways to wear and style embrace each person who is part of the House’s individual spirit.

The Fake/Not collection -I have no words.

But if I see someone on the street with one-there will be words.

This is so goofy looking. I actually hate the idea that clothing and gender are so tied together and think men should be able to wear dresses if they like without judgement but...wow, this is NOT attractive. And don’t get me started on the price.

Nice frock for a young girl.

The Emperor's New Clothes - 2020

I wonder how many of these sell to young girls and women; paired with flats, a straw hat, and a straw purse, it's an improvement on most Gucci designs.

That's just awful. The whole collection is repulsive. What the fuck were Gucci thinking?

Also - I thought the post at R3 was hilarious!

A Guccshi shmock shirt? I'll shtick to Halshton, thanksh!

Is this from Gucci's new non-binary collection?

Didn’t that used to be the uniform for the waitresses at the J. C. Penney Coffee Shop, without the jeans?

"His base has never even heard of Gucci."

They heard of it but couldn't afford it. The envy made them feel left out and alienated, creating a burning rage against the Effete Elites.

I just ordered five of them, bitches!

Is that a pussy or cock modelling that ugly orange sweater?

Just sew it

[quote]... this tartan smock in delicate colors reflects the idea of fluidity ...

MTB!

More Tranny Bullshit!

They're just mocking us and hoping enough people will be stupid enough to buy it. Greed.

Their ads should just read: Watch is mock them with the smock.

Not to mention the pretentious hilarity of buying newly "ripped jeans."

You won't even have to wait for the Walmart knockoff because it already looks like the Walmart knockoff!

She looks ready for a peaceful protest. Her bag would include: pepper spray, flashlight, water bottle, whistle and free-range, balsamic, no-wheat, no sugar granola bars.

I saw Jan Brady wear that “dress” in an episode of the Brady Bunch in reruns 3 weeks ago...

Is so bizarre why people get so upset what other people wear for clothing.

Gucci didn't design that dress, they just stole it from Zooey Deschanel's closet.

[quote] Inspired by grunge looks from the ‘90s

Uh... I don't know about that.

[quote] that's a guy in the pic, right?

How dare you ask!

Going to flush my browsing history after visiting that dreadful site.

It's from my Tricia Nixon Collection* for Dollar Tree.

Does it come with a dog and a passel of orphans?

These aren't the fashions I remember form the Nineties...

Say what you will about Tom Ford, Gucci's decline has accelerated significantly since his departure.

It's almost back to the 80s low point where they mass produced rubbish.

[quote] Going to flush my browsing history after visiting that dreadful site.

I didn't know CompuServe added that feature.

[quote]that's a guy in the pic, right?

Misgendering someone is literal violence!

I’ll take it in every color.

TRASH

The price tag is what pisses me off. I'd pay $10 for that for my niece. With some white tights.

Meanwhile: "Gucci on track to hit €10 billion in 2020"

"If the Italian house can maintain double-digit growth into next year, it will soon rival Louis Vuitton as the world’s largest luxury brand."

Looks like an illustration from one of the Brick Shithouse troll's stories.

[quote]that's a guy in the pic, right?

I think it's a "they/them" sort of thing.

I like this look

I’m tired it was the 1st look with silver pants

The semantics of this ensemble are SO bizarre.

The ribbons on the skirtwaist say 'prissy' and 'girly'. While the holes in the knees say 'hopeless tramp'.

( I have the urge to take the useless ribbons and tie up the sagging trouser legs)

I wonder how the events of 2020 are affecting fashion and Fashion from a business perspective? I know we have some insiders on DL.

Trans pedo bullshit.

There’s a difference between ‘fashion’ and ‘clothes’. Fashion isn’t necessarily about clothing being complimentary. It can be about that sure, and that obviously is an important part of the industry. But it can be about putting forward other concepts too, camp, comments on culture (high and low), consumerism etc. Prada did the whole ‘ugly prints’ thing, almost everyone is doing an ugly clunky sneaker shape, and ultra pre-distressed jeans are and will always be a thing. Fashion is irreverent, equally exclusive and inclusive, fun, serious, in short a bundle of contradictions, there’s no better way to announce not ‘getting it’ by complaining about it being ‘unflattering’ or ‘ugly’. Those of you complaining are total philistines. Real outsider stuff.

Just what do you men, R50, that 'distressed jeans are and will always be a thing'?

Just what is 'a thing'?

**…what do you mean?…**

R51 as I said, philistines.

Laverne) What are we doing in this store? We can't afford anything here.

