Chloé F/W 02.03 Paris

[Spike413]

This was actually my favorite collection by Philo. It had a great mix of glamour, tomboyish cool, rockstar swagger and earthy bohemian, kind of Mick Jagger/Jimi Hendrix meets Biba-style art nouveau.

 

[Zazie]

It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of SS01, SS02 and this collection - I always assumed like everybody did that Philo was the brains behind it but the pre-Philo collections were much more interesting, younger and sexier by far. Most of the
"Ponies" collection can still be worn today whereas a lot of the Philo-only collections look conservative, boring and not at all edgy. The frilly SS02 was especially cringe-worthy. I love the Tsumori Chisato coat in this collection, that's about it - the rest is so recent Gucci(Frida's era), I've seen more fashion forwardness from H&M!

 

[chloehandbags]

^ Yes, but this is the A/W '02 collection, which means that 6+ years ago, Philo started trends that others, like Frida and H&M, have followed ever since.

You can't, logically, accuse a 6 year old+ collection of not being fashion forward enough, just because it subsequently inspired others, surely?

One has to view older collections for what they are - older collections and not as if they were released last week.

 

[Spike413]

I think what Zazie was saying is that between Stella's collections and Phoebe's collections, Stella's were more forward thinking and "fashion-y" and that Phoebe's were more mainstream and understandable, therefore they were more popular and influential at a mass market level.

I actually have to agree, if that is in fact what Zazie meant. Even though I really like this collection, especially all of the tops, it still isn't as interesting as some of the Stella-era collections were. I think it's because even though both women stuck to a sort of youthful, cool-girl boho/rock aesthetic, Stella's mixes of ideas were much quirkier, humorous and brash (horses printed on trashy-glam disco dresses for instance, or an argyle pattern beaded onto a batwing top). By comparison Phoebe's collections weren't as risky or humorous. Her aesthetic always felt a bit more formulaic to me; cute sundresses, retro trousers, feminine blouses and delicate party frocks worn in a sort of louche, undone way. Even though neither of them were doing anything truly new or innovative, McCartney's collections had the feel of being something new.

 

[Zazie]

Yes, Spike, exactly what I meant. Your breakdown of Philo's design approach is Spot On. It is so starkly clear that the "Ponies" collection, though OLDER than any of Phoebe Philo's collections, is much edgier and still wearable so many years later. That made it more fashion forward. This is also the meaning of "fashion forward", means the designer manages to capture something that is ahead of everybody, i.e. looks good enough to wear several years later. Eg. Preen, Rick Owens, Hussein Chalayan, all their collections of 6+ years ago still look cool and relevant today. Which of Phoebe Philo's "trends" are still worn today? Not that Stella McCartney is some genius visionary designer, but at least she knows her cut and is less "mumsy and musty" in her approach, hence her pieces look less dated.

 

[cattelia]

Being a big fan of Chloé I can't really figure out if this collection dissapoints me or is in fact really genious.
The material of the clothes and the way they're stitched makes it seem raw, and not completely done. That's cool. But I get associations from 90's and that combined with ethnic touches confuses me and takes away my focus from the general grace that much of the pieces like the blazers and pants has. If that makes any sense

Maybe it's just me.

 

[Nixon058]

There are so many individual pieces i love in this collection. The red velvet pants, the blazers and black military-esque jackets, the red and white diagonal striped blouse contrasting the pin stripe shorts, the velvet brocade trench...i could dissect each outfit. Unfortunately the shoes never did much for me. This definitely was a great Pheobe collection, although i am partial to stella...

 

[cattelia]

There are so many individual pieces i love in this collection. The red velvet pants, the blazers and black military-esque jackets, the red and white diagonal striped blouse contrasting the pin stripe shorts, the velvet brocade trench...i could dissect each outfit. Unfortunately the shoes never did much for me. This definitely was a great Pheobe collection, although i am partial to stella...

I must say, I agree with the stella part. But nevertheless Phoebe is definitely talented.

