Chanel - The All-Things Chanel Thread

[blueorchid]

I also don't quite think it's totally fair to call Guibourgé's time at Chanel "a failure," to be fair... it at least got people talking about Chanel clothing again (sort of...). For instance, I'm positive I have a few issues of Vogue Paris featuring him and Chanel under his tenure. I think he helped to put Chanel in a (small) upswing of sorts. Kitty D’Alessio should probably get a lot of credit for even seeking out Karl in the first place and being persistent with him. Frances Stein's accessories for Chanel just before Karl was hired, I think did a bit to assist with reviving the brand as well.

 

[Lola701]

There are some ads and photos online, quite interesting, won't post them because nobody has the time for the ridiculous hoops of mod rules in here but seems fascinating to me. You can learn as much from failure as from success, why was this a failure and karl's a success?? questions to ponder. I think the couture was by Yvonne Dudel per google but there isn't much info. Chanel was near bankrupt even with no 5?? that's strange.

I’m sure @yslforever will provide an answer too but the 1970’s was years after the sexual revolution, it was the rise of RTW and another type of energy. Fashion was more sensual. The younger clientele preferred YSL and others while the Chanel look was quite traditional.
Karl succeeded because he infused another energy, irreverence but also because Chanel suddenly looked more creative and fun. Chanel was also sexier, or at least more sensual than it has ever been.

And about the N5, it was sold in a lot of department stores. Chanel had only the Rue Cambon store at the time. And as the brand wasn’t hot anymore the sales declined too.

N5 only regained it glory when Alain Weirthemer took over, changed a lot of things in the distribution, hired Jacques Helleu as the Artistic Director and started what became the rebirth of the house. Jacques Helleu (who died in 2007) was the one in charge of the campaigns for the fragrances, he choose Catherine Deneuve as the face of the N5 and was basically responsible for all the ads and spokesperson chosen for the perfumes. He also created the watches.

Helleu was very protected by the Weirthemers. It was known they there were sometimes conflicts of power at Chanel between Karl and him as Karl wanted at first to also have an influence on the beauty side. But overall their collaboration did well…

 

[LadyJunon]

Chanel has been funded by Wertheimer since its reopening in 1953, but the house really struggled for decades. War crimes aside, her aesthetic was just really outdated with women preferring Dior and Balmain, then later Saint Laurent. I imagine that it was this negative reception that probably led to Pierre Wertheimer family fully acquiring the Chanel name in 1955. He died in 1961, handing Chanel over to his son, Jacques, who was completely uninterested.

The modern Chanel as we know began in 1974, when Jacques' sons, Alain and Gerard, convinced the board of directors to let them take over from their father. Their first moves were to re-elevate the brand. They nuked Nº5's distribution, promoted Jacques Helleu was promoted to Artistic Director and raised the house's advertising budgets. The success of those "lower" lines then allowed for the budget needed to execute the full revamp of Chanel's Couture and Ready-to-Wear divisions with Lagerfeld, whose appointment had been in the works for almost a decade.

 

[KaKe]

@yslforever A good history of Chanel's dark ages. Am I mistaken, or wasn't Ramon Esparza a designer for Chanel after she died and before Guibourgé. Gaston Berthelet also designed for Chanel around 1973 (according to an issue of Elle featuring the Chanel collections).

Here's what they were up to in 1973:

View attachment 1243694

My scans

this are so bad lol

 

[KaKe]

Chanel has been funded by Wertheimer since its reopening in 1953, but the house really struggled for decades. War crimes aside, her aesthetic was just really outdated with women preferring Dior and Balmain, then later Saint Laurent. I imagine that it was this negative reception that probably led to Pierre Wertheimer family fully acquiring the Chanel name in 1955. He died in 1961, handing Chanel over to his son, Jacques, who was completely uninterested.

The modern Chanel as we know began in 1974, when Jacques' sons, Alain and Gerard, convinced the board of directors to let them take over from their father. Their first moves were to re-elevate the brand. They nuked Nº5's distribution, promoted Jacques Helleu was promoted to Artistic Director and raised the house's advertising budgets. The success of those "lower" lines then allowed for the budget needed to execute the full revamp of Chanel's Couture and Ready-to-Wear divisions with Lagerfeld, whose appointment had been in the works for almost a decade.

Chanel wasn't struggling in the 60's and early 70's, it was still very sought after with Katharine Hepburn making a musical and Jackie Kennedy wearing her Chanel suit to her date with destiny, as Chanel would say. I believe the Werthheimer's got her name upon Chanel's death but they had been paying for the operations of the couture house since the 50's.

