Coach 1941 Mens S/S 2017 London

[george5]

vogue.com

 

[george5]

vogue.com

 

[george5]

vogue.com

 

[george5]

vogue.com

 

[Scotty]

So extra. and i hate those Gucci/Zara esque jackets, why is everyone doing them?

 

[Lola701]

Stuart Vevers is obviously a clever designer. It's cool, polished and well made. Coach is turning into the "New Burberry" of LFW mens.
Their RTW doesn't have that much identity so he is clever to do his take on what is hot right now.
The flawless styling makes it more believable than what Michele at Gucci is doing (even if Gucci is cooler right now).

I like it and the revamp of Coach is successful IMO.

 

[ominao]

Those skulls reminded me of Cheap Monday.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Coach's collections for men and women always look like a line sheet from the sales and merchandizing teams. It just looks like a corporate company's idea of what's "fashion." Which is exactly what Coach is, so I guess there's no surprise. LOL.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Absolutely, dior.

This following-all-the-trendy-leaders direction is confounding— even ironic, since they were supposedly to revamp the budget-designer line of the brand’s status in the marketplace into a wannabe high fashion one.

The initial stages of the revamp started out pretty decent, I think. But here, every single piece is pure trendiness defined. I’m confused as to who they perceive their costumer to be? Because the trendy kids and fashion-victims are clearly not going to covet the Coach label and risk being associated with the outlet-mall image that the brand’s associated with. And the outlet-mall customers are not going to be freely spending the kind of money that this collection demands (although, I wouldn’t kick those leather jeans out of bed…).

Just kinda a pointless offering...

 

[Lola701]

^^^ Absolutely, dior.

This following-all-the-trendy-leaders direction is confounding— even ironic, since they were supposedly to revamp the budget-designer line of the brand’s status in the marketplace into a wannabe high fashion one.

The initial stages of the revamp started out pretty decent, I think. But here, every single piece is pure trendiness defined. I’m confused as to who they perceive their costumer to be? Because the trendy kids and fashion-victims are clearly not going to covet the Coach label and risk being associated with the outlet-mall image that the brand’s associated with. And the outlet-mall customers are not going to be freely spending the kind of money that this collection demands (although, I wouldn’t kick those leather jeans out of bed…).

Just kinda a pointless offering...

Maybe it's for the European market. Here in France for example, Coach is not that well known...It's seen as the "american Vuitton" but the whole "Mall" image associated with the brand is not really relevant for us.
I don't know how their revamp is working in America but i think that it's quite successful from our point of view.

I wouldn't spend my money on Coach at full prices but on sales, i can totally see myself buying something in their womenswear and their menswear (for the men around me).

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Interesting. Thanks for the bit of insight, Lola… But “American Vuitton”...??????

Coach’s more classic line is nice enough since it’s not about fashion but really about timeless, quality products, with little to no branding at an affordable priceppoint. But their overall fashion image is that of the ultimate outlet-mall brand for middle-America.

I suppose their high end/ high fashion makeover would go over best in Europe since their less than covetable saturation in North America taints the brand to such a large degree here. But still, I did think their initial revamp was promising. But this, it’s just all so trendy save for a few items, like the leather jeans and the simpler leather jackets, I can’t help but suspect they have little intention of selling the clothing, but rather relying on the complete look to sell the bags and shoes, even in Europe.

 

[Lola701]

^^^ Interesting. Thanks for the bit of insight, Lola… But “American Vuitton”...??????

Yes
They have their monogram and for us, it's enough
It real equivalent is really Longchamp but the brand is still chicer and more coveted here than Coach in America.

I don't know about the rest of Europe but from a french point of view, American fashion is not defined by luxury at all.

Most of America's iconic brands are seen as "outlet-mall brands" anyway. From Ralph Lauren to Donna Karan, from Calvin Klein to Michael Kors.
Ralph may have a special place because it's a brand that is quite understand here as being both classic, contemporary and luxurious (thanks to their different lines).

I think that they want to be seen as something similar to Mulberry.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Yeah, when Coach debuted their revamp, I also instantly though Mulberry as well— with the high fashion's version of a modern collegiate vibe, with all those fantastic parkas and duffles. Too bad they didn’t stick with it and instead have evolved into the next Frankie Morello.

Kind of sad to think Donna and Calvin are seen as outlet-type designers in France LOL Although with Calvin licensing everything but diapers, and DKNY’s midrange department-store exposure overshadowing the mainline label when Donna was still the designer at her own label, I can understand why… Oh well, I guess we can line Donna and Calvin up next to poor Claude Montana at this point in France LOL

 

[Lola701]

^^
Claude Montana is worse
The designer is respected for his influence but the brand is like Pierre Cardin..which means stuff that you find in the supermarket.

Calvin & DKNY have at least a clever distribution that still make them covetable in terms of of underwear, jeans and sweatshirts.

Back to Coach, i don't know if their strategy in terms of celebrities will help them.
Kid Cudi is great but Chloé to appear cool? I'm not sold on that.
Bella Hadid would have been a clever choice (in terms of exposure).

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Poor poor poor Montana…

But not too long ago, even the name Christian Dior for men was relegated to department-store men’s bargain shirts and ties licensing before Hedi came around… so anything is possible. But I don’t know if there’s any interest in the Montana spirit anymore at this point— maybe 5 years from now, when high fashion is at a more opulent plane…? Montana deserve better. I have this book of the men’s collections from A/W 90, and Montana’s collection from that year was supreme— for both men and women: I believes his concept was Warhol’s pop color palette, and the designs were very sleek, streamlined, futuristic in those bright, pop Warhol colors. Such a strong collection.

Anyways, yes— the Coach campaign is too try-hard and predictable, starting with the most recognizable commercial faces in fashion, then going to Meisel, and now with the desperately seeking youth acceptance with the cool kids cast— it all just reeks of corporate marketing. I mean, I do think some of the bags are really attractive, but the combination of the Coach reputation in North America, and all this trendy marketing, just turns me off. But… if a generous woman were to buy me one of those bags (or/ and a pair of those sumptuous leather jeans), I definitely wouldn’t protest… LOL