Shirley) We'll just browse, see the latest styles, the newest trends, then we'll go down the street to Woolworth and buy the exact same thing.

I call this: 'Trust Funder Meets Goodwill'

[quote]There’s a difference between ‘fashion’ and ‘clothes’. Fashion isn’t necessarily about clothing being complimentary. It can be about that sure, and that obviously is an important part of the industry. But it can be about putting forward other concepts too, camp, comments on culture (high and low), consumerism etc. Prada did the whole ‘ugly prints’ thing, almost everyone is doing an ugly clunky sneaker shape, and ultra pre-distressed jeans are and will always be a thing. Fashion is irreverent, equally exclusive and inclusive, fun, serious, in short a bundle of contradictions, there’s no better way to announce not ‘getting it’ by complaining about it being ‘unflattering’ or ‘ugly’. Those of you complaining are total philistines. Real outsider stuff.

Spoken like a clueless slave to ugly fashion. Who needs to be told by a bunch of poseurs what you should wear. Let me guess, you're either a fashion or art major?

You do realize most people cannot get away with most of these styles. Most of this garbage can be found at a vintage shop or at a thrift shop and you damn well know it. Or you possibly don't?

I've been working in fashion advertising for years, I know bullshit when I see it. This is bullshit for clueless rich people who think if they pay $4,000 for an ugly dress that means they instantly have style. A person is born with style and class, you either have it or you don't. Poor people can be born with style. Dressing like a clown makes you a clown.

R56 neither. I’m an architect. But go you for your unparalleled powers of deduction for suggesting that someone that’s interested in fashion might have a degree in........fashion?

On the remainder, sure some of it is bullshit for rich people. As you say you work in advertising you’d understand. Oh and nobody says ‘class’ anymore. Are you sure you work in advertising? I’m also not sure what your point is about not everyone being able to ‘get away with most of these styles’. 🤔

R50 I think people who use clothing to make a "comment on culture" should be allowed to do so but they should be kept away from the mentally-retarded and away from positions of influence.

I think people who use architecture to make a "comment on culture" should be allowed to do so on their own property (providing it's a six acre property). They should be banned from cities and from taxpayer-funded projects.

R50, I appreciate the point you make, and I don't think you're entirely incorrect. However, in this instance, the getup's , empirically speaking, greatly outweighs any novel, piqued comment it may make on culture, camp or what have you. Part of the problem is the general presentation is sloppy. It's a rather homely, gangly man, in a highly effeminate dress, wearing sneakers and distressed denim. I'm all for presenting counter-culture and representing it through fashion, but this is a mish-mash of fashion ideologies and themes thrown together for shock value and to make Gucci look like it gives a hoot about the trans issue, plain and simple. It's pandering to a wildly low level of desperation in high-fashion followers to look different. I have no doubt Gucci is doing well, but it's not because of these fashion pieces (NB, most fashion houses' profits come from leather goods and licensed products, clothing is generally a financial failure across the board).

Also, what are you talking about, nobody says "class" anymore? It's referenced constantly, in media, in business (including fashion), in government, in law. Discussions of class are extremely prominent right now due to the issues that have plagued the USA the last few months. It's a huge part of the BLM campaign. And just as I wrote that I just heard Anderson Cooper use the word on the national news. Stop saying silly things with the sole purpose of sounding socially aware. It's tacky.

*the getup's hideousness, empirically speaking. . . . oops.

Listen to these tedious queens trying to analyze ugly clothing for bored hipsters with too much money than taste. Face facts, these clothes are trash. They are hideous, they show a total lack of vision and personal style. If a designer is going to mine the past for ideas, at least steal some attractive styles. The presentation doesn't to make a difference, because the clothes are not stylish, they are casual clothes presented as high fashion. These clothes are basically a cross between hipster and grunge styles, which are both not original styles to begin with.

Are you going to compare this garbage with the bespoke tailoring of the late Alexander McQueen or even the otherworldly designs of Comme des Garcons Rei Kawakubo? Two people who knew/know about clothes and the art of fashion.

Particularly, listen to this nonsense: "Oh and nobody says ‘class’ anymore." Who the fuck is "nobody", who the hell cares what words others use. Do you need to follow the pack, otherwise, you don't feel accepted? Is that your problem? You need to part of an accepted clique? To grovel to whatever is presented to the public? How sad to be you.