 

[KaKe]

@yslforever A good history of Chanel's dark ages. Am I mistaken, or wasn't Ramon Esparza a designer for Chanel after she died and before Guibourgé. Gaston Berthelet also designed for Chanel around 1973 (according to an issue of Elle featuring the Chanel collections).

Here's what they were up to in 1973:

View attachment 1243694

My scans

These are so bad. The important question is, why are they bad?

 

[KaKe]

christies.com

 

[yslforever]

If I may add, Gaston Berthelot (who came from Dior RTW) is the one who took over the Haute Couture when Chanel died in 1971. But as you said, it was really Made to Order rather than HC because they followed closely her language and existing designs.

After Berthelot, Ramon Esparza (Who came from Balenciaga but was also the master’s partner) took over in 1973 (he only did one collection though). I must say that to have seen some silhouettes he did, it was quite interesting to have a Chanel with a spirit and volumes of Balenciaga. He was then quickly replaced by Jean Cazaubon and Yvonne Dudel in 1974, who worked with Coco and continued to follow her path. They were responsible for the HC up until Karl arrived.

I also must add that while Karl joined Chanel in 1982, he officially started to design the RTW from the Fall 1984 collection. He « ghost designed » the 3 RTW collections prior to his debut as they were officially designed by Karl’s assistants: Herve Leger, Eva Compocasso and Marianne Oudin.

Btw, I’m surprised that the Weirthemers don’t own the historic address. Thank you for the information. I guess they will probably never own it.

Now I wonder if LVMH owns the Vuitton address in Champs Élysées and if they also own the building of their headquarters in Avenue Montaigne…

Oh you have a trove of information, but that's definitely a sad and not memorable period of Chanel ....
As for the heardquarters, when Chanel arrived in 1921 at the 21 rue Cambon, those buildings already belonged to that same one family, and then Chanel expanded to 5 of 6 numbers of the street. I know the Wertheimers have expressed the desire to buy since the 90s, but the family never.
That might be a reason why they always had executive HQs in differents places, Levallois-Perret, NYC and now London.

 

[yslforever]

These are so bad. The important question is, why are they bad?

In the 60s and 70s a great deal of social and cultural changes, even revolutions occurred, as the baby boomers were growing into adulthood and rejecting a lot of social norms. It came with new ideas (hippies, pacifism, communities, feminism, socialism, communism, gay-rights, anti-nuclear energies or bombs, anti-capitalism etc, new age), it came also with new cultures (music but also in art), new drugs, new hedonism with contraception and abortions .... and of course new fashion, miniskirts, disco dresses, flare plants, space fashion with Rabanne and Cardin, etc etc.
Coco Chanel herself and her suitors missed absolutely all those evolutions, it was seen at something your tight-minded conservative grandmother would wear to church, so basically nobody cool back then would ever been caught in Chanel.

 

[Lola701]

Oh you have a trove of information, but that's definitely a sad and not memorable period of Chanel ....
As for the heardquarters, when Chanel arrived in 1921 at the 21 rue Cambon, those buildings already belonged to that same one family, and then Chanel expanded to 5 of 6 numbers of the street. I know the Wertheimers have expressed the desire to buy since the 90s, but the family never.
That might be a reason why they always had executive HQs in differents places, Levallois-Perret, NYC and now London.

Ok. Interesting…But it’s definitely « un mal pour un bien ».
Being « away » either in Switzerland, London or NYC definitely allowed them to be less under the scrutiny of French Media or even general public attention.

Paris was Karl’s and Pavlovski territory in a way. Chanel has become that kind of elusive company represented by public figures but nobody knows who the owners are.

The hilarious thing was to see them (the brothers)!at shows, arriving like regular guests when you have starlets with bodyguards.

But I must say that about the story of Chanel and it decline in the 70’s…Today, it’s surreal to imagine that such an iconic and powerful name was in the verge of bankruptcy but at the time, there wasn’t that much reverance to old Couture houses and the new wave of designers that emerged in the 70’s, « Les créateurs » did a rupture from the Couture world. When we think about Sonia Rykiel, Emmanuelle Khan, Kenzo, Thierry Mugler and all the others, they did not seek the validation from the world of Couture. The woman of the 70’s was an active woman and all the ceremonial associated with Couture felt dusty.

I’ve always found funny that Karl managed to be included in « Les créateurs » and that he earned his reputation through RTW.

I think that Chanel should really make some of their archives public like Prada and Dries did. Most Karl’s work for Chanel in the 80’s is still widely unknown (and let’s not talk about his work at Fendi). When you look at his work in the 80’s and early 90’s and compare it to his contemporaries (YSL, Givenchy, Scherrer, Ungaro) you see why Chanel was a success despite being originally the most conservative house out of all.