 

[chloehandbags]

I think what Zazie was saying is that between Stella's collections and Phoebe's collections, Stella's were more forward thinking and "fashion-y" and that Phoebe's were more mainstream and understandable, therefore they were more popular and influential at a mass market level.

Oh, I see.

To be fair, I think Stella's Wild Horses collection (S/S '01) was pretty popular, understandable and influential, wasn't it? Particularly after a dress from it appeared on SATC.

Phoebe said, when she took over, that she was 'so over' the '80s thing, so whether she was trying to appear more mainstream (as a reaction to her former rebellion) and/or grown-up, or reflect what she felt was the current zeitgeist or the enduring Chloe aesthetic more clearly, or delineate the changeover, or just fancied a change (or a bit of each!), I don't know?

Prior to taking over, she certainly dressed in a very street style, herself, I do know that, so maybe it was an attempt to be taken more seriously?

I actually have to agree, if that is in fact what Zazie meant. Even though I really like this collection, especially all of the tops, it still isn't as interesting as some of the Stella-era collections were. I think it's because even though both women stuck to a sort of youthful, cool-girl boho/rock aesthetic, Stella's mixes of ideas were much quirkier, humorous and brash (horses printed on trashy-glam disco dresses for instance, or an argyle pattern beaded onto a batwing top). By comparison Phoebe's collections weren't as risky or humorous. Her aesthetic always felt a bit more formulaic to me; cute sundresses, retro trousers, feminine blouses and delicate party frocks worn in a sort of louche, undone way. Even though neither of them were doing anything truly new or innovative, McCartney's collections had the feel of being something new.

As I say, I think it's possible that when she took over, she was rebelling against rebellion, if you see what I mean? Both her own and fashion's.

Sometimes, the zeitgeist is not an overly risky one and if all that is ever produced is unending riskiness, risky loses its edge.

Also, if you want risky and humourous (and I know I certainly do, most of the time!), what about A/W '03?

That was pretty risky and humourous, for the time, don't you think?

It certainly seemed to unnerve Sarah Mower, anyway(!


http://www.style.com/fashionshows/review/F2003RTW-CHLOE/


Of course, many people said, after Phoebe took over, that they thought she had done most of the work, even when Stella was creative director, didn't they?

I've never liked those rumours, myself, as they seem a bit b*tchy, to me and as I have no way of knowing whether they hold any truth, or not, I prefer not to believe them.

But, if there was any truth in them, at all, that would surely prove that Philo can do both - edgy (I'm not going to say 'forward thinking', because, as I say, I believe that, sometimes, mainstream is more forward thinking than risky) and fashiony and mainstream and understandable.

 

[disco54]

Im sorry to say but Stella with all her starpower and celebrity doesnt hold a candle to Phoebe Philo , stellas collections are always hit and miss , and ridiculously over priced and bad quality , just behind Balmain. Phoebe Philo is like a hit parade of clothes , its sad to see the pathetic state in which Chloe is in now , it was such a powerhouse few years back . Anyways im happy Phoebe is back ......for Celine it will be interesting ..

 

[Spike413]

^ And Chloe under Phoebe wasn't overpriced???

I mean come on, it's not as if Phoebe was using couture techniques in most of her designs and all Stella did was staple together jeans and tees with the same price tags on them. Those loose chemise style sundresses, chiffon blouses and shrunken jackets Phoebe gave the world certainly didn't require $2,000 worth of work to make them. Believe me.

Being expensive to the point of being overprices is a part of Chloe's identity. It's a label for cute, young separates and fun party clothes at a luxury price point.

 

[gius]

yes fw 08 dresses $5,000 @ NAP ^

 

[disco54]

no im talking back then 2002-2005 , I worked at Chloe , 750 bucks for luxury pants , best in the business IMO after akris , whose pants are over 1200 bucks . Hhahaha im sorry but chloe is no wear near the price points of Balmain , 800 dollars for tshirts and 2000 bucks for jeans hahahah , chloe jeans at most wore 400 , and tshirts 70-80 dollar range . yes obviously it is overpriced to high street but im talking with other parisiian brands

 

[Spike413]

Most brands, Parisian or otherwise, don't charge as much as Balmain so that point is moot. But Chloe's prices are pretty much on par with houses like Lanvin, YSL and Dior and when you compare the clothes that come from those houses to the clothes that come from Chloe, both now and back when Philo was around, there's a noticable difference in the level of the designs.