I don't comprehend people who look as this sort of trash fashion and aren't appalled, especially as this current Gucci designer is clearly trolling his buyers. I have no problem with people wearing this garbage, but I'm insulted that it's so ridiculously expensive and accepted as fashion, it's not fashion. The high fashion aspect is reflected in the absurd prices. Again, this garbage can be found at thrift shops. It's insulting.

You do realize how high the markups are on off-the-rack designer clothing, if you knew how cheaply it is to produce most of this crap, you'd be appalled. I also did my time as an Art Director and photographer at a buying office. A $50 shirt actually costs $5, or less, wholesale.

This is really terrible stuff. Beyond awful.

Just grab an old dress form a charity shop and you can look a complete cunt for far less.

Is it machine washable?

Non-binary clothing.

Actually Gucci makes serious attractive well made clothes, shoes and accessories but how many navy blue suits does the press want to see going down the runway? Many of the suits you see Jimmy Kimmel and Colbert wear on their shows are Gucci. Stylish but conservative. They are not buying smock dresses. The far out stuff is there to create interest and a cool factor, but it is not the core of what Gucci sells.

Obviously COVID19 has long-standing impacts on Italy that we are just now learning.

What’s that about fool and his money?

I agree with the pedo comment. This is a 1970s little girl's dress. I guess it's meant for the woman who wants to be treated like a child? The fashion industry can now add condescending, sick, and twisted to its long list of evils.

R69 Oh please. If that dress were on a woman, it would actually be very modest and proper.

“ A person is born with style and class, you either have it or you don't.”

R59 & R61 this is the quote I was referencing and this is the usage of the word ‘class’ that I meant when I said nobody says class anymore. This usage of class is one of these weird old associations of money with taste or cultural nous or style or also see “high brow”. It’s very outdated.

OBVIOUSLY the usage of class as it relates to groups of people can still be used. Also as a description for a group of people in education I think it’s still fine ;) rolling my eyes.

As relating to both of your hatred of the outfit / presentation I never said I liked this outfit, but both of your complaints are very outsider small minded stuff. Refer to my earlier philistines comment.

I think it’s best we don’t get into your supposed insights into the particulars of how the fashion world makes its money but suffice to say “they make most of their money on bags” and “it costs barely anything 2 make” isn’t exactly new info. Maybe next you can tell us that most male fashion designers are gay! What a scoop!

R71, you legitimately don't hear "class" or "classy" used anymore to referencing distinction and refinement? It's not some out-dated descriptor like monogloid or negro. It's used all the time and is a very frequently-used turn of phrase. Perhaps you don't hear it, and that's fine (my suspicion is that you just made that up in an attempt to denigrate the prior response and make him or her out to be out-of-touch), but what your asserting is not correct. And I don't think you necessarily like or dislike the outfit, I was just pointing out that, empirically speaking, most people wouldn't like what's presented in the way it is; not because any particular piece is bad (I actually don't mind the dress and think it's kinda cute), but because it's hyper-juxtaposition of way too many fashion ideas. As for the complaining-about-it=not-getting-it assertion, that's a meaningless straw-man argument used simply to downplay someone else's opinion that doesn't conform to your own.

R72 I would say using ‘class’ in a ‘she looked classy’ is as toe curling as it gets without going full on slur such as ‘mongloid or negro’. Your casual framing of this says a lot about your sensitivity to language in that as long as it’s not outright racism you don’t see an issue. I hear it - and I can identify the people that say it and the dog whistle of what it means to them and what they mean when they say it. It’s also (unsurprisingly) more often than not used in its negative sense to denigrate certain types of women “she’s didn't look classy”. If you bother to apply some critical thought to the issues of wealth / status / beauty / race / style you might see what I mean. Very coded.

Your comment about ‘too many fashion ideas’ is subjective. The ‘not getting it outsider’ personality isn’t a straw man argument it’s a long standing strategy to make fun of the fashion industry (Or any design industry) from people not in the fashion industry. It’s a similar thing to the anti-intellectualism or anti-science thing very low info “I don’t understand it therefore it’s wrong and I don’t want to be made to feel stupid because I’m a man and I know everything” see R61 “I’m insulted because it’s accepted as fashion” lmao.

R73 What on earth are you babbling about? "Using ‘class’ in a ‘she looked classy’ is as toe curling as it gets without going full on slur such as ‘mongloid or negro’. " Perhaps to you, but not to the adults in the room.

I didn’t read what it said but I have R74 on block for a whole host of racist anti-black comments on previous threads - beware!

And let me add: I have found that people who see things as you do here, are usually just projecting their own bigotry and racism on to others.

