Keep Your Label Hidden

Since I decided to focus on Victoria Beckham in the last post, I figure I will continue the trend by starting out with her in this post; especially because it plays into a topic that I have wanted to write about for a while now.
In the October 2008 issue of Details magazine, Beckham says, “I don’t mind a vintage T-shirt with a logo on it that’s tongue-in-cheek. But if a man were to have just a huge logo on his chest, no. I think that’s very unattractive.” And many people agree with her. In the book titled, “The Fashion Questionnaire”, designers respond to various questions such as “What is your favorite decade in fashion”, “what is your biggest fashion pet peeve”, etc. Nicole Miller’s biggest pet peeve: big designer logos. And it isn’t just designers claiming this is a fashion no-no. Stylists and editors are constantly focusing on “staples” and “under-stated” looks where less is more.
This topic is personally very interesting to me as it takes me back to my fashion-victim four months in Paris. From August to December 2007, I lived in Paris taking courses in everything from Haute Couture to International Business. Before arriving, I updated my wardrobe with all the staples I would need, plus a few extra. I got a new blazer, a cardigan, a black v-neck sweater, some polos in winter colors. I even dropped $185 dollars on gray 7 for All Mankind jeans (which retail in Paris for 300 euro, so I guess that is a deal) because GQ told me I should. When I got there, I was feeling great, but one month later I was feeling a little insufficient again.
I don’t know if it was fashion week, or if it was the fact that I was sitting in a class for 3 hours a week discussing labels like Hermès, Louis Vuitton, and Dior that made feel like my clothing “staples” were no longer enough to get me by in fashion-conscious Paris. As a result, I got online and started to buy. I got a Versace shirt, a D&G shirt, a Versace wallet, and a Dior sweater, all complete with logos, some huge and some small. The packages kept coming in the mail and my roommate, whose fashion sense was a little more mature than mine at the time, was in a constant state of horror as I dawned my new threads. “That is SO tacky!” I would hear every other night while getting ready to go out. I brushed it off though, because I was wearing Versace, and everyone knew it! I was unstoppable!
This phase lasted all the way until I stepped foot back onto U.S. soil in late December, notably much poorer than before I left. When I got home I wore the Versace shirt one last time in public, and when some guy passed me on the street and said (somewhat) under his breath, “ver-SACE!” I knew it was time to give it up. I don’t know if the comment was to compliment it, diss it, or merely acknowledge its existence, but I realized I no longer wanted people to know what I was wearing because the name was on my chest, shoulder, sleeve, or back. For example, if you can tell that I am wearing Burberry, I want it to be because you noticed the small novacheck piping, not because the whole shirt is plaid. Clothes should be for the person wearing them, not for anybody else. It took a while for me to learn, but it was a lesson worth learning and, I think, worth sharing. From now on, my labels are on the inside of my clothes, where they belong. The only thing that still survives in my wardrobe today from the Paris clothing binge is the Dior sweater (which I was wearing when I met Project Runway designer Sweet P), whose logo is smaller than the Polo player on a Ralph Lauren polo, which is just the right size for me now.

It’s not cross-dressing if it’s made for men!

Tonight, on my way home from the gym, I decided to stop by Border’s. It was very impulsive, since I have literally five books stacked in the “to-read” pile on my nightstand and it is still a little early for October issues to hit the stands, but when I noticed the new Details magazine sitting there on the shelf, I was delighted to see my trip was not a waste.
After arriving home and changing clothes, I plopped down on my bed and started to skim through in my usual manner: fashion first, cover story second, short/interesting articles third, and the rest I would save for later. With this method, it is clear to see how one of the first things that caught my attention was a one page feature on “10 Rules of Style” provided by Victoria Beckham, formerly known round the world as Posh Spice. In it, she talked about why guys should avoid tight jeans, designer logos and trying too hard, and overall, I agreed with everything she had to say. The thing that stuck out to me though is when she proclaimed, “Men who wear skinny jeans won’t be wearing my jeans. I don’t think jeans should be tight around their bollocks.”
When I read that, my brain highlighted “MEN” and “MY JEANS”. I certainly would hope not! If Vicky doesn’t like men to wear their jeans tight, I can’t imagine her liking them sporting women’s jeans, even if she is responsible for designing them. Further investigation revealed that next month, Beckham will be adding onto dVb Denim by Victoria Beckham, with a brand new menswear line. Online, I even discovered some pictures of husband, David Beckham sporting the first pair of dVb jeans for men. As a reigning style icon for women in Europe and the United States, it makes sense for her to extend her denim brand as far as it will go – but how many men are willing to buy clothes from stores initially geared towards women’s apparel? Apparently, a lot of companies are trying to find out. On two very opposite ends of the fashion spectrum, two formerly “women-only” brands, Chanel and Forever 21 (see, it is possible to use the two in the same sentence) are delving into menswear too.I first noticed the Chanel men’s collection in November 2007, when Karl Lagerfeld’s cruise collection for men under the Chanel label was reviewed in British GQ. The article notes that, “Coco Chanel never turned her hand to making clothes for men, but Karl Lagerfeld is showing an increasing fascination with the challenge” - a fascination which apparently did not die, as you can now scroll through a couple of looks for men on the Chanel website (two of which are posted here). I actually saved the article because I really liked the seersucker cashmere blazer and I hoped that one day, I would peruse a Chanel boutique for some clothes for myself. Forever 21, on the other hand, was another story.
In May of this year, I was unwillingly dragged into the Santa Monica Forever 21 by a female friend who was looking to save money and find a less expensive version of the MaxMara dress she actually wanted (which didn’t happen). So as she searched, I wandered off, all the while trying to avoid pushy bargain hunters and masses of synthetic fabric falling off the racks, and then I saw it – a sad little corner of men’s clothes. It was as you would expect: lots of tee shirts, sweatshirts, some jeans, a poorly made blazer, etc. And as I looked through the merchandise, I couldn’t help but think, “What self respecting man would ever buy his clothes here?” If I am shopping high-street, give me GAP or Zara any day! And by the absence of men looking around, it seems as if the general population agrees with me.
So what is it about women’s brands suddenly catering to men? Is it okay as long as the label is good and the clothes are chic (and ultimately, expensive), or is it something that should just be avoided all together? I can’t help but wonder if Victoria Beckham’s brand will succeed along reigning denim brands like Diesel and 7 for All Mankind, both of which don’t have any “girly” stigma attached. I guess ultimately we will have to wait and see, but I don’t think I will be the first in line to grab a pair.