 

[yslforever]

Ok. Interesting…But it’s definitely « un mal pour un bien ».
Being « away » either in Switzerland, London or NYC definitely allowed them to be less under the scrutiny of French Media or even general public attention.

Paris was Karl’s and Pavlovski territory in a way. Chanel has become that kind of elusive company represented by public figures but nobody knows who the owners are.

The hilarious thing was to see them (the brothers)!at shows, arriving like regular guests when you have starlets with bodyguards.

But I must say that about the story of Chanel and it decline in the 70’s…Today, it’s surreal to imagine that such an iconic and powerful name was in the verge of bankruptcy but at the time, there wasn’t that much reverance to old Couture houses and the new wave of designers that emerged in the 70’s, « Les créateurs » did a rupture from the Couture world. When we think about Sonia Rykiel, Emmanuelle Khan, Kenzo, Thierry Mugler and all the others, they did not seek the validation from the world of Couture. The woman of the 70’s was an active woman and all the ceremonial associated with Couture felt dusty.

I’ve always found funny that Karl managed to be included in « Les créateurs » and that he earned his reputation through RTW.

I think that Chanel should really make some of their archives public like Prada and Dries did. Most Karl’s work for Chanel in the 80’s is still widely unknown (and let’s not talk about his work at Fendi). When you look at his work in the 80’s and early 90’s and compare it to his contemporaries (YSL, Givenchy, Scherrer, Ungaro) you see why Chanel was a success despite being originally the most conservative house out of all.

Add also the Japanese to the list, Issey Miyake (the sweetest man in the world, I think my dad had a mancrush on him), Kenzo Tagada, Yohji, Hanae Mori, who was the very first WOC to get the haute couture label and is never remembered for her achievements... people in Paris were longing for those designs...
Plus also more radical works like Courrèges, Rabanne, Cardin or more traditionnal like Giudicelli...
Alongside Sonya Rikyel, I would give a lot of credit to Agnes B., she created street icons of that era.
Her cardigans definitely pushed Chanel twin-sets in the grave.
All of them made Chanel old-tweed suits irrelevant until Karl arrived.

 

[Nimsay]

I think Chanel wasn't down and out like say your local boutique selling their fixture when they go out of business. Chanel was still a "big" fashion house but it didn't move any needles. It was comparable to Nina Ricci now - I would say. Whenever Nina Ricci puts out a collection we always pay attention - even though the brand is dead - same thing with Chanel back then.

 

[blueorchid]

Chanel wasn't struggling in the 60's and early 70's, it was still very sought after with Katharine Hepburn making a musical and Jackie Kennedy wearing her Chanel suit to her date with destiny, as Chanel would say. I believe the Werthheimer's got her name upon Chanel's death but they had been paying for the operations of the couture house since the 50's.

I'm very confused by your comments about Chanel, tbh. If they weren't struggling in the early 1970s after Chanel died... then why were they struggling? With like 90% of their sales coming from Chanel No. 5 alone? A musical about Chanel, even if it was a success, literally has nothing to do with people buying that clothing or the business?

 

[KaKe]

I'm very confused by your comments about Chanel, tbh. If they weren't struggling in the early 1970s after Chanel died... then why were they struggling? With like 90% of their sales coming from Chanel No. 5 alone? A musical about Chanel, even if it was a success, literally has nothing to do with people buying that clothing or the business?

they weren't struggling while Chanel was alive, the musical was in the 60's.

 

[KaKe]

In the 60s and 70s a great deal of social and cultural changes, even revolutions occurred, as the baby boomers were growing into adulthood and rejecting a lot of social norms. It came with new ideas (hippies, pacifism, communities, feminism, socialism, communism, gay-rights, anti-nuclear energies or bombs, anti-capitalism etc, new age), it came also with new cultures (music but also in art), new drugs, new hedonism with contraception and abortions .... and of course new fashion, miniskirts, disco dresses, flare plants, space fashion with Rabanne and Cardin, etc etc.
Coco Chanel herself and her suitors missed absolutely all those evolutions, it was seen at something your tight-minded conservative grandmother would wear to church, so basically nobody cool back then would ever been caught in Chanel.

well it depends on your definition of cool, Elizabeth Taylor, Brigitte Bardot, Marlene Dietrich, Jackie O, they all wore Chanel all through the 60's and you can't get any more cool than them.

That is why Gabrielle Chanel was so great. You can't just jump on any bandwagon or worse, take manure like Kim Kardashian, Lady Gaga and Kendall Jenner and put in Vogue and 31 Rue Cambon of all places like Anna Wintour and Karl Lagerfeld who in the end proved themselves to be followers and stooges. Sometimes you have to say no, like Chanel said no to the miniskirt and many things.