Well I hate this Gucci dress and the Gucci Dulap and his rainbow jacket

Is all this Gucci silliness made by Chinese workers in Italy or Chinese workers in China?

Italy.

OP, this is the way college girls dressed in 1992!

Jacob and Alok each bought one, and have been flaunting them on the street as only two legends can, but they're still not getting laid. I remain as mystified as ever!

Titania McGrath wears Gucci when gluing herself to London railway carriages.

Can we shoot R71 in his fingers?

He/she needs to stop typing rubbish. Please stop, this is not a dissertation on fashion.

Can you imagine dealing with a person possessing R71's level of annoyance.

I many not agree with R71's ideas but I appreciate his erudition.

Theory: they were ready to jump into a whole 80s crop-top hungry-like-the-wolf binge and then BLM happened along with covid and we have rich children playing in the wardrobe with a funk vibe.

I’m ready for peg-legged jeans with Flashdance slouchy boots and I want my aviator jacket with back corset because I’m skinny.

“ this is not a dissertation on fashion.”

Lol clearly

[quote] Actually Gucci makes serious attractive well made clothes, shoes and accessories but how many navy blue suits does the press want to see going down the runway?

That suit looks like a tractor left marks all over it.

[quote] Actually Gucci makes serious attractive well made clothes, shoes and accessories but how many navy blue suits does the press want to see going down the runway?

That suit looks like a tractor left marks all over it.

[quote] Actually Gucci makes serious attractive well made clothes, shoes and accessories but how many navy blue suits does the press want to see going down the runway?

That suit looks like a tractor left marks all over it.

[quote] Theory: they were ready to jump into a whole 80s crop-top hungry-like-the-wolf binge and then BLM happened along with covid and we have rich children playing in the wardrobe with a funk vibe. I’m ready for peg-legged jeans with Flashdance slouchy boots and I want my aviator jacket with back corset because I’m skinny.

Uh, no dear.

No, NO, noooooo.

[quote]Lol clearly

R71 sure acts like it is. I've never read such nonsense in my life. Even well known fashion writers don't prattle on as much as this person. What an off-putting person.

The man told his mom he had a job with GUCCI and she proudly she notified all her friends and relations, boasting about her won the model. Then this atrocity is what she sees,

I think the look’s fine. It’s the price tag that’s awful.

[quote]I also did my time as an Art Director and photographer at a buying office. A $50 shirt actually costs $5, or less, wholesale.

What is a buying office? And why would they have an art director?

Wie R45, the models look all suicidal. What a beautiful New Age we are entering! It will take another 500 years for the next Renaissance to come around.

[quote]What is a buying office? And why would they have an art director?

You must be a zygote. Google is one of your closest friends, why are DL newbies so ridiculous. You could have easily Googled the answer.

"Buying offices help retailers manage the merchandise they buy for their stores. They are the hub for deciding what consumers want in their industry and help get these items get to the sales floors. Buying offices are typically led by a head buyer."

Buying offices also have art departments which work on the catalogs featuring each seasons most wanted fashion items.

Buying offices are basically the liaison between the manufacturers and the stores. High end fashion Buyers go to fashion shows, then order the clothing and accessories for the stores they work for. Every major department store, especially high end department stores, have Buyers.

I have to agree with R97, buyers are a major part of retail, to the point where their role in the retail chain is very well-known. I don't doubt there are many people who may not know what that part of industry is, particularly those who have never worked in a corporate retail environment; but anyone who has worked for a retail store, even as a cashier in their teens, has heard buyers and buying departments referenced by managers and upper management. That's like questioning why Macy's or Wells Fargo would have a legal department. You may not ever deal with them as a consumer (and they're not the sexiest departments by any stretch) but the business couldn't function without them.

Actually, I think the R97 response really exemplifies the issues others on this board have with those in R50 R71 ad R73 (which, again, I don't necessarily disagree with, but just find them meaningless in the grander context of the discussion). Any fashion retailer is, of course, a business, which needs to make money. Aside from a number of other blunders a company can make, one to avoid is filling stores with crap few consumers want to buy. And it's an even more egregious blunder when products have significant costs attached to them. So, for a lot of people on this board who may work in some form of business, they see this outfit and think, as marketed, it will not sell well, particularly at that price point. And that's a problem; it's wasted resources for the designer, it's wasted resources for any third-party retailer who may bring it into their stock, it's a waste of materials and labor that could have gone into a better garment. And the buying departments referenced in R97s comment are under immense pressure to make sure that what they bring in actually sells well (albeit there are some contractual safeguards that keep them from bearing the entire financial burden of a dud product). And it can actually affect businesses significantly, particularly right now in the luxury sector (Barney's or Neiman's?). So when the author of R50, R71 and R73 comes along with some very ill-formed new-agey opinion on what constitutes fashion (subjective, for sure) and some other literary garbage about consumers not-getting-it (the meaning of which I will never understand), it comes across as very flippant and aggravating when designers are pushing fashion that is likely only going to attract a small handful of people (assuming they can even afford it), meaning a commercial failure. It's bad business and economics, and promoting that kind of waste in the name of art, and further blaming it on people who find it ugly (or "don't get it") is misplaced and sloppy reasoning. If stores want to be successful, they need to sell shit consumers want to buy, which, I believe, doesn't include dresses for men.