It's not as if Philo's designs were very intricate or painstaking. At the end of the day they were fairly basic pieces done in expensive fabrics with occasional embroidery or beadwork....that's why her collections were so widely copied, because they were very easy to copy. In that area I definitely think Stella's Chloe was stronger, there was real attention to detail and design in her later work that certainly justified a high pricetag.

 

[disco54]

Im sorry to say but , trying discredit the impact phoebe had by saying they were basic is inane , I worked there , phoebe KNEW what women wanted and thus why many of the high street fashion houses followed suit , yes they can be produced by them , but thats part of the whole fashion game , thats what made YSL such a huge success , his designs were insanely copied in the 70s , and became the mainstream looks, thats how you make an imact on women . Putting out a horse emblazoned jean doesnt make one more talented , Stellas designs at Chloe were very cumbersome , ironically with her own house she is trying to create the same "dirty pretty" look which Phoebe immortalized at Chloe . The quality in Stellas clothing is bad , her shoes are over priced and badly made ( the wooden clogs priced at 1000 dollars) and her accessories suck , Chloe is still reaping the benefits of Phoebe's Paddington bag , which is the furthest thing from basic .

 

[Spike413]

I guess you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to dispute the impact Phoebe had on fashion, I'm saying that I do know about what goes into making clothes and that her clothes, from a technical and creative standpoint, were nothing special. Saint Laurent may have been hugely copied but the major difference between what he did to impact fashion and what Phoebe did to impact fashion is that Saint Laurent was a true revolutionary, the first person to do many of the things for which he is remembered, not to mention a master of technique. Phoebe was neither.

Yeah, she touched a nerve and I'm not denying that, but it's not because what she was doing was so amazing. It was because the timing was right. She started at Chloe at the precise moment that retro bohemian fashion made a huge comeback, but she was not the lone trailblazer you make her out to be. In her time at Chloe she made time-tested clothes that women already enjoyed wearing like easy sundresses, printed or ruffled chiffon tops, flirty party frocks, flared trousers and unstructured jackets. I don't think that makes her an incredible designer, I think that makes her an incredible stylist and marketer. If I were to compare her to another designer, I'd say she's along the lines of Frida Giannini, except Phoebe helped start some trends instead of just following them. But the looks they both design are equally formulaic. There's no surprise element, nothing to make you wonder what made her put two disparate elements together in the same garment. No amount of making cute clothes that women love can change the fact that they were just that, cute clothes, nothing more.

And no, printing a horse motif taken from 18th century portraiture on a corseted, tea length, moire cocktail dress or embroidering it on the shoulders of a neon yellow jacket doesn't make you more talented, but it does make your design unique. It's not something you can find just anywhere, nor is it something you could find in a vintage shop or flea market for a fraction of the price.

 

[ponytrot]

i personally LOVED stella at Chloe.

Chloe then had a strong, sexier, sassier spirit that connected with me.

Phoebe was great etc etc, but i think we tend to let superlatives and hyperbole overtake genuine and frank looks at construction and design.

 

[Spike413]

^ You make a great point, one that I've felt myself about Chloe under Phoebe.

Once you take away adjectives like cute, feminine, and cool you aren't left with breathtaking clothes and you aren't really left with a strong personality within the clothes. I think that's another part of why Phoebe's Chloe became so much more popular, because the designs weren't very specific in what type of personality they were geared towards. I guess that can be either a flaw or an asset depending on who you ask, but it doesn't really make for captivating fashion.

 

[PretoNovo]

with the exception of few like the 2nd on #5 and the 4th on #7 , this is a strong collection i'd say. i really love the minimalistic military/band jackets. kind of refreshing after an overload of the more lavish ones by balmain, phillip lim, etc.