R98 lol I don't think 'new-agey' means what you think it means. I don't think you have the imagination for this discussion (as above illustrated). My comments earlier of course are subjective that goes without saying, we're having a discussion about the value of an object wherein the value is assumed to be larger than the sum of its parts due to the design component. Subjectivity is the order of the day. My comments relate to the object - and the more limited market for high fashion pieces (this is the part you don't (or won't I suppose it looks like) get) and how that's an area of the fashion industry that relies and triumphs on people (like yourself) not getting it. Gucci's mainline range of pieces (suits for instance or plain tshirts) only require minor updates each year. They don't take much of the time of the designers (let's call them design hours). However this piece in OP's image "dresses for men" as you say (and you object to the philistine slur!) takes a lot of the design hours. You're buying a part of this years' fashion show (yay exciting) not just a well tailored suit (yawn). Once it becomes a part of the artistic output for the year and therefore far more desirable to a certain type of client. It will also maybe become a collectors item (this is a newer part of the market you're probably not familiar with - in fact Gucci are joining with theRealReal (you're gonna have to google that yourself I can't teach you about it all at once) to get a piece of this market - where fashion items from past collections are now worth many times their original value (interestingly doesn't happen with the standard suits)). I don't know what your 'blaming' comment was I didn't blame anything on anyone. I think you're bothered I called you a philistine and it hit an ungainly nerve.

What it comes down to is my earlier assertion about the difference between fashion and clothes. I still don't think you get it. But it's maybe not for you to get.

[quote]So, for a lot of people on this board who may work in some form of business, they see this outfit and think, as marketed, it will not sell well, particularly at that price point. And that's a problem; it's wasted resources for the designer, it's wasted resources for any third-party retailer who may bring it into their stock, it's a waste of materials and labor that could have gone into a better garment.

You really, really, don't get the fashion business.

Just know that Gucci's creative director Alessandro Michele and their CEO Marco Bizzarri have turned Gucci into a fashion powerhouse second only to YSL in sales.

R99, you didn't address anything in my substantive argument in your post, so I really don't have a response to the entirety of your first paragraph. I don't disagree, but you didn't really refute anything I said. If I'm wrong, do show me. And yes, calling me a philistine does irk me, because I am not (and denigrating character is a bad form of argument). I am actually knowledgeable about fashion, the industry, business in general and actually appreciate fashion as a whole greatly. But it's a floundering business which is very sad because they've made a lot of poor choices.

R100 I don't know what Gucci's legit numbers are. Someone above mentioned some 10mil euros. If I owned a multinational company with a large design portfolio and such immense brand-recognition and that's all it brought in (that number is probably revenue), I'd leap off a building. It's a paltry sum in the world of business sales.

R101 Absurd. Gucci is a luxury fashion brand, It is not Apple or Microsoft. You have to judge its revenue in context.

[quote]I am actually knowledgeable about fashion,

Uh...no you are not. Your post at R98 shows you are quite clueless.

You'd have to expand on why it's incorrect. Just saying that alone isn't a proper refutation. At this point, I can say you know nothing of fashion (or business generally) and we are square. And to your comment in R101, why shouldn't they be compared? I agree they probably shouldn't, but I ain't doing your work for you. Make the argument or shut the hell up.

R101 mmmm I didn’t make the comment (and don’t use profit margins as the measure of success) but it’s €10bn not €10m lol what an unusual demonstration of your “knowledge of the fashion industry”.

The Gucci smock or dress or whatever it is, was not created thinking about sales numbers. It was created to make a statement. To create interest. To be pinned on social media. Considering that this moment in pop culture includes lots of talk about gender fluidity, doing something like this makes sense.

It may not even end up in stores, and if it does it may be sized for women. We don't know. The runway is theatre. What ends up in stores is edited.

Gucci BTW does not depend as much on buyers or retailers.. It has its own shops and online store. And it dictates what arrives in its stores.

And often times, absurd pieces can have a profound effect on brand recognition and eventually sales. Remember Gaultiers cone bra ? It looked absurd...impossible... on the runway but then Madonna wore it in a music video and suddenly people knew who Gaultier was. They may not have bought the cone bra....but they bought the perfume.

And note: Jean Paul Gaultier also showed dresses for men years ago. It is nothing new.

As for Gucci sales...again: it is a luxury fashion brand. You can't compare the sales of Lamborghini with Toyota.

All of this is elementary.

Another main point completely lost on the 'expert' here, the dude calling someone "philistine", who is buying a long cotton prairie dress which costs $4,000? I could care less how much money Gucci or any of these companies are making in profits, the point is, the clothes look like crap and are too expensive for what they are. Surely, that cannot be lost on Mr. Argument.

Now he's arguing these ugly clothes are simply a statement, no, not at all. More bollocks. Go look at trust funders IGs, they all wear expensive casual clothing which is specifically meant to look downmarket and cheap. It's yet another pose. These people are wearing $700 Dunhill sneakers and casual almost grunge-like styles, but everything they are wearing is costly.

When Buyers attend high-end fashion shows, besides buying clothes for high-end boutique stores, they also get a glimpse of current trends then pass on those ideas to companies which produce clothing and accessories for cheaper markets. A lot of the outrageous high-end clothing, besides being too expensive, is unwearable. The average woman, who is not tall and slim like a runway model, simply cannot wear those types of clothes. Each season, manufacturers look to high-end designer, then they tweak those runway styles so regular women can look 'current'.

I totally agree with R101, fashion has made some major bad choices over the past few years. For example, mining the past, then trying to market those styles as fresh and new to say, hipsters, who have not experienced those styles, doesn't work for many reasons. especially if the young person is not trust funder who can easily drop $5000 on some designer outfit, especially an item which looks like a grunge castoff.

Especially not when young hip fashion forward people can simply buy the the real thing, decent vintage is all over the place. The vintage market is thriving, most of the current Gucci catalog styles can be found either on eBay, Etsy or a high-end vintage store, especially if you want new old stick which has never been worn.

Actor Chris O'Dowd's wife had a TV series exactly about this subject, she was a vintage expert, she would help people shop for vintage clothes and other items. In most cases, the items had to be altered, but these people were sure not spending thousands on some ugly prairie dress they could buy at a vintage shop.

Sticking a designer label on ugly clothing sure doesn't make the item any prettier, yet, some fools think anything 'designer' makes whatever it is, much better.

This argument is exhausting and quite sad. It appears this specific poster seems to enjoy insulting people and enjoys arguing. I'm going to call him The Debate Queen. I assume it's a man.

[quote]Especially not when young hip fashion forward people can simply buy the the real thing, decent vintage is all over the place. The vintage market is thriving, most of the current Gucci catalog styles can be found either on eBay, Etsy or a high-end vintage store,

Please tell us what is new about this?

Vintage stores for men and women have always been around.

I couldn't afford Brooks Brothers but I could get a tweed jacket in a vintage store.

Women could go to Orbachs and get a Chanel knockoff.

It has ALWAYS been this way.

The wealthy Gucci customer wants the classic horse bit loafer and he sure is not going to buy one at a vintage store.

A woman wants the latest Gucci bag and scarf to add to her collection. She wants the new perfume. She wants that belt that is all over Pinterest.

And Gucci is an international company. Russia, China, the Middle East...there is a lot of label obsessed wealth out there.

An Arab millionaire in Dubai is not going to pick through a vintage store for a new suit.

For the fashion genius at R107:

"In fact, millennials (defined as those under 35) made up the majority — 62 percent — of Gucci's sales last year. Pinault emphasized during the earnings webcast that this group has the same retention rates (meaning they repeatedly make purchases) and ticket prices (the amount they spend per shopping trip) as older groups. Clearly, its status as the hottest fashion brand in the world did translate into sales."

Granted these figures are pre Covid. The virus has decimated fashion sales but the point is, young people under 35 do buy Gucci. But they just might be from Tokyo or Almaty or Doha.

More for our Fashion genius at R107:

Clothing is only 13% of what Gucci sells. Bags, shoes, perfume and accessories are the bulk of its business.

[quote]The wealthy Gucci customer wants the classic horse bit loafer and he sure is not going to buy one at a vintage store.

Damn are you fucking TEDIOUS. I'm not talking about classic Gucci styles, I'm talking about the grunge-like garbage OP posted. You need need to stop with your bullshit. Try your debate team skills somewhere else.

You sure CAN get a classic Gucci loafer at a high-end vintage store. I never said you could find them at Goodwill or those types of thrift shops, yet I actually found some gorgeous high end coats for my sister at Goodwill, a Burberry trench, a vintage black wool Prada coat and a Donald Brooks Jackie O style spring coat, which still had the original tag. You never know what ends up in thrift shops.

Guess you don't know much about Bonnie Cashin? You seem to have a huge hard on for Gucci, LOL

Bonnie was the late original Coach bag designer, when the Coach name meant something, before the ugly print bags and other nonsense. She also designed wonderful fun fashion forward yet practical coats and women's clothes for Sills. department

Guess what, Fashion Expert, a few years ago,Coach went into their archives and basically copied almost all of Bonnie'sSills and Coach catalog. The hipsters ate it up. The young women into Bonnie's original designs tracked them down at eBay, Etsy and high-end vintage stores.

Your problem seems you either cannot read thoroughly or you refuse to see another point of view. I never said there was any guarantee high-end vintage could be found in mint condition at thrift stores, but ugly vintage prairie dresses sure can.

In the below photo, everything designed by Bonnie Cashin, has been re-released by Coach. Great style will always be in style.

[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.]

And young dumb queens everywhere will run out and buy this.

LOL Now she's moved on to Bonnie Cashin. I have a feeling Pauline Trigère is next....

Gucci 2020 fashions for men. Horrible across the board.

Stunning and Brave

[quote]LOL Now she's moved on to Bonnie Cashin. I have a feeling Pauline Trigère is next....

PLEEAAAASSE STFU. New nickname: Mr. Ad Nauseum

I'll leave you all to this sweet cesspool of repetitiousness verbal diarrhea.

Toodles!!!

R117 Said by the person who wrote the longest posts on this thread.

R101 just to be absolutely clear on how much of a fool you made of yourself let's get a link down with some numbers. Since you're such an astute businessman (paraphrasing ("I am actually knowledgeable about fashion, the industry, business in general")) I'm sure you'll appreciate how stupid this makes you look, but just in case you don't understand numbers (I suspect you have trouble), the jist is they made a bunch of money. And it increased with this designer (that you denigrated which is weird since you just simply hate (hate!) when people do that), by the largest increase of all the luxury fashion brands for that year. And since you mentioned revenue, yes these numbers don't include profit, but I did some digging elsewhere and it listed their profits for the same year at somewhere in the €3-€4bn range (again that's billion not million). You can search for that info yourself. Didn't you make some remark about leaping off a building earlier for shame associated reasons?

R101's messiness aside, the point of all this is that these "dresses for men" represent a huge success. Guffawing and calling it ugly just because *you* don't like it and aren't able to understand it makes you look like a mouth-breather. Interesting point, in the images for the Daily Mail's article we have builders in the background pointing and laughing. That's who you look like.

THREAD CLOSED thanks to one person who felt the need to turn a fun thread, about ridiculous overpriced ugly designer clothes, into some bizarre dissertation on his expertise about fashion and others inability to "understand it".

It's not all that deep. people either like or don't like something. Smart people don't need to be sheep. Most people could give a shit about what this dude is prattling on about. Posters didn't need to hear this man's textbook knowledge about fashion, purchasing demographics and the profits of certain fashion houses. WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK. This line of Gucci clothes are ugly and overpriced. PERIOD.

Damn this thread went off on a tangent. All this guy succeeded in doing was make himself come across as a tedious pompous archly superior bore. Imagine meeting this guy at a party?! After the first five minutes, you'd be running for the door.

What a crashing bore. 😴😴😴

There are Fashion Victims here.

And there are Fashion Victims over there.

To the poster calling the other poster a philistine: I agree with almost everything you posted but goddamn you don't have to be such a dick about it.

[quote]To the poster calling the other poster a philistine: I agree with almost everything you posted but goddamn you don't have to be such a dick about it.

That asshole is an annoying douchebag. The funny thing is, it doesn't matter how much he thinks he can back up his bullshit with facts, he's as bad as any other troll at a message forum. This weirdo is still a fucking troll.

Who can tolerant such bullshit? Taste is personal anyway.

When making a decision about whether or not I want to purchase something, I don't need to hear about any company's profits. When I make a choice about purchasing something, it's never relevant who the hell the audience is for some product. Who gives a fuck, who needs to follow the pack? I'm an adult, I can certainly make my own decisions about whatever I'm interested in purchasing.

That freak even posted a chart! He's fucking demented. He's excruciating.

R123 girl you’re mixing up at least two different posters - get your shit together and calm down you’re mortifying yourself. The only tangential poster here was you btw, or did I miss the point at which anybody asked Bonnie Cashin lol.

Your “backup bullshit with facts” as if that’s negative is very telling. Bite your tongue ployse or I’ll come over there and bite it for you.

I'm amused at this thread where two people are posting such voluminous vituperative euphuistic posts to each over all based on the OP's picture of a brain-dead-looking kid with holey knees wearing a girls dress.

[quote]Your “backup bullshit with facts” as if that’s negative is very telling. Bite your tongue ployse or I’ll come over there and bite it for you.

Facts sure are negative in THIS context! Keep on trolling. Facts, when purchasing clothing and other items don't matter, we are not talking politics, health care plans or finding a great oncologist, we are talking about product choices! Do you hear yourself?

Your 'facts' about sales figures and demographics are completely IRRELEVANT, especially in the context of people purchasing something because they like the way a style looks on them or works for them, as in the case of electronics, a phone or computer.

Why the fuck would individuals care about something being popular with the masses or how high the profits are for the items manufacturers? This FACT seems lost on you. Truly fashion forward people try not to look like clones.

You know you are drowning in bullshit. Stop trying to defend your absurd 'argument'. You lost on your very first rambling post.

Bonnie Cashin? Or any fashion designer's original designs are very desirable.

That point, in case it was way too deep for you comprehend, lots of female (and male) fashionistas would rather have an original high-end vintage item than wear current copies of the same clothing and accessories. That's certainly not too difficult to figure out.

In Cashin's case, the quality of her original designs was excellent. Cashin's clothing and bags were produced in the US, Manhattan mainly. Coach bags are now manufactured in China.

R126 you’re still talking to different posters as if they’re the same person. It’s not that hard to figure out. Wow you are rly pushing Coach! And this Bonnie Cashine person (?). Are you her? Typing from beyond the grave?

R128, Bonnie Cashin is DEAD. IIRC, Bonnie died sometime in the late 1990s. She was the original Coach designer.

Nowhere in my posts was I "pushing Coach". I initially used the brand as an example because their current designer has mined the Cashin archives and has basically re-reproduced her iconic coat and bag line.

I did mention Coach bags are now made in China, I was implying they are now crap, especially the line with the ugly logos. Why do you think there is a large vintage market for original designs? The current products are poorly made and the older items are more stylish.

OK, so there are two unhinged assholes in the thread? Who cares. My points about people wearing and buying whatever the hell they want, are for both of those people. It was unnecessary to post about profits and demographics, intelligent people are not sheep who feel the need to buy something because everyone else has it. If someone told me to buy Taylor Swift's music because she's popular and is a very wealthy performer, I'd laugh in their face!

R126 Does not seem realize that about 5 different posters are trying to tell him he's an idiot,

HOLY GIPHILIMS OF ANCIENT TIMES!!!!

Qui est un imbécile? N'essayez pas de détourner l'attention des conneries publiées ici.

Un troll repit qui ressentait constamment le besoin de répéter l'ampleur des bénéfices d'une maison de couture. Crétin sanglant. Va sucer une bite.

It all sounds so much better in French!

So apparently there’s a trolling queen at Gucci who’s bored.

This isn’t going to appeal to the women who buy this stuff - and the kids will insist on different styles and require more money for their wardrobe.

I’m sorry, but I don’t want my brother to wear the same one as me, on picture day, at school.

That would piss me off - ESPECIALLY if we were opposite sex twins. Teen girls will snatch that weave off their brothers’ heads in a second.

I bet Gucci will bring out a version of these Crip Pants for $2,600 plus tax

These pants hardly function as pants.

The money in your pocket falls through the holes. The fabric covers your penis and anus but almost exposes the pelvic crease and most of the thigh.

I bought my man a coat somewhat like this that made him look like the sexiest beast within 100 miles and the goombah never wore it.

^ It's got Adidas stripes on its sleeves

He probably has a mullet nowadays.

[quote] Here’s the description copy: Inspired by grunge looks from the ‘90s…

Oh man, didn’t the mid 90s revival start in 2009?

The Gucci pants look more useless than these pants

The pattern looks like something for